Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Miriam Cates and Maria Caulfield

Wednesday 15th May 2024 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for Women (Maria Caulfield)]

It is this Conservative Government who have commissioned the patient safety commissioner to do a report on what redress would look like. It is important that we take those recommendations in detail. We are looking at that and we aim to respond to the commissioner in the coming weeks.

[Miriam Cates (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Con)]

Some sporting bodies have interpreted the Equality Act 2010 in such a way that they believe they cannot lawfully ban males who identify as girls or women from competing in women’s sport. Does my right hon. Friend agree that that interpretation is not correct and that it is lawful to exclude all males from female sport to achieve safety and fairness for women and girls?

Conversion Practices (Prohibition) Bill

Debate between Miriam Cates and Maria Caulfield

2nd reading
Friday 1st March 2024 Commons Chamber

[Maria Caulfield]

I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman feels that way, but we have to be clear about the territorial extent of the Bill. We have concerns about that, because the Bill should relate only to England and Wales, but it does not.

[Miriam Cates]

The Minister has made an important point about the problems with the requirement for DPP permission, but is there not an even more significant problem with that? Although it seems like a safeguard, in reality—looking at the CPS website—all that means is that a Crown prosecutor has to give permission. Any Crown prosecutor—even an activist Crown prosecutor—could agree to such a prosecution and thus create case law that criminalises parents in future.

[Maria Caulfield]

We have set out our four concerns, which include the territorial extent of the Bill.

I have set out why the Government will not support the Bill today. I want the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown to know that I am really grateful for the work he has done in this space, and I hope that we can continue to work together on this issue, particularly on the legislation. Today’s debate has further highlighted the need for careful consideration before legislation is passed, so that unintended consequences can be avoided. It has also demonstrated the importance of taking action that is balanced and measured in order to protect those at most risk of harm, but also to protect the freedoms and rights of everyone. That is the kind of balance that can be achieved only with bespoke legislation, and although we absolutely pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman, we will not support this Bill.

Draft Equality Act 2010 (Amendment) Regulations 2023

Debate between Miriam Cates and Maria Caulfield

Wednesday 6th December 2023 General Committees

[Maria Caulfield]

The reason is that the provisions currently fall under section 4 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 and that if we do not replicate them under the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Act, they will fall. That would mean that protections for women who are pregnant or breastfeeding fall at the end of the year. That is why we need to replicate them.

Let me touch on the point about whether the measure provides expanded powers—I think “power on steroids” was the phrase that was used. The legal advice is that CHEZ can be interpreted as already giving horizontal rights, so we are not introducing such rights through this statutory instrument. Even if it did not give such rights, section 13 of the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Act, which Parliament voted on, gives Ministers powers to resolve ambiguities and remove doubt or anomalies to facilitate the improvement of the law. That is the power that that Act provides. We believe that the CHEZ ruling already gives horizontal rights, but even if it did not, the Act gives leeway to Ministers to tidy up those provisions.

[Miriam Cates]

Is the Minister saying that she believes that the legal probability is that the CHEZ judgment already has direct effect in UK law? On my understanding, that is the only situation in which the power can be used to reproduce the judgment in primary legislation. It is not clear to me that it did have direct effect. At the moment, there is clearly no case in the UK courts to suggest that.

[Maria Caulfield]

The legal advice is that it is arguable that it can be interpreted as giving horizontal rights, and that is why the instrument reflects that.

The basis of this argument was that we believed that, in leaving the EU, it was fundamental that Parliament made decisions about which laws we retained, repealed or amended. That is exactly what we are doing today. We may differ over whether we believe that the protections are needed or whether they go too far, but it is now Parliament that is making that decision.

[Maria Caulfield]

I take my hon. Friend’s point, but if we had not left the EU, the CHEZ ruling would still be the basis of the way in which decisions are made right now on discrimination cases. Any law can be challenged in courts and precedents can be set, but that does not mean that we should not set out the law as we determine it should be interpreted. Obviously, case law can change that, but the CHEZ case was back in 2015, so it falls under the European Union (Withdrawal) Act. We have decided as a Government to retain those protections. Let me set them out for hon. Members: they are around maintaining equal pay for pregnant women; protecting women from less favourable treatment because they are breastfeeding; and helping pregnant women facing discrimination with being able to return to work.

[Miriam Cates]

I completely agree with the Minister about the need to protect equal pay, pregnant women and so on; I do not think there would be any disagreement on that. The problem is the unintended consequences.

I will come back to the example of the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East. At the moment, let us say that a group of people were thrown out of a pub because of a homophobic landlord who thought that they were all LGBT. Let us say that they were not LGBT; the people who were not would currently, under UK law, have a case for discrimination, and rightly so.

The problem is that the effect of this legislation would be that if someone else walked into the pub who was not LGBT, and the landlord did not think he was LGBT but still threw him out, he would be able to claim that he suffered the same effect of discrimination, even though he did not have the protected characteristic. That is the impact. The lady who won the CHEZ case was not Roma, and nobody thought that she was Roma. She experienced the same discrimination as Roma people, but she was still able to claim. That is the difference between existing law and what this legislation potentially puts into practice, and that is the unintended consequence.

[Maria Caulfield]

That is open to interpretation, and that is exactly what the courts are there for: to decide how existing laws are interpreted. However, the CHEZ judgment is part of existing case law. It is the basis of how discrimination is determined right now. If we did not have this instrument and we had not left the EU, that would continue to be the case. At the end of this month, if we do not retain the law, those protections for pregnant women, disabled people and those with protected characteristics will fall completely. The CHEZ judgment is actually the basis of case law.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Miriam Cates and Maria Caulfield

Tuesday 5th December 2023 Commons Chamber

[Maria Caulfield]

May I pay tribute to the hon. Lady for her work on the all-party parliamentary group on suicide and self-harm prevention? She knows that financial difficulty is a priority area in the suicide prevention strategy, because we know it is a high risk factor. That is why suicide is now everyone’s business—not just the Department of Health and Social Care, but our colleagues at the Department for Work and Pensions, His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs and all Government Departments. Anyone who has financial stress and pressure will be given support to reduce their risk of suicide.

[Miriam Cates (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Con)]

My constituent Dan Archer runs the highly successful Visiting Angels care agency, which has an annual staff turnover rate of just 13%, compared with an industry average of 60%. The secret to his success is very straightforward: paying decent wages, investing in training, valuing staff and prioritising client satisfaction. As a consequence, an enormous amount of money is saved on recruitment and invested into training and retention instead. Would the Minister meet my constituent to learn more about the success of Visiting Angels and how it can be shared more widely to help solve the shortage of workers in the care sector?