Cammell Laird Workers Imprisoned in 1984

Debate between Jim Shannon and Gareth Thomas

Tuesday 7th February 2023 Westminster Hall

[Gareth Thomas]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. She and my hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead are two of the many MPs who have already raised the case of the 37.

Strikingly, in response to one of the questions tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead in 2021, the then Justice Minister, the right hon. Member for Croydon South (Chris Philp), argued that if there were concerns about the imprisonment of the 37, the case should be referred to the Criminal Cases Review Commission. The problem with that answer is that the men were sent to prison for contempt of court—a civil matter. As I understand it, under sections 9 to 12B of the Criminal Appeal Act 1995, which lists the type of cases the Criminal Cases Review Commission has the power to review, there is no mention of decisions of the High Court to commit someone to prison for contempt of court.

Either a public inquiry is needed to review the treatment of the 37—that is the purpose of this debate—or the case should be reviewed by the Criminal Cases Review Commission, with all the investigative powers it has at its disposal. If so, the law will need to be changed to bring contempt cases resulting in prison within scope, because the Cammell Laird 37 will have little chance of justice until one or other of those options happens.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Gentleman for securing this debate and, with the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mick Whitley), who is absent, for his fight for justice. Does he agree that these miscarriages of justice, which we can simply look at historically, are for those men and their families life-changing and altering? For them to understand that the lessons learned from their story can result in legislative changes can provide closure for families that went through it and provide protection for other families in future.

[Gareth Thomas]

I very much agree with that point; I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his support for the case that others and I will make.

In the latter part of 1984, across Britain’s industrial heartlands at the time, huge numbers of jobs in nationalised industries, including steel and coal, were axed by Margaret Thatcher’s Government, with a casual disregard for what would come next for those made redundant and their devastated communities. In shipbuilding alone, a hugely important source of jobs across the UK at the time, British Shipbuilders went from employing 62,000 workers in 1982 to just 5,000 five years later.

It is clear, from papers released by the National Archives and from Margaret Thatcher’s private papers, that Ministers were determined to privatise the building of warships, reduce the number of shipbuilding yards and sell off the remainder of the yards. Those records confirm a central belief of the 37 when they went on strike, that Ministers wanted to close Cammell Laird. They confirm that Norman Tebbit, then Secretary of State, and Norman Lamont, then Minister of State in the Department for Trade and Industry, wanted to close Cammell Laird, potentially as early as the end of the year, when the two ships then being built were expected to be completed.

We know that, because what emerges from these relatively recently declassified records of the time, is how Cammell Laird’s future became the centrepiece of a fierce Whitehall battle between the majority of Margaret Thatcher’s Cabinet, hellbent on privatisation at any cost, and a far smaller group worried about the future of Merseyside if Cammell Laird closed. At the time, Cammell Laird was one of Britain’s most important shipyards. In existence for more than 150 years, it was a byword for engineering and shipbuilding skill of the highest order.

Warships built at Cammell Laird, such as Ark Royal, helped to protect our shores during two world wars, while other ships built there delivered huge wealth from across the globe to Britain’s shores. The 37 had helped build ships crucial to our efforts to win back the Falklands and later to take on Saddam Hussein. Short of active military service, there surely are not many more patriotic things one can do for one’s country than help build the means to defend it.

Word began to leak out in the spring and early summer of 1984 that Cammell Laird might be at risk of closure. Ministers at the time in the House of Commons denied that any major shipyard closures were being contemplated.

“I know of no such proposal.”—[Official Report, 27 June 1984; Vol. 62, c. 1095.]

So said Norman Lamont, then Minister of State at the Department for Trade and Industry. That was not quite the full picture. The Ministry of Defence had tendered for contracts to build two Type 42 destroyers in late 1983. Cammell Laird’s bid had met the quality threshold and apparently offered the best price. Over the course of nine months, from April 1984 to January 1985, Norman Tebbit successfully persuaded Margaret Thatcher and the rest of her Cabinet to delay Cammell Laird being awarded a contract to build at least one of the planned new Royal Navy destroyers.

The then Secretary of State for Defence, Michael Heseltine, recognising the profound economic and social consequences for Merseyside if Cammell Laird were to close, wanted to place orders for one, possibly two, Royal Navy Type 22 frigates with Cammell Laird, which would have secured the yard’s immediate future, and prevented even more job losses. The records released by the National Archives and the Margaret Thatcher Foundation detail how Norman Tebbit and the Department for Trade and Industry strongly objected, arguing, according to papers at the time now in the National Archives:

“If Cammell Laird did remain open, overcapacity would remain in shipbuilding with gratuitous risk to the successful privatisation.”

Commitments had been made that Cammell Laird would be able to bid and would have “a strong case” for building Type 22 frigates, as far as back as December 1982, by the then Secretary of State for Defence, John Nott, in this House. In April 1984, Michael Heseltine, then Secretary of State for Defence, underlined the significance of that commitment, and the impact on Merseyside if that commitment were not honoured and Cammell Laird closed. He particularly underlined the fact that Cammell Laird had won the MOD’s tendering process.

When British Shipbuilders published accounts in July 1984 for the previous year, it noted that Cammell Laird’s warship-building operations were still profitable, making some £3.22 million in surplus. None the less, Norman Tebbit, Margaret Thatcher and a series of Cabinet allies eventually forced the re-tender of the contracts to build these warships, delaying for almost a year the award of a warship-building contract to Cammell Laird. The papers also reveal how Norman Tebbit wanted to spin the decision, to put the blame and responsibility for the closure of Cammell Laird first on the British Shipbuilders Board and crucially, too, on the workforce, whose growing concern about their future they comment on—although they describe that as union militancy and worsening industrial relations.

Trade (Australia and New Zealand) Bill

Debate between Jim Shannon and Gareth Thomas

Report stage
Monday 12th December 2022 Commons Chamber

[Gareth Thomas]

Absolutely, but we have conceded that the deals are important and that they must be supported, and we want more trade with Australia and New Zealand. I gently say to my right hon. Friend that it is right to ensure that the deals work much better than they appear set to do at the moment. I hope that our amendments will help to achieve that.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I support the hon. Gentleman’s point in relation to Northern Ireland. We export some 65% of our agriculture produce to the EU and across the world. Ever mindful of that, we seek the same assurance from the Minister—perhaps it will come at the end of the debate—that those in Northern Ireland will not be penalised in any way. I support what the hon. Gentleman is saying.

[Gareth Thomas]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his comments and support, and I look forward to the Minister attempting to answer his concerns as well as ours.

Free trade agreements were supposed to be one of those freedoms that would bring us prosperity after Brexit, but, in truth, this is not about Brexit; it is about the competence and ability of this Government, and about the honesty and transparency of Ministers. If they believe in any of those qualities, Government Members will adopt these amendments without Division. If they do not, we will have even more proof that this Government do not even believe in themselves.

Co-operative and Mutual Businesses

Debate between Jim Shannon and Gareth Thomas

Thursday 27th June 2019 Commons Chamber

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a pleasure to speak in support of the motion standing in the names of the hon. Members for Harrow West (Gareth Thomas) and for Wycombe (Mr Baker). I thank the hon. Member for Harrow West, in particular, for the massive contribution he has made, over the time I have been here but also long before that, to support co-operatives and mutuals. We all appreciate that greatly. I concur completely with the sentiments set out in the motion, especially those relating to the contribution that co-operatives and mutuals play in the economy of the United Kingdom, which I believe is much under-appreciated. I therefore want to add my support to co-operatives and mutuals, with a particular focus on credit unions, which I know best, as they feature greatly in my constituency.

Recent years have witnessed an increase in the number of co-operative and mutual businesses being set up in Northern Ireland, after many years when none was established. Analysis by Co-operatives UK in the early part of this decade found that co-operative enterprises in Northern Ireland contributed £35.6 billion to the UK economy—that is over a period of time, but it is still a massive amount of money.

I want to highlight a couple of examples to showcase the growing strength and vibrancy of the co-operative and mutual sector in Northern Ireland, because sometimes society does not appreciate what co-operatives do. The hon. Member for Stroud (Dr Drew) referred to agriculture. As a Member who represents a largely rural constituency, I know how crucial co-operatives have been to the size and success of our local dairy industry. One example is Lakeland Dairies, which has a factory in Newtownards, the main town in my constituency, and employs more than 220 people there. It is part of a cross-border co-operative business that processes 1.8 billion litres of milk a year. It has two factories in Northern Ireland and two in southern Ireland. The co-operative model has served the farmers, who are its members, well down through the years—they contribute to its policy and vision—providing them with an outlet for their production and, importantly, a say in the overall direction of the business. All that experience and knowledge points to the direction we need to go in.

Perhaps the single best example of the increasingly strong and vibrant co-operative and mutual sector in Northern Ireland is our credit union movement, which is massive. I will give some figures because I am not sure that all Members realise just how important credit unions are in Northern Ireland or the massive contribution they make. Credit unions are, of course, common to all parts of our United Kingdom, but they have woven themselves into the fabric of society in Northern Ireland in a way that has not happened elsewhere across our nation. Credit unions are a feature of my constituency, as we now have three or four of them. When one of the branches closed down in Greyabbey, a village just down the road from where I live—I opened accounts there for my three boys many years ago—it integrated with the branch in Newtownards.

People such as my old running mate Tommy Jeffers in Dundonald have given a lifetime of hard work to establish, run and expand credit unions across Northern Ireland. He was the instigation and strength behind that credit union, and although he is now in his mid-70s and no longer a councillor—that is how I first got to know him, as well as through party connections—he is still involved in it. The movement has been built by hundreds and hundreds of hours of work by volunteers. They have made a massive contribution.

[Gareth Thomas]

One credit union that spoke to me ahead of the debate wants to open more branches on the high street, to help plug the gap left by mainstream bank branch closures, and it wonders aloud whether the Government might be sympathetic to the idea of extending business rates relief to credit unions seeking to open business branches. Does the hon. Gentleman think that could also help facilitate the greater spread of the credit union movement in Northern Ireland?

[Jim Shannon]

I thank my honourable colleague for that intervention. I am sure that the Minister is listening and hope that he will take on board that suggestion, which could be very helpful. I wholeheartedly support that suggestion. This is not the Minister’s responsibility, but I have had discussions with other Ministers about help with high street rates.

It should be borne in mind that credit unions are for their members. The members invest their money to lend their money. It is a fantastic opportunity, and a fantastic example of how lending should be looked upon. The big banks should note that example. It should not be all about dividends for shareholders; it should be about the customers—those who are involved.

The Northern Ireland movement is massive in comparison with its counterparts in Great Britain. Statistics collated by the Bank of England in each quarter show the scale of credit unions in Northern Ireland in comparison with that of their counterparts in the rest of the United Kingdom. Of the 437 registered credit unions in the UK, 145 are located in Northern Ireland. A third of all adult credit union members in the UK are in Northern Ireland, and four in 10 juvenile members are from Northern Ireland. We are encouraging our young people to open accounts early—although, to be fair, that will probably be done by their parents or, perhaps, by their grandparents, who open accounts for them to start them off. It is good to encourage young people to be part of a bank, to save money, and thereby to see the benefits of credit unions. As I have said, it is a fantastic opportunity. If Members have not had an opportunity to investigate or gain knowledge of what is happening in Northern Ireland, I suggest that they should.

Jain Community: Contribution to the UK

Debate between Jim Shannon and Gareth Thomas

Wednesday 1st May 2019 Westminster Hall

[Gareth Thomas]

I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s intervention and for his work on the all-party group. When I visited the Potters Bar temple last June, its trustees were at pains to point out the difficulty of getting visas for stonemasons to come and help with the extension. I hope to come back to that issue and, as my hon. Friend suggests, press the Minister for help with getting the Home Office to be a little more reasonable.

The Potters Bar temple is magnificent. It was built with ancient techniques and crafts. No steel was used; 1,300 tonnes of Indian marble from Makrana were shipped to London after being beautifully carved by more than 450 specialist craftsmen. Almost 6,000 carved pieces were used, including for the amazing intricate ceiling of Indian marble, which was assembled like a giant jigsaw puzzle in just 15 months. That is why stonemasons need to be brought in from India, with the specialist expertise to which my hon. Friend rightly referred. I have also had the honour of visiting the Jain temple in Kenton, which is slightly nearer to my constituency and is attended by many Jains who live in Harrow West.

Jainism was founded in the 6th century BC. Jains trace their history through a succession of 24 Tirthamkara, or enlightened teachers.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

The hon. Gentleman always brings topical and important subjects to this Chamber, and I am usually here to support him. Does he agree that the 65,000 Jains who live and work in the UK, including in Northern Ireland, are more than welcome, and that their religious view must be respected at every level by every person in all the regions of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland?

[Gareth Thomas]

The hon. Gentleman makes an important intervention about the need for respect for the Jain community. He is right that there are Jains in Northern Ireland too; I am sure that they will have appreciated his intervention.

The first Tirthamkara was Rsabhanatha, who lived millions of years ago; the 24th was Lord Mahavira, who lived in about 500 BC in what is now Bihar in modern India and was a contemporary of the Buddha.

There are three major principles that most Jains recognise. The first is ahimsa, which my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing North (Stephen Pound) mentioned; it enshrines non-violence to all life in thought, word or deed. The second is aparigraha, which requires Jains to minimise their environmental impact through the non-acquisition of material goods; it discourages them from employment in sectors such as mining that can have a negative impact on the environment. The third principle, anekanta-vada, promotes tolerance through the acceptance of a multi-sided view of reality; it encourages the recognition that others have a right to their own point of view.

The principles of Jainism are believed to have inspired the idea of non-violent protest. Mahatma Gandhi was certainly aware of them; he spoke of his debt to Jainism. The principle of non-violence has led Jain culture to be vegetarian, and indeed often vegan, with fasting observed by many at key points in the year. In April and October, followers of Jainism mark Ayambil Oli, a biannual weekly festival of prayer and limited diet that celebrates discipline, austerity and self-control. In August and September, the Jain community celebrates Paryusan, an eight-day festival of fasting, prayer, repentance and forgiveness. Lord Mahavira’s birth is celebrated in April, and his final liberation is celebrated during Diwali in October and November.

I pay tribute to the Institute of Jainology, which provides the infrastructure to support Jain communities throughout the UK.

Catholic Sixth-form Colleges

Debate between Jim Shannon and Gareth Thomas

Tuesday 5th March 2019 Westminster Hall

[Gareth Thomas]

I should not have allowed the hon. Gentleman to intervene, because he has stolen a line from later in my speech, but he makes a good point and I will return to it later.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I apologise to the hon. Gentleman for being unable to stay and make a speech in this debate—I have a meeting with a Minister—but I want to make this point. Does he agree that, given the fact that schools are increasingly becoming secularised, parents must have the option to have their child educated with faith as a cornerstone and to have an input into spiritual teaching, and that the Government cannot and must not ignore this point but instead must take it into consideration when allocating funding? Spiritual education is so important in this day and age.

[Gareth Thomas]

I recognise the continuing and strong support for spiritual education, and it continues to be a striking feature of many of our communities that there is strong support for faith schools. In the context of the debate, there is strong support for this Catholic sixth-form college, which inspired me to seek Backbench Business Committee approval for this debate, and I am sure that there is also strong support for the other Catholic sixth-form colleges across the country. The hon. Gentleman makes a good point.

[Jim Shannon]

To re-emphasise that point, when it comes to parents seeking a school for their children to go to, it is so important that they have a choice between secular teaching and faith-based teaching. When it comes to funding and assistance, we obviously look to the Minister for some support, but it is important that people have that choice and that that choice is available in Members’ own constituencies as well.

[Gareth Thomas]

The hon. Gentleman makes an important point about choice. I suppose the essential point of this debate is to say that there needs to be a level playing field in funding. A child who wants to go to a certain type of school or college should not see that there is better funding for one particular institution than there is for another down the road. I am sure that is a point he will agree with.

Water Industry

Debate between Jim Shannon and Gareth Thomas

Tuesday 22nd January 2019 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for bringing this debate. Ofwat imposes no penalties on managers who break their commitments. Does he agree that legislation must be put in place to ensure that—after loading Thames Water with debt and flooding the Thames valley with excrement—the water body faces more than just a fine that is less than the amount it would take to dispose of the water in the appropriate way? In other words, the fines do not match the crime.

[Gareth Thomas]

The hon. Gentleman makes an extremely good point. Given that we are in the middle of the latest pricing review, if Ministers had the gumption they could put pressure on Ofwat to use its existing powers to bear down on those exact issues. I agree with the hon. Gentleman’s general point that we need a full review of the powers available to Ofwat. I am sure that they need to be increased.

Thames Water’s credit rating is the worst in the industry, according to Standard & Poor’s. Thames Water’s tax bill also declined during the period in question, as it regularly paid no corporation tax on its £1.8 billion turnover. Thames Water is, by its own admission, failing to meet targets to reduce the number of properties experiencing chronic low water pressure; failing to reduce the number of complaints; and wasting almost 700 million litres of water annually through leakage. It is failing to meet basic standards in 17 out of 41 key areas. That dismal record also includes record fines for poor performance.

In comparison, Scottish Water, which is publicly owned, has debt levels 5% lower than 17 years ago; its interest payments have remained consistent; and, with no dividends having been paid out, all the profit has been reinvested. It is worth pointing out that, adjusted for leakage per kilometre of pipes, Scottish Water performs just as well as an average English company, with 10.2k litres of leakage per kilometre as opposed to 22.1k for Thames Water, 10.8k for United Utilities and 9.5k for Yorkshire Water.

Thames Water is not alone in poor performance. In truth, more than 20% of all water is currently lost through leakages from water pipes. In total, it is estimated that some 7.5 trillion litres of water has been lost through leakage, which is equivalent to the total volume of water currently in Loch Ness.

Capital Needs of Co-operatives

Debate between Jim Shannon and Gareth Thomas

Wednesday 25th April 2018 Westminster Hall

[Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered capital needs of co-operatives.

It is a privilege to serve under your chairmanship, Sir David. It is a particular delight to be able to talk co-operatives with the Treasury Minister twice in two days. For those of us who want the co-operative and mutual sector of our economy to double in size, fixing the difficulties that co-operatives have in accessing the capital they need to expand is critical. Co-operatives UK, the co-operative movement’s trade body, has done an excellent job in recent years of championing community shares as one way for local co-operatives to raise significant but comparatively small amounts of capital to grow. Lottery money is currently being used by Co-ops UK’s community share unit to support community shares offers, but more could be done if the Government renewed their previous interest in this area. It would be good for Ministers to explore what else they can do to encourage the further expansion of community shares.

More recently, Co-ops UK, working with retail co-op societies, has begun to explore whether fixed-term withdrawable share capital could be developed, allowing more established societies to raise patient and engaged equity finance from members and non-member investors, up to a £100,000 maximum individual shareholding limit. The Financial Conduct Authority does not always get a good press, but it has been very supportive of that work, and I hope the Minister will encourage the FCA and Co-ops UK to continue to champion that new potential source of capital for many co-operatives. The chief executive of Co-ops UK, Ed Mayo, deserves praise for his skill in getting this work so far down the road.

Other parts of the co-operatives and mutuals sector of our economy—notably building societies, friendly societies and mutual insurers—have been subject to legislative changes permitting them to raise much larger amounts of additional capital. These reforms are yet to apply to the co-operative world.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for allowing me to intervene—I sought his permission to do so beforehand. Does he agree that co-operatives should be allowed to invest in social housing? It is the very essence of what a co-operative seeks to do. Benefits are involved. I gently suggest that the Minister should consider revisiting the ability of co-ops to invest capital funds directly in social housing.

[Gareth Thomas]

The hon. Gentleman makes an extremely good point. If he can use his not inconsiderable influence on the Minister to support what I will say, we might be able to accelerate the addressing of some of the problems co-ops face in investing in social housing. Unless co-operatives can raise additional capital, they cannot expand or develop to their true potential. At worst, they are at risk of demutualisation, as I will set out. Co-operatives do not issue shares in the same way as investor-owned companies—to do so would mean demutualising—so bigger co-operatives can face considerable difficulties raising additional capital at the level they need. Their growth inevitably is limited and their ability to compete on equal terms is reduced.

In short, legislation is needed to fix this problem—legislation that protects that unique governance model of co-operatives, but allows them to issue permanent investment shares. Such shares could allow consumer co-ops to grow by acquisition and by developing new business offers for their customer members. Football supporter-owned clubs could fund the development of new stadium facilities, grow their businesses, serve their communities and consolidate their income streams. Co-operative-owned energy generators could attract long-term investment to build even more energy infrastructure of the sort we need in this country. A lack of capital limits a co-operative’s growth and ability to develop new services. The growth rate of that co-operative is constrained by its relative inability to add significant capital through retained earnings.

Maternity Discrimination

Debate between Jim Shannon and Gareth Thomas

Thursday 14th July 2016 Westminster Hall

[Mr Thomas]

The hon. Lady draws attention to an important issue that I am sure the Minister will want to take up. I sympathise with the point she makes.

It is worth saying that the Equality and Human Rights Commission’s recently published research is not its first such work in this area. When it first commissioned research back in 2005, 45% of women reported experiencing discrimination, so it is extremely worrying to find that the situation facing mothers-to-be and new mothers has worsened so dramatically.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Speaking as an employer of someone who has had two children in the last two years, I think it is important to recall that our employees, who ultimately are employees of the House, have rights and protections in their jobs. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that whenever we hear cases of those who are not given those rights, that shows the real need for stronger legislation, regulation and monitoring to ensure that everyone gets what my employees have through their employment by me and the House?

[Mr Thomas]

I will argue that although there is a need for some legislative change, the major requirement is cultural change. In that regard, there are a number of things that the Government could do to help.

It is worth coming back to the EHRC’s research findings. It pointed out that about one in nine mothers reported that they had felt forced to leave their job, which included those being directly dismissed and made compulsorily redundant and those treated so poorly that they felt they had to leave. About half the mothers who had submitted a request for flexible working said that it resulted in negative consequences for them at work. Potentially, as many as 150,000 mothers a year could be affected. One in 10 mothers were discouraged from attending antenatal opportunities, which could mean 53,000-plus mothers a year. The right to time off to attend antenatal appointments is vital to ensure that women can access the care they need early in their pregnancy and get continuous assessment and advice during pregnancy.

It is welcome that the report shows that the majority of employers were positive about managing most of the statutory rights relating to pregnancy and maternity and recognised that it was in their interests to support pregnant women and those on maternity leave, as that increases staff retention and creates better morale. However, 70% of employers surveyed said they felt women should declare up front during recruitment if they are pregnant—surely a recipe for further discrimination if ever there was one—and 27% felt that pregnancy put an unreasonable cost burden on the workplace.

There can be long-term effects on a woman’s career if she has a baby. According to the TUC, poor treatment at the time of pregnancy or maternity leave can have long-lasting consequences for a woman’s future employment and pay. About a quarter of women do not return to work after maternity leave, and only a minority of those women have made a personal choice to become stay-at-home mothers. Women are more likely to consider stopping work altogether if they experience ill treatment during pregnancy or maternity leave. Discrimination at work can cause stress, anxiety and depression, which in turn can have a long-term effect on the health of a woman and her baby.

We have a strong legal framework to promote family-friendly workplaces. What is lacking at the moment is leadership to change attitudes to pregnant women on the ground in workplaces. I hope the Government will lead a high-profile, ongoing campaign to change attitudes in the workplace. Government-led campaigns down the years have led to significant change. One thinks of the difference we see now with gay relationships—the work of Governments of various parties has led that change. One thinks, too, of action down the years on drink-driving and to promote the use of seatbelts and action that has radically improved road safety. Government-led campaigns can make a significant difference in workplaces and among wider society, and such a campaign is clearly needed now on maternity discrimination.

As I will explain shortly, women knowing what they are entitled to is not sufficient on its own to ensure that they can exercise their rights, but access to information is an essential first step. Maternity Action has called for all women to be given a hard-copy leaflet at their first antenatal appointment, outlining their maternity rights at work and signposting them to other key sources of information and advice. The leaflet would also include a tear-off sheet for women to give to their employers to ensure that they too are aware of their employee’s rights. I understand that the Government have committed to reviewing the existing guidance and the accessibility of information for employers. Perhaps the Minister will update us on the progress of that review and respond specifically to Maternity Action’s suggestions.

Maternity Action has raised the concern that it receives 30 times more calls than it has the resources to answer, prompting the question of how much more needs to be done to ensure that women seeking advice and information on their statutory rights can get the help they need. As I said earlier, access to information is the first step to ensuring that women can enforce their rights, but access to advice and justice is a necessary further step in many circumstances. According to the EHRC’s research, less than 1% of women who believe they have experienced maternity discrimination have made a claim to an employment tribunal.

In June last year, the Government launched a review of the impact of employment tribunal fees. Thirteen months later, we are still waiting for the results, but the numbers already point in a significant direction. Pregnancy-related discrimination cases fell from 1,589 in 2012-13 to just 790 in 2014-15. Sex discrimination cases fell from almost 19,000 to almost 5,000 over the same period—a 76% drop. So although the evidence from the EHRC’s research suggests that maternity discrimination is increasing, the number of women accessing employment tribunals to enforce their legal rights is falling. Indeed, the Select Committee on Justice recently criticised the delay in concluding the review, and its review of court and employment tribunal fees recommended that special consideration be given to women who allege maternity and pregnancy discrimination.

Along with the financial barrier to pursuing a claim, many of the women who took part in the EHRC’s research reported that the three-month time limit for lodging an employment tribunal claim was a significant barrier to accessing justice, as they simply were not in a position to jump through all the hoops associated with putting in a tribunal claim while they were new mothers. The EHRC has specifically recommended that the time limit be extended to six months.

The Minister will not be surprised at my disappointment that the only recommendations that the EHRC made that the Government have not accepted relate to employment tribunal fees and time limits. Will she at least update us on when the results of the Government’s review will be published? Action is urgently needed to ensure women’s access to justice to enforce their rights, particularly when they are pregnant or new mothers.

Employment tribunals should act as the final backstop to enforce women’s maternity rights, but we should surely do everything we can to ensure that things do not reach that stage and that discussions between employees and their employers are approached in a constructive rather than antagonistic way. The EHRC’s first recommendation to the Government was that they work in partnership with the commission and business leaders to develop a joint communications campaign underlining the economic benefits of unlocking and retaining the talent and experience of pregnant women and new mothers. I look forward to hearing from the Minister exactly when and how that will happen.

One key element of supporting pregnant women and new mothers is supporting employers, so that any health and safety risks for expectant mothers can be identified and effectively managed. The EHRC found that one in five employers that had identified risks took no action, and one in five mothers ended up leaving employment because of the risks involved. Too many pregnant women today worry that they are being put in a position of having to choose between their job, their health and the health of their unborn baby.

The excellent trade union USDAW has carried out research among its members and found that employers did not carry out risk assessments for seven out of 10 women. Many USDAW members do manual work stacking shelves or lifting heavy items in warehouses or at checkouts. Such examples underline the importance of making progress in developing support for employers, so that they can access all the information they need about maternity and paternity rights and entitlements in one place. Perhaps the Minister will tell us how the Government are encouraging employers to recognise the health and safety needs of pregnant women and new mothers.

The EHRC’s research also demonstrated that much more needs to be done to support women when they return to work and to give stronger rights to flexible working. Roughly 70% of the women who took part in the research requested some form of flexible working arrangement on their return to work. However, half the mothers who had their request formally approved felt that they had experienced unfavourable treatment as a result, and one third said that they felt uncomfortable asking for any additional flexibility or time off.

The TUC has done research in this area, too. It suggests there is a significant motherhood pay penalty. By the age of 42, mothers in full-time work earn 11% less than women in full-time work who do not have children. Women who leave their job during pregnancy or who do not return to their job after maternity leave, whether because they have been unfairly dismissed, because of inadequate health and safety procedures or because of inflexible working patterns, often find it very difficult to get back into work at all. There is a clear need to help employers think through how and why they should create a family-friendly workplace. Will the Minister advise us of what steps are being taken to encourage employers to offer different forms of flexible working?

As the EHRC has said, women are still far more likely than men to work part time, but more needs to be done to make flexible working the norm not only for women but for men too, so that all parents are better able to balance their career and family responsibilities, rather than feeling that they have to choose between the two.

I welcome the steps that the previous Government took to introduce shared parental leave, and I am interested in the Minister’s assessment of how that has worked to date. The evidence from other countries that have implemented similar schemes suggests that fathers are much more likely to take up leave that has been designated as father’s leave rather than shared and transferable leave. If we are to see a cultural shift to more family-friendly workplaces, it is crucial that opportunities are opened up for women to progress at work and for men to care for their children. One important step might be to uprate the amount of paid leave for fathers. It would be good to hear the Minister’s initial thoughts on that.

The EHRC’s research has demonstrated the importance of building up a long-term evidence base on maternity and pregnancy discrimination, so that we can better understand how we can tackle it. The TUC has suggested that employers be required to analyse and publish information on how many of their female employees return to work after having children. I welcome the steps that the Government have taken towards reporting on the gender pay gap; that seems an ideal opportunity to gather more information on how employers are supporting their employees through pregnancy and maternity leave.

It is important that employers continue to evaluate their own internal practices and, crucially, their retention rates for pregnant women. It would be instructive to know how many women are still working for their employer one year after returning from maternity leave, for example. Tribunals should be given the power to make recommendations that an employer change its practice when a finding of discrimination is made, so that other women are protected from similar treatment in future.

I have focused so far on how we can better ensure that existing maternity and paternal rights can be upheld, but I want to suggest an additional area for the Government to consider in extending such rights. My constituent Kathryn Stagg is a campaigner on breastfeeding, and I have spoken to her about the problems that many mothers encounter in that area when returning to work. Going back to work is often the first time that a mother will be separated from their baby for a prolonged period. It can often be challenging for mothers who wish to continue breastfeeding to do so, particularly if there are no nursery facilities at or near their workplace. One in five women who have stopped breastfeeding say that returning to work influenced their decision, and half say they would have liked to continue for longer. A number of countries, including the USA, have enshrined in law the right to breastfeed and to express milk, and I urge the Minister to look closely at whether a similar right would be beneficial and appropriate for mothers in the UK and their babies.

There are many examples of good businesses supporting pregnant employees and supporting mothers in their return to work, but overall it appears that we are going backwards. Discrimination is almost twice as bad as it was 10 years ago. The legislation appears to be progressive, but attitudes in the workplace need to change. It is surely the Government’s responsibility to lead the charge, change minds, and ensure that pregnant women and new mums are valued, respected and encouraged at their place of work. This debate gives us the opportunity to speak for women who have experienced maternity discrimination and tell them, “You are not a burden or a troublemaker, and you are entitled to have your rights enforced and respected.”

Nepal Earthquake: First Anniversary

Debate between Jim Shannon and Gareth Thomas

Monday 25th April 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)]

Nepal is one of the most beautiful countries in the world, and it has deep and long-established links to the United Kingdom. The Himalayas, Everest and the continuing story of the sacrifice and courage of the Gurkhas hides a deeper truth about the fragility of life for many Nepalese people. Some 7 million to 8 million people out of Nepal’s population of 19 million live in absolute poverty. Malnutrition rates in Nepal are among the highest in the world. More than 2 million people in Nepal do not have access to a safe water supply, and more than half the population do not have access to a proper toilet. Many families see their menfolk forced to migrate for some of each year—usually, but not always, to India—to earn a living for their families as incomes are simply too low in Nepal.

At midday on Saturday 25 April 2015, an earthquake struck Barpak in the historic district of Gorkha, about 76 km north-west of Kathmandu. More than 300 aftershocks—four of them registering over 6.0 on the Richter scale, including one measuring 6.8—followed. Almost 9,000 people were killed and 23,000 injured. One million homes were destroyed, and an estimated one third of the population of Nepal has been impacted by the earthquake. Some 31 of the country’s 75 districts have been affected, with 14 declared crisis-hit, and another 17 partially affected.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I asked the hon. Gentleman earlier whether it would be okay to intervene on him, and I thank him for allowing me to do so. He mentions the homes that were destroyed and the people who died. Some £2.87 billion has been set aside by a number of countries to help the rebuilding work, but none of that has been spent yet. Does he share my concern, and the concern of those in this House and those outside it, that not £1 of the £2.87 billion set aside has yet been spent? Is it not time that the Government and the Nepalese Government together ensured that the money is spent, houses rebuilt and people sorted out?

[Mr Thomas]

I want to come in a few moments specifically to the issue of money that has been pledged for reconstruction, but which has not actually been committed.

Gaza

Debate between Jim Shannon and Gareth Thomas

Wednesday 25th February 2015 Westminster Hall

[Mr Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow (Mr McCann) on securing the debate. As others have said, more than 2,000 people were killed in the conflict last summer, many of them civilians, including more than 500 children. Many more were injured, including more than 3,000 children. As a result of their injuries, more than 1,000 of those children are likely to have physical disabilities for the rest of their lives.

Last summer’s conflict was, of course, the third since Hamas seized control of Gaza in 2007, and the cycle of violence was grimly reminiscent of the events that led to Operation Cast Lead in 2008-09 and Operation Pillar of Defence in 2012. On all three occasions, it was obvious that a sustainable solution will not be found through violence and that a political solution is necessary. The human cost of the failure to negotiate a lasting and sustainable settlement to the middle east conflict is all too apparent in the continued trauma, devastation and insecurity not only in Gaza but in the west bank and Israel. My hon. Friend is right to warn that the international community must now do all it can to avoid further conflict in Gaza, and that a complex mix of pressures in Gaza, Israel and the wider middle east must be thought through and understood to avoid further bloodshed, and over the medium term, to move towards a more comprehensive negotiated settlement that secures the two-state solution that I suspect everyone in the House wants.

An immediate priority must be to address urgently the severe humanitarian crisis in Gaza. Almost 20,000 homes have been completely destroyed or rendered uninhabitable, and many others have been damaged, and more than 100,000 Palestinians are still displaced. Some 19,000 displaced people are still living in United Nations Relief and Works Agency shelters, such as school buildings. Those whose homes remain habitable struggle to cope with the scheduled power cuts of up to 18 hours a day, and basic services such as access to water and sanitation can best be described as dysfunctional. That already grim situation has been exacerbated by recent winter storms, which resulted in further deaths and affected those in emergency shelters or damaged homes.

In that context, the $5.4 billion pledged by the international community at the Cairo conference last October is welcome, but it is deeply worrying that UNRWA had to halt a $720 million project that aimed to give rental subsidies to people whose homes have been damaged and are inhospitable, and cash to people to repair and rebuild their properties. UNRWA has stated that it has been left with a shortfall of almost $600 million, as the money pledged by international donors has yet to be translated into actual disbursements.

It was recently reported that just $300 million of aid pledges have so far been transferred. The UK pledged some £20 million at the Cairo conference to support the reconstruction effort in Gaza, and the Department for International Development announced the disbursement of $4.7 million just before Christmas, bringing the total amount it has disbursed to some £7.8 million. Will the Minister update the House on when the next disbursement is planned? How much will be disbursed, and for what services will that aid be delivered? Why has progress on disbursing our aid appeared to be so slow?

What discussions have the Government had with other international donors to ensure that they fulfil their pledges? The Minister will know better than the rest of the House which donors have not so far met or begun to come close to meeting their expectations on delivering aid. Does he believe that a further international effort is needed to facilitate progress? What role, for example, might the EU’s new High Representative, the Quartet or the Gulf Co-operation Council play in helping to facilitate progress on reconstruction?

As has been mentioned in the debate, donors appear to have become concerned about the failure of the technocratic unity Government, agreed by Hamas and Fatah in April 2014, to take control of Gaza, where Hamas remains the de facto Government. What is the Minister’s assessment of the scale of difficulty faced by that technocratic unity Government? What progress are the Arab League and the UN making on their consultations to put in place a Palestinian authority to govern Gaza? My hon. Friends are right that the blockade of Gaza must end.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Thomas]

I apologise to the hon. Gentleman, but I will not give way because of the time.

The blockade of Gaza must end with the co-operation of Israel. What recent action has the Minister taken to press the Government of Israel on that critical issue? No one wants to see a repeat of last summer, and clearly a crucial element of preventing another conflict must be for the international community to stop Hamas rebuilding its arsenal and tunnels so that it cannot again fire thousands of rockets into Israel. There can be absolutely no justification for the conduct of Hamas and other organisations that fired rockets into Israel and sought to infiltrate civilian areas. We are unyielding in our condemnation of Hamas both for the indiscriminate killing of Israeli civilians and for the disruptive role it has played when others have tried to secure the two-state solution that we all want.

Ultimately, we have to help the Palestinians and the Israelis to get back to the negotiating table. It is surely the responsibility of all of us in the international community—certainly the UK, but also countries across the international community—to use the leverage that we have to encourage again the conditions so that negotiations can begin on a peaceful, lasting solution. Such a solution needs to involve the peoples of the occupied territories and of Israel, as well as their leaders. Progress on violence, on respecting human rights and on illegal settlements will be critical to building the conditions for such negotiations to take place.

I come back finally to the urgency of the situation in Gaza. The humanitarian crisis there demands that the international community steps up its efforts to get the construction of homes and access to basic services going again. I look forward to hearing what further role the Minister thinks the UK can play in helping to achieve that.

Western Balkans

Debate between Jim Shannon and Gareth Thomas

Wednesday 10th September 2014 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Brooke, and to make a contribution to the debate.

Last week, when my hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann (David Simpson) was in this Chamber, we were the second largest party; today, we are equal first—numerically, there is a coalition today between the Conservative party and the Democratic Unionist party. The Labour party is here in third place, but there we are, and that will probably change as well—

[Mr Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)]

He who is last shall be first.

[Jim Shannon]

Absolutely. As the good book says, and we adhere to it.

I thank the right hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Sir John Randall) for securing this important debate. Again, I am glad to have the opportunity to make a contribution.

For many of us the Balkans is an area that we know because of the war that took place there, or because we have had holidays there—in parts, it has become a tourist destination. At the end of the day, we have an interest in it, because we want to see it succeed, its people return to prosperity and an end to the conflict and wars. The right hon. Gentleman, in his introduction, referred to the position there. In Northern Ireland, we have come through a fairly horrific war as well; the terrorist campaign left more than 3,000 dead. As a country, we have moved forward, because we felt that that was the way to do it. There had to be a partnership Government, based on all parties. Perhaps there is a lesson there for the Balkans—indeed there is—to which the right hon. Gentleman referred.

The aim of the Berlin conference was to send a message of support for the Balkan countries’ European ambitions and to bolster the promises that the European Union made to those countries in more self-confident days. Those promises now seem uncertain, particularly as tensions and security concerns within the region remain. There is a clear need to help the economies in those countries to create jobs—creating jobs will create prosperity and, we hope, stability. My hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann (David Simpson) made a salient intervention on the agri-food industry. The Balkans are ripe for modernisation and new agricultural ideas. Jobs will come off the back of that, as well as self-sufficiency. We should aim to make that happen.

Even in the midst of its own internal crisis and the worsening global crises from Ukraine to Iraq, Europe can ill afford to neglect the one region in which the EU has assumed full leadership as a foreign and security policy actor. Negative developments in the Balkans could reverse gains in the region, such as those made in Serbia and Kosovo, increase instability in other countries on the EU’s immediate borders and further weaken Europe’s credibility and cohesion. As the right hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip said, the Balkans are a vital region; the area is as important now as it was historically and the concerns are just as great today.

It should be acknowledged that the nations of the western Balkans face significant economic difficulties that are not of their own making. Their relative distance from the EU’s largest and wealthiest markets and their proximity to Greece mean that they have felt the impact of Europe’s economic crisis more than most, which is no doubt part of the reason for their enthusiasm about joining a group of economically friendly states. All member states have been hit hard by the recession, but have had one another to depend on, trade with and, in some cases, even borrow from; there has been real deprivation in many parts of the Balkans, and putting food on the table has been a problem for many people. Some people have been unable to do so: the Library information pack says that in some areas of the Balkans, up to 90% of the population are unable to get food on a regular basis. That is the reality for many people there.

At the same time, there is some confidence, because many people in the Balkans felt that 2014 was a year in which things were going to get better; in a way, they have, although not really to the extent that people had hoped. We still hope that that will happen. The first aim should be to reduce the political risk factors involved in doing business in the region. The Balkan wars are a fading memory for most of us, but there has been little in the way of real reconciliation. The different ethnic communities of Bosnia and Herzegovina continue to live separate lives. Serbia has normalised relations with Kosovo, but does not really recognise it. Even Greece’s unresolved objection to describing the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia as Macedonia damages the politics of the region. The fight over words and the historical issues are important. While those dividing lines and hostilities remain, investment will look like a risk, rather than a sure thing. Those who want to invest need to be reassured by the people in the area that things are moving forward.

Countries in the region are already members of various regional European groupings such as the Organisation of the Black Sea Economic Co-operation, the Central European Initiative and the Central European Free Trade Agreement. More importantly, their shared will to become members of international organisations, such as the EU, NATO or the Council of Europe, denotes common political interests and similar attitudes towards the international environment.

While all that is happening, we have the Russian bear, in the shape of Putin, looking towards eastern states and the Balkans, where Russia once had influence. It is with some concern that we look from afar at Putin’s expansionist policies and wonder where they will end.

The western Balkan countries have made significant progress in improving regional security and moving towards EU integration, especially in the bilateral relations between Serbia and Kosovo, internally in Bosnia and Herzegovina and with regard to the EU integration of the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. The biggest contribution to regional security co-operation has been the signing of the framework agreement between Serbia and Kosovo, which launched the basis for peaceful and regular communication between the two. That agreement should work as a benchmark for other regions in the Balkans. It may only be small at the moment, but there is a foundation in place, which I believe could serve as a marker for the future.

Despite all the positive developments in regional security co-operation, there are still security challenges that require attention from all, and dealing with those challenges needs to be the second aim for the region. We need to see advancements in the fight against organised crime, for example: there are groups in the area that are clearly real organised crime groups; it is not just what we see in the films. My colleague in the other place, Lord Morrow, has brought forward a Bill on human trafficking for Northern Ireland, which I believe would set a precedent for the whole United Kingdom. My hon. Friends agree, and we have suggested to the UK Government that they should look at that Bill as a precedent for other measures for the United Kingdom. We all recognise, as Lord Morrow does, that human trafficking is an issue we face. It is an issue in the Balkans and is part of the organised crime there.

Dealing with political extremism and radical structures is also crucial for the Balkans to achieve long-term security and stability. There has been a significant decline in ordinary crime in the western Balkans, but organised crime and corruption—mainly drug trafficking, money laundering and human trafficking—are still present and have a great impact, facilitated by poor law enforcement.

My hon. Friend the Member for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell) mentioned the work of faith groups. The Minister and I have talked about that on many occasions—I am pleased to see him in his place today, because I know his response will be helpful—and he knows about the good work the faith groups in the area do. I am aware of it from not just a spiritual but a practical point of view: those church groups help people to realise their ambitions and potential, and do fantastic work.

In conclusion, to reduce the risk of escalating outbursts of violence, the international community’s engagement and presence in the region continue to be necessary. Accountability, currently the weakest element in security sector governance in the western Balkan countries, needs further support.

I have already asked your permission to leave early, Mrs Brooke, as I have a meeting with the Thalidomide Trust. I have spoken to the Minister and the right hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip as well. If I leave at about 10.25 am, I hope you know that I will have done so for no other reason than that I have to be somewhere else.

Humanitarian Disasters

Debate between Jim Shannon and Gareth Thomas

Tuesday 8th March 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)]

Mr Speaker, I am grateful to you for selecting this subject for debate, and to have not only the Minister who will respond to the debate but the Secretary of State in the Chamber.

The number of people affected by natural disasters, such as earthquakes, cyclones, famines and so on, is set to increase hugely over the coming years. Crucially, the international community’s ability to respond needs to continue to improve too. I sought this debate because I worry that the trend is in the wrong direction. Oxfam, in its evidence to the Minister’s humanitarian response review, noted that the international humanitarian system risks no longer being a cohesive global system, and that its effectiveness is at risk just when it should be increasing. It called for renewed political leadership by the UK and other major donors to ensure adequate UN humanitarian leadership. World Vision has also highlighted the need for stronger humanitarian leadership.

Britain is one of the many nations that contribute to UN appeals responding to disasters, but it is one of a far smaller number of nations genuinely interested in driving reform across the UN development and humanitarian system and willing to put in the hard yards in international forums to champion that reform. I recognise that the Government have not yet completed their humanitarian emergency response review. Nevertheless, I hope that the Minister will feel able to provide a full response, and I ask him directly what he and his Department are doing to ensure that the UN can lead the immediate humanitarian response to natural disasters effectively.

How often have Ministers initiated discussions with EU colleagues, the US and other countries on the UN’s ability to respond to disasters? I have no doubt that there is plenty of contact when a disaster strikes, but it is between times that leadership from Department for International Development Ministers—and, indeed, Ministers from across the Government—continues to be required. Essentially, there are five issues of continuing concern involved in how the UN leads the international humanitarian system: funding, personnel, co-ordination, reporting and disaster risk reduction. In the medium and longer term, there is also a second group of issues associated with how the broader UN development system responds to the challenge of development after the immediate humanitarian response phase of a disaster is over.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Does the hon. Gentleman share my frustration, and that of the general public, over the Haiti disaster? Clearly the general public wanted something done, the money was gathered and the UN responded, yet a year or 15 months later, the work that we expected to see in Haiti has not been done. Does he share that frustration with me and others in the Chamber?

[Mr Thomas]

There are many reasons why the international community has not met the scale of the task in Haiti. Certainly, there were issues with the UN’s response, which demonstrated the continuing need for reform, but Haiti’s long-term poverty and instability have also been factors.

Nevertheless, what happened in Haiti is one reason why approximately 263 million people were devastated by natural disasters in 2010—110 million more than in the year of the tsunami. Experts predict that by 2015, some 375 million people will be affected as climate change increases the risk of natural disasters, the vast majority of them living on less than $1 a day. Many will also be affected by conflict, but although the needs of people affected by conflict and the agencies involved in responding can both be similar, in this debate I want to focus on purely natural disasters.

I am an unashamed fan of the amazing British development NGOs that respond to disasters. I have had many times the honour and privilege of seeing or hearing about the courage, compassion and skill of those working for CAFOD––the Catholic Fund for Overseas Development—Oxfam, Save the Children, Islamic Relief, ActionAid, Christian Aid or one of the many, many other NGOs in responding to disasters. However, it is the UN that has to lead the international response to major disasters, and it is on the UN’s capacity to provide leadership that I want to focus.

The expansion of the Central Emergency Response Fund to allow the UN to release funds and enable its agencies to react to disasters more quickly has been an undoubted success over the past five years, helping to improve the UN’s leadership in major disasters and, crucially, in the under-reported and forgotten humanitarian crises that no longer attract media attention, if they ever did. My concern about CERF now is how well it is funded. At the end of last year there were reports that CERF—the UN’s primary fund—was facing a $100 million shortfall. At the replenishment conference in December—I gently point out that no Minister attended it, which was unusual and disappointing—only $358 million was raised. Indeed, I was struck by the continuing poor contribution by key nations in the UN family, and in particular by how little the US and France contributed to support the UN’s ability to respond.

In 2010 Britain contributed some $60 million to the Central Emergency Response Fund and $113 million collectively to the three UN humanitarian leadership funds. That compares with the US, which gave only $10 million—just over £6 million—to CERF, and the French, who gave a combined total of just $7.4 million: that is less than £5 million. In better times, when the contributions of other nations were higher and CERF was expanding, that was not such a problem, but with aid levels under threat—albeit not in this country—now is surely the time for the richest nations to continue to meet their responsibilities to those funds. Interestingly, Valerie Amos, Britain’s most senior UN diplomat and head of the UN’s disaster response agency, said in New York as recently as 21 January:

“we…need to broaden the coalition of Member States who support multilateral humanitarian action, and we need to bring more partners into our existing response mechanisms”.

What discussions has the Minister or his departmental colleagues had, or are they planning, with their US and French counterparts on funding for the UN’s humanitarian funds?

The next issue is about people. Leading the response to a disaster requires remarkable leadership, and the UN’s humanitarian co-ordinators are the unsung heroes of the international community. They are often required to be personally brave, and they need a capacity for punishing hours, day after day with little rest, and an ability to negotiate and co-ordinate with country Governments, donors and aid agencies, and often the military and myriad other bodies. The UN’s humanitarian co-ordinators are, as it were, the Florence Nightingales of the international community; they are also, however, too few in number. I hope that the Minister will say what action the Department for International Development is taking to help the UN find and support a wider pool of people from which to draw humanitarian co-ordinators.

Also crucial are those who lead the work to provide each part of the humanitarian effort—the effort to provide shelter, water supplies, medical assistance, and so on—and specifically those UN agencies that have accepted responsibility for each of those tasks and that have struggled on occasion to find the right person, appropriately trained and able to be deployed at a moment’s notice, to be that agency’s leadership on the ground when a disaster strikes. So I ask the Minister what continuing discussions he is having with agencies with cluster leadership responsibilities about the availability of sufficient senior staff who can be deployed at a moment’s notice.

The single biggest factor in getting agencies and non-governmental organisations to work together, to co-ordinate effectively and to ensure that all the key humanitarian needs are addressed is the availability of funding. Common humanitarian funds in-country have helped to drive better co-ordination in a number of situations. Sudan is an example. Will the Minister tell me how those funds are continuing to be rolled out? What is his assessment of their effectiveness?

Disaster risk reduction and the development of local in-country ability to respond to disasters is also essential. As Save the Children has noted, the contrast between the impact of the Christchurch earthquake and the Haiti quake is instructive. It is not impossible to predict where there might be a risk of big natural disasters occurring, and UN agencies need to help to build the ability of countries and communities to put in place measures such as tsunami early-warning systems and better building regulations, to ensure that such events lead to less damage and fewer lives being lost. Indeed, the Disasters Emergency Committee has just noted the need to prepare for the—sadly inevitable—next big urban disasters. That point is linked to the question that the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) has just asked me. Again, I ask the Minister what action he is taking to promote disaster risk reduction efforts by the individual developing countries in which we continue to have an aid programme and by the UN agencies that we are continuing to fund.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Thomas]

I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s words and his interest in the New Zealand situation, but I do not share his analysis of the general situation in many developing countries. I emphasise the contrast between New Zealand and elsewhere. The lessons from Haiti are quite instructive in that regard, because New Zealand had far more advanced contingency planning and systems in place, notwithstanding the challenges that still exist. It is for that reason that we need the UN, and the international humanitarian system that it leads, to continue to be effective and, given the increase in need that we are likely to see in the coming years, to continue to reform so that it can improve its work still further.

I return to the issue of the international forum. If the Minister does not have a plan to establish such a forum for ministerial discussions, will he at least ensure that this is a topic for an EU Development Ministers meeting? The Disasters Emergency Committee, that excellent co-ordinating body of non-governmental organisations in the UK, has just published a lessons learned document from the Haiti disaster. I gently suggest that such work needs to be considered and replicated in an international setting at a ministerial level meeting.

[Jim Shannon]

The hon. Gentleman is generous in giving way. One concern of many people is that when money is donated to help countries, there is an administrative angle to it. How much of that money actually gets through to the people? Is it effectively sucked up in the administration so that the money does not go where people want it to go?

[Mr Thomas]

A lot of the money pledged to the UN does get through to the sharp end, but that does not mean that there is no scope for improving the savings that can be found across the UN system.

The second broad issue I want quickly to raise is the reform of the UN development system and how UN agencies can be supported to step up their longer-term response to natural disasters. The Government need to champion a joined-up UN response and to celebrate the One UN reform programme that is helping in some countries to ensure that the sheer plethora of UN agencies’ funds, programmes and commissions add up to more than the sum of their parts. Again, leadership money and co-ordination are fundamental, so I ask the Minister what support he is giving through his Department to help to widen the pool of experience of dedicated UN resident co-ordinators able to lead that collective, co-ordinated UN development response. What resources are the Government putting in to One UN funds that force agencies to work together to deliver the prioritised response that countries need?

In our more financially difficult times, and given what the hon. Member for Strangford asked, what action is the Minister taking to encourage the UN to drive savings? For example, does every UN agency continue to need its own procurement or human resources function, as savings could be reinvested in the front line of the development and humanitarian effort?

Lastly, the World Bank is a distinct and different part of the UN family, but it is part of that family, too. It could do more, more quickly, to help countries to plan their response to disasters and could certainly do more to help disaster risk reduction work and assist countries to pre-plan their response to a disaster. The World Bank remains, however, far too Washington-focused. More of its staff with more devolved power need to be based in the developing countries that they are seeking to help. I would welcome hearing whether the Minister shares that view.

The UN is a remarkable group of organisations with remarkable people in key parts of the humanitarian and development systems doing a very important job and doing it well, but to be ready for the challenges of rising numbers of people being affected by natural disasters, it needs to continue to reform. It will do so only with the help of constructive and critical friends such as the UK. The UK, in turn, will be that consistent and constructively critical friend only if Ministers continue to take a profound and abiding interest in the two issues of UN humanitarian system and UN development system reform. I recognise that the Minister must reach his own judgment on the different elements of those reform agendas, but I hope he is interested enough to want to reach such a judgment.