Civil Partnerships, Marriages and Deaths (Registration Etc.) Bill

Maggie Throup Excerpts

3rd reading: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Friday 26th October 2018 Commons Chamber

[Tim Loughton]

The hon. Gentleman quite rightly spoke very eloquently and with his own personal experience in support of this part of the Bill on Second Reading, for which I was very grateful, and that was very effective.

As I say, I was not warned about this advance in Government policy by the Prime Minister, and I have not really been briefed since about exactly what it amounts to. At the moment, I have no idea whether the Government will now accept this new clause, will vote against it, or will allow debate to go on—perhaps beyond 2.30 pm today. Frankly, if there are objections from the Government, I hope they will be based on fact, not conjecture or some of the scare stories about what my new clause might actually achieve. However, I have been involved in some very helpful discussions with the lead officials in the Government Equalities Office on civil partnerships legislation, and of course the continued support of the excellent lead official from the Home Office on this Bill, Linda Edwards.

The problem the new clause addresses is that at no point have the Government indicated a timeline or a method for bringing the extension of civil partnerships into effect. Delay and obfuscation was a major criticism in the ruling by the Supreme Court earlier in the year. More than three months after the Supreme Court ruling, the Government have simply indicated that they will address the inequality by extending civil partnerships, rather than abolishing them. Abolishing them was never a practical option, but that confirmation is very welcome.

Four months on, the Government have not indicated a timeline, despite the urgency factor pressed by the judges. If we read the Supreme Court ruling, we can see that it absolutely highlights the fact that the Government could have acted before now. On several occasions, it refers to this private Member’s Bill and my previous one as a way of rectifying this matter. It actually criticises my private Member’s Bill for not being tougher in proceeding with a change in the law on a timeline, rather than just agreeing to have a report, which I had to do to get the Bill through Second Reading and into Committee.

My Bill, with the addition of this new clause, is actually very helpful to the Government on a number of fronts. It confirms in law that civil partnerships will be equalised and that the breach with the convention will be rectified. It gives a clear cut-off date for the Government to get on and do it, and it would be effective before the end of next year. If this change goes through, a couple who have been looking to have a civil partnership rather than a marriage—for all the reasons we have debated at length—could make plans from the end of next year to make that a reality. Many people have waited years, and the Government have been on notice about this for years. This is now the time to end the delay.

Crucially, the new clause makes no prescription about the method, wording and reach of the legislative change that is required; that is entirely up to the Government. I know there are some technical matters still to be settled, and I do not want to dictate to them how we achieve that. That is why this is a very flexible amendment to what is a very flexible Bill.

I am afraid that the Government have had plenty of time. Back in the Second Reading debate on 2 February, the then Minister stated at the Dispatch Box about this Bill:

“There is a sense of urgency—very much so.”—[Official Report, 2 February 2018; Vol. 635, c. 1122.]

Yet, since that time, the Government have not been able to report on the progress of the review work that was announced then, and they did not do so in Committee in July either. Indeed, I gather that the Government Equalities Office was given the go-ahead to undertake much of the review work only in the past few weeks.

I remind the House that that is on the back of two full-blown reviews in the past few years of the whole subject of extending civil partnerships. This must be the most over-reviewed piece of legislation that this House has seen for some time. Why has it all moved so slowly, not least since the Supreme Court ruling that made it inevitable that the law would have to change—and change quickly? I pay tribute to the Equal Civil Partnerships campaign and to the now well over 130,000 people who have signed its petition for a change in the law. They are understandably growing impatient, and despite the Government’s announcement, they are sceptical in thinking that the legislative changes will be kicked into the long grass.

I gather that the Government plan to bring forward primary legislation in the next Session. That has been indicated in a written ministerial statement released only this morning—at the last moment. I am always rather sceptical of ministerial statements from the Dispatch Box or in written form at the eleventh hour. However, even if there is primary legislation in the next Session, it might be 2021 before a couple could actually take advantage of a civil partnership, and that is only if it is in the Queen’s Speech and survives the vagaries of the parliamentary timetable, which is likely to be under huge pressure during the next Session from potential emergency Brexit-related legislation.

I am afraid, however, that is just not good enough for me, for campaign supporters—including those with life-limiting conditions who are desperate to formulate a relationship while they can—or indeed for the Supreme Court. My Bill is the cleanest and quickest way to change the law, to satisfy the Supreme Court and, most importantly, to address a significant pent-up demand from couples who have waited for this change and the chance of equality for a long time. I cannot understand why the Government have not more proactively used my Bill as a vehicle for achieving that right from the start.

Ministers have put it around that the new clause is flawed and unworkable, but neither is true. I have discussed its wording and terms at length with Clerks of the House and lead officials from the Government Equalities Office, and because of flexibility in the wording of the Bill and new clause, the timetable can be achieved by using a truncated six-week review process. Indeed, the Scottish Parliament is currently undertaking its own review into the extension of civil partnerships, and I am sure that it would not mind if we just nicked that. A ready-made “one we made earlier” is on the table, and with a little tweaking it could go into the consultation process in a matter of weeks. A statutory instrument could then be designed in the new year, to be drafted by parliamentary counsel and put before Parliament ahead of the summer recess. I know that will be tight and demand a lot from officials—frankly, those officials would be better placed if they had been allowed to get on with the work when the writing was on the wall some time ago. However, it can be achieved in a way that enables the law to allow opposite-sex couples to enter a civil partnership before the end of 2019. That is what the new clause would do. The statutory instrument route gives greater flexibility on a subject which, frankly, we have debated almost to death. It is less vulnerable to the vagaries of the parliamentary timetable than primary legislation.

[Maggie Throup (Erewash) (Con)]

Has my hon. Friend considered civil partnerships when the relationship is platonic, such as between siblings who live together, and how to protect their future?

[Tim Loughton]

My hon. Friend makes a fair point that has been raised several times. Indeed, an amendment to the Civil Partnership Act 2004 has been tabled in the other place to that effect. I have some sympathy with those changes, but for me they are largely a matter of taxation and an issue for the Treasury, because they mainly concern inheritance tax and other tax matters. My Bill is a social family Bill, and one reason for it is an attempt to cement family units and create greater stability for children—recognising a partnership in law, with all the protections that goes with that, is a good fillip for family stability. The point raised by my hon. Friend is a separate and largely financial issue, and I would be sympathetic to separate legislation that will not mess up my Bill but will address that point elsewhere.

--- Later in debate ---

[Maggie Throup]

It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Neil O'Brien), even though we perhaps do not agree on every point. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) on bringing this important piece of legislation to the House and getting it to this stage. It will strengthen how individuals and their loved ones are formally recognised in law at every level.

As I said on Second Reading, I see the Bill as very much like a pick and mix, but I do like the “hatch, match and dispatch” description of my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham. That is a good way to describe the Bill. Its provisions change the way in which marriages and stillbirths are recorded. They are small but important reforms that will make a huge difference to so many. In practical terms, the two events could not be further apart: one is supposed to be the happiest day of a person’s life, yet the other is probably the most tragic day of a person’s life.

I commend those brave colleagues from all parties who have spoken so openly about their own tragic personal experiences of baby loss, in the hope that they can further highlight the issue and give others the courage to do the same. Having talked to people throughout the House and in my constituency during Baby Loss Awareness Week a couple of weeks ago, I know that they have made a huge difference. It has been so powerful. Many colleagues have also spoken in this place about the loss of a loved one at a later stage in life. It is never easy to talk openly about such tragic events. Indeed, the right hon. Member for Belfast North (Nigel Dodds) shared his personal and very moving story in the Chamber just yesterday.

The two elements of the Bill are linked by the acknowledgment that a life existed, for however long or short that time may have been. Because these delicate pieces of paper, birth and marriage certificates, are often treasured by families for generations, they are part of social history and of our story. They often provide comfort to the bereaved when the person recorded on the certificate is no longer there.

On marriage certificates specifically, it is quite astonishing in the centenary year of the Representation of the People Act that this archaic example of inequality has not yet been righted. It is a matter of equality, as well as of family history and social history. Looking at my own family, my parents were married in 1950. Their marriage certificate states that my father’s father was a millworker, but there is no mention of my grandmother. It states that my mother’s father was a stoker on the railway, but there is no mention of my grandmother’s occupation on that side either. Sadly, I have no way of finding out.

Almost 70 years on, we have not moved on at all. To me, that is quite bizarre, which is why I welcome the measures that my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham has brought forward today and that other right hon. and hon. Friends, including my right hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Dame Caroline Spelman), have worked on in the past.

I support the Bill because every measure will achieve progressive changes that are well overdue, and changes that we can all be proud of.

Immigration: DNA Tests

Maggie Throup Excerpts

1st reading: House of Commons
Thursday 25th October 2018 Commons Chamber

[Maggie Throup (Erewash) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend alluded in his statement to guidance that was unclear or wrong. Can he assure the House that guidance for the new immigration system that will be put in place as we leave the EU will be correct and clear?

[Sajid Javid]

Yes, I am happy to give that assurance, and it is a perfectly fair question. When a Home Secretary stands at the Dispatch Box and says that there was wrong guidance in the past, one of the lessons that can be learned without needing a review is that we must be much more careful about guidance in the future.

Modern-day Slavery

Maggie Throup Excerpts

Tuesday 9th October 2018 Westminster Hall

[Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered tackling modern-day slavery.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms McDonagh. Before I progress with my short speech, I need to place on the record my thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker), who cannot be present this evening because he is away at the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. His chairmanship of the all-party parliamentary group on human trafficking and modern slavery does so much to ensure that this issue is always at the top of the political agenda.

I also briefly place on the record my thanks to the Co-operative party for pursuing the matter so vociferously. The Co-operative party has ensured that modern slavery is now taken exceptionally seriously both inside this place and outside. As a result of its vociferous campaigning, 30 local authorities have signed up voluntarily to a modern slavery charter that takes them above and beyond the requirements of the Modern Slavery Act 2015, which I shall talk about later. Clearly, a concerted political effort can ensure that we get safety for people fleeing horrible circumstances.

[Maggie Throup (Erewash) (Con)]

I apologise for intervening on the hon. Gentleman so early on, but I wanted to put something on the record as well: the great contribution made in the other place by Alastair Redfern, the Bishop of Derby, as we took the Bill through both Houses to become the Act. Without his dogged determination, we would probably not be sat in this Chamber today having this debate. He has actually just retired as Bishop of Derby, at the end of August. I am sure that putting that on the record will be well received by him and the people who worked with him.

[Gareth Snell]

It is true that where we are today is the result of a collective effort and political will across not only this House but Parliament as a whole. That is demonstrated not only by the number of Members present today but by how the matter has been pursued through APPGs, private Members’ legislation and amendments to various other Bills.

Foreign Fighters and the Death Penalty

Maggie Throup Excerpts

Monday 23rd July 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Wallace]

It is of course a general policy and principle that we will do what we can to help acquire or share evidence with our allies to bring to justice people who have perpetrated violence through terrorism or any other offence against citizens, whether our citizens or those of other countries. I will not talk about this individual case and the United States, but the reality is that we should, of course, work to make sure that people face justice, but that justice must be in line with international law and our values, and with the due process that should be awarded to people who are innocent until proven guilty.

[Maggie Throup (Erewash) (Con)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that any trial under any circumstance should always be fair and transparent because the relatives and friends of the victims deserve the best?

[Mr Wallace]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. Often in all of this—and, indeed, often in the media reporting—people forget that there are victims. The right place for the victims to see what is going on and understand the full picture is at a trial. That is why sometimes leaks in the media do not help anyone. Victims can certainly be upset when all these details come out in trials, and that is what we are trying to help by the sharing of evidence with the United States.

Amesbury Incident

Maggie Throup Excerpts

Thursday 5th July 2018 Commons Chamber

[Sajid Javid]

The hon. Lady asks another important question. There are no easy ways. Since the March incident we—not just the Government, but the wider responsible media, Members of Parliament and others—have learnt to call out misinformation whenever we see it. This misinformation is often directed not only at us or the British public, but at a wider international audience, so working with our international allies can also help.

[Maggie Throup (Erewash) (Con)]

From the statement today and statements after the March incident, it is quite clear that our agencies are world-leading and well recognised as being so throughout the world. Will the Secretary of State reassure the House that those agencies will have all the resources that they need to get to the bottom of this situation?

[Sajid Javid]

Yes. As my hon. Friend will know, a number of agencies and organisations are involved in addressing this incident—to deal not only with the criminal investigation, but the health issues—and I can give my hon. Friend that assurance.

Hate Crime

Maggie Throup Excerpts

Monday 12th March 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I am keen to accommodate colleagues, but I would just remind the House that there is a further urgent question after this, and then no fewer than four ministerial statements, so there is a premium on extreme brevity from Back and Front Benchers alike.

[Maggie Throup (Erewash) (Con)]

I, too, condemn the despicable letters that have been sent out. Following a recent incident in my constituency that I would classify as racial abuse, will my hon. Friend reassure my constituent and the whole House that that crime will be classified correctly and not just washed away and classified as a public order offence?

[Victoria Atkins]

Any such issue will be an operational matter for my hon. Friend’s local police force, but I know that she is a good advocate for her local community and I am sure that she will be asking searching questions of the police and the police and crime commissioner to ensure that that alleged offence receives the attention it deserves.

Vote 100 and International Women’s Day

Maggie Throup Excerpts

Thursday 8th March 2018 Commons Chamber

[Maggie Throup (Erewash) (Con)]

It is a great delight to follow the hon. Member for Coventry North East (Colleen Fletcher). As other Members have said, we may disagree when we are in this Chamber, but there are occasions when we agree. The hon. Lady and I have had some good conversations and discussions in all-party parliamentary groups, and we agree on many other issues, so I thank her for her words in support of ladies in Coventry.

I am delighted to be able to speak in this important debate, partly because the issue, as so many other hon. Members have said, is very important, but also because, even in 2018, too many women are not allowed a voice.

What are we celebrating? We are celebrating 100 years of the Representation of the People Act 1918. We are celebrating 60 years of the Life Peerages Act 1958, under which life peers of both sexes can be Members of the Lords—that was not possible before that Act. We are celebrating 90 years since the Representation of the People (Equal Franchise) Act 1928 was passed, which gave women electoral equality with men—in 10 years’ time, we will have even more celebrations, which is fantastic. It is 100 years since the Parliament (Qualification of Women) Act 1918. Later this year, on 14 December, it will also be 100 years since the 1918 general election, when finally women over 30 and virtually all men over 21 could vote in a general election for the first time.

In Erewash, we have had female representation since 1992, when Angela Knight was elected. She was followed, in 1997, by Liz Blackman; in 2010, by Jessica Lee; and, in 2015, by me. That is 26 years of Erewash being represented by women. I know for definite that, for half of those years, women were selected to fight the seat because they were the best, not because they were women. It is important that women feel able to put themselves forward for positions as Members of Parliament or on boards of directors, or for whatever role they want.

Let me talk about what else is happening in Erewash. Our current mayor is Councillor Mary Hopkinson, and the leader of Erewash Borough Council is Carol Hart. No one can doubt the excellent reputation Erewash has for female representation.

In previous debates on International Women’s Day, I have highlighted the great women in my constituency who are active today. I am always fearful that I will miss someone out, so today I recognise them in general for all the work they do. I also want to look back 100 years, because that is really what we are celebrating. I want to extol the virtues of another Erewash lady, who was alive 100 years ago. Dame Laura Knight was born in 1877, and she passed away in 1970. She was a highly acclaimed artist, who really embraced English impressionism. In her long career, Dame Laura was among the most successful and popular painters in Britain. She was created a Dame in 1929, and in 1936 she became the first woman elected to full membership of the Royal Academy—the Royal Academy was established in 1768, so it took a long time for the first woman to become a member.

During the first world war, Dame Laura was prohibited from painting her beloved coastal scenes, in case the artwork posed a security risk when it was displayed. Her husband Harold was a conscientious objector during the war and was required to work as a farm labourer as a result. They lived through a time when women were not represented and many men did not have representation either.

When we got to the second world war, Dame Laura was asked to produce a recruitment poster for the Women’s Land Army—once again, she played an important role in getting women involved and playing their part. In the aftermath of the war, Dame Laura was famous for her oil painting “The Nuremberg Trial”, which was reportedly greatly praised by those who had witnessed the trials, but not by those in the art world.

Dame Laura Knight—no doubt without realising it—broke many of the rules and the barriers put up by men. I am sure she has been a great role model to many people since, particularly in the art world. I am known in this House for pushing science, technology engineering and maths— STEM—subjects, yet I have just extolled the virtues of an artist. To me, however, this is all about breaking down barriers wherever they might be.

Growing up, I was an active girl guide, and I would like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to that organisation and all other youth organisations, whether for girls or boys, for the work that they do in our communities and for the real difference that they make. Each year, Girlguiding puts out an attitude survey, and the 2017 girls attitude survey shows some disturbing data. It shows that 64% of 13 to 21-year-olds have experienced sexual harassment in school in the past year. Sadly, that figure has gone up by 5% since 2014. The survey also shows that 55% of girls aged seven to 21 say that gender stereotypes affect their ability to say what they think, and that 30% of girls aged 11 to 16 think that computing is more for boys. In addition, 76% of girls aged 11 to 21 feel confident in their IT skills, but just 37% would consider a job in technology. There is a huge mismatch in that information, and it is really worrying. The survey shows that we have much more to do, and I hope that debates such as today’s will play a part in breaking down those barriers and letting girls know that they can do whatever they want.

We all want equality, and we all want the barriers to whatever we do to be removed, but it is also important that we have choices. It is important that we recognise the contribution made by those women who take the decision to dedicate many years to raising our future generations. My mum was one of those women who stayed at home to bring up her family, and I want to finish by repeating something that she said to me as I was approaching 18. Her words have stayed in my mind, and I remember them every time we get near to an election. Her words were more of an instruction. She said: “Women died for us to have the vote. Always vote.”

Salisbury Incident

Maggie Throup Excerpts

Thursday 8th March 2018 Commons Chamber

[Amber Rudd]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his comments. I reassure him that this Government have not been asleep at the switch, in terms of where our international enemies are. He refers to Russia. Separately from this incident, we have been very clear about our disagreements with Russia, particularly on Ukraine and Syria, and we have been outspoken in our criticism and our determination to take action—hence the amendment to the Criminal Finances Bill, and the considered amendments to the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Bill. We will go further, should there be need to do so.

[Maggie Throup (Erewash) (Con)]

I thank my right hon. Friend for her statement. Will she reassure the public that our renowned, world-leading facilities at Porton Down, where amazing scientific work is done, have the resources and capability to continue with the work that they have rightly been doing? They have been getting good results in the last few days.

[Amber Rudd]

Yes, and I thank my hon. Friend for giving me the opportunity to do exactly that: reassure the public that our facilities, support, scientists and expertise at Porton Down are world-class. I hope that gives the public, and her, the comfort that they need.

Civil Partnerships, Marriages and Deaths (Registration Etc.) Bill

Maggie Throup Excerpts

2nd reading: House of Commons
Friday 2nd February 2018 Commons Chamber

[Maggie Throup (Erewash) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Bedford (Mohammad Yasin). I commend the hon. Member for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson) for her powerful and emotional speech. She said she was not brave or strong. I completely disagree; she is very brave and very strong, and I thank her for her words. People in the House were moved, and I am sure that those watching her speech on TV were also moved. She made very important and powerful points, and I thank her.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) on bringing his private Member’s Bill to this stage. The way that he has brought four pieces of legislation together is ingenious. I have looked for the common theme, and I think that it is how individuals and their loved ones are recognised. I hope that he agrees. It is a pick-and-mix Bill, and I am going to pick a couple of bits to talk about today. I will speak to the first two clauses, on the registration of marriages and civil partnerships and the reform of civil partnership.

As other Members have said, my right hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Dame Caroline Spelman) and my hon. Friend the Member for Charnwood (Edward Argar) have been very vocal on and great advocates for the registration of marriages. It is so important to have our mothers’ names on our marriage certificates. My hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall (Scott Mann) said that he was not aware until he began to look at this that our mothers’ names are not on our marriage certificates. I am sure a lot of people are under the illusion that their names are included, and only when they look at the certificate after the event do they realise that the name of a very important person is missing. Our mothers form our early lives and our lives as we grow up and enter adulthood, and they play such an important role. I am sure they have also had an important role in putting together the wedding ceremony, only for them to be denied having their details on the marriage certificate, which I think is so wrong.

We are celebrating 100 years of women having the vote, which makes it even more bizarre that this has not been sorted out. It is a matter of equality, as well as a matter of family history and social history. So much information will be able to be gathered in the future if we include our mothers’ names on marriage certificates. My family is a case in point. My marriage certificate had my father’s profession as a timber merchant, but not what my mother did—she was a classroom assistant in a school for disabled children—after bringing up her children and as we got older. On the paternal side, my grandfather was included in my parents’ marriage certificate as a mill worker, but my grandmother, who was in service, is missing. On the maternal side, my grandfather was included as a railway worker, but, sadly, I do not know what my grandmother did, and I can no longer ask my mother, so that bit of social history is missing. What we are discussing will not only add to social history, which is so important, but demonstrate social mobility and address the equality side of things.

[Rebecca Pow]

My hon. Friend is making a very emotive point. Does she agree that this is very important not only on the social side—we seem to disappear if we are not on marriage certificates—but in these days of equality? We are going to celebrate 100 years of women having the vote and all of us in Parliament talk about equality, yet this situation is completely unequal.

[Maggie Throup]

If we look at this across the board, we see not only this inequity, but others. We need to look at such things in more detail to make sure that men and women—I include men in this—are equal because there are inequalities for both genders and we need to sort this out.

I agree that we need to look at the cost and make sure that any change is not made at huge cost to the taxpayer, so I welcome the way in which it has been proposed. That is so important, as is not losing a vulnerable certificate that means so much to so many people.

I will move on to the second part of my speech, which is on the reform of civil partnerships. I welcome the Minister’s words about more work being carried out. We are aware that civil partnerships were originally intended not as an alternative to marriage, but to provide a legal recognition of such relationships and access to the same legal rights. We need to make sure that, if we make any change in legislation to include heterosexual relationships in civil partnerships, we get it right.

If we look at the data on what is happening with civil partnerships, we find that almost half the people entering civil partnerships are now aged 50 or above, compared with 19% in 2013, so the way people perceive civil partnerships has changed. The average age of women entering civil partnerships is now higher than that of men, so we need to look at what we are trying to do and what gap we are trying to fill. The uptake of civil partnerships has now decreased dramatically. According to the data I have, approximately 6,000 women and 9,000 men entered civil partnerships in 2006, but the numbers of both types of civil partnerships are now down to three figures. We must make sure that we are actually providing the right mechanism for people to cement their relationships and the security they are looking for in the future. With a population of 84,000, there is a good cohort of people on the Isle of Man, where civil partnerships for mixed-sex couples are available, to look at to see what lessons can be learned, as well as what works and what does not work.

I thank the Minister for looking at this in more detail. We need to make sure we get right any changes we make. I know people will say that we are not rushing into this, but we do need to make sure that we are providing the right mechanism for the right people at the right time.

Modern Slavery Act 2015

Maggie Throup Excerpts

Thursday 26th October 2017 Commons Chamber

[Maggie Throup (Erewash) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy), who made some excellent points. I also want to pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister for her dedication when Home Secretary in starting to rid our nation of the evil practice of modern slavery and leading the way globally through the legislation she introduced.

The UK Modern Slavery Act 2015 is world-leading legislation. It is of paramount importance that other countries follow our lead if it is to be truly effective. My right hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Dame Caroline Spelman) highlighted the important role that the Bishop of Derby, Alastair Redfern, has played in driving the legislation to where we are today. My constituency is on the doorstep of Derby, and it was listening to the Bishop speak on the subject that inspired me to take more than just a passing interest in this issue. It is because of Bishop Alastair that I am here today speaking in this debate.

Bishop Alastair has been at the forefront of the fight against modern slavery, with the establishment of the Derby and Derbyshire Modern Slavery Partnership, before it developed into the Clewer Initiative. This collaboration of organisations across different sectors is drawn from both the city and the county. It aims to raise awareness and an understanding of what trafficking is, how traffickers operate and the experiences of victims. It is now seen as a model of best practice across the country. Nowhere is immune from the threat of modern slavery: it does not just happen in big cities. It is as likely to be happening in our local car washes and nail bars in our towns as it is in our major cities.

To give this important issue some context, research carried out by the Home Office in 2014 estimated that in 2013 the number of potential victims of modern slavery in the UK was between 10,000 and 13,000. Personally, I believe that this is an underestimate of the problem, as more and more people are becoming aware of this horrendous practice. More needs to be done to educate employers and their staff—I know work is being done on this—on how to identify people who may be modern slaves. A recent case in Derbyshire highlighted that issue. The figures represent not only victims trafficked into the UK, but British adults and children too. The National Crime Agency estimates that in 2013 the UK was the third-most common country of origin of identified victims. Modern slavery is happening on our doorsteps.

In today’s debate, I want to focus on the supply chain aspect of the legislation: the Transparency in Supply Chains—or TISC—part of the Bill. This aspect of the legislation applies to commercial organisations that operate in the UK and have an annual turnover over £36 million. Such businesses have to produce a slavery and human trafficking statement each year. The statement, which is placed on the company’s website, should set out the steps it is taking to address and prevent the risk of modern slavery in its operations and supply chains. As my interest in the subject has developed, I have read numerous slavery and human trafficking statements from some of our largest retailers and other businesses. I am saddened when I read some of the statements and realise that a proportion of businesses are still only paying lip service to the legislation and do not appear to really appreciate the important of making their supply chain slavery-free.

In the previous Parliament, I tried to introduce a private Member’s Bill that would have strengthened the current legislation. The Bill, which was first introduced in the House of Lords in May 2016 by Baroness Lola Young, a Cross-Bench peer, aimed to amend the Modern Slavery Act 2015 to require commercial organisations and public bodies to include a statement on slavery and human trafficking in their annual report and accounts, not just on their website. We came across one problem. As the annual report and accounts are legal entities, the inclusion of the slavery statement would have caused a legal headache. That needs to be looked at again.

At the time of the introduction of the private Member’s Bill, the Government recognised that the 2015 legislation was only the first step towards a solution to the problem. The legislation currently applies only to the private sector, not the public sector. To include the public sector is of paramount importance. The other part of the private Member’s Bill was to extend the requirements the private sector are under to the public sector. I find it quite disturbing that the public sector, which procures vast amounts of goods and services, is not included in the legislation. I feel this is a major flaw, which needs to be corrected. I was pleased that, at the time, the Home Office—I had meetings with the Minister who is in her place today; we have continuity, which is fantastic—agreed with the sentiment and aspirations of the Bill, and were developing policies in line with it. I look forward to hearing an update from the Minister on the progress we talked about when she responds to the debate. I am very proud that we lead the fight against modern slavery in this country and that this battle continues to be a priority for our Government.