Oral Answers to Questions
Johanna Baxter Excerpts(1 week, 5 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister
The hon. Lady is right to raise rural areas, and that is why we have put record investment into our local authorities and our NHS across the country, including in Shropshire.
Johanna Baxter (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)
My constituent and Scottish football superfan Craig Ferguson has just returned home after walking for 108 days across 3,000 miles in the United States to raise funds for Scottish Action for Mental Health. He has raised over £1 million. I know this is an issue that the Prime Minister cares about very deeply, and I thank him for his leadership. Will he join me in congratulating Craig and everyone who supported his actions to raise money for mental health?
The Prime Minister
I join my hon. Friend in paying tribute to Craig. I believe there is a famous Scottish song about walking 500 miles and then another 500, but to surpass that is an amazing achievement. We all pay tribute.
Oral Answers to Questions
Johanna Baxter Excerpts(3 weeks, 5 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Ian Murray
I do not agree with my hon. Friend about the policy. We are putting £86 billion into research and development, including astronomy and space science, including a record £38 billion for UK Research and Innovation. Of that, £14.5 billion is for curiosity-driven research because we know that there is no route to stronger growth in this country than through significant investment in science, innovation and tech.
Johanna Baxter (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology (Liz Kendall)
Our economy loses around £3.5 billion a year because women leave the tech sector or change jobs due to barriers that should not exist. That is bad for women and for the tech sector because it loses out on their skills, talent and experience. It is why our women in tech taskforce is addressing the systematic barriers that prevent women from entering, progressing and leading this vital sector.
Johanna Baxter
Evidence suggests that AI tools used in recruitment often favour male names almost five times more than female names, and AI models built to prevent liver disease are twice as likely to miss the disease in women. Does my right hon. Friend agree that unless we have women shaping this technology, it will continue not to deliver for women? Can she outline Government plans to address those biases while encouraging more women in Paisley and Renfrewshire South to join the sector?
Liz Kendall
My hon. Friend is right that the bias in technology highlights why we need more women building it. We want more women in tech and more tech that works for women. That is exactly why we launched the women in tech taskforce. We will publish the results of its call for evidence next week. We have had a fantastic response, but we are not waiting to take action: we are launching a new tech first girls programme for 12 and 13 year olds, to help advance women’s careers by giving them minimum six- month placements, and we are putting our own house in order by ensuring Government Departments, such as the Ministry of Justice and the Home Office, help software developers return to work after 18 months.
Oral Answers to Questions
Johanna Baxter Excerpts(1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Darren Jones
I thank the hon. Lady for taking the opportunity to pursue further Liberal Democrat policies; she is quite right to do so. She will know of the constitutional principles that mean we cannot bind our successors. I am sure that whoever is in the relevant ministerial role will happily answer that question in due course.
Johanna Baxter (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)
The Barnett formula, introduced in 1978, is often misunderstood, but it has delivered hugely for the constituents of Paisley and Renfrewshire South. In fact, since this Government were elected, the Barnett formula has seen the highest uplift in funding for the Scottish Government in the history of devolution. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Barnett formula is a vital mechanism to ensure that my constituents receive their fair share of public sector funding? Will he reassure them that it is here to stay?
Darren Jones
My hon. Friend is right. The Barnett formula plays an important role in ensuring fairness in public spending across all the nations of the United Kingdom. She is right to point out that we have given a record-breaking level of money to the Scottish Government, but it is the responsibility of the Scottish Government to spend that money effectively. People in her constituency and across Scotland have seen that the SNP has failed to spend that money wisely, and we should continue to hold it to account.
Infected Blood Compensation Scheme
Johanna Baxter Excerpts(1 month, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Clive Efford
I will touch on that and I will make that very point. There are areas of evidence required that are unreasonable. I thought we had agreed that that sort of evidence would not be asked for.
In his statement on 14 April, the Paymaster General announced, for all those claimants who can demonstrate to the Infected Blood Compensation Authority that they meet the criteria, that all care and financial loss claims can be backdated to 2017, when the special category mechanism was first established. The community of people I have spoken to feels strongly that compensation must cover actual costs, whenever they occurred, and that there should not be an arbitrary cut-off date of 2017.
On the issue of evidence, which the hon. Lady just referred to, the Government did not accept the inquiry’s recommendation for IBCA to be less stringent on overall evidence for the psychological harm award, and instead advised that people apply to the special category mechanism award. There is concern that the evidence threshold will be too high, and the Government should allow IBCA to be more flexible and compassionate in considering claims of psychological harm through the special category mechanism.
The communities consistently pointed out that the current scheme penalises those who died before the compensation scheme came into force. The Paymaster General did not address that issue in his statement earlier this year. The compensation scheme must pay the estates of those who died young for the harm and losses suffered, and end such a clear injustice.
The current scheme has not enabled family members who gave up work to be compensated for the sacrifices they made in their lives and the opportunities that they lost as a result. The supplementary compensation scheme should enable carers to claim the actual financial and personal losses that they have suffered as a result of providing care.
My constituent Mary Grindley wrote to me on that issue:
“I understand that the Cabinet Office is considering a supplementary route to further compensation for the affected on top of the lump sum at present offered.
While considering this, please bear in mind many of us gave up our jobs and careers to look after our beloved ones often with little support. Also many had difficulty returning to work later or were too traumatised to do so. (I personally gave up work to look after my husband, giving up my teaching career. I tried to return after he died as my son was a minor and after two terms had a breakdown in the classroom in front of the children. I never worked again.)
Loss of earnings should be taken into account.”
She continued:
“Other considerations that should be taken into account—being unable to have a child or more children, loss of a proper marriage (we were told that if my husband infected me he could be put in prison), harassment at home and work (we had to move twice, once with the help of the police) to living in poor housing due to not being able to get insurance for a mortgage.
Regards, Mary Grindley”.
When we read testimonies such as Mary’s they bring home the multitude of wrongs that must be recognised.
There is a growing concern among the community about the pace of payments. After an upturn towards the end of last year, things have slowed down. There seems to be an upturn in IBCA’s demand for documentation, despite it being agreed previously that that would not be required from claimants. After so many years, some documents are impossible to find and such requests will slow down the system. In some cases, people have been asked to provide proof that they were living with their parents as children at the time of their claim. Will the Government instruct IBCA to alter its current stance on that requirement?
The people infected and affected have been campaigning for decades, and many are very elderly. Does the Minister agree that it is time that we set timelines to end the limbo that they have been left in?
Johanna Baxter (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech. Does he agree that the Government need to work with colleagues in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland to drive forward the final compensation scheme and address the concerns about timelines that he rightly talks about?
Clive Efford
Yes, where we can improve the system by working together, I think we should do it. That is absolutely right.
We welcome the introduction of an ongoing dialogue between the infected and affected community and the Government. That was lacking throughout the process, from when the Government started to set the tariffs and set up IBCA, and that led to a lot of mistrust. A two- way dialogue is needed if good relationships and trust are to be maintained and if we are to restore trust in the process.
We must learn the lessons of all inquiries and compensation bodies that the Government have had to set up. We must not keep reinventing the wheel every time an inquiry reports and makes recommendations.
Lord Mandelson Humble Address: Government Response
Johanna Baxter Excerpts(1 month, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Darren Jones
Thank you, Mr Speaker, but any encouragement is welcome. As I said to the hon. Gentleman, the documents relating to his questions are clearly set out in the bundle, and they speak for themselves.
Johanna Baxter (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)
It is very clear that Peter Mandelson should never have been appointed as our ambassador, and I know that we will all have Epstein’s victims in mind today.
It is right that the Prime Minister has called for the removal of peerages from disgraced peers. In view of the comments from the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Lisa Smart), can the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister confirm that the removal of peerages Bill, which appeared in the King’s Speech, will actually have teeth, and will enable us to radically reform the upper Chamber?
Darren Jones
We are concluding internal drafting of the peerages Bill, and will look to secure time to introduce it in this Session. I can assure my hon. Friend and the House that we want to introduce legislation that is effective and meaningful; that is certainly our intention.
Debate on the Address
Johanna Baxter Excerpts(2 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Ed Davey
The hon. Gentleman is right to mention those in Iran who have been persecuted by the appalling Iranian regime. I am sure that the Foreign Secretary will have heard that and will make as many representations as possible, but I accept that it is not an easy matter, given the regime in Tehran.
This is the 23rd Loyal Address that I have listened to in this House, and it is the most surreal by far. Everyone in this House and across the country knows that the Prime Minister may soon not be in power—not in place for his own programme and not able to deliver these promises. The votes on this King’s Speech ought to be interesting—a test of confidence in this Government and Prime Minister. The Liberal Democrats will be voting against it, but how many Members on the Government Benches will? By my reckoning, if every Labour MP who has called for the Prime Minister to go voted that way, the Government’s huge majority would be at risk. Let us see if they have the courage of their convictions.
The Liberal Democrats will be voting against it not just because the Prime Minister is now one of the weakest in post-war history, but because this King’s Speech does not offer the change our country needs. It does not offer the change needed to fix the insecurity that people and businesses are increasingly fearful of. It does not offer change to do with rising prices. People know that inflation in food, energy and fuel is set to rocket, but people do not think the Prime Minister has their backs on the economy. The financial and economic insecurity stalking our country is hitting growth, investment and jobs. We were promised change and a Government with growth as their mission, yet rather than change, we have had continuity from the failures that came before.
Faced with that calamity, what has the Prime Minister offered on growth? We have been offered an EU reset Bill that fails to reset. With a Prime Minister who knows a thing or two about failed resets, perhaps we should not be surprised. The Prime Minister’s refusal to remove his red lines on a new EU-UK customs union, to go further than his red lines on the single market and to deliver a new deep trading relationship with our European partners with a proper youth mobility scheme all mean that he is consigning our country to higher prices and lower growth and failing to address the economic insecurity plaguing our economy. Instead, we have been given taxes on jobs and the family farm tax.
Johanna Baxter (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)
Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Ed Davey
Not at the moment.
To be fair to the Government, some of our current economic problems stem from President Trump and his reckless war in Iran. Let us be absolutely clear: Trump’s war is stoking the cost of living crisis to new and alarming levels—fuel prices are up at the pump, food prices are set to go up even more, and people’s holidays are threatened. The Prime Minister’s biggest success was not taking us into Trump’s damaging war with Iran when the Conservatives and Reform were urging him to do so, yet because of the Government’s failure to build new and deeper economic alliances with Europe and the Commonwealth, as we have been urging them to do, this country is set to be hit far harder by the inflation caused by the situation in the strait of Hormuz.
Oral Answers to Questions
Johanna Baxter Excerpts(3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Johanna Baxter (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)
A happy St George’s day to you, Mr Speaker. Global turbulence has driven up the cost of living for my constituents. Can the Minister set out how closening trading ties with our closest allies through the EU reset will help bring down prices for my constituents?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
That is why the EU-UK reset is so important, as it will help us in bearing down on fuel bills and energy bills, which will help my hon. Friend’s constituents.
Security Vetting
Johanna Baxter Excerpts(3 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister
I have set out the procedure in some detail. Information should have been provided to me. It was not provided to me. If it had been provided, I would not have allowed the appointment of Peter Mandelson to proceed in the way that it did.
Johanna Baxter (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)
As we have heard, it is staggering that vital information on UKSV recommendations can be withheld from Ministers taking decisions. Can the Prime Minister assure the House that in the review he is commissioning, we examine whether there are any other instances in which UKSV recommends against granting DV status, during not just this Government but over the last 14 years? That has the potential to have very serious security implications.
The Prime Minister
I think that needs to be subject to the review, and that is among the reasons why I put the review in place.
Hatzola Ambulance Attack
Johanna Baxter Excerpts(4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dan Jarvis
The hon. Member makes an important point. He is right that it was sickening, but not surprising. He also made the important point, which perhaps has not been reflected on previously, about the truly international scale of the challenge. Yes, there are significant challenges that we are grappling with here in the UK, but that is a shared endeavour with our international partners; we want to work incredibly closely with them on it. His basic point about co-ordinating activity with the police around the country is a good and fair one. I will ensure that that activity is under way.
Johanna Baxter (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)
This was an appalling antisemitic incident, targeting those providing urgent medical care. It was not just a criminal act but a direct attack on our shared values of respect and tolerance. Emergency service workers should never have to fear for their safety. Will the Minister outline what immediate steps are being taken to reassure the Jewish community across the whole United Kingdom?
Dan Jarvis
My hon. Friend is right that it was sickening, and she was right to raise the important issue of reassurance. A reassurance operation will be under way, conducted by the Metropolitan police and other police forces around the country.
It just happens that the Community Security Trust is having its annual dinner this evening, and I know that a number of hon. Members will be attending. Important messages of solidarity will be delivered at that gathering by both Sir Mark Rowley and the Home Secretary. It is important that that event takes place.
Lord Mandelson: Response to Humble Address
Johanna Baxter Excerpts(4 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Darren Jones
Any communications that are subject to the Humble Address will be published in the second tranche.
Johanna Baxter (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)
The Prime Minister rightly called for the removal of peerages from disgraced peers, so could the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister tell the House when we might expect further updates on the proposed legislation?
Darren Jones
I think there is cross-party agreement that we should introduce legislation that removes life peerages from those in the other place who bring the House into disrepute or suffer a criminal penalty for their behaviour. That is why the Government are working to introduce legislation that not only deals with Peter Mandelson but is available as a sanction for others who behave in that way in the future. We are getting towards the end of this Session, but we are committed to bringing forward that legislation. We look forward to presenting it shortly.