Definition of Islamophobia

Kirsten Oswald Excerpts

Thursday 9th September 2021 Westminster Hall

[Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Murray. I am grateful to the hon. Members for Peterborough (Paul Bristow) and for Bradford West (Naz Shah) for securing this debate, and for their excellent speeches, as I am for all the excellent speeches today.

As an officer for the all-party parliamentary group on British Muslims, I am always struck by what a fantastically constructive cross-party space that group is. With our collective purpose and determination, we have much to be positive about. That is just as well, because there is much to do and a great distance to travel.

Some people ask me why we need to define Islamophobia. We have to be clear about what we are talking about, what is acceptable, and why. We cannot effectively deal with Islamophobia if we and others are not confident of what it means. That matters, because we need to develop that understanding more widely. People need to know what Islamophobia is, why it is a problem, how it manifests itself, and, vitally, the impact that leaving this terrible stain on our society untackled has on far too many individuals in our communities.

We have heard the figures from Tell MAMA: there has been an increase of 700% in Islamophobic incidents. That is horrendous, and I sincerely hope that the UK Government are listening. It may be uncomfortable to confront the reality that society, even now—especially now—is Islamophobic and intolerant, but we need to acknowledge that if we hope to drive change. That is why we need the UK Government to step up and shape up.

Recently, I was pleased to receive an email from Peter Hopkins of Newcastle University; he authored a powerful report on Islamophobia in Scotland, working with the Scottish Parliament’s cross-party group. Hon. Members will, I suspect, be used to me patiently explaining how Scotland is a brilliant place. It is, of course, and I am proud to represent one of the most religiously diverse constituencies in Scotland. However, it would be a mistake to suggest that Scotland is some unique haven of tolerance, or that we, uniquely, are not affected by Islamophobia. We need to be grown up about this, and about our politics. Accepting that Islamophobia is an issue is vital. I am particularly glad that the Scottish Government has the leadership of Nicola Sturgeon on this, because I know that she is absolutely unflinching on this issue, and that really matters.

We should take heart from the people in Kenmure Street in Glasgow, who came out of their houses at Eid and stopped the Home Office from deporting their neighbours. There are things to be positive about, but we must also look hard at ourselves and recognise the reality that much progress remains to be made. A big driver in my support of independence is the opportunity for equality, respect and fairness to be the building blocks of the country. However, as we move to that, we need to act. That is why the adoption of this definition, and action, matter.

I recently had a very useful meeting, along with my right hon. Friend the Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford), with Zara Mohammed, the new general secretary of the Muslim Council of Britain. She is the first Scot, the first young person, and the first woman to hold that role. Zara is focused on, among many other things, the dearth of Muslim women in public life. She is absolutely right. We need far greater diversity, particularly where it would be most visible—in the higher reaches of public bodies, in leadership roles and in politics. Although I am very pleased that the Scottish Parliament is looking much more diverse this Session—I applaud all parties that contributed to making it so, and would particularly like to mention my colleague Kaukab Stewart, the new MSP for Glasgow Kelvin and the first Muslim woman elected to Holyrood—there remains a great deal to do, and Zara’s work will make a difference in that.

It is clear that women are disproportionately impacted by Islamophobia in many ways, and there are two issues to reflect on there. First, if we accept detriment to any minority group, we are opening the doors to detriment to others. Intersectionality is important, and, as the hon. Member for Coventry South (Zarah Sultana) said in her important speech, that interrelationship between different equality groups is important, as is, I would say, the relationship between different religious groups. On the same day that I met Zara Mohammed, I also met representatives from the Glasgow Jewish Representative Council and the Scottish Council of Jewish Communities. Those organisations have very understandable concerns about antisemitism, but were also keen to discuss working with Muslim colleagues, and shared concerns regarding Islamophobia and the impact of this intolerance on all our communities.

The intolerance is increasing, as is the normalising that we heard about from the hon. Member for Bradford East (Imran Hussain). There is a nasty, dark underbelly of bile, which is enabled by right-wing populists such as Trump and Farage, though they are not alone. That contributes, here and further afield, to the othering and mistreatment of Muslims. I must again reflect on the Prime Minister’s absolutely disgraceful comments about Muslim women looking like letterboxes. Those comments will have contributed to countless hardships and worse. They should not have been made. They are completely indefensible, and I struggle to understand how people can defend them.

Our Governments need to be alive to and focused on this issue, as do political parties. I am pleased the Scottish Government are taking this seriously, and that the SNP Westminster group adopted the definition of Islamophobia, but this is not political—or should not be. It should be about being part of a decent society—one to which our Muslim communities contribute immensely in Scotland, the UK and further afield.

Colleagues will wish to make use of their time, and it is important to hear what the Minister has to say, so I will conclude. So many Muslim groups in my area do really important work in our communities. We heard about all the amazing contributions made during the pandemic, but I want to put on record the immense amount of work that the Ahmadiyya Muslim community and the Scottish Ahlul Bayt Society did to support people in need during really difficult periods of the pandemic. Congregations such as those in the Woodfarm Education Centre and Langrig Road in my constituency offer vital support day in and day out.

I point out, as others have done, that this is a big issue across the world, but we need to start here by looking closely at ourselves. The fact that it is a big issue is all the more reason for us to take our position in this Parliament seriously and use it to drive forward change, so that we can better challenge Islamophobia, wherever it is. We cannot carry on as we are, so the UK Government should recognise that adopting a definition of Islamophobia is not only important, but increasingly urgent.

Oral Answers to Questions

Kirsten Oswald Excerpts

Monday 19th July 2021 Commons Chamber

[Robert Jenrick]

I wish my hon. Friend a happy birthday. I am delighted that the council put in a bid for Dinnington high street, where he and I met for the first time in 2019. He asks a very important question about what the Government will do for smaller towns across the country, particularly those in ex-mining and ex-steel communities—places that I know well in north Nottinghamshire and South Yorkshire. That is one reason that we brought forward the levelling-up fund, which I hope his constituency will benefit from. It does require councils such as Rotherham to step up and develop with their local Member of Parliament high-quality bids, so I hope it will do so in the years ahead for the other towns in his constituency.

[Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP)]

What recent discussions he has had with devolved Administrations on delivering the Government’s levelling-up agenda.

[Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)]

What recent discussions he has had with devolved Administrations on delivering the Government’s levelling-up agenda.

[The Minister for Regional Growth and Local Government (Luke Hall) [V]]

Levelling up all areas of the country remains at the centre of our agenda, empowering our regions by devolving money, resources and control away from Westminster. In March the Secretary of State and I met Ministers from each of the devolved Administrations to discuss UK-wide funding programmes. My officials will continue to hold discussions with their counterparts in the devolved Administrations as we continue to develop this important investment.

[Kirsten Oswald [V]]

The Prime Minister has previously said that a pound spent in Croydon is of much more value than a pound spent in Strathclyde. How can anyone in Scotland, or even anyone outside London, really trust the Prime Minister on his levelling-up agenda, which his own MPs seem somewhat uncertain of the meaning of, given his clear record of supporting investment in London ahead of investment in the rest of the UK?

[Luke Hall]

I am afraid that the hon. Lady’s question overlooks the facts. We are prioritising funding in the devolved Administrations by delivering £125,000 capacity funding for every single council in Scotland to help them work up strong bids for the UK community renewal fund, and to build a strong, lasting relationship with central Government so that we bond our precious Union together and help deliver the kind of infrastructure in Scotland that people want to see in every area. We are putting our money where our mouth is and putting that investment straight with the Scottish councils.

Employment Rights

Kirsten Oswald Excerpts

Tuesday 8th June 2021 Commons Chamber

[Paul Scully]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We need flexibility in the workplace, including so-called zero-hours contracts, for example. We know that the majority of people who work on zero-hours contracts like the flexibility. However, we want to ensure that we can clamp down on things like exclusivity contracts, which is why we banned those. It is important to get the balance right.

[Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP)]

The Minister just said that the UK Government will do whatever is needed to enhance and protect workers’ rights, but all he is doing on fire and rehire is to provide more guidance. That is shameful—guidance is not what is needed. We needed to hear about legislation to stop fire and rehire, to outlaw pregnancy and maternity discrimination, and to give flexible-working rights from day one to protect precarious workers, but the UK Government will plainly not do what is needed on employment. Does the Minister appreciate that what is needed now is to devolve this to the Scottish Parliament so that it can do what is needed?

[Paul Scully]

If the hon. Lady reads the ACAS report, she will see that there is a divergence and a variety of opinions, as well as a wider evidence base about the extent of use and how that is used. That is why we are coming up with a proportionate response. Clearly, the other issues she raises will be in the employment Bill when parliamentary time allows.

Redundancy Protection: Women and New Parents

Kirsten Oswald Excerpts

Wednesday 28th April 2021 Westminster Hall

[Dame Angela Eagle (in the Chair)]

I remind hon. Members that there have been some changes to normal practice to support the new hybrid arrangements. I remind Members participating or intervening virtually that they are visible at all times to each other and us in the Boothroyd Room. If Members attending virtually have any technical problems, they should email the Westminster Hall Clerks’ email address. Members attending physically should clean their spaces before they use them and as they leave the room. I also remind Members that Mr Speaker has stated that masks should be worn in Westminster Hall.

[Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP) [V]]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered extending redundancy protection for women and new parents.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dame Angela, and to raise the important issue of extending redundancy protection for women and new parents.

Regrettably, as in so many areas where progress is needed, Scotland is being held back from taking action due to employment law being reserved to Westminster. Without power over employment law, Scotland is not able to legislate to protect women and new parents from discrimination and unfair redundancy. Scotland should not have to wait for Westminster to act to prevent widespread redundancy discrimination, and I look forward to the time when we do not have to do so.

However, despite the lack of progress to date, I acknowledge the work undertaken by many Members of this House on a cross-party basis and by organisations such as the Equality and Human Rights Commission, going back many years. In 2015, the commission published research that revealed that one in 20 new mothers are made redundant during pregnancy or maternity leave, or on their return to work. That shocking statistic reveals a disturbing level of disregard on the part of some employers for the needs of women, children and new families.

The following year, the Taylor review into modern working practices highlighted further research that confirmed that the majority of employers expressed a willingness to support pregnant women and new mothers. The report commented favourably on the finding that more than 80% of employers felt it was in their interest to support pregnant women and new mothers. However, women might be less enamoured with the finding that at least one in 10 employers, and possibly as many as one in five, are not willing to support pregnant women and new mothers.

The detailed findings show a disturbing level of acceptance among employers and managers that discrimination against women on the basis of their decision to bear children or their caring responsibilities is acceptable. All the following views were endorsed by at least a third of the employers and managers interviewed for the research:

“During recruitment, it is reasonable to ask women if they have young children”,

and about their plans to have young children;

“During recruitment, women should have to disclose whether they are pregnant”;

“Women should work for an organisation for at least a year before deciding to have children”;

“Women who become pregnant and new mothers in work are generally less interested in career progression than other employees”.

Many of those interviewed claimed to have seen at least one pregnant woman “take advantage” of their pregnancy, and regarded pregnancy as putting an “unnecessary cost burden” on the workplace—quite shocking. Given that those attitudes and views are widely held among employers and managers, is it any wonder that pregnant women and new mothers are so widely discriminated against in the workplace?

I am sure the Minister is familiar with the proverb, “It takes a village to raise a child”. It is 25 years since Hillary Clinton highlighted that, in our modern and highly urbanised society, the underlying premise of that proverb is perhaps truer now than it has ever been. Of course, children are vital to the future of our society and our economy, with declining birth rates, increasing life spans and ever-more dispersed families. Perhaps, whatever we might think in our ever-more digital world, we are collectively becoming more dependent on community networks and wider society than ever before.

How can those interrelationships and that long-term intergenerational benefit work, though, if the first thing that happens to an expectant woman or a new mother is that she loses her job and her family’s ability to raise a child is compromised? However, unfortunately, as the research shows, far too often that is indeed what happens, so I hope it is accepted by the UK Government that no one should have to fear losing their job because they become pregnant. Surely that must be a given.

Between employers and Governments, effective arrangements should be in place to support women and their families through the potentially life-changing process of pregnancy and child rearing. However, under current arrangements, women only have enhanced protection from redundancy until they return from maternity leave, and the evidence is that this protection is not working. All the protection means is that a woman on maternity leave can be made redundant, but must be offered an alternative job above anyone else being made redundant if another job exists, which can prove a very big caveat.

The current law does not stop employers using pregnancy as an excuse for a piece of cost-cutting, as demonstrated by the case of Jessica—which is not her real name. Jessica, whose case was disclosed by the campaign group Pregnant Then Screwed, had a well-paid job, became pregnant, and was made redundant on the day she was due to return from maternity leave. The day before she was due back, which was during lockdown, she received a text telling her to not go into the office, but to be available for a video call with a senior manager. During that call, she was told that she was being made redundant. She had been back at work for all of 30 minutes. She is convinced that the firm simply wanted to cut its staff budget, and by going on maternity leave, she had unknowingly self-selected for redundancy. What a way to treat a member of staff, and what a welcome to the world for her child, into a family now burdened by unaffordable debt and forced to move out of their home, and with a mother whose mental health and career are in tatters.

As an employee of the company, Jessica might have had some chance of arguing a case for discrimination, although the costs and hurdles associated with attempting this would, and do, put most people off trying. On the other hand, Mandy, whose case was highlighted by the Taylor review, had no chance of doing so, because legal protections in the UK are so heavily and deliberately weighted against workers who are not direct employees. Mandy had worked for a bank on a zero-hours contract for several months. However, when she informed her employer that she was pregnant, her hours were reduced to zero; in effect, she was summarily dismissed with no recourse. Mandy is one of those pregnant women and new mothers who have borne the brunt of the increasing casualisation of the UK workforce. She found out that employment status, whether as a direct employee, self-employed, or as a limb (b) worker, is important, because it dictates entitlement to some key maternity and parental rights. Those in the growing number of insecure forms of employment can find their rights greatly diminished, reducing or eliminating their entitlements to maternity and parental pay and leave, health and safety protection, time off for antenatal appointments, and rights to return to work.

The “Insecure Labour” report produced by Maternity Action in November 2020 spells out some of the implications of casualised or insecure work on women workers, and pregnant women and new mothers in particular. Heather Wakefield, chair of Maternity Action, said that the report

“paints a shocking picture, which requires swift and radical action by Government, employers and trade unions to halt the damaging impact of casualisation on the working lives and wellbeing of pregnant women and new mothers.”

Cases such as Jessica’s and Mandy’s are not isolated incidents, certainly not during the pandemic. Last summer, Pregnant Then Screwed conducted research involving almost 20,000 pregnant women and mothers. It found that 10% of pregnant women said that they had been made redundant, or expected to be in the next six months. More than half said that their pregnancy was a factor. Some 11% of women on maternity leave said they had been made redundant, or expected to be in the next six months, and more than 60% said that their maternity leave was a factor. Almost 13% of women who had recently returned from maternity leave said that they had been made redundant, or expected to be in the next six months. Two thirds said that their maternity leave was a factor.

Further research that Pregnant Then Screwed conducted in March and April of this year suggests that the situation is worse this year than it was last year. Surveying 16,000 pregnant women and mothers, it found that 30% believed they had experienced discrimination from their employer during the pandemic. Clearly, if the protection is not working as it should, that is something that should have been addressed long before now. The SNP has been pressing the UK Government to act to protect pregnant women and new mothers facing discrimination and unfair treatment in the workplace, yet five years on from the EHRC research, the UK Government have so far failed to take the necessary steps to prevent redundancy discrimination. Surely the UK Government would agree with the need to protect pregnant women and new mothers.

In 2016, the Women and Equalities Committee recommended the UK Government implement within the next two years additional redundancy protection throughout pregnancy and maternity leave and for six months afterwards. In 2017, in their response to the Committee, the Government indicated that the current position was “clearly unacceptable.” Yet, here we are—four years on and no further forward. Had the UK Government implemented reform within the timeframe proposed by the Committee, many women would have been spared unfair redundancy and discrimination prior to and in the aftermath of the pandemic.

In the absence of action by Government, last year the right hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mrs Miller) introduced a ten-minute rule Bill on pregnancy and maternity redundancy protection, which is still awaiting Second Reading. The Bill seeks to

“prohibit redundancy during pregnancy and maternity leave and for six months after the end of pregnancy or leave, except in specified circumstances; and for connected purposes”.

The SNP wholeheartedly supports the Bill. It is extremely disappointing that the UK Government have yet to put their weight behind it.

Earlier this year, Jamie Hepburn MSP, the Minister for Business, Fair Work and Skills in the Scottish Government, wrote to the Minister responding today, outlining the Scottish Government’s support for a range of reforms to support women and families, including extending redundancy protections for women and new parents. The letter makes clear the Scottish Government’s support for the Bill. It has also been endorsed by Maternity Action, which said that the Government should strengthen redundancy protections by immediately adopting the Bill as its own and expedite it into law.

Commenting on the current law, Rosalind Bragg, director of Maternity Action, said:

“The current law on redundancy and maternity is complex, poorly understood and difficult to enforce.”

She highlighted that women often find the person covering their maternity leave is kept on, while their role is made redundant, and described that as

“a classic case of unfair and unlawful redundancy”.

Maternity Action recognises that it may be impossible for pregnant women and new mothers to devote their energy and finances to pursuing employment tribunal claims, which is why it is important that the timescale for pursuing such claims is extended from three to six months.

Shamefully, due to the UK Government’s inaction on redundancy protection, women across the UK are facing a new wave of pregnancy discrimination and unfair redundancies as the furlough scheme winds down and employees try to return to their jobs. After years of the Government failing to deliver on their commitment to act, urgent legislation is now needed.

In April 2019, the UK Government accepted the need to extend redundancy protection for six months once the new mother has returned to work, afford the same protection to those taking adoption leave and extend redundancy protection for those returning from shared parental leave. It is now time for the UK Government to act and I look forward to seeing those proposals reflected in the Queen’s Speech on 11 May.

If the Minister is able, I am also keen to hear his thoughts and the Government’s plans to protect women and new parents in their employment in the context of the pandemic and the future of work. As we move out of the immediate crisis of the pandemic, some things are very clear. For instance, unfortunately, jobs and job security will be an issue and concern for many people. We cannot simply throw women and new parents on a jobs bonfire post pandemic. Employment protections, equality provisions and flexibility are all areas where, although in-roads have been made, they are not nearly enough. We must accept the need to go further.

Rather than aiming to go back to the old normal, the Government must consider fair work, the future of work, and what jobs and work will and should look like. All of us lose out when we restrict the talent pool by putting unnecessary barriers to work in front of women and new parents. An unthinking return to the same old, same old would be a real lost opportunity to do things differently and to take a lead on the employment policies and practices and structures that will make work possible for women, new parents and those with caring and other responsibilities. Things like the right to request flexible working from the start of a job would make a vast difference to many employees, and would support employers, too, in adopting the working practices and environments that will allow the talents of all employees to properly shine through.

I look forward to the Minister’s response on these and the other points that I have made today.

Oral Answers to Questions

Kirsten Oswald Excerpts

Monday 19th April 2021 Commons Chamber

[Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP)]

What recent discussions he has had with the devolved Administrations on the (a) levelling-up fund and (b) UK shared prosperity fund.

[The Minister for Regional Growth and Local Government (Luke Hall)]

Along with the Secretary of State, I met the Minister for Trade, Innovation and Public Finance in the Scottish Government last month to discuss the levelling-up fund and the UK shared prosperity fund. We will continue to engage with the devolved Administrations and, importantly, with local authorities and communities in Scotland directly and wider public and private sector organisations to ensure that funding is used to best effect and to support citizens right across the country.

[Kirsten Oswald [V]]

A joint statement by Ministers from the Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish Governments criticised the UK Government for using the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020 to bypass devolved Administrations. Is it not the case that the UK Government intend to use levelling-up funding to shore up support for the Union and to undermine the very basis of devolution? If not, what are the Minister’s plans to devolve the funding within the framework of the devolution settlement?

[Luke Hall]

I can confirm that we want to do everything possible to enhance and protect our precious Union. We will work with communities directly in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland to deliver this important funding. We have already committed to providing capacity funding to local authorities in all the devolved Administrations, to get them started on preparing for these funds. We are excited about working with them, and they are excited about working with us on delivering these funds. We have had huge interest from councils and communities that want to work with us to deliver real and lasting change for their communities, and that is why there is such a high level of enthusiasm and engagement.

Holocaust Memorial Day 2021

Kirsten Oswald Excerpts

Thursday 28th January 2021 Commons Chamber

[Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP) [V]]

It is a privilege to speak in this debate and I have been very struck by the contributions from across the House. This is one of the most important dates in the parliamentary calendar because of the importance of understanding exactly what happened during the holocaust and what continues to happen in genocides around the world and, as the theme for this year’s debate would have it, to “be the light in the darkness”. Light is much needed during these difficult times. We need to be mindful that, along with the many obvious challenges and worse that living through a pandemic brings, there is also the fact that it makes everything more fragile. Democracy and the normal strands of life that hold us all together are all the more fragile because of the strains of the pandemic. That means that we have to be ever more watchful, mindful and vocal. As the wonderful girls of the Giffnock Guides, who I visited on a Zoom screen recently, emphasised to me, we must look out for each other, and be kind. 

It is my great privilege to represent the majority of the Jewish population in Scotland, as the MP for East Renfrewshire. The diversity of my small community makes us so much the better and is so valued by those of who live here, and the light that some of my fellow East Renfrewshire citizens have shone on the holocaust has been so important. I know the House will join me in expressing my sorrow on hearing of the death last week of Judith Rosenberg of Giffnock. Judith survived the horrors of Auschwitz, where she was taken when she was snatched away at only 22 from her perfectly ordinary family life. She endured indescribable horror and inhumanity, but somehow had the strength of character to share her experience with others so as to help to prevent this from happening again. She said:

“When I was a child, my father taught me that all people are equal, that it doesn’t matter who or what race they are, they are just people.”

Judith worked so hard to make that a reality, and I know that her tireless work made a huge difference to so many people. She will be much missed. 

Henry Wuga and his late wife Ingrid also hold a very dear place in the hearts of so many people in my local area and far beyond. Ingrid, who was a lovely woman, was also a remarkable influence on so many people. She sadly died last year, and I know we would all wish to share our condolences with Henry, a fellow Kindertransport child, with whom she spent 75 years of happy marriage and a remarkable joint commitment to sharing their testimony with thousands of schoolchildren. I have had the privilege to see some of that work at first hand, and I know the impact that Henry and Ingrid have had, sharing with kindness, clarity and decency the terrible horrors of the Holocaust and the need to challenge prejudice and hate. I know that the House will also share my great admiration of Henry as he continues with this work.

We all need to understand the horror of this murder of millions and millions of innocent people. There were more Jews murdered than the entire population of Scotland. The lessons in that for us all bear repeating again and again. That is why the work of organisations such as the Holocaust Memorial Day Trust and the Holocaust Educational Trust matters so much. I am very grateful to Karen Pollock, who is tireless in pursuing ways to engage our young people. I met my local education director last week and discussed the wide range of important work going on in East Renfrewshire schools to make sure that, at every stage in education, young people confront, understand and learn the lessons of what happened. This is not, and must not be, a one-day-a-year endeavour.

It is sadly true that this is probably more important now than ever, in this fractious, anxious time, when covid and the shadow of Trump and others loom large, fostering the othering, the hate, the misinformation and creating fertile ground for those with ill intent. None of us should kid ourselves that this cannot happen now. We need to raise our eyes across the world, as well as looking at ourselves. My constituent, Kirsty Robson, along with Jaya Pathak and Joe Collins, young people who have set up the excellent organisation Yet Again, know this and have been working hard to shine a light and to tackle the terrible realities of communities experiencing genocide today, such as the Uyghur Muslim population in China. I am really grateful for their recent focus on the surely inarguable fact that we should not engage in trade deals with nations engaged in genocide.

The young people in East Renfrewshire are very focused on these issues. Holly Edgar, influenced by the Gathering the Voices project, wrote a hugely thought-provoking piece about her visit to Auschwitz, which I published on my website this week, reflecting on the Lessons from Auschwitz project. That focus on all these voices, the individual people and what happened to them is so important—the terrible, all-consuming hatred whipped up against communities, persecuted and murdered because they were Jewish, Roma, gay, disabled, different. That must be a warning from history to us all, and we must have no truck with deniers and minimisers.

I visited Yad Vashem, the World Holocaust Remembrance Centre, a few years ago. The focus there is on all those individual people, families, photos of lovely children, ordinary-looking mums and dads, killed because they were different or other, and what I saw there will never leave me. There were so many little everyday things, including combs, shoes, glasses—that was all that was left. I saw the sheer ordinariness of the things, the people, and then how the creeping hatred and antisemitism spilled over, and the unimaginable horror that followed.

So we need to commit, and we must always focus on being the light. I will conclude by reflecting on the words of Jane Haining, who is a personal hero of mine. Jane was a Scottish teacher, working in Budapest at the time of the holocaust. She stood with her Jewish students in the darkest of times. Jane died in Auschwitz because she refused to leave her students to face their fate alone. She said:

“If these children need me in days of sunshine, how much more do they need me in days of darkness”.

That is the light that we need to think about. That is the spirit that we need to reflect on. It is an issue for all of us, and we need to step up.

United Kingdom Internal Market Bill

Kirsten Oswald Excerpts

Report stage & 3rd reading & 3rd reading: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Tuesday 29th September 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. I wish to inform the House that I shall call the Minister at 6 pm to respond to this lengthy debate in five minutes, and then the questions will be put.

[Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP)]

This Bill is shameful and the Conservative party is shameless. The Bill is misconceived, ill-advised and designed to wholly override any notion of devolution. The Welsh Government have described it as

“an affront to the people of Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, who have voted in favour of devolution on numerous occasions.”

The Bill seeks to break international law and to break devolution.

One of the many vexing things about this brazen, law-breaking, power-grab Bill is when the UK Government try to suggest it is not so or that there is nothing to be concerned about, as if we should just disregard clear, undisputable facts. Just look at clause 46: it is a mucky muckle power grab. Plainly, the UK Government either know perfectly well what they are doing and they are intent on breaking international law, undermining the Northern Ireland protocol and stripping powers away from the devolved Administrations, or they are utterly and shamefully incompetent. It has to be one of those two things, or perhaps both. What it cannot be, and what is frankly an insult to the intelligence of people watching this charade in Scotland, is the nonsense that some Conservative Members engage in when they suggest that, despite all the evidence to the contrary, their UK Government is somehow exceptionally above international law. That is the dangerous exceptionalism that sits at the heart of the Bill and that is what lies behind their plans to break international law and ride roughshod over the devolved Governments.

We will all suffer for it if the UK Government have their way, because—look at clause 48—these plans open the door to their race to the bottom, to bargain-basement Britain. That is regardless of the many voices calling for them to change tack—the Scottish Government, the Welsh Synod, the Northern Irish Assembly, the General Teaching Council for Scotland, the NFUS, the STUC, former Prime Ministers and the Chair of the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee. I could go on all night. In the eyes of the UK Government, they are all wrong. I am afraid that is not credible. This Trumpian truth-twisting is all part of their plan to ride roughshod over the law, the Sewel convention and Scotland’s ability to make the decisions that are right for the people of Scotland. Of course, that holds for Wales and it holds for Northern Ireland, as we heard last week when we were discussing part 5.

I have not agreed with the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May) on many occasions, but she hit the nail on the head last week when she called the UK Government out on their disregard for law and good faith. This UK Government cannot be trusted. They cannot be trusted on Scotland, on devolution, on standards and on upholding international law. In fact, the Bill shows they cannot be trusted at all. It is no wonder that the Scottish Government are unable to recommend legislative consent.

We were told that we should lead, not leave, that we are a partnership of equals. Actions speak louder than words, and the actions of this reckless UK Government speak loudly and clearly of the pressing need for Scotland to steer another course as far away from the direction of the UK Government as possible.

[Aaron Bell (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for East Renfrewshire (Kirsten Oswald), although I fear there is very little common cause between her speech and mine. The internal market is a shared asset, and we all want it to work effectively. As we recover from covid, we must ensure that our economy becomes stronger than ever. That is why the Government have introduced this legislation: to guarantee the continued functioning of that internal market, to ensure that trade remains unhindered in the UK. That is why I support the Government amendments and the Bill as a whole, and I urge the House to reject the Opposition amendments.

It is apparent that we need a clear state aid policy that resides in Westminster, because, as much as the SNP likes to pretend this is the English Parliament, all parts of the UK are represented here, and this place is the only place with the legal and moral authority to act on behalf of the whole of the United Kingdom. Also, our ability to develop trade relations with other countries depends on our having a co-ordinated approach to state aid across our own country, the United Kingdom.

I do not believe that the Bill, or any of the specific provisions in question, undermine our commitment to the Good Friday agreement. Rest assured that those of us on this side of the House remain fully committed to the provisions of that agreement. We will not allow it to be undermined by any possible failure of negotiations, nor by any bad faith interpretations of clauses in the Northern Ireland protocol, and I pay tribute to the speeches from my hon. Friends earlier in the debate.

I will touch on the controversy over the key clauses in part 5: clauses 42, 43 and 45. I am no lawyer, and there are many Members in this House more learned than I am, but it seems to me that international law is breached all the time. The recent actions of the French navy in the channel breached the UN convention on the law of the sea. Where was the pearl clutching from the Opposition Benches then? The German Constitutional Court ruling in May set aside a ruling of the European Court of Justice and brought that international law into question. The European Union itself was only too happy to set aside its own treaties when the stability of its own union was put at risk during the financial crisis.

It seems, as my constituency neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash), put it earlier, international law is, in fact, a mixture of law and politics; I think he said it was 40% the former and 60% the latter. That does not mean that we should not be mindful of our international reputation, but our friends and allies around the world would not expect us to accept bad faith interpretations of the Northern Ireland protocol. They would not expect us to impose unreasonable restrictions on our own internal sovereignty.

That is why the clauses are in the Bill. They are, as my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office said, a safety net in the event of a failure of negotiations. I believe, too, that they strengthen our hand in those negotiations. The people of Newcastle-Under-Lyme expect their representative to stand up for them, but they also expect him to stand up for Britain, and that is what I am doing by backing the Bill.

I do not believe, therefore, that Government amendment 66, which is now incorporated in clause 54, was strictly speaking necessary, though I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill), whose amendment inspired it. However, I believe that incorporating that amendment was wise, because by leaving the final decision about these matters in the hands of this Parliament we are making it clear where sovereignty in these matters, and in this country, truly resides.

United Kingdom Internal Market Bill

Kirsten Oswald Excerpts

Tuesday 15th September 2020 Commons Chamber

[Neale Hanvey]

The way that I reconcile it is that I am talking about democracy and the hon. Member is talking about trade, and I would say that democracy is slightly more important than trade.

The Bill would make Scotland’s Parliament and our law meaningless and smash devolution. And what of the protestations of this Government’s man in Scotland and his self-congratulatory talk of a power surge? It is crystal clear now that the only power surging is to the CMA, to the Office for the Internal Market and to the Secretary of State in Scotland.

[Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP)]

I wonder whether my hon. Friend agrees that the protestations that there is some kind of power surge are simply incompatible with the suggestion that the Office for the Internal Market will be set up in such a way as to enable it to lie above the powers of the Scottish Parliament.

--- Later in debate ---

[Joy Morrissey]

I will carry on. On that point, the EU’s threat to disrupt our food exports from mainland Britain to Northern Ireland as negotiating leverage fundamentally undermined our credibility and our sovereignty within the United Kingdom itself. The Bill will strengthen our ability to create—

[Kirsten Oswald]

On the point about credibility, does the hon. Lady think it is just possible that the reason that credibility has been lost is because of her Prime Minister disagreeing with himself rather than for any other reason?

[Joy Morrissey]

You say it was mentioned by the SNP earlier about wanting to throw off the bureaucratic chains and wanting to have democratic representation, but that is exactly why I voted to leave the European Union, and that is why I will fight to make sure that we have a regulatory system that has less red tape and that has representation. We talk about democratic representation, but we are representing the will of the people who voted for Brexit in one referendum and we are delivering the result. Scotland also—[Interruption.]

--- Later in debate ---

[Cherilyn Mackrory]

If I may, I will make some progress. I wish to talk about similarity with the Committee on Climate Change, which spoke to all the devolved Administrations and gave advice to all of them. From that advice, this Westminster Government have formed the Environment Bill, and I am happy to be serving on that Bill’s Committee—I hope it will sit later this autumn. That Bill is facing very little opposition in this place, because it is what we are calling a “broad framework”, and the semantics can be decided after, in this place and by experts in the field. Although I take a great interest in environmental issues and am passionate about them, I am not an expert and I would not expect to be. I hope that those specifics—the targets and everything else being met by that Bill—will be decided with much input from those people.

[Kirsten Oswald]

I do not know whether the hon. Lady is aware that Scotland has more stringent targets on net zero emissions than the rest of the UK. So if there were a conflict over a new project, does she think the Scottish Parliament would simply have to accept a ruling from the OIM and break its own environmental commitments by doing so?

--- Later in debate ---

[Alexander Stafford]

I have just given way, so I will make some progress first. I am mid-flow.

As I was saying, any services that are authorised in one part of the United Kingdom may be offered without any additional authorisation in all other parts of the UK. Professional qualifications issued in one part of the UK will also be recognised in all parts of the UK. This makes it easier for us to trade and work between our four great nations. The SNP’s amendment 28 goes against the fairness and terms of the Bill, and it will make trade and equality harder for everyone.

For centuries, our internal market has been at the heart of the UK’s economic and social prosperity, and it has been a source of unhindered and open trade across all four countries. Our internal market predates all other economic unions, and it has been uniquely successful in pushing forward economic progress and prosperity across the country. This Bill provides businesses with the certainty they need to grow and thrive. What is more, business organisations agree that the Bill, unamended, does so. The CBI has said that protecting the UK internal market is essential, and the Scottish Retail Consortium has said that protecting the UK internal market will mean that Scottish consumers benefit enormously. Are we honestly saying that if the amendment is accepted, Scottish consumers will benefit more? I do not think so. If the voice of business says this, we should listen to them. We are, after all, Conservatives—the party of business. Business will make us prosper.

I turn to some substantive clauses of the Bill and the nub of today’s discussions. This Bill will see the creation of an independent Office for the Internal Market within the Competition and Markets Authority. It will be a British body monitoring British trade, putting mutual recognition and principles of non-discrimination at its heart—equality. If we are to continue with the levelling-up agenda, we must welcome the OIM, so that we have a body that ensures effective competition in every aspect of the country. It will provide balanced oversight and, ultimately, a central point for the different Parliaments to plug into, thus binding us closer together. In other words, everyone will get a say. The Parliaments and Assemblies of the country will get together to talk and work through difficulties. We will not be pulling apart; we will be coming together under this body, and that will strengthen us. That is why the SNP do not like this Bill. As the hon. Member for Stirling (Alyn Smith) said, they want independence, and they want us not to come together. Under this Bill, we will all come together.

[Kirsten Oswald]

The hon. Gentleman can correct me if I am wrong, but he has just suggested that the Scottish Parliament and other bodies would come together under this new office. May I clarify if that is really what he is suggesting?

[Alexander Stafford]

I will clarify that I believe this organisation brings the parties together so that we can discuss and get through any issues that arise. Of course, there will be issues and differences of opinion, but this body allows us to talk in a good way. We have heard antagonistic rhetoric from many different parties on both sides of the House, but with this body, we will talk as equals.

Holocaust Memorial Day

Kirsten Oswald Excerpts

Thursday 23rd January 2020 Commons Chamber

[Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to speak in this debate today on behalf of my party, and to have the opportunity to stop and reflect, as we all must do. The theme of this year’s Holocaust Memorial Day is “stand together”. Those of us in this House who have been a part of these debates in the past are particularly aware of why that is so important. I think hon. Members also agree that we owe a debt of gratitude to Karen Pollock and her team at the Holocaust Educational Trust for their excellent work, which influences so many people and does so much to increase awareness and an understanding of why we need to stand together.

I am very fortunate to represent East Renfrewshire, which is home to the majority of the Jewish population in Scotland. We, as an area and as a country, are so much the better for the rich diversity of communities like mine. Our Scotland is, and must be, a Scotland for people of all faiths and none—a home for all of us. The theme of the debate today has to be a stark reminder to us all that we must all challenge antisemitism wherever we see it—standing together, standing up against hate and speaking out.

That made me reflect on some of the people I know in my own community who are known and admired for the immense work they have done on holocaust education to ensure the next generations, those coming after them, understand exactly what happened and what can happen when we do not stand together against hate. I was fortunate to meet Ingrid and Henry Wuga when they visited a local school to talk to the young folk about their experiences of the holocaust. They are amazing—I am sure the House will join me in congratulating Ingrid Wuga, who was recently awarded the British Empire Medal—and a huge influence on everyone they come across. These are the voices we need to listen to.

It is so important for our young people in particular to hear that kind of testimony, so that they know what went on. A holocaust does not just suddenly happen: it builds up gradually and bit by bit. Intolerance and hatred become the norm, and they grow. So our language and our actions matter. We need to be very clear about that and about the responsibilities we have in this place. We must stand together. We must influence others to do so and we must call out hatred wherever it exists. It cannot be allowed to grow and fester unchallenged.

[Jack Dromey (Birmingham, Erdington) (Lab)]

The hon. Lady is making a very powerful speech. Does she agree that those who fan the flames of hate and antisemitism, who engage in conspiracy theories and who deny the greatest crime in human history, which was the holocaust, are themselves a disgrace to humanity?

[Kirsten Oswald]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. I will come on to talk about education, which is really important in making sure that people are aware. That is why education and an understanding of history matter so much. It is why projects that allow us to capture the testimony and the voices of survivors are so important, too. I visited the Scottish Jewish Archives Centre at Garnethill a while back, and was struck by the huge value of that facility. I encourage anyone who can to visit and increase their own knowledge and understanding. It is a remarkable place.

[Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)]

I am glad my hon. Friend has been to visit the Jewish Archives Centre in my constituency. I encourage everybody to go and visit. Was she as struck as I was, when looking at some of the personal effects of Jewish people—their passports and their personal belongings—at just how quickly things can change and how quickly hate can rise? There is still so much we have to learn about how to stop and prevent that.

[Kirsten Oswald]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. We all need to reflect on that. We have a responsibility to recognise hate when we see it. We have that responsibility to call it out, because things can change very quickly.

That point connects to education, which the hon. Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy) also spoke about. Educational visits are very important. Many young Scottish people now visit Auschwitz, including the group accompanied by Nicola Sturgeon, our First Minister. Such visits are vital in making sure that there is no doubt, no denial, and no loss of the focus on what happened.

There are others, too, working on that and making a great impression on those around them with their focus and their drive to ensure we have a full understanding of the horror of the holocaust and how it came about. The work of impressive young Scottish women like Danielle Bett and Kirsty Robson mean those coming after us will know and will remember.

When I was in this place in a previous parliamentary Session, I was very fortunate to visit Yad Vashem, the World Holocaust Memorial Centre. I will never forget that and I am sure that nobody who visits ever does. It was the little things that stood out and affected me profoundly. Seeing the photos and the names, the people who were killed were not just numbers—although they amount to more than the entire population of Scotland—but people just like you and me. They were ordinary people torn from their everyday lives into unimaginable horror.

It was the everyday things. I lost my own mum just before I visited Yad Vashem. I was utterly shattered to see on display a pair of glasses that someone had kept, which had belonged to their mum who had died in a concentration camp. She had kept her mum’s old broken glasses with her, and had kept them on her person until the end of her own life, because they were all she had of her. These wee things are the big thing, in a way, because they remind us that this is about all those individual people wiped away by the holocaust. All those people.

It is worth remembering that Holocaust Remembrance Day and Burns night fall just about together. I think Burns could speak for all of us here today when he said:

“Man’s inhumanity to man

Makes countless thousands mourn!”

Burns was very big on solidarity, too:

“Man to Man, the world o’er,

Shall brothers be for a’ that.”

That is all about standing together. That focus on standing together and standing up for what is right is very important in my local community, and our public representatives of all political colours recognise that.

Today, if this debate had not been taking place, I would have been at the funeral of a woman very focused on standing up for everyone in our local community. I am sure that hon. Members will join me in remembering the life of Liz Carmichael, the wife of former East Renfrewshire provost, Alastair Carmichael, who worked very hard on holocaust memorial during his time in office.

That focus on others was also a guiding light in the life of Jane Haining, who hailed from Dunscore but died in Auschwitz when she refused to allow the pupils that she taught at a school in Budapest to be sent there alone—she insisted on going with them. Her dedication to those children—her commitment to standing together—is a lesson for all of us. When she wrote of her decision to be with the children, she said:

“If these children need me in days of sunshine, how much more do they need me in days of darkness?”

There is an increasing need now for us to recognise that darkness and to live our lives with Jane Haining’s spirit of compassion and solidarity. We need to stand together and be relentless in our commitment to doing so.