International Women�s Day
Liz Saville Roberts Excerpts(2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
I am honoured to speak in this debate in advance of International Women�s Day on Saturday 8 March, which I will be celebrating with the all-women steam train crew at Rheilffordd Talyllyn railway in Tywyn.
International Women�s Day remains as relevant now as ever. We, and the generations of women who have come before us, have achieved so much since the first International Women�s Day in 1911, but we still have a long way to go. When we talk about a gender-equal society, let us be clear about where we mean: in the home, in public spaces, in the workplace.
Here in Westminster, we celebrate that 40% of this Parliament are now women. Indeed, we were taking a photograph just yesterday morning to that effect. In the Senedd, the cross-party women�s caucus has been re-established �a bold show of force between women across the political divide. Those are positive steps towards a gender balance but not necessarily towards gender equality, including equally safe workplaces, which I will speak about now.
Members will know that a 2023 TUC poll found that three in five women have experienced sexual harassment, bullying or verbal abuse in the workplace. Reports of sexual assault, rape, stalking and coercive control from colleagues make up around 50% of calls made to the Rights of Women sexual harassment at work advice line, but as it stands, protections are limited.
The Worker Protection (Amendment of Equality Act 2010) Act 2023 created a preventive duty for employers to take reasonable steps to prevent sexual harassment in the workplace, but an automatic investigation into a breach of that duty only takes place after an individual successfully brings a claim of sexual harassment, and many other forms of gender-based violence in the workplace are excluded.
Meanwhile, the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974, which is so familiar to employers, places a duty on employers to ensure the health, safety and welfare of employees at work. Why not use the toughest mechanism we have in the workplace to tackle workplace gender-based harassment and violence too? That is exactly what my Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 (Amendment) Bill, developed with the brilliant Suzy Lamplugh Trust and Rights of Women seeks to do, alongside new clauses 39 and 40 to the Employment Rights Bill, which would have the same effect. I hope that hon. Members will consider supporting those new clauses.
My Bill would introduce clear, actionable duties for employers to protect workers from violence and harassment, including risk assessments, policy development and the provision of recognition and prevention training to all employees. Those boring-sounding things would make a difference in the workplace and to people�s lives. The Bill would mandate the Health and Safety Executive, which does not currently consider gender-based violence a workplace hazard and is not viewed as the primary authority for bullying, harassment or domestic abuse in the workplace, to develop and publish an enforceable health and safety framework on violence and harassment in the workplace and to issue guidance for employers. Leveraging health and safety legal frameworks that are already in place would require employers to actively work towards eliminating gender-based violence, while establishing a systematic and publicly enforceable approach to the prevention of, and safeguarding from, the spectrum of gender-based violence in the workplace.
If these are the differences we wish to make�differences to women�s lives in the workplace�let us use all the powers we have at our disposal and make them work for women more effectively than they presently do. Let�s use all our powers. I hope everyone enjoys International Women�s Day on Saturday.
Police Grant Report
Liz Saville Roberts Excerpts(1 month, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dame Diana Johnson
The national insurance increases that were announced in the Budget are fully funded in the settlement.
I think I saw the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Liz Saville Roberts) rise.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
The Minister talks of increasing the draft settlement—[Hon. Members: “Answer the question!”]
Dame Diana Johnson
If hon. Members want the exact figure given to police forces to cover national insurance contributions, it is £230 million.
I will now give way to the right hon. Lady.
Liz Saville Roberts
The Minister talks of increasing the draft settlement, but extra funding for Welsh police forces only plugs the gaps left by the Labour Welsh Government reducing police community support officer funding in recent years. Plaid Cymru PCC Dafydd Llywelyn tells us that 56% of Dyfed-Powys police funding now has to come from local residents. Surely the time has come to review police funding in Wales and have devolution of policing on the table.
Dame Diana Johnson
Issues such as the precept in Wales are obviously a matter for the Welsh Government. There is general agreement that a number of Members are concerned about the police settlement. It is historical; it is what we inherited from the previous Government. I know that the previous Government had two attempts to reform the formula and did not do so. I will come on to talk about that in a moment. However, I just want to go through some of the figures so we are all clear about what is being announced today.
I have just set out the £1.1 billion extra being made available to policing in the next financial year. That funding is based on the assumption that PCCs make use of the full precept flexibility of £14 for English forces—I know that is different in Wales. That measure provides important flexibility that could result in an additional £329.8 million in funding should all forces choose to fully utilise it. It is important to make clear, however, that those decisions are ultimately made at the local level.
I will now come on to the neighbourhood policing commitment. Neighbourhood policing is the bedrock of our policing model. Every community deserves visible, proactive and accessible neighbourhood policing, with officers tackling the issues that matter most to those areas. Under previous Conservative Governments, neighbourhood policing was slashed in communities across the country and more than half of the public now say they never see a bobby on the beat. Shockingly, that number has doubled since 2010, eroding community confidence and leaving people feeling less safe. Sadly, over the 14 years of those Governments, as I have said, neighbourhood policing was decimated, with the number of PCSOs halved and the number of special constables reduced by two thirds. That has dire consequences for public safety and public confidence.
Over the 14 years of the Conservative Governments, too many town centres and high streets across the country were gripped by an epidemic of antisocial behaviour. We are at the highest levels of shop theft for a generation, and that is corroding our communities and cannot be allowed to continue.
Child Sexual Exploitation and Abuse
Liz Saville Roberts Excerpts(2 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
The Labour Welsh Government are responsible for child safeguarding in Wales, and the Home Secretary said that none of the independent inquiry’s 20 recommendations was implemented by the previous Tory Government. Six recommendations applied to Wales, but no new actions were taken there either. Given that her statement rightly puts victims and survivors first, will she tell me how victims and survivors in Wales will now be able to demand a culture of real change?
Yvette Cooper
Many issues obviously cut across, including issues around policing that apply to England and Wales—for example, the police performance framework that we are talking about, and some of the data issues that we are talking about—so we need to work with Welsh police forces and the Welsh Government on taking the measures forward. They are immensely important, because part of the problem has been that there is no sense of what is actually being measured and what will actually change. What are the performance standards that we expect from all police forces right across the country? If those do not exist, too little changes in practice. A performance management framework has been missing from Wales, as well as from across England, and that is what we are determined to introduce.
Tackling Stalking
Liz Saville Roberts Excerpts(3 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
Diolch yn fawr iawn, Dirprwy Lefarydd. I welcome the measures announced today. I also want to take the opportunity to pay tribute to Rhianon Bragg, who I understand the Minister has met. She has been a tireless campaigner, in spite of extraordinary and horrific experiences. I also pay tribute to the Suzy Lamplugh Trust and its work.
I welcome what the Minister said about Cheshire constabulary; I visited the unit there. Specifically in Wales, for us to be able to establish multi-agency units within police forces, we will have to recognise that part of the membership, such as the psychologists, will be funded at a devolved level through health. Can she assure me that that will be possible for the four forces in Wales?
Jess Phillips
First of all, I must pay tribute to Rhianon. If Members of the House are not aware of her case, what she has been through is harrowing and she continues to campaign. We pay such tribute to all those who speak up to try to make things better for other women, even if in their cases that ship has sailed. That is an amazing thing.
I want to assure the right hon. Lady that there should be nothing stopping the same multi-agency situations happening in Wales any more than anywhere else where local health authorities give out funding. We will never solve the issue of violence against women and girls unless every part of Government, including at delegated, local level, takes responsibility. That is certainly a postcode lottery at the moment.
Violence against Women and Girls
Liz Saville Roberts Excerpts(3 months, 3 weeks ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
It is a fact that sexual harassment and violence happen in the workplace, yet protections for workers are limited. The Worker Protection (Amendment of Equality Act 2010) 2023 is a laudable effort in creating a preventable duty for employers to take reasonable steps to prevent sexual harassment in the workplace, but as enforcement can only take place after an experience of sexual harassment, the Act is limited in its protection of workers from different forms of violence. We need more robust measures and better employer accountability. The brilliant teams at the Suzy Lamplugh Trust and Rights of Women agree, and together we are presenting a Bill that seeks to do just that—the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 (Amendment) Bill.
My presentation Bill would address a gap in the law after the UK ratified the International Labour Organisation’s convention 190 in 2022. It introduces clear, actionable duties for employers to protect workers from violence and harassment through risk assessments, policy development and training. It brings sexual harassment and violence into protections already in place for health and safety at work and under, importantly, the regulatory oversight of the Health And Safety Executive, which will be mandated to create an enforceable framework, holding employers to account.
All means should be at our disposal to both mitigate and ultimately stop gender-based harm. The Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 already places a duty on employers to ensure the health, safety and welfare of employees at work, but it is 50 years old and does not explicitly mention gender-based violence. Harnessing the toughest mechanism we have in the workplace would establish a structured approach to safeguarding women at work and make a tangible difference. I should be very grateful if the Minister would respond at the close of this debate to that proposed Bill.
Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill
Liz Saville Roberts ExcerptsTuesday 12th December 2023
(1 year, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Act 2024 View all Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Act 2024 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
Let us not beat abound the bush: this Bill is in retaliation and is a crass payback for the Supreme Court’s decision on 15 November that the Government’s Rwanda asylum plan was unlawful. It sets a dangerous precedent. It undermines the democratic contracts of the state while also undermining what constitutes the truth. Declaring something to be true does not make it fact. Evidently, this Bill also undermines the UK’s international treaties and conventions, including the European convention on human rights, with which the Home Secretary has stated that this Bill might not comply. Sections 2, 3 and 6 to 9 of the Human Rights Act 1998 are also disapplied.
The UK Government are acting hypocritically by requiring the Rwandan Government to abide by the standards of international law while disapplying them for themselves. This Bill does reputational damage to the UK at home and abroad. The Government may say that others have set a precedent for this Bill, but that argument is flimsy. The UN Committee against Torture has expressed concerns about Denmark’s intentions to move refugees elsewhere. Israel abandoned its agreement to send Eritrean and Sudanese asylum seekers to Rwanda and Uganda, having been halted temporarily after legality challenges.
This legislation faces a series of hurdles, each likely to bring it down, and it comes at an unforgivable price—it has reportedly cost £240 million so far, with another £50 million agreed. Then we heard from the Secretary of State that there will be another £50 million and then yet another £50 million on top. It is in no way possible to justify this, given the cost of living crisis that we face.
No matter what the UK Government believe, Rwanda has been proven not to be a safe country for people seeking asylum. The Bill fails to address key issues raised by the Supreme Court, including human rights issues. Refugees have historically been ill treated after expressing criticism of the Government, with new provisions, such as the appeal body, untested. Fifteen Rwandan nationals have been granted protection since 2020, and this Bill excludes Rwandan nationals from its scope. How is that compatible with any definition of a safe country?
Under this Bill, anyone who arrives in the UK without a legitimate visa and has travelled via a “safe country” would be subject to removal, but what about people fleeing conflict zones who are unable to access documents such as passports and visas as embassies close down? What about the many Afghan men and women who were a crucial resource to the UK Government, and who have been left stranded and in peril? Where are the safe and legal routes?
This Bill is an affront to Plaid Cymru’s values and Wales’s aim of being a true nation of sanctuary. We are proud to be on the side of equality and want every person to have the same opportunities and the same access to justice, resources and services. We want to end recourse to public funds conditions, and allow all migrants and people seeking asylum access to the public services they require. How that is found to be contentious by the UK Government is beyond belief. Instead of engaging in electioneering and distraction policies, the Government should be expanding safe routes to ensure that fewer people decide to take the tortuous journey across the channel and at the mercy of smugglers.
To close, I refer to a model that Professor Emyr Lewis of Aberystwyth University uses when he is teaching public law. It illustrates the legislative supremacy of the UK Parliament through an imaginary potential Act: the Location of Aberystwyth (On the Moon) Bill. If an MP were to promote such a Bill and the Government were to support it, it would become law and no court in England or Wales could overturn it, but the reality of the location of Aberystwyth would remain utterly unchanged. When we are talking about the potential of the Bill to change the reality, I think we would do well to learn the lesson of Professor Emyr Lewis.
Net Migration Figures
Liz Saville Roberts Excerpts(1 year, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Robert Jenrick
My plan would have been brought to the House before last Christmas if I could have done that, but let us hope we can bring forward a substantive package of reforms very quickly. I am working intensively with the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary. We are at one on this issue. I hope my hon. Friend will not be disappointed.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
The main driver of the ONS net migration figures is healthcare professionals. According to the Royal College of Nursing, 53% of nurses registered to practise in October had been trained internationally. The only in-patient ward at Ysbyty Tywyn Hospital has been closed since April because it cannot get staff. High visa fees are already a red tape barrier to filling vacancies. In claiming credit for cracking down on visas, will the Minister also take responsibility for shutting down hospital wards?
Robert Jenrick
I think the right hon. Lady is rather overdoing the hyperbole. We are on course to meet our manifesto commitment to increase the number of nurses here in the UK. A significant proportion of those have come from overseas, but the sustainable answer to the problem of recruiting nurses, in the right hon. Lady’s constituency and everywhere else, is to train more of them in the UK, rather than reaching out to developing countries and seeking to bring their nurses here.
Hate Crime Against the LGBT+ Community
Liz Saville Roberts Excerpts(1 year, 5 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Stephen Doughty
I thank the hon. Member for his support, which is genuinely welcome. The cross-party group that we have here today reflects the wide concern across the House at recently released statistics.
I will refer to my own experiences, which are sadly all too common for others. I have been assaulted with a homophobic element in my own constituency in broad daylight. I have been told online by somebody that he would sort me and my issues out while I was at football, while posting pictures of me dressed up at Pride. I have been called a “faggot” while walking along Queen Street in Cardiff. Like many other members of the community, I have worried whether it is safe to kiss my boyfriend or hold his hand on the bus or the tube. Even as a parliamentarian on an overseas trip, I was told to my face that people like me are detested.
In National Hate Crime Awareness Week, rather than belittling the impact of hate crime or suggesting that it is a “woke” irrelevance, it is critical that we look into the impact that attacks are having on the community, across the country, against people who just want to love who they love, live as themselves and get on with their daily lives. In the UK in 2023, the place of LGBT+ people in society, and their safety and wellbeing—is it really such a difficult thing to ask?—simply should not be contested notions, be up for debate or, worse, lead to violence, intimidation or assault; and yet here we are.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this incredibly important debate. The figures from my local police force, North Wales police, are staggering: the number of hate crimes based on transgender identity has surged by 771%. When we bear in mind that it is likely that only one in 10 hate crimes are reported, that gives us a sense of the level of suffering and the sheer size of the problem that we have to deal with.
Stephen Doughty
The right hon. Member is absolutely right to highlight not only the increase, but the context of significant under-reporting. We all ought to be shocked.
This is Hate Crime Awareness Week, and the reality is that hate crime remains stubbornly high across the piece. Not least in the current context, given the despicable incidents of antisemitism and Islamophobic hate crime, we must rightly focus on religious hate crime, and race-related hate crime remains stubbornly high. That is before we consider the less looked-at but equally important disability-related examples or, of course, the widespread epidemic of violence against women and girls.
Despite a slight year-on-year fall in sexual orientation-based hate crimes, the total number of anti-LGBT+ hate crimes remains well above 2018 levels, with 28,834 recorded this year, a net increase of 217% since 2017-18.
Stop and Search
Liz Saville Roberts Excerpts(1 year, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Suella Braverman
I do not consider the use of stop and search, when done lawfully, to be racist. What I do consider to be disproportionate and unjustifiable is that black people are four times more likely to be murdered than white people and that young black men are more likely to be victims of crime than young white men. That is the disproportionality, that is the disparity I am working to stop.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
Last year, a response to a freedom of information request revealed that the gap in the stop and search rates between white people and black people was greater in Wales than in England. We do not know the latest rates, however, as the Home Office does not provide regular Wales-specific data on stop-and-search rates by population. Before the Home Secretary pushes for further use of stop and search in Wales, will she commit to regularly publishing Wales-specific data so we can properly understand the effect of this policy on our communities?
Suella Braverman
My announcement today is all about increasing the levels of data that are reported by police forces so that we can have a clearer picture of exactly how these important powers are being used.
Public Order Act 2023
Liz Saville Roberts Excerpts(1 year, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
The hon. Lady is making a powerful argument about the effect on innocent bystanders. The Public Order Act; the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022; voter ID—the list of anti-democratic laws passed by the Conservatives grows longer and longer, and there will be many innocent bystanders affected. The Tories have not won a general election in Wales for well over 150 years, and these laws therefore have no mandate from the people of Wales. My party wants to create a fairer justice system that truly serves our people. I am sure she agrees that if justice were devolved to Wales, as is the case in Scotland, many of these authoritarian new laws would never be able to be applied by this Government in Wales.
Alison Thewliss
I absolutely agree with the point that the right hon. Lady is making on behalf of the people of Wales who are affected by this Act.
The point about innocent bystanders—
Chris Philp
My hon. Friend makes two very good points, both of which pre-empt what I was going to say, but let me come to the official Opposition. They obviously voted against the Bill on Third Reading and at various other stages during its passage, yet the Leader of the Opposition, just a week or two ago, said that he now did not favour its immediate repeal and wanted to see how it beds in. I do not know how the Opposition will vote today. It is of course entirely possible that there will be another U-turn, although I must say that two U-turns in three weeks is quite a lot even by the standards of the Leader of the Opposition, so we will have to see what they actually do.
On the wider point my hon. Friend makes, I completely agree. We on the Government side of the House of course accept that peaceful protest is a fundamental human right. We of course accept the article 10 and article 11 rights, and this Act is compliant with those obligations. However, when it comes to people who are not simply protesting, but deliberately and intentionally setting out to disrupt the lives of their fellow citizens in a way that is deliberate and planned—for example by gluing themselves to a road surface, dangling themselves from a gantry over the M25 or walking slowly down a busy road—they are not protesting, but deliberately disrupting the lives of their fellow citizens. We say that that is not fair and is not reasonable. We say that that goes too far, and I believe the British people agree with us. It sounds as though the Opposition may do so as well these days, but that seems to change from one week to the next.
Liz Saville Roberts
Somebody has got to say it: how does the Minister respond to the fact that I as a woman am here as an MP in the House of Commons only because of people having undertaken very disruptive protests?
Chris Philp
Of course, the suffragettes, at the time they were protesting, did not have the vote and were not represented in Parliament. These days, we have a universal franchise, and everybody over the age of 18 who is a citizen is entitled to vote and stand for Parliament in a way that the suffragettes could not. That is the fundamental difference between the suffragettes and adults in this country today. People who are deliberately disrupting the lives of citizens are seeking to achieve by disruption and direct action what they cannot achieve by argument and democratic election, and that is wrong.