Women in the House of Commons

Hannah Bardell Excerpts

Thursday 7th December 2017 Westminster Hall

[Mrs Maria Miller (Basingstoke) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the Fifth Report of the Women and Equalities Committee, Women in the House of Commons after the 2020 election, Session 2016-17, HC 630, and the Government Response, Cm 9492.

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Sharma. I thank the Liaison Committee for the opportunity to debate this important report, published by the Women and Equalities Committee in the last Session. I also thank my incredible Committee staff and all the witnesses who gave written and oral evidence. In particular, Professor Rosie Campbell, professor of politics at Birkbeck College, Professor Sarah Childs and Lord Hayward all gave a great deal of their time. I also thank the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, the Leader of the Opposition, and those other individuals who gave oral evidence.

In the 100 years since women were given the right to vote and stand for election, just 489 women have been elected to this place—I was the 265th, elected in 2005. Record numbers of women are in work and women are achieving record highs when it comes to education, but just a handful have had the opportunity to use their skills and expertise to represent their communities in this place. We have to ask ourselves whether that is a sign of a healthy democracy. Nothing can be more important than making sure that the institutions that are vital to our system of democracy are fit for purpose. They should function in a way that gives the electorate confidence that Parliament can make the laws that we need for a free and fair society.

Society changes, so Parliament has to change too. It is not an institution that can afford to place itself in aspic. It has to evolve to ensure that it truly represents the people we speak for and serve. That must involve recognising the changing role of women in society. Almost 100 years since legislation was passed to give some women the vote, it is timely to be debating this important report, considering what progress has been made, and ensuring that there is a clear pathway forward on the matter of women being elected to the House of Commons.

One point that emerged from the evidence session with senior representatives from the major parties in Westminster was that Parliament would be a better place if 50% of MPs were women. There is a growing understanding that although MPs represent all people in our communities, regardless of their sex or gender, women view the world through a different lens—the lens of having experienced life as a woman, and the associated differences that that involves. This place was established at a time when only men were allowed to dictate our laws and shape the future of our country. Our political parties were shaped then too. The Women and Equalities Committee’s inquiry has set out a number of recommendations that members of the Committee felt would do more than simply try to retrofit women into Parliament, instead allowing them to play a truly equal role—something that we are still very far away from achieving and can only really achieve through a step change.

The 2016 inquiry focused on what the Government, political parties, the House of Commons and the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority could do to ensure better female representation in the House of Commons in 2020 and beyond. It was launched in the context of the Boundary Commission review and the proposed reduction in the number of House of Commons seats. When the inquiry was launched, women held 30% of seats in the Commons, and the UK was ranked 48th globally for representation of women in legislatures. A lot has changed since then, but a great deal of the report remains extremely pertinent.

We found that Parliament should actively encourage women to participate in democracy, and should continue to look at ways to ensure that there are no unnecessary barriers to women coming here to represent the people who voted for them. We found that political parties had the primary responsibility to ensure that women come forward to represent them. Although the political parties have measures in place to help to achieve equality in gender representation, we felt that there was insufficient analysis of how effective those measures actually were, and that in all the parties there was a lack of clear strategy and leadership to achieve gender equality and representation.

The Committee made some quite radical recommendations. We recommended that the Government set a domestic target of 45% representation by women in Parliament by 2030. We recommended that they introduce a statutory minimum proportion of female parliamentary candidates in general elections—that target should be at least 45%, given the current deficit—with sanctions for political parties if it was not achieved. We also recommended bringing into force section 106 of the Equality Act 2010, requiring political parties to publish the data on diversity for general elections, and continuing the measures that allow things like all-women shortlists.

The Committee suggested that political parties take greater ownership of this issue, make gender balance in candidate selection a real priority, and accept that they have primary responsibility for making sure that the House of Commons is a more diverse place. We suggested that they publicly set out the measures that they plan to take to increase the proportion and number of female parliamentary candidates at the next election, and that they adopt, fund and promote training so that women can achieve those goals. We suggested that the parties should provide support for younger women and women entering politics for the first time, and that there should be a clear sense of direction towards increasing female representation in parliamentary parties, ensuring that their leaders work more closely with national decision-making bodies and local associations to deliver that.

The Government’s response was quite startling. They rejected all six of our recommendations. I do not mind if people reject one or two of them, but not all six at a time when we are still nowhere near equality. I am really pleased to have secured today’s debate, and that my colleague from Hampshire—my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes)—is the Minister responding on behalf of the Government. In Hampshire, we have actually done an amazing thing: about 40% of our Members of Parliament are women. We know how to do it there; we just need to do it nationally.

The Government did not support the use of legislative quotas or sanctions on parties to achieve gender balance in the Commons. I know that that is a philosophical approach. They emphasised that political parties had the primary responsibility for improving representation in the Commons. Although the Government stated that they were ready to support parties on approaches to improve diversity, they did not detail how. I was struck that they rejected the idea of enacting section 106 of the Equality Act, which would make the number of women from political parties standing for election transparent, at the same time as they were asking businesses to implement gender pay gap reporting mechanisms, which were intended to create transparency about the role of women in business and their ability to progress. I realise that gender pay gap reporting is something done by larger businesses, so perhaps the Minister could explain why we could not just ask the larger parties to report in line with section 106 of the Equality Act. That would be a way of getting started.

Unfortunately, a general election then happened, which meant that our report, which was carefully crafted around the prospect of a 2020 general election, was slightly thrown up into the air. It is good, however, that at the election earlier this year we saw the highest number and proportion of female MPs ever recorded in the UK— 208 out of 650 MPs, making up about 32% of seats.

We need to put this in context. Membership of the House of Commons is not infinite. It is actually quite small—it is just 650 people—so a big change in the proportion of women requires quite a small change in numerical terms. Specifically, to achieve a 50:50 Parliament, we need only 117 more women to be elected at the next general election. Nobody would argue that there are not 117 incredibly capable women in this country who would be able to take over from some of the men who are here at the moment—with the greatest respect to all of my male colleagues. To achieve that, all political parties need a plan, and transparency needs to be at the heart of those plans. It is the responsibility of Parliament as an organisation to evolve into a place that everybody can thrive in. I pay tribute to Mr Speaker’s work in establishing the House of Commons reference group, which I and a number of other Members sit on, to look at the workings of the House and to make it easier for a more diverse group of people—not just women—to come here to work.

We also have to be realistic about the external factors that can dissuade women from seeking public office, including becoming an MP. To that end, the Women and Equalities Committee took some further oral evidence from the political parties on 15 November 2017 as a result of the inquiry. I want to draw out a couple of themes from that additional evidence. Do the parties have a plan? Based on that evidence session, I would still say that the situation is mixed. I cannot put my finger on an exact plan that any of the parties talked about, so there is more work to do there.

I am still looking for more encouragement from the Minister that the Government will press forward on transparency and the collection and publication of diversity data. The Conservative party said it hopes to publish more data. The Liberal Democrats, the Labour party and the Scottish National party agreed that it would be helpful for the Government to bring into force section 106 of the Equality Act 2010, although the Labour party raised a number of issues about how the data would be gathered. Again, they said that it was the smaller parties’ fault that it was not being brought into force, so we thought we would write to the smaller parties and ask them whether it would be an enormous burden to enforce section 106 of the 2010 Act. So far, we have not been overwhelmed with negative responses. We will be looking at that issue further, and if the so-called smaller parties that are represented here today want to voice any opinions on that, that would be incredibly helpful. We will analyse how we can overcome some of those apparent problems through the drafting of secondary legislation. It is not beyond the wit or man—or indeed woman—to do that.

The second issue that came out of our further oral evidence was the culture, which still causes many women concerns about coming to work in this place. The witnesses talked about cultural factors blocking women’s aspirations to take on leadership roles and become Members of Parliament. The Labour party, the Liberal Democrats and the Scottish National party agreed that late-night voting in Westminster—a topical thing to talk about, given that we were voting at midnight this week for no apparent reason—is a barrier to women’s coming forward. They said that voting could perhaps be organised in a different way. We often call it a family-friendly way, but I call it a human-friendly way, because I am not sure there are many individuals who think it is possible to work in the way we do without it having some impact on their capacity.

[Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP)]

I thank the right hon. Lady for bringing this timely and hugely important debate to the Chamber. On the matter of voting, does she agree that there are models in the devolved nations? In the Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish Parliaments, there is a seat for every Member and electronic voting. It takes two seconds to press a button in Holyrood in Scotland, yet it takes us 15 minutes to walk through the Lobby. A huge amount of time and public money is being wasted.

[Mrs Miller]

I am not sure I totally agree with the hon. Lady on that issue. Like in many corporate organisations, we benefit from talking to and interacting with each other, and votes are often the only way we can do that because we are spread out doing many different things. I do not think the mechanism of voting is a bad thing. I just do not understand why we cannot do it on a more regularised basis.

The issues that prevent women from thriving in business—I was at a conference this morning held by the Trades Union Congress talking about that very issue—include irregularity and the lack of certainty about what a business might ask of them. That is not just a problem for women; people generally want more certainty. Everybody would say that there is some latitude when we are debating incredibly important things such as the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill. On those matters we need to ensure we are all there when we are needed to vote, but that is not necessary on every single piece of legislation and on things that are not so time-specific. I hope the Government and their Whips Office are considering how they can make the way we operate in this place appear as if we are at least in the 20th century, if not the 21st century. Holding late-night votes on just any business should have gone out with the ark.

The other cultural issue that came up is the representation of women on party decision-making bodies. The Labour party, which gave evidence to us in November, aims to have a gender-balanced party conference and National Executive Committee—I am sure Labour Members understand what that means more than I do—but other parties were more uncertain about that. They all offered to write to us, and we will look carefully at their submissions, but if there is not gender-balanced representation on parties’ decision-making bodies, it is likely that having more women in Parliament will not be seen as such a pressing issue. I hope all parties will write to my Committee with their views on that.

The next issue that was raised—it is important to set this out in my opening speech—is the working environment here in Parliament. Clearly, impropriety in behaviour is still in the headlines this week. All parties have a code of conduct for Members of Parliament. Labour and the Conservative party have recently strengthened theirs, and all parties have been asked to write to the Committee outlining their procedures for reporting inappropriate behaviour. I look very positively at the way the parties reacted to earlier issues that were raised.

The final point, which is very important, is the abuse and harassment of parliamentary candidates. Although my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston) is not a candidate, I was shocked at what she experienced this week. A coffin was put outside the parliamentary office in her constituency as part of a “family-friendly” event. People have to think very carefully about the abuse and harassment that parliamentary candidates experience. That sort of behaviour towards elected representatives has to be rejected. We asked the parliamentary parties to write to us to tell us how many party members have been expelled or suspended for abusing or harassing parliamentary candidates. We need a zero-tolerance approach. I applaud Members of all parties who stand up for their colleagues here, regardless of party.

In conclusion, the Select Committee is already working to follow up on the report, which we see as a continuing part of our work. This Parliament does not look like our country, in particular when it comes to women. Ninety-nine years ago this month, the first woman sat as a Member of Parliament. I am incredibly proud that next year we will be celebrating Nancy Astor, a Conservative Member of Parliament, as the first woman here.

It fills me with great pride that my party has given this country the first two female Prime Ministers, both extraordinary women. Margaret Thatcher made me interested in politics at a time when few other people could do so; and my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May) has not shirked from taking our country through the most politically challenging period of modern history—our exit from the European Union. Everyone knows her tenacity as this country’s longest-serving Home Secretary and her commitment to get more women elected to this place by establishing Women2Win. In my parliamentary career, my right hon. Friend has been a friend, a mentor and a champion for thousands of women in the Conservative party, and we all owe her a debt of gratitude.

My point is that each party has a story to tell about women in the party—and we should tell it—but no party has found the holy grail. No party in this place can claim to have equality for women, and each has a different set of problems. This debate needs to be honest about that. Each party needs to explain better how it will ensure equality for women in the future.

--- Later in debate ---

[Eddie Hughes (Walsall North) (Con)]

It is grossly unfair to have to follow that speech. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Sharma. I am delighted that my right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mrs Miller) secured this debate. I need to begin with an apology: unfortunately, I need to get to the Education Centre for 2.50 pm, because the only college in my constituency is sending a big group of students down and I need to speak to them to convince them that this is a place they could come to.

I want to begin with a brief explanation of how I ended up on the Women and Equalities Committee and speaking today. I grew up in Birmingham with five brothers and I went to an all-boys school. I grew up in an Irish Catholic community that was constituted almost entirely of men who worked in the construction industry, so it is no surprise that I went on to study civil engineering at university and, after I graduated, I went to work on a building site. I managed to avoid virtually any contact with women—in a professional or other capacity—in college, at university and in the workplace until I was about 25 or 27. Then, I joined an American property company and about 70% of the people who worked there were women. That was a complete revelation. Having been brought up, not through any fault of my own, in a society that had seen women in a slightly subservient role—except of course my mother, who had been ruthless in ruling her six lads—I suddenly found that there were women employed right across the organisation at all levels of seniority, who in many cases were considerably more brilliant than any of the men I had met previously. I realised that there was something strange in the world as I had experienced it.

Up to that point, I had been conditioned in a particular way, and since then I have felt that it is my duty and obligation to speak out for women because the world is unfair and it needs correcting. I do not think that the world is unfair simply in terms of politics. In 1991, 3% of consultant surgeons in the UK were female. There has been a massive, transformational change since then; 25 years later, the figure is 11.1%. The University of Exeter did some work to see why that was the case. It is definitely not that women surgeons are any less committed than their male counterparts or any less dedicated or skilled at their trade; it is simply that they feel that they will pursue the career choice that seems to give them the best opportunity for success. According to the university, what they need is excellent role models, for them to see that it is possible for them to achieve that status.

The situation in the police obviously has to be much better—but no, unfortunately it is not. In 1995, which does not seem very long ago, the first woman chief constable, Pauline Clare, was appointed to Lancashire Police Force. What has happened since then? In 2016, out of 43 forces, there were four women chief constables. How can that be the case? It gets worse: the year before, there were eight. So what happened in the meantime? A few of those women decided to step down. Jane Sawyers, the Staffordshire chief constable, said:

“Either disproportionately female Chief Constables are less competent than their male counterparts, which is simply not the case, or there is something sexist about how female leaders are viewed.”

It is not just about representation in this House; women are unequally represented across several professions, and something has to be done. The butt of my case is that I do not think that quotas are the answer to that. Would hon. Members want to be operated on by a female surgeon who got the job because that hospital needed to achieve its quota of surgeons for that case? No, I do not think so. There are brilliant women surgeons out there; they can be appointed because of their brilliance, their ability and their dedication, but they do not need to be there because of quotas.

[Hannah Bardell]

The hon. Gentleman is making a very powerful and interesting speech. We may have the debate about the good, the bad and the indifferent, but does he not agree with quotas as a short-term measure to redress the balance? Are we really saying that more than 50% of the population are not able to do exactly the same jobs as men?

[Eddie Hughes]

Yes and no. I am absolutely not saying that women are not able to do as good a job as men. The clue to my disagreement is in the way the hon. Lady phrased the question, by saying “short term”. I do not want a short-term solution; I want a sustainable, long-term solution. I appreciate that it may seem naive and idealistic of me to view it that way.

I look at the Benches opposite and I am particularly terrified of the hon. Member for Brent Central (Dawn Butler), because on Monday I will be on “The Politics Show” with her. I appreciate that she is an experienced, incredibly able Member, and I will look decidedly puny in political terms by comparison, so I am starting my preparation now in earnest and I hope that she has a bad day. I see members of the Women and Equalities Committee who I have grown to know over the past few months who are equally brilliant. I do not feel for one minute that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Jess Phillips) needed an all-women shortlist to get to that position.

--- Later in debate ---

[Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Walsall North (Eddie Hughes). I agree with much of what he said—not all, but he has given me some good food for thought and debate.

Like other Members, I will start by talking about my background. I was brought up by a single mother. My brother and I had very strong female role models. I often worried that he had few male role models, because my grandad died when he was eight, but he is now a proud father and partner and I can see that the female influence in his life has been hugely important.

It is important that we identify that the success of women and gender equality is as much for and about men as it is for and about women. It will benefit society. I always think about the reports that I read following the banking crisis about the demographics of the people who made the decisions in that sector. We might say they were a very homogeneous group: they were the same race, gender and class, and they all looked at one another and did not see the faults in the system. I am not trying to blame the whole financial crash on men, but had there been more diversity—this is not my view; it is from the reports produced after the crash—there would have been different ideas and people would have challenged one another in different ways.

I think it is fair to say that the same applies very much to government, business and society. Where there is one type of people, they are more likely to agree than disagree. It is much better to have people of different religions, sexualities, genders and abilities around the decision-making table, because that makes for better decision-making processes.

I take the hon. Gentleman’s point about quotas and long-term solutions, but surely he recognises that structural challenges still exist for women who seek to get into positions of power. He referenced all-female shortlists. I will talk a little about what the Scottish National party has done in that respect, but all-women shortlists have brought us Members such as the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Jess Phillips). I cannot imagine her not being in this place and not being a vociferous champion of gender equality. I am sure she will be able to comment about this, but I have not seen anyone cast that up to her at any point. She is here and in her place, like many others.

I reflect on a comment by a friend who works high up in the corporate world. We met at an event in Parliament and she said, “Women will have equality when they’re able to get into positions of power in the same way as their average male counterparts have been able to.” This is somewhat derogatory towards men, but she said, “For generations, average men have got into positions of power. Women will have equality when they have the right to be just as average.” Let us not set the bar too low but say, “Actually, we can all be better, but there are structural challenges.”

I worked in the oil industry before I came to this place. Many decisions were made on the golf course, in the pub or in nightclubs. I remember going to an interview to be a sales representative and saying categorically that I was not willing to take clients to strip clubs as part of engagement. The response I got was, “Oh, well that doesn’t really happen any more,” but it was clear that it still happened. It was still common practice in the part of the sector that I was working in, and it was something that I was unwilling to do.

I did not get that job. I do not believe that was because of that comment, and I do not suggest that it was, but there were certain practices, and certain comments were made to me. I remember a sales guy I worked with saying to me about someone who was on maternity leave, “I don’t want that girl back in my team. How long is it going to be before she has another child?” I said, “Hang on a minute. Apart from that being completely illegal, how would you feel if someone said that to your wife and excluded her from the workforce?” He had obviously never considered that. He saw his opinion in a vacuum.

I came to this place largely because I had been involved in politics before. My colleague the former right hon. Member for Gordon, Alex Salmond, who I worked for in a previous capacity, encouraged me to stand. In 2010, my mother stood unsuccessfully in the Livingston constituency for election to the House of Commons, so in 2015 I got the pleasure of beating the man who had beaten my mum five years before. I have to say that was a great experience. He was a really nice chap and we had a very respectful campaign, but beating the person who had beaten my mother was a proud moment, and I am proud to represent the constituency that I grew up in.

West Lothian is split into two Westminster constituencies and two Scottish Parliament constituencies, and 75% of the representatives of those constituencies—three out of the four—are women. Here is another interesting statistic: of the 12 candidates that the SNP has fielded in West Lothian for Holyrood and Westminster elections since 2007, nine have been women and three have been men, and we have not used any gender balancing mechanisms.

Let me summarise what the SNP has done in recent years. Members will all be aware that Nicola Sturgeon, the First Minister of Scotland, is a woman and has a gender-balanced Cabinet—one of less than a handful in the world. Scotland has very much led the way on that front.

At the SNP spring conference in March 2015, we passed a new mechanism to encourage more women to stand as candidates at the 2016 Scottish Parliament election: where an incumbent SNP constituency MSP announces their intention to stand down, the national executive committee may direct an all-women shortlist. That resulted in 43% of SNP MSPs being women—an increase from I think just over 20% in 2011. Similarly, we looked at all-women shortlists for local government elections where the party was standing more candidates than sitting councillors, and in a ward where the party had one sitting councillor, it stood two candidates, at least one of whom had to be a woman.

I am not saying that we are perfect by any stretch of the imagination—34% of our parliamentarians here at Westminster are female. It is incumbent on us all not just to look at this from a party structure perspective but, as the right hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mrs Miller) said, to look at this place. We look around this place in terms of its family-friendliness or female-friendliness, and we recognise that men and women are different in their approaches to work and atmosphere. I sometimes walk around the Palace and think, “It is not the most friendly place to work.”

I take the right hon. Lady’s point about the Lobby, our voting mechanism and being able to network, but surely we can find a way by which Members can discuss and relate to each other, other than through the voting Lobby. Votes take 15 minutes, and I think we have 10 votes coming up at the end of the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill Committee. That will take us more than two hours. We can think about the time, effort and public money spent on drafting and tabling amendments to Bills, and I remember that there were hundreds of amendments to the Scotland Bill, but we are able to press only a handful of them to a vote. I wonder how much public money, time and energy is being wasted because we cannot press amendments to legislation to a vote because votes take so long. We are missing out on opportunities to amend legislation, and by extension our democracy is being affected.

[Tulip Siddiq]

I thank the hon. Lady for her speech. I have long argued for e-voting, because I believe that is the right way for us to go forward. Does she think it quite strange that the reason I was given for not introducing e-voting was that all Members need to be in the Chamber to listen to the debate—even though 650 Members of Parliament do not fit in the Chamber at the same time?

[Hannah Bardell]

The hon. Lady makes an excellent point; I am sure that irony is not lost on anyone here or anyone watching at home. We must look at those structural aspects. When there was a discussion about the refurbishment of the building, we suggested that perhaps it would be more financially efficient to build a new Parliament that was fit for purpose and turn this place into a museum. I know that is a controversial view, but at some point we will have to realise that this place does not reflect modern working practices in terms of the technological advances, e-voting and digital voting, however that comes. Even proxy voting is being considered for maternity and paternity baby leave. I remember seeing a Labour Member in the Tea Room during a vote breastfeeding her child. I thought, “This is absolute madness. This Member has had to travel from her constituency to vote—because it is such an important vote—and she has to bring her child with her.” I do not have any children—I would love to have children—but I think, “How would I manage that logistically?” It would be a huge challenge.

The Government have not accepted any of the report’s recommendations. That is disappointing. Surely they can find it in their heart, as a token of good will and progression, to take at least some of those sensible recommendations. The Fawcett Society said that,

“37% of seats at-risk in the Boundary Review are held by women, which is substantially more than the percentage of women in Parliament—only 29.6%”.

Let us not forget that up until the previous Parliament, the number of men in each Parliament was greater than the number of women who had ever been elected. That is staggering.

We are in Westminster Hall, just across from the broom cupboard where Emily Wilding Davison hid on the night of the 1911 census. We can think about the struggle, and I often think about the representation of women and women’s suffrage in Parliament. The new art installation is fantastic, but some of those representations of the women’s movement and women’s suffrage are really subverted and subdued. More could be done in that regard.

I come to some of the most amazing women we have had in Parliament. It is 50 years since Winnie Ewing, our dear friend and colleague, was elected. We stand on her shoulders, and we can read the stories in her biography. Given that we are now sadly leaving the European Union—unless something dramatic happens; who knows?—she will be the only one who will have been a Member of this place, a Member of the European Parliament and a Member of the Scottish Parliament. That is a major achievement. I pay tribute to Winnie, because

“stop the world, Scotland wants to get on”

is a line that will live in infamy. I know it inspires many of us, and she has inspired many of us.

We are the architects and the agitators of change. We should stand proud as women, and men who are supporting women to stand for election, but we must not pull up that ladder behind us; we must extend it out for the next generation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jess Phillips]

I will query “wonderful”, in both regards. They are women. As somebody who grew up in the 1980s, I have to say that Mrs Thatcher does not deserve “wonderful”, but she does deserve credit for what she achieved. There are no two ways about it. The jury is out on the current one, because she is the head of the Government who have turned down the exact things that we are asking for.

Of course, there is a problem, and here I will show hon. Members something that I know works: admitting that we have a problem. The Labour party has a problem with having women in leadership positions. That is just a fact, and it is one I can see based on the evidence. There are all sorts of reasons for why that is, and it is partially because women in the Labour party—I feel awful saying this; present company excepted—do not defend the status quo; we are radicals who act for change. The reason our party has fallen short is because we are radicals.

It is very difficult to get people to vote for radicals or for things that would affect the actual status quo, so while it is amazing that the Prime Minister and the late Baroness Thatcher achieved what they have, to me they also very much represent the status quo. They did not challenge an established order. That is one of the reasons I think the Labour party struggles: our women would definitely upset the apple-cart, as they always have in our movement.

[Hannah Bardell]

The hon. Lady is making an excellent speech. Does she agree that the fact that somebody in power is a woman does not mean that they should be held to different standards from men? That seems to be part of the issue: as women in the positions we hold, we have a right to be good or bad in the same way that men have.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Cabinet Office (Caroline Nokes)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Robertson, and, indeed, to be back in this Chamber after a gap of a considerable number of months. I apologise if I am somewhat rusty. I have often said—and I believe that the Chairman of the Select Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mrs Miller), shares the view—that sometimes Parliament is at its best in Westminster Hall, when we are speaking in a consensual and cross-party manner. I think that I recently followed my right hon. Friend, in successive weeks, on “The Politics Show South”. I heard her say one week that she felt that Parliament was at its best when it worked on a cross-party basis in Westminster Hall, and I repeated that the following week. I am sure that the viewers of the BBC’s “Politics South” programme found us slightly tedious, but never mind. We have seen elements of that consensus today. Right hon. and hon. Members, including those who may have spoken and then had to leave, raised a number of really important points, many of which I will struggle to disagree with.

Of course, I congratulate my right hon. Friend on securing the debate, and all the members of the Select Committee on an excellent report. Unsurprisingly, I have had the opportunity to read and reflect on it and, indeed, the Government response this week.

The issue of diverse representation in Parliament was last discussed in this Chamber just three months ago, in a debate led by my hon. Friend and parliamentary neighbour the Member for Eastleigh (Mims Davies). I am sorry that she was unable to be here today, because I also had the opportunity to read the record of that debate and the many important and pertinent comments that both female and male Members of the House made about their struggles to get here and, indeed, some of the challenges that we all face when we are here.

I echo the comment that my right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke made about how well Hampshire has done in securing female representation. I believe that we lead the way on diversity, in terms of both gender and BAME representation. We are doing brilliantly on that, but I cannot necessarily point to the reasons why. Back in September, the hon. Member for Livingston (Hannah Bardell) made a similar comment about why she could not necessarily share all the secrets of why Livingston and West Lothian had done better than other parts of the country in securing both female representation and female candidates. I was struck by the comment about the constituency that was, I think, the only one in the country with an all-female line-up at the last election.

I was talking about Hampshire. When my right hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth North (Penny Mordaunt), my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Caroline Dinenage) and I arrived here in 2010, I was struck by the tales from my right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke about how miserable this place had been when there were only 17 female Conservative Members. That increased to nearly 50 in 2010, and today it is nearly 70. We now have my hon. Friends the Members for Fareham (Suella Fernandes) and for Eastleigh. Between 2015 and 2017, we also had my former hon. Friend Flick Drummond, then Member for Portsmouth South, whom we all very much miss and would like to see back here.

As my ministerial colleagues have made clear in their response to the report and, indeed, in various debates in the House, we want more progress, and that means a gender-balanced and therefore representative House of Commons. I was struck by the comments, which none of us would disagree with, that this would be a better place if we had better gender representation. There is certainly real aspiration—we have heard some today—on both sides of the House to find talent in the broadest cross-section of society. That should also be the case in our local councils, where women are represented similarly to how they are here: they hold only one third of elected positions and comprise only 17% of council leaders.

Local government is often seen as, and indeed is, a pipeline for talented people who might aspire to come to this place. Looking around the Chamber, I can see people who have been representatives on local authorities, as I was, and who, either by accident or design, found themselves on a trajectory that brought them to Westminster, but I argue that there are woefully low numbers of female council leaders and councillors. If we are to look at local government as our pipeline, we simply cannot take it for granted.

Earlier this week, my right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke hosted an event entitled “Ask Her to Stand”. That is such a crucial part of this. Whether we are male or female Members of the House and whether we are members of large parties or small ones, we all have a responsibility to find women who are interested and active, to encourage them to develop and to foster their talent, so that they have the confidence to come and occupy the same positions as we do. It is a real privilege to be here, and we have to find constructive and positive solutions to some of the more challenging aspects of the job.

I often spend time encouraging women I meet to think about standing, but I was really struck by the comments of the hon. Member for Hampstead and Kilburn (Tulip Siddiq) when she was asking what she should say to young girls in her constituency: should she look them in the eye and tell them that this is the greatest place to work, or should she be honest? It is a really difficult question. I had some young girls from St James’ Primary School in Bermondsey come in here a few weeks ago as part of the “I Can Be” project, and they asked me whether this was a great place to work and whether I loved every minute of my job. I was honest, but I said that the same is true of any job: you will love bits of it and hate bits of it. That is very true in Parliament, but there are some environmental factors. Many Members have referred to both the environment and the culture. I told those six-year-old girls that we have to modernise, and if modernisation can bring with it the removal of the mice, I for one will be a very happy Member of Parliament.

Virtually every Member has spoken about the cultural issues in this place, and I can argue with none of the comments made, especially on voting at midnight. I was going to describe an impromptu surgery, but it was not a surgery. I sat in the Lady Members’ Room between 10 and midnight on Monday and the hon. Member for Hampstead and Kilburn was there for part of the time. I confess I was asleep for some of the time. I talked to some senior Members from her party about what we could do to make this place more attractive. I will give credit to the hon. Member for West Ham (Lyn Brown), who was particularly honest in some of her views. She was right: it is a nonsense that we are here voting at midnight on occasion. Although the issues are serious and important, can any of us attest to being at our best at midnight? I certainly am not, and the hon. Member for Hampstead and Kilburn can attest to the fact that about two minutes before the vote I was fast asleep, and probably snoring.

We have a long way to go and I am conscious that I have many words that I want to say but will probably not get through all of them.

[Hannah Bardell]

I thank the Minister for giving way, and for her comments. One of the cultural issues that we touched on in our report was the representation of women and female parliamentarians in the media— the abuse and attention that we often receive. Speaking for myself, I have not received a huge amount of that, but some of my colleagues have. When we look up at the members of the Lobby during Prime Minister’s Question Time, which is about the only time the Press Gallery is ever full, we see how scarce women are among them. Some of the challenge is in the Lobby and in those who report on our parliamentary work. Does my hon. Friend agree that we must do more to ensure that there are more women—and greater diversity—in the media?

European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

Hannah Bardell Excerpts

Committee: 4th sitting: House of Commons
Monday 4th December 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Jack]

I will make some progress, if I may. Voting remain was a leap of faith that I could not take. I am not here to call for chaos; in fact, it is crucial to the short-term success of Brexit that we disengage from the EU with as little disruption as possible. That is why I support the Government’s plan for a time-limited implementation period after exit day. It is also why I support the Bill, which ensures that the statute book will continue to operate normally on exit day. We have a whole future ahead of us in which to use the controls that we will gain from Brexit to reform the laws and regulations in agriculture, fisheries and so on. At present, the focus should be on ensuring that the process of Brexit runs smoothly. The Bill recognises that.

For me, that approach extends to our devolution settlement in Scotland. We all expect the Scottish Parliament to become more powerful as a result of Brexit, but it is vital that we have secured common frameworks that ensure that the Union continues to function properly after Brexit. The Scottish Government, I hasten to point out, agree—and I commend them for that.

I call on both of Scotland’s Governments to come to a quick agreement. Scots deserve clarity in advance about exactly which powers will rest with Holyrood and which with Westminster after Brexit. The amendments to clause 11, proposed by SNP, Labour and Liberal Democrat Members, do not help that process. Clause 11 preserves the current devolution settlement.

[Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP)]

One of the hon. Gentleman’s colleagues has just said that he wants specifics about clause 11, while another says that the Conservative party respects the devolution settlement. Can the hon. Gentleman explain what it is about amendment 72—

“This section shall not come into effect until…the Scottish Parliament…the National Assembly for Wales…and…the Northern Ireland Assembly has passed a resolution approving the provisions”—

that does not respect the devolution settlement or support his position?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Jack]

That is correct—that is what we are negotiating about. The 111 powers are already devolved at implementation level. That exists at the moment. The question is about where the frameworks sit in respect of the powers that come back from the EU. We have to look at our internal market and how we would better run our country.

On issues such as food standards, it makes complete sense for us to have one framework for the United Kingdom, so that everyone can participate in the trade deals that we do. If we had different rules and regulations in different parts of the United Kingdom, our overseas trade agreements and internal market would fall apart.

[Hannah Bardell]

The hon. Gentleman talks about different regulations. Surely he understands the desire in Scotland, which the votes cast in Scotland reflected, to stay in the single market and the customs union and have the same rules and regulations. Only England and the other parts of the UK that leave may be threatened with different regulations.

[Mr Jack]

The United Kingdom voted to leave and we respect that democratic decision. Earlier, the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) said that the councils of Scotland were confused, that there was a lot for them to look at and that every council voted against. In 2014, I remember that 28 of 32 councils voted to stay in the United Kingdom. Hon. Members should respect that, just as I respect the decision taken by the United Kingdom to leave the European Union.

Oral Answers to Questions

Hannah Bardell Excerpts

Wednesday 19th July 2017 Commons Chamber

[Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)]

9. Whether the additional funding provided to Northern Ireland announced in the Government's agreement with the Democratic Unionist Party will have consequences on funding for Scotland.

[Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP)]

11. Whether the additional funding provided to Northern Ireland announced in the Government's agreement with the Democratic Unionist Party will have consequences on funding for Scotland.

[Martyn Day (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (SNP)]

14. Whether the additional funding provided to Northern Ireland announced in the Government’s agreement with the Democratic Unionist Party will have consequences on funding for Scotland.

--- Later in debate ---

[David Mundell]

I am surprised at the hon. Lady’s tone because the Government have committed to delivering city deals across Scotland. There will imminently be some exciting news about Edinburgh. I would have thought she would welcome that, rather than simply politicking.

[Hannah Bardell]

I would like to put on the record the best wishes of everyone on the Scottish National party Benches to the Scottish football team. I am wearing their colours; I hope they do not mind. I used to play alongside two of Scotland’s national players at university—their football careers have obviously been better than mine.

Livingston and West Lothian already have a low proportion of public sector jobs in Scotland; the local authority ranks 20 out of 32. The private sector is strong, but with the loss of HMRC jobs, the percentage of public sector jobs is going to fall. Will the right hon. Gentleman come to my constituency and face up to the reality of those job closures and at least receive a delegation, as is his duty as Secretary of State?

[David Mundell]

I would be very happy to meet the hon. Lady.

Oral Answers to Questions

Hannah Bardell Excerpts

Wednesday 5th July 2017 Commons Chamber

The Prime Minister was asked—

[Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP)]

Q1. If she will list her official engagements for Wednesday 5 July.

[The Prime Minister (Mrs Theresa May)]

Today marks the 69th anniversary of the NHS, and last week saw the 80th anniversary of the 999 service. I know that Members on both sides of the House will join me in paying tribute to the incredibly dedicated men and women who work tirelessly to save and improve lives day in, day out.

This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall have further such meetings later today. Later this week I will attend a meeting of the G20, where I will discuss the global economy, counter-terrorism and sustainable development with my fellow leaders.

[Hannah Bardell]

Her face smashed with an iPad, her body beaten, and forced to abort a baby girl: that is only some of the domestic abuse that my constituent Lola Ilesanmi has suffered from her estranged husband because she has refused to allow the genital mutilation of her daughter. Lola is educated, has a mortgage, and had a good job with Royal Bank of Scotland until the Home Office revoked her right to work. I have been writing to the Home Office since March, and have got nowhere. Will the Prime Minister now intervene to prevent the family from being deported, and to prevent that three-year-old girl from being subjected to genital mutilation?

[The Prime Minister]

The Home Secretary has obviously heard the case that the hon. Lady describes. The issue of female genital mutilation is one on which I think all of us, throughout the House, are agreed. It is an abhorrent activity; it should not be taking place. Great efforts have been made in recent years in strengthening the law on female genital mutilation, getting information out about the issue, and trying to support people in communities where FGM is practised. The message must go out from the House today that we will not accept FGM in this country.

Oral Answers to Questions

Hannah Bardell Excerpts

Wednesday 19th April 2017 Commons Chamber

[David Mundell]

The hon. Lady may have spoken to the SNP press office, but she certainly has not spoken to councils throughout Scotland, which are uniform in their negativity in respect of the Scottish Government’s approach to local government funding.

[Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP)]

As a last act of kindness, and while he still has his seat and his position, will the Secretary of State address the closure of the Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs office in my constituency, which threatens 1,000 job losses and a move to Edinburgh? A cross-party group of politicians, including members of his own party, has written to him, but he has ignored that. As his swansong, will he come to Livingston and save those jobs?

[David Mundell]

As the hon. Lady knows, I have set out clearly, in correspondence with all who have been in touch with me, the rationale for the move and the changes in the arrangements for HMRC. Many of those changes were called for by Members on both sides of the House on the grounds of efficiency and effectiveness, but obviously no Members like to see significant changes in employment patterns in their constituencies, and I commend the hon. Lady for the way in which she has pursued the issue.

London Attack

Hannah Bardell Excerpts

Thursday 23rd March 2017 Commons Chamber

[Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP)]

I very much associate myself with the Prime Minister’s statement and everyone’s comments, and I pay tribute to all those involved. We are thinking of the victims and their families. I am the sister of a police officer in uniform, and when police officers go out of the front door in the morning, none of us really knows what they will face. Yesterday hit all of us and was particularly hard for those of us who have family in uniform. I am pleased to hear that the Prime Minister will give all the support she can to the victims, their families and all those who were affected.

[The Prime Minister]

The hon. Lady speaks well on this. When I was Home Secretary, two events always brought home to me the commitment, bravery and dedication of police officers. One was the National Police Memorial Day service, when the police recognise those who have fallen, and the other was the police bravery awards, where groups of police officers are recognised for brave acts that they have undertaken. What always struck me—and, I am sure, other hon. Members who have been at that ceremony—was the matter-of-fact way in which our police officers, whatever they had done, whomever they had dealt with and whatever injuries they had suffered, would say that they were just doing their job. We owe them a great deal.

Co-operatives

Hannah Bardell Excerpts

Thursday 14th July 2016 Westminster Hall

[Stephen Doughty]

That is a crucial point. My hon. Friend, who has been a leader on the co-operative ideal in this Parliament, across the country and within the Co-operative party itself, led the campaign for a military credit union. I would certainly be interested to hear from the Minister about that. As a member of a credit union myself—Cardiff and Vale Credit Union—I know that many Co-operative supporters also belong to and promote credit unions in their communities. I also recognise that fair lending and fair access to finance can help different sectors: particularly, as my hon. Friend pointed out, veterans and those serving in our armed forces. It is crucial that they do not fall prey to the payday lenders who create such a problem in our economy.

We have seen progress not only in fair lending but in fair tax, an issue on which the co-operative movement has shown leadership. It is worth noting, and the House will be interested to know, that Britain’s top five co-ops pay more UK tax than Amazon, Facebook, Apple, eBay and Starbucks combined. That is very much in line with where the public stand. Only 34% of the British public believe that most big businesses in the UK pay their fair share of tax, and, sadly, just 6% trust a company of any size to provide accurate information on the tax that it has paid. Recent research undertaken by KPMG shows that trust in companies’ approach to tax is the fourth most significant factor in how much overall trust an individual places in a company or brand.

The Fair Tax Mark campaign has been established to set a new standard in responsible tax practice, from the smallest shop to the biggest multinational. The pioneers of the campaign have, as we would expect, been co-ops and social enterprises. From the beginning, the Co-operative party, Co-operatives UK and Social Enterprise UK have been highly supportive of the fair tax mark. I am proud to say that the Co-operative party is the first political party to achieve the mark. That is something that we could all aspire to. Co-operative retail societies such as East of England, Midcounties, the Co-operative Group and Scotmid have also achieved the fair tax mark. It is clear and evident that co-operatives have seized the opportunity to benefit from the public’s willingness to punish tax avoiders.

The co-op movement’s enthusiasm for adopting fair tax policies further demonstrates that the co-operative model is an inherently social and responsible form of business. I would certainly be interested to hear from the Minister what lessons he thinks there are for the rest of the economy in the example being set by co-operatives and those leading the Fair Tax Mark campaign. Achieving the mark certifies that a company is making a genuine effort to be open and transparent about its tax affairs and pays the right amount of corporation tax at the right time and in the right place. I am proud of the work done on that.

Co-operatives clearly provide new and innovative solutions to some of the other challenges of our changing economy, one of which is the growing number of self-employed workers. There are now more self-employed workers than at any time since modern records began. Some 4.6 million people, around 15% of the workforce, are now self-employed. Data from the Office for National Statistics show that two thirds of new jobs created in the UK in recent years are down to self-employment. Current projections are that by 2018 self-employed people will outnumber those working in the public sector. That is a huge challenge for Government, for tax authorities and for trade unions, but a challenge that the co-operative movement has risen to. Self-employed workers often do not enjoy the employment rights and protections at work or any of the implicit services associated with being an employee, such as payroll or workplace insurance, let alone such things as pensions or sick pay. They also face additional challenges related to being paid on time, the right to contracts and so on. As we all know, self-employed workers often end up being some of the lowest-paid and most put-upon workers in the country.

With that in mind, it is particularly interesting to note that throughout the country freelancers and self-employed people are coming together to form co-operatives for shared services, in some cases with support from entrepreneurial trade unions that see the opportunity to support members who are self-employed, not just those who are employed in traditional workplace arrangements in larger businesses.

I have some interesting examples. In Wales, the Oren Actors Management co-op allows actors to work between roles as agents for other co-op member actors, marketing their services—a two-way process in which they mutually support one another. That is a very good example of co-operative principles in practice. In Swindon, 50 music teachers have come together to form a co-op to market their services to schools with support from the Musicians Union, with which I enjoy a proud association—indeed, I should state for the record that my register of interests shows that I have enjoyed support from it in the past. The Musicians Union does an excellent job in that respect and I am very excited to see it working to help self-employed music teachers. In London, interpreters came together in a co-op in November 2012 after changes in their terms and conditions when the firm Capita took on the contract to provide interpretation services in judicial courts. I do not want to get into a lengthy debate about Capita and its good and bad aspects, but that is a fascinating situation of a co-op of interpreters coming together.

Compared with practice in some countries overseas, these initiatives are only in their infancy. They have to potential to grow tremendously, like other models witnessed in other parts of the world. I am certainly interested in whether the Minister thinks we could play a bigger role in promoting best practice and supporting such initiatives from other countries. In the United States, for example, Freelancers Union, which was formed for the self-employed, has attracted over 280,000 members. In the Netherlands and Spain, general unions for self-employed workers have emerged and developed since the late 1990s and provide a range of services as well as representation. The Assemblée Nationale in the French Parliament has also introduced legislation, which came into force this January, to recognise the role of 72 business and employment co-operatives, supporting members with accounting and access to the sickness pay and benefits of conventional employees.

It is worth highlighting that the Wales Co-operative Centre, another body with which I enjoy a close association—I work closely with its head, Derek Walker, locally—and Co-operatives UK have recently published the “Not Alone” report, which sets out some key findings on how the co-operative movement and trade unions can come together in the UK to build support for self-employed workers.

[Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP)]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that recent legislation that erodes travel and subsistence benefits for freelancers and that affects their tax reporting will hinder our freelancers and those working in the environments he describes?

[Stephen Doughty]

I absolutely agree. The challenges, the additional pressures and the disproportionate impact that legislative and other changes can have on the self-employed are often not highlighted enough in this House; they can have a much bigger impact than they would have on a larger company, for example. We need to do all we can about that, and the co-operative movement is clearly playing an innovative and key role in trying to address those changes. The interests of self-employed workers are not well represented in our policy making, with the result that they face unnecessary regulatory burdens and barriers. I am proud that the co-operative movement is championing our self-employed, who make such an invaluable contribution to our economy and represent such a growing proportion of our labour market.

As a Welsh Labour and Co-operative MP, I want to highlight some of the work that is going on in Wales and the contribution that co-ops make to the Welsh economy. In 2015, the Wales Co-operative Centre launched its report on social businesses in Wales. That report outlined the scope and scale of the sector, its performance and the many opportunities for further development. The term “social businesses” includes social enterprises, co-operatives, mutuals and other employee-owned businesses. We have seen the statistics for co-operatives’ contribution to the UK economy as a whole; the report found that the total value of the social business sector in Wales is £1.7 billion and that it employs over 38,000 people. Social businesses tend to be more active in deprived areas than other small and medium-sized enterprises and to employ and procure locally, which suggests that they make an important economic contribution—perhaps a disproportionate contribution—in some of the poorest areas of the country.

Social businesses are a robust and dynamic sector, confident about the future. Indeed, 69% of social businesses in Wales expect turnover to increase in the next two to three years. Women are also keenly represented in leadership positions, with 35% of social businesses reporting a majority of women in leadership roles, compared with 19% of SMEs. Women’s leadership in business and the corporate sector is often discussed in this House, but here again we see the co-operative sector leading the way in putting principles into practice and ensuring that women are occupying a majority of roles. Some of the larger corporates and businesses in this country would do well to learn from that example of the benefits that come from ensuring that the equality that exists in the country is reflected in the boardroom, in decision making and in economic practice locally. It highlights how the co-operative movement is at the forefront of addressing some of the key problems that exist in our labour market as a whole and shows innovative practice in moving forward.

--- Later in debate ---

[Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP)]

Thank you very much, Mr Hollobone. I will do my best not to take such an extensive amount of time. I am sure we would all agree that the last few days have felt like something of a marathon, so I will keep my remarks brief.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty). We have crossed proverbial swords in this Chamber recently, but I think today’s debate will be more conciliatory than previous ones. There have been many important and significant contributions today and I look forward to hearing the answers from the Minister on issues such as the mutualisation of Channel 4 and a public stake in Transport for London. There are many interesting ideas. I hope that we can work across the House on areas of mutual interest and agreement.

I am very happy to be participating today. My family have a great tradition in the co-operative movement. Both my grandmother and my great-grandmother travelled with the co-operative and I still remember some of the artefacts that my grandmother brought back from Russia in the 1920s.

It is particularly important to discuss and focus our attention on the role and benefit of co-operatives in our society at the end of the Co-operatives fortnight because of the Brexit vote and in the light of the Finance Bill. In this time of economic uncertainty, we would do well to highlight the contribution of co-operative, employee-owned businesses in our economy. Those employee-owned businesses contribute an estimated £34 billion a year to the British economy and there are nearly 7,000 independent co-operatives across the UK. I will not take hon. Members on a full tour of my constituency, but I would like to mention a couple: West Lothian Credit Union, of which I am a member, Pentland Garden Services, based in Kirknewton, and Eliburn Tenant Management Co-operative, all of which have an employee-owned structure and make a great contribution to the local and Scottish economy.

Two of the largest co-ops in the UK are the Co-op and John Lewis, of course. All co-operative retailers, including those two, account for £24.3 billion of the sector’s turnover. With the two strongest areas in the co-operative sector being retail and agriculture, Arla Foods and United Oilseeds contribute £5.8 billion. We cannot ignore their contribution to the economy. Nor can we ignore the co-operative sector’s contribution to the job sector. When John Spedan Lewis, the son of the founder John Lewis, handed the business over to his employees in 1928, he was driven by the desire to improve the working lives of his employees, shaking up the old ways of doing business. Today, the John Lewis Partnership is the largest employee-owned business in the UK. Its 91,500 staff members are partners in the business, and together they own 46 John Lewis shops and 349 Waitrose supermarkets across the United Kingdom, manage their respective websites and run a production unit and farm. That is a significant contribution to the United Kingdom.

John Spedan Lewis was ahead of his time. Studies now show that staff members who are also owners of their businesses are more motivated, engaged and productive. They also experience higher levels of wellbeing. In the John Lewis Partnership, absenteeism is at 3.4%, which is less than half the retail sector’s average.

Given the increasing demand placed on workers today and the impact that 24-hour access to work through phones and emails can have on employees’ mental health—I am sure we and our staff are all well aware of that—putting more ownership in the hands of employees is a model with a lot of merit. The numbers speak for themselves. The White Rose Centre for Employee Ownership, based at the universities of Leeds, Sheffield and York, found that 70% of companies that convert to an employee-owned model report an increased quality of goods and services, 57% report better productivity and 55% report better financial performance.

The co-operative sector currently employs 222,000 workers across the United Kingdom, and co-operatives affect even more of the population than they employ. There are 17.5 million members of co-operatives across the UK—about a quarter of the total population.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South West (Chris Stephens) said, the co-operative sector has proven resilient during this period of austerity. Figures from the Cass Business School show that, in the recessionary period of 2008-09, job growth dropped 2.7% but rose to 12.9% in employee-owned firms. Their importance has endured among uncertain economic conditions. Given the current economic conditions and the recent Brexit vote, their importance to the economy is even greater. There is evidence that employee-owned businesses are more resilient and are able to create jobs at a faster rate than their non-employee-owned counterparts during periods of economic instability.

Successive Governments have consistently supported employee ownership. I pay tribute to the coalition Government, which in 2014 introduced a series of tax changes to level the playing field for employee-owned businesses. As a result, shares of profits in indirectly owned and employee-owned businesses are now income tax-free up to the value of £3,600. Business owners can also now benefit from capital gains release when they transfer control of their company to their employees.

However, we must ensure that that legislative support continues. Co-operatives are presently expressing legitimate concerns about details in the 2016 Finance Bill, specifically—I have spoken to a number of businesses that have this concern—that the calculation of the apprenticeship levy will leave employee-owned businesses at a disadvantage compared with conventionally owned businesses. Even worse, there is a real fear that that action could disincentivise the creation of employee-owned businesses in the future. I would be grateful if the Minister commented on that. There has been some speculation about the apprenticeship levy. Given the change in Government, he probably will not be able to clarify that, but any insight he can give will be of great help. A number of businesses, not all of them employee-owned co-operatives, have approached me recently with concerns about the apprenticeship levy. The recent example of BHS and the devastating impact that that has had on its workers shows how important co-operatives and employee-owned businesses are to our economy.

The numbers I have cited demonstrate how important co-operatives are to the economy and the job sector. I do not want their contribution to be diminished in any way by the apprenticeship levy. The present wording of the Finance Bill dictates that the apprenticeship levy does not include dividends to shareholders, but does include bonus payments to employee owners. That will affect about 70 employee-owned businesses across the UK, based on the criteria of companies with a payroll bill of £3 million and over.

In Scotland, the Scottish Government have pledged to encourage more challengers to mainstream service providers and to give consumers more options when choosing a loan or savings. In 2013, Alyn Smith MEP, who received a standing ovation in the European Parliament for his speech following the Brexit vote, said:

“Scotland has a long heritage in the cooperative movement.”

He noted that Scotland was home to the first co-operative—the Fenwick Weavers, in Ayrshire. It is a tradition that brings us great pride. Before I finish, I also want to mention the Edinburgh Bicycle Co-operative, which has a proud heritage in Scotland.

The message from both co-operatives and the statistics gathered by academics is clear: that alternative ownership structure makes an important and sustained contribution to the UK economy.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Before the hon. Lady finishes, will she give way?

[Hannah Bardell]

I would be delighted to.

[Jim Shannon]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty) on bringing this debate to the House. It is not anti-business to suggest that big business needs to change, and co-operatives are one way of doing that. I would like to make a plea for farming co-operatives, if that has not already been done. We have done that in my constituency. A single farmer by himself cannot make a change, but collectively, with a number of other farmers, they can secure contracts, move forward and employ more people. Does the hon. Lady agree that that is an example of how things can improve? Co-operatives can move things forward and make things happen that big businesses cannot. Sometimes a change is good.

[Hannah Bardell]

I could not agree more. I am always interested to hear what the hon. Gentleman has to say. He is such a regular contributor here and in the main Chamber. The point he makes about being small and agile, and being able to respond and do things in a different way, can be applied to co-operatives—it can also be applied to small nations. I will leave that with the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister for Civil Society (Mr Rob Wilson)]

It is always a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. I hope you will indulge me today, because I feel slightly nervous, as I always do on the first morning of a test match.

I thank the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty) for securing this important debate. I also compliment him on his excellent timing for it, following as it does the International Day of Co-operatives only a couple of weeks ago.

I congratulate my new shadow, the hon. Member for Salford and Eccles (Rebecca Long Bailey), and I wish her the best in her new job. It is a bit disconcerting to have a new shadow here, but with an old shadow, the hon. Member for Harrow West (Mr Thomas), sitting just behind her.

We have heard some important things today. Certainly, everyone has commented on the huge value we all see in co-operatives in this country. We in the Government share that enthusiasm, because we believe that a balanced economy is the best way to create a healthy economy. That involves a number of different aspects, from rebalancing our economy across the various regions of the UK, to bringing in greater balance in terms of gender diversity in our industries, all of which means encouraging and supporting a diverse range of business models as well.

Co-operative enterprises have a proud history in this country, as a number of hon. Members have commented. Back in the 1760s, weavers in Fenwick were already forming a society to sell cheaper oatmeal and to help their members with savings and loans. Hon. Members might recall the famous work of the great Welsh reformer, Robert Owen, and the Rochdale principles agreed by pioneering artisans in 1844, which paved the way for the co-operatives that exist throughout the world today.

We want to uphold the co-operatives tradition and ingrain it ever deeper in this country. We have nearly 7,000 independent co-operatives across sectors and across the UK—my own constituency has the True Food Co-op, a not-for-profit community shop that has been selling local food at affordable prices since 2004. I hope you do not mind the constituency plug, Mr Hollobone, in particular today.

I am pleased that the model is increasing further in popularity, with the co-operatives sector growing by 6% a year—that is about 250 new co-operatives every year. Together, as others have said, they make a huge contribution to our economy, worth more than £30 billion and owned by about 17.5 million of our citizens. What makes co-operatives so unique is the democracy that runs through their core: they are run by their members, for their members. From farming co-operatives to football club co-operatives, they are all about their members working together to shape their own service, and their own success.

I noted the interest of the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth in the armed forces credit unions. To remind him, the Government gave £0.5 million from LIBOR funds to establish payroll deductions to allow armed forces personnel to access credit union savings and loans. I understand the project is up and running well, with members joining in large numbers. In due course, it will also serve people in receipt of an armed forces pension. I hope that deals with his concerns.

It is the fact that the co-operative model gives members a stake in their futures that makes it so powerful. A study by the industry trade body Co-operatives UK found that that stake gives members of co-operatives much more motivation and boosts the UK’s productivity to the tune of almost £60 billion. The model is not only productive but highly resilient, as was shown by the financial success of the co-operative sector in the years following the economic downturn of 2008, when it continued to increase its average turnover.

Co-operatives are more productive and more resilient, but they also give their members more control over what matters to them. It is not distant shareholders who have a say; the customers, residents, suppliers or fans that own those businesses set their direction and priorities. Therefore, co-operatives often have a real focus on the social and environmental benefits that those owners want to see. That is why they should undoubtedly be seen as a force for enormous good, not just here in the UK but across the world.

I was asked about learning from overseas. Officials have met the leaders of the co-operative movement in the US to learn about how they have achieved a thriving co-op sector. The Government’s mission-led businesses review, which I commissioned at the turn of the year and co-ops are considered part of, will draw on best practice from around the world.

[Ms Karen Buck in the Chair]

[Hannah Bardell]

The Minister is making some interesting and important points. I hope that he will come on to the apprenticeship levy, which businesses have raised with me. I would be grateful to hear his thoughts and reflections on that and the point about not discouraging apprenticeships in the current business environment.

[Mr Wilson]

I will certainly come to that if I have time, but I have several questions to address, so I will write to the hon. Lady if I do not.

It is important that we create the right kind of environment to help co-operative businesses to flourish, and in 2014 we introduced several measures to do just that. My hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr Baker) raised the question of further ambition for the sector. He was a bit harsh on what we did in 2014. With those measures, we started by consolidating laws to make it easier for societies to understand and apply the legislative framework and rules governing them. We also simplified the electronic registration process to help new societies get going, and more importantly, made it easier and cheaper for them to raise capital by increasing from £20,000 to £100,000 the withdrawable share capital an individual member may invest. To ensure that any business claiming to be a co-operative functions properly and lawfully, we gave the Financial Conduct Authority further powers to investigate any suspicions of impropriety.

The new Prime Minister has set out her commitment to public service mutuals and co-operatives as a means of safeguarding public services. I was interested to hear the views of the hon. Member for Harrow West. I know that many hon. Members would support the notion that he raised about Channel 4 and perhaps the BBC, but we will see in due course what the Prime Minister has to say about that. The Department for Culture, Media and Sport has published its White Paper on the future of culture in the UK, and the Government will consider the future of key public bodies in light of consultation responses. That will ultimately be for the new Secretary of State at DCMS to consider, but I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will want to get his views heard in that consultation.

I want to say a few words about the important role that co-operatives play in the social investment market. The Government are committed to helping to develop the retail social investment market, which allows people to invest in causes that they really care about. Community shares, which enable local people to buy shares in local assets and invest in causes that they care about, are a great example of social investment models in action and make up an estimated 6% of the overall UK social investment market. We are excited to see large-scale community share-raising by organisations such as FC United of Manchester, which raised £2 million from 2,000 local people. The Government support such share offers through the social investment tax relief, the second anniversary of which we recently celebrated. Several community share offers have benefited from that relief, which has allowed local people to buy shares in Clevedon pier, Portpatrick harbour and Burley Gate community shop and post office.

We have also taken specific measures to support credit unions, which are financial co-operatives. We have around 500 credit unions in the UK, ranging from large and complex financial institutions to much smaller organisations run by volunteers for just a few hundred members. British credit unions combined have a membership of 1.6 million, more than £2.8 billion in assets and more than £1.2 billion in outstanding loans to members, and play an essential role in broadening the range of financial services on offer to customers in the UK. They aim to promote savings and provide an alternative source of finance. That is good for competition, and it is good for customer choice when it comes to the question of whom to bank with.

ISIL in Syria

Hannah Bardell Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd December 2015 Commons Chamber

[Johnny Mercer]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. I completely agree. This is a hugely complex issue and there are no easy answers, but I do think we are in danger of almost over-complicating what it is—a threat to our national security, the capability of individuals to project force into this country, and the duty we have to defend it. These individuals have demonstrated that they have strategic reach. They can reach into our homelands, into our communities and into our families, and destroy all that we hold dear.

I understand the avalanche of questions from colleagues, and I think that in the history of this House it would be impossible to find a Prime Minister who has done more to answer them. We will add to the mission in that part of the world militarily. We will operate in a way that will—not might, but will—accelerate—

[Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Johnny Mercer]

In a moment.

We will add to that mission because we operate in a way that will—not might, but will—accelerate the process of destroying the networks and individuals who operate against us. We have been doing that in Iraq; we must also do it in Syria, where they regenerate themselves. We will use weapons—I have used them myself—that are specifically designed to limit collateral damage while retaining pinpoint accuracy and lethality. They are better at this than anything else currently being used. We have been asked by our international partners to step up, and we must deliver on that.

Overlaying these technical arguments must surely be a greater calling that, in the relative comfort of the United Kingdom in 2015, we cannot neglect. We have a duty in this House to keep our nation safe. That involves a multi-faceted approach. We must do all we can to stabilise the instability through aid. We must ensure that our security and intelligence services have the resources and powers to act here at home to retain an effective goal line defence. We must train and mentor indigenous forces. We must do everything possible to stop the source of funds for terrorist organisations, however uncomfortable the conversations with those in the region may be. I have personally interrogated the Government’s response to the threat, and I am satisfied that we are doing all those things.

In our comfortable existence in this country of ours, we must also accept some uncomfortable truths. There are some—thankfully few, but a significant few—in this world who trade on man’s inhumanity to man. They use fear, religion and violence to promote nothing more and nothing less than their own self-interest and power. The so-called religion they proclaim is as far removed from Islam, a religion of peace, and from any Muslims I have ever known and lived among as it is possible to get.

In 2008, I wrote a reconciliation strategy towards tier 1 al-Qaeda targets in Afghanistan and Pakistan. The truth then is as valid as it is today: this group of people will never be reconciled to the peaceful, democratic, equal society that they hate so much. They want to die. They want to kill all those who do not conform. Until they are killed they will not deviate from their path. Military action is therefore part of national security. As a society, we must get used to that in the barbaric world in which we now live. We cannot honestly say that we are doing all we can to our constituents at home if our full-spectrum response does not include military action.

Finally, I respect and to an extent understand those who disagree with me. We have made catastrophic mistakes of late, which have damaged our standing on the world stage, but they are done. They are history, and they cannot be changed. We must wear them and carry them as our burden. That is the least we owe to the families of the men and women we have lost in pursuit of such actions. Similarly, I understand those who think that some of us are too quick to call for action and seem to take every opportunity to engage militarily abroad. All I would say to them is that conducting such operations makes you less, not more, likely to want to do so again or to ask anybody else to do it for you unless it was absolutely necessary.

Today, I say to the House that this action is absolutely necessary: we must do all we can to keep our people safe. A part of that involves surgical foreign military engagement, and if we neglect that part, we cannot honestly say we are doing everything we can to keep our families safe. I am not prepared to go back to Plymouth tomorrow night and say to my constituents that I was fully aware of the threat that we face from this particular angle, but was not prepared to do everything possible to protect them from this threat.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ms Tasmina Ahmed-Sheikh (Ochil and South Perthshire) (SNP)]

Since our election in May, all new MPs have faced a range of new experiences and challenges. Today’s vote will of course mark one of the most significant decisions we have taken in our careers to date, and we do not wear it lightly.

I respect the sincerity with which the Prime Minister made his case today, but I express disappointment at the words he chose to use last night to describe those who, with equal sincerity, disagree with his view. Those of us who find ourselves supporting the amendment to the Government’s motion have also thought long and hard about our decision and the enormous consequences it will have for so many. We have each listened to our constituents and organisations the length and breadth of the country who have contacted us to share their views. We have also considered, and we acknowledge, the outstanding service of the brave women and men of our armed forces, who put their lives on the line to protect us every day.

As well as thinking about our own security, we have thought about the security of the people of Syria. Although much of today’s discussion has been about the Government’s motion, and the efficacy or otherwise of military action, there is another important perspective on this catastrophic situation—that of the people of Syria and those in the middle east who have been so deeply and tragically affected by this conflict, and whether adding to the multiple countries already bombing Syria will help them, or indeed our security, at all.

[Hannah Bardell]

Does my hon. Friend agree that in all our discussions and considerations, we must think about the human cost on the ground, in particular among vulnerable groups, such as the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex community, which we have not talked about and which is being persecuted—[Interruption.] One Member made a brief mention of it. Those communities are already being persecuted and further bombing will only make the situation worse.

[Ms Ahmed-Sheikh]

I implore Members of the House to show the same respect to us that we have given to them in listening to their interventions. My hon. Friend’s intervention has been heard and I agree with it in its entirety.

More than half the Syrian population are living in poverty and civilian casualties are on the rise. The recent Russian airstrikes have killed 485 civilians, including 117 children and 47 women. The facts relating to this vicious conflict are alarming and it is difficult to imagine the human stories that lie behind them. That is why I visited the Nizip refugee camp near Gaziantep to see for myself the scale of the humanitarian disaster and to hear at first hand the accounts of refugees who have fled Syria. I listened as people told me how their families had been uprooted by violence. They wanted nothing more than to return home. I heard that their towns and villages had been reduced to rubble by airstrikes—airstrikes ordered by President Assad.

I spoke to Nafa al Hasan from Idlib, whose house was flattened by Assad’s forces in an attack that killed her mother, father, brother and husband. I met Basil from Damascus, who had spent two years in prison being tortured by Assad’s security services. He is now unable to walk and is confined to a wheelchair. Mohammed was a pilot in the Syrian air force. He fled the country with his family when he was asked to take part in bombing raids on civilian targets in his own country. Salwa, who is a writer, said to me:

“We are not numbers. We are not animals. We want to be human beings, not numbers on a page. I am not a woman after this. I have no dreams. I just want to go home, but Daesh are occupying my home now.”

Those individuals and families were united in their desire to return home one day to rebuild their lives.

Those people are human beings with a story, and that story should be heard. It is a story that confirms to us all the complex nature of what is happening in the region and the number of protagonists who are already involved. Crucially, those protagonists have different agendas and different targets.

Many issues must be addressed if Syria is to be returned to peace, but the proposals before us today will not do that. We need a plan to defeat the terrorist cult Daesh and to replace Assad. We also need a plan to rebuild Syria and to provide a better future for the people I have mentioned and so many more. To join the ongoing bombing campaign in the skies over Syria will only compound the human suffering. A military intervention without credible peace-building plans will only make the situation worse, just as it did in Libya, Iraq and Afghanistan.

A comprehensive strategy to act against Daesh is required. The UK could take the lead in a more co-ordinated effort to identify and squeeze Daesh’s finances and disrupt its illegal trade. We could lead a diplomatic initiative, using our non-combative position to secure a long-term peace plan. That is not in today’s motion. That is why I will support the amendment and vote against the Government motion.

G7

Hannah Bardell Excerpts

Wednesday 10th June 2015 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right that that sort of co-ordination is required. Some important steps have been taken, not least President Obama’s meeting at Camp David with all the Gulf countries. I have had conversations in recent days with the Turkish President and have visited Turkey to discuss this issue. I am not sure we will be able to achieve the perfection that my hon. Friend requires of getting everyone round the table at the same time in the same way, but certainly working with regional partners to make sure everyone has a co-ordinated approach is the right thing to do.

[Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP)]

I thank the Prime Minister for his statement. I would pick up two points that he raised—corruption and FIFA. Sadly, they seem to have become synonymous. Does he think it appropriate that Sepp Blatter attends the FIFA women’s world cup, which is taking place at the moment, given his promise to resign and given his sadly inappropriate comment that women footballers should wear tighter shorts to make women’s football more popular?

[The Prime Minister]

The hon. Lady makes a very important point. Sepp Blatter’s track record on these things is very disappointing. Sepp Blatter has said he is going to resign, and in my view he should get on and resign. The organisation needs new leadership and needs to be cleaned up, and the sooner that starts the better.