Public Body Data Collection: Sikh and Jewish Ethnicity

Preet Kaur Gill Excerpts

Wednesday 11th March 2026 Westminster Hall

[Preet Kaur Gill (Birmingham Edgbaston) (Lab/Co-op)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered Sikh and Jewish ethnicity data collection by public bodies.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Betts. I welcome my hon. Friend the Minister to her role. For more than 40 years, Sikhs and Jews have been recognised in law as both ethnic and religious groups. That is long-established; it was confirmed by the 1983 Mandla v. Dowell-Lee judgment and reaffirmed by the Equality Act 2010. Yet, in practice, our systems still fail to acknowledge what the law clearly states.

Nearly six decades after racial discrimination laws were introduced, public bodies still do not collect ethnicity data on Sikhs and Jews. This is not a technical oversight; it is a structural problem with the way public bodies and our Government collect ethnicity data—one that prevents us from understanding inequality, recognising discrimination and properly protecting communities the law says we must protect.

In December 2024, I introduced my ten-minute rule Bill, the Public Body Ethnicity Data (Inclusion of Jewish and Sikh Categories) Bill. The Bill provides that where a public body collects data about ethnicity for the purpose of delivering public services, it must include specific Sikh and Jewish categories as options for a person’s ethnic group. This is about how the United Kingdom delivers its public services; it is not a theological discussion, as the Office for National Statistics has told all public bodies that they can use only—this is really important—the current ethnicity data categories for service delivery.

Time and again, national reviews have shown that Sikhs and Jews are missing from the datasets that shape decisions about public services. In 2018, the Women and Equalities Committee heard that the Government’s race disparity audit had identified around 340 datasets across Government, yet not one included data on Sikhs. My own written parliamentary questions have revealed that Government Departments do not collect ethnicity data on Sikhs and Jews.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Lady on all that she does on behalf of the Sikh community. I am very happy that we have developed a friendship over the years through freedom of religious belief and that we are able to stand together for each other, and that is something that always encourages me.

Does the hon. Lady agree that although Sikh and Jewish people are legally recognised as ethnic groups under the Equality Act 2010, current public data collection often reduces them solely to a religion, which is wrong? Does she agree that Jewish and Sikh people, and other minority communities, face both subtle and overt forms of discrimination, and that it is therefore imperative that public bodies collect accurate ethnicity data? That would send a clear message that Sikh and Jewish people, and others, are valued, visible and protected in every part of this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

--- Later in debate ---

[Preet Kaur Gill]

The hon. Gentleman makes a really important point, and I will come on to why this is important in practice. We are both legislators in this House, and he is right: we both take our responsibilities very seriously and want to see all communities treated fairly under the law, so we must implement it. I really value his intervention and thank him for it.

As I said, my own written parliamentary questions have revealed that Government Departments do not collect ethnicity data on Sikhs and Jews. As the hon. Member has just said, the only information collected is religious data, but religious data is inconsistent and incomplete, and is rarely used in designing or delivering services. It also excludes people who are ethnically Sikh or Jewish but do not practise their faiths. User need has been clearly evidenced by the plethora of evidence available, and that simply cannot be ignored by the ONS.

[Calum Miller (Bicester and Woodstock) (LD)]

I congratulate the hon. Member on securing the debate. My constituent Dan has written to me to express his strong support for Sikhs and Jews being able to identify as an ethnic group. He is Jewish, but not religious, and says it is important for him to be able to register as belonging to a group not currently permitted under the census data. Does the hon. Member agree that Jews and Sikhs do face discrimination, whether they are religious or not, and that it is important for their identity and the delivery of public services to be able to identify their ethnicity?

[Preet Kaur Gill]

Absolutely; I think that is really important. I have a staffer who, equally, is Jewish and does not feel that he is religious, and he wants the option to tick his ethnicity because, as he says, “I am Jewish.” This is simply giving people the option; no one is forcing anyone to tick any other box—they can tick any box they think reflects their ethnicity. But given the Equality Act, and given race hate and the rise in antisemitism, we absolutely should be collecting ethnicity data. My staffer should not be invisible.

[Peter Prinsley (Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket) (Lab)]

I wish to make a medical point. Considering the clear evidence for the genetic propensity of Jews to develop certain medical conditions and diseases, is it not right that, in terms of data, the NHS and the Department of Health and Social Care treat Jews as both a religious and an ethnic group?

[Preet Kaur Gill]

My hon. Friend makes an important point, and I really value his expertise in this House. Health inequalities are an area where we really see this issue being played out. The NHS is doing some directed work with the Jewish community; I know that, because it is happening in my constituency. That is because many Jewish women of Ashkenazi descent are predisposed to breast cancer, for example, and I can give lots of similar examples about the Sikh community. That is why we must consider the real-life experiences of those in our communities—they are not only invisible, but the health inequalities they face are not being addressed, as a result of the situation we find ourselves in.

[Sarah Coombes (West Bromwich) (Lab)]

I am proud to represent a very large Sikh community in Sandwell, which is near my hon. Friend’s constituency. What she campaigns for—for ethnicity data about the Sikh community to be recorded—is really important for organisations such as the NHS as well as for Home Office data and crime data. We have suffered some very serious anti-Sikh hate crime in West Bromwich recently, which the community is very upset about, and I am standing with them against it. Can she say more about how recording this data will help not just NHS and health data, but other types of public data?

[Preet Kaur Gill]

My hon. Friend does some fantastic work locally with her communities, and I know that she supports this campaign and really understands the real-life impact it has. She talked about anti-Sikh hate. We have seen a rise in hate crime across communities, but it is especially marked in the latest Home Office data. The data shows that there has been an increase of 20% in religious hate against the Sikh community. I will go on to say a bit more about how hate crime is recorded for both the Jewish community and the Sikh community.

When public bodies do not count a community, that community is invisible. That is clearly the case for Jews and Sikhs. My Bill addresses that gap. It would give Jews and Sikhs the simple and fair recognition that the law already promises. As legislators, it is our duty to ensure that the law is upheld and implemented. It is not optional for arm’s length bodies or Government Departments; the law is the law.

Covid-19 showed us what is at stake when communities are not counted. When the ONS belatedly analysed covid outcomes by religious group, it revealed that Sikhs had died at disproportionately high rates, even adjusting for deprivation, region and other socioeconomic factors. Critically, Sikhs were affected differently from other south Asian groups, proving that the existing ethnic categories failed to capture the reality, and for the Jewish community, the death rate was almost twice the rate of the general population. If we are serious about tackling health inequalities, we must be serious about collecting accurate data. After all, it is about life and death. If the evidence from this work is not compelling enough for the ONS, then I really do not know what will be.

As my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich (Sarah Coombes) stated, we have recently seen horrific incidents of anti-Sikh hate crime in the west midlands. There have been two separate racially aggravated rapes of Sikh women, including one just outside my constituency, and a brutal physical attack on two Sikh taxi drivers. Of the 115,990 hate crimes recorded by the police in England and Wales between April 2024 and March 2025, 71% were recorded as being “racially aggravated”. Yet despite the Home Office requiring police forces to provide the ethnicity of victims since April 2021, we only know the ethnicity of victims in 40% of offences, and within that 40%, Sikh and Jewish categories are not offered. So the racially aggravated rapes that those two Sikh women were subjected to were not recorded as anti-Sikh hate crimes.

As I said earlier, of the 9% of hate crimes that were recorded as being religiously aggravated, Home Office data shows a 20% increase in crimes specifically targeting Sikhs. Are we saying that Jewish and Sikh victims do not matter? I think that is a reasonable question for both communities to ask.

The Jewish community continues to face horrific abuse, having the highest rate of religious hate crime of any group. The terrorist attack at Heaton Park synagogue in Manchester was an awful reminder that there is still much more to be done to fight antisemitism and keep British Jews safe.

The lack of accurate data collection for the offence of racially aggravated hate crime is hiding the true severity of anti-Sikh and anti-Jewish hate crime, which means that the police and the Government cannot put proper targeted protections in place. The Sikh community is asking the Government, the Home Office and the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government why they are not recognising and recording anti-Sikh hate crimes. What are they saying to that? That it is because the ONS asks them to only use the existing ethnic categories.

The ONS does not seem to understand that Jews and Sikhs face racial hatred, which is distinct from religious hatred. How are we meant to track and combat this religious hatred without data? Why does the Minister think the ONS is treating Sikh and Jewish communities in this way, given the levels of hate that they have recently faced and the decades they have spent campaigning for fairness and equality?

After many meetings and much correspondence from me over the past eight years, the ONS has acknowledged that ethnicity standards must reflect the United Kingdom’s diversity. The Government Statistical Service, led by the ONS, recently consulted on additional categories for the ethnicity harmonised standard, but the criteria for the evaluation of the responses, which were published last week, leave me apprehensive. Despite assurances to the contrary, I was disappointed that the criteria were almost identical to those used to decide the categories for the last census, in 2021, in which Sikhs and Jews were in the last four groups to be considered from a list of 55. Those should not be treated as the same exercise. The harmonisation standard is primarily intended to assist public bodies to meet their equalities responsibility—I say that again: to meet their equalities responsibility—and best serve all Britain’s diverse communities. The purpose of the census is, of course, much broader.

With that in mind, I was struck by the lack of any legal test. Sikhs and Jews have been legally recognised as ethnicities for decades. We know that religion data is not used by public bodies that implement this standard. In fact, the ONS knows this, and has publicly acknowledged it. Surely the GSS, led by the ONS, needs to consider the bigger picture and form a harmonised standard with its implementation in mind. If Sikhs and Jews are legally protected ethnicities, public bodies have a legal duty to monitor their outcomes and deliver services to address inequality. The GSS should want to develop a harmonised standard that allows public bodies to meet their legal obligations.

The ONS has claimed in meetings that there are apparently hundreds of potential ethnicities that could be included, but in the landmark 1983 case Mandla v. Dowell-Lee, the Law Lords made life easier by establishing crucial criteria for defining an ethnic group. The Minister should signal to the GSS that, as legislators, we expect the starting point of its considerations to be legally recognised ethnic groups such as Sikhs and Jews, given the protections in the Equality Act 2010.

The second criterion—assessing whether there is a lack of alternative sources of information for the group—similarly demonstrates the ONS’s short-sightedness. Although many Sikhs may choose to record their religion as Sikh, the ONS knows that the question is optional, is not used to inform policymaking or service delivery, and is irrelevant to the execution of ethnicity equalities duties.

Finally, the subjective “acceptability” criterion does not give me faith that the ONS has learned any lessons from past oversights. In the run-up to the 2021 census, the ONS pushed aside calls for a Sikh ethnicity tick box, citing divisions in the community—an argument that I am disappointed has been repeated since. I remind the House and the ONS that nearly 100,000 Sikhs and 65,000 Jews ticked “other” and wrote in their ethnicity in the census. That is hugely significant, because this huge number of respondents from the two communities is far bigger than the number of responses to any consultation, focus group or exercise that the ONS may choose to carry out.

Citizens want democracy to work for them, so that they can have trust in our political system. That is our duty as legislators. I am therefore keen to understand what the Government are saying to the 165,000 Jews and Sikhs who clearly sent a message to the ONS and Government that they want the option to tick “Jewish” or “Sikh”.

I am not advocating or forcing anyone to identify in a certain way. Respondents would still be able to record their ethnicity as they choose, as would any person from any background. The question is whether the GSS and ONS give greater weight to established legal precedent or a few dissenting voices in a focus group.

That brings me to the relationship between the Government, the ONS and Parliament more broadly. In a recent meeting, the ONS made it clear that it expects the Government to tell it their data needs, yet in all my correspondence on this issue over past years, Ministers have responded by stating that they are relying on the GSS and ONS. Let me be clear: it is right that our country’s official statistics are independent of Government. However, at some point the relationship has shifted, and we have lost our way. The Government should obviously not be able to write their own scorecard, but that does not mean that Government Departments should not engage proactively with the ONS to outline what frameworks they need to best serve the British public.

I tabled questions to every Department asking whether they fed into the consultation on the harmonised standard. The responses I have gotten back have been hugely disappointing. Many Departments dodged the question, telling me to wait for the ONS’s response to the consultation later this year to see whether Departments fed in. How does that give Jewish and Sikh communities any faith that, while they are dying disproportionately, we in this House are committed to addressing that inequality? It is a simple question. This is about transparency.

I am grateful that the Home Office confirmed that it provided an organisational response. The relationship between the Government and the ONS should be reciprocal. These Departments hold the data, but many of them say that there is no data. They deliver services that are not directed at these groups, so they should be working with the ONS to push for better data that ensures that they can meet their legal equalities duties.

The ONS is funded by the taxpayer and consists of civil servants. Civil servants must deliver for the public. In January, I tabled a question on ethnicity pay gap reporting and received an interesting response. The Minister who responded, my hon. Friend the Member for Feltham and Heston (Seema Malhotra), stated that the recent consultation on ethnicity and disability pay-gap reporting considered whether ethnicity data should be collected following the GSS and ONS current harmonised standard, which does not include specific “Sikh” and “Jewish” categories. Will the Minister outline what provisions would be available for Jews and Sikhs to challenge ethnicity pay gap reporting if they are not included? This also demonstrates that some Departments recognise that they are not required to follow the GSS framework. I gently encourage Ministers across Government to consider whether the GSS harmonised standard is adequate for them to meet the equalities duties.

To conclude, this campaign has the support a broad coalition: the Board of Deputies, the Community Security Trust, the Antisemitism Policy Trust, the Sikh Federation, the Sikh Council UK, the UK Gurdwara Alliance, many health professionals, local police and local government. Those organisations understand the lived reality of their communities. They see the consequences of missing data every single day in healthcare, public safety, education, housing and employment.

In June last year, Birmingham city council became the first local authority in England to include Sikh and Jewish ethnic categories when collecting data and delivering services. I am grateful to the Birmingham Labour group for its leadership on this issue, but will it really take every council in the country passing its own motion for Sikhs and Jews to be counted? What we are asking for is simple: fairness. For more than 40 years, Sikhs and Jews have been recognised as ethnic groups in law. It is time for public bodies to recognise them in practice and for legislators to implement the law.

[The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Satvir Kaur)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Betts. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Edgbaston (Preet Kaur Gill) for tabling this important debate, and I thank other Members for joining us. Over many years my hon. Friend has championed the rights of Sikh and Jewish communities. Those communities contribute so much to British life, and both our families are great examples of that.

The science of statistics helps us to understand the world and our place in it. As my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Edgbaston has made clear, that is particularly the case for minority groups, who so often feel unseen and unheard by their Government. We should always strive to identify data gaps that need addressing. The issues raised today regarding Sikh and Jewish data, and the impact of data gaps relating to those groups, could not be more relevant or timely. As we speak, these topics are under active consideration by the Government Statistical Service as part of its review of the harmonisation of ethnicity standards. That is a critical process. I know that my hon. Friend and I will follow its progress closely and look forward to reading its findings when they are published in the autumn.

My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Edgbaston eloquently set out the impact of the current data gaps regarding Sikh and Jewish communities. As she mentioned, those became particularly apparent during covid and in administering other public services. That is at the heart of this debate, and the Government are committed to serving all our minority communities. My hon. Friend and other Members can be reassured that, as part of the review, the ONS has committed to looking at adding more ethnicity tick boxes, including options for Sikhs and Jews.

As my hon. Friend is aware, as part of the review the ONS held an open consultation between October 2025 and February 2026. The general public and all Government Departments, including the Government Statistical Service, were invited to respond to the consultation. The heads of profession for statistics in every Department were contacted on the day the consultation launched and again in January, a month before it closed. The ONS has committed to publishing all the submissions it received in April. I have personally asked the ONS to contact my hon. Friend directly when the information is available, as she has raised concerns about when that will happen.

Additionally, as part of the consultation process, the ONS engaged with key leaders in the Jewish and Sikh communities, the Board of Deputies of British Jews, the Health and Care Jewish Staff Network, the Institute for Jewish Policy Research, the Jewish Association for Mental Illness, the Sikh Federation UK and the Supreme Sikh Council UK. Now that the consultation has closed, the submissions are being analysed.

Last week, the Government Statistical Service published the evaluation criteria for assessing the proposed new tick-box response options. The three headline criteria are the strength of user need, the lack of alternative sources, and acceptability, clarity and data quality. I hear my hon. Friend’s concerns about these being the same as before. I have spoken directly with the chair of the UK Statistics Authority and the permanent secretary of the ONS on the specific matter of Sikh and Jewish ethnicity tick boxes, and I have been assured that this will be considered as part of the review. I have further been assured—and I am confident of this—that at this stage the option to add tick boxes for Sikhs and Jews as ethnic groups is an open question and that the ONS will reach an impartial, evidence-based decision.

My hon. Friend mentioned the ethnicity pay gap, which I am happy to take away.

On the issue of legality, the Equality Act 2010 and the public sector equality duty are key components of the Government Statistical Service review, and the user need for data to support equality monitoring for protected characteristic features predominantly in the evaluation criteria. Under the Equality Act, race is defined to include colour, nationality, and ethnic or national origins. That means that, under the Act, Sikhs and Jews are a racial group by reference to their ethnic origins. Both are also religious groups under the Act. Let me be clear: the Government, the ONS and the Government Statistical Service all recognise that, as my hon. Friend highlighted, Sikh identity and Jewish identity are ethnic as well as religious identities.

It is important to clarify that the Act does not specify particular ethnicities as being protected. Apart from anything else, that would mean that we live in a country that has unprotected ethnic groups. I am sure my hon. Friend would join me in agreeing that that would be completely unacceptable. In fact, the Equality Act provides protection to everybody on the basis of their ethnicity, and of their religion or lack of religion. The Act protects all ethnicities, not some over others.

However, protection under the Act does not legally mandate the inclusion of a tick-box option for data collection purposes. Indeed, there are many other ethnicities—hundreds, in fact—all of which are recognised by the Government, that also do not have a tick box, such as Kurdish, Persian and Hispanic/Latino. Because there are so many ethnic groups that do not have their own tick box, individuals are given the option to write their ethnicity. In the 2021 census, 287 different ethnicities were recorded and published. Tick-box response options in the survey form simply cannot include all the ethnic groups, which is why the tick-box option should never be seen as a list of official or recognised ethnicities.

As I have set out, decisions on tick boxes involve a number of factors, including user need for the data, data quality, public acceptability, clarity for respondents, and the impact on comparability of data over time. I hear what my hon. Friend said about the need and the possible gaps, which is why the ONS is analysing and considering this issue as part of its review. It will publish it findings in the autumn, which she, I and other Members keenly await—alongside many in the Jewish and Sikh communities, as she mentioned—and we will go from there.

I thank my hon. Friend and other Members for raising the important issue of hate crime. We are united in our determination to tackle these abhorrent crimes in the UK. Everyone in this country deserves to feel safe and live their lives free from violence. My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Edgbaston will know that the UK Government Statistical Service is decentralised. How hate crimes are recorded is determined by the police, not the ONS. It is something I strongly encourage her to raise directly with the Home Office, as I know she already is.

[Preet Kaur Gill]

Can I seek clarity from the Minister? All the correspondence I have had from the Home Office says that it has been told to use existing categories in the census, according to the ONS, and that is why it does not collect the data.

[Satvir Kaur]

I am happy to take that away.

I thank my hon. Friend for raising this important topic, and for her ongoing hard work advocating for the Sikh and Jewish communities. I am keen to emphasise that whether Sikh and Jewish ethnicity tick boxes should be introduced is an open question. I reassure my hon. Friend that a clear and credible procedure is in place to make an informed decision. The Government should not and will not pre-empt the ONS’s ongoing, independent and impartial piece of work. That means we all eagerly await the publication of the Government Statistical Service’s findings this autumn, at which point I anticipate that she and I will be in regular contact about the next steps, based on the ONS’s findings.

Question put and agreed to.

Oral Answers to Questions

Preet Kaur Gill Excerpts

Wednesday 12th February 2025 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

Yes, of course. The US and the UK share a strong and balanced trading relationship. We invest hugely in each other’s economies, and we will continue to work closely with President Trump to boost growth and to create jobs. I reassure the hon. Lady that we will always act in the best interests of businesses and working people across the whole of the United Kingdom, including, of course, Northern Ireland.

[Preet Kaur Gill (Birmingham Edgbaston) (Lab/Co-op)]

Q4. I was baffled on Monday when, given the chance to support legislation, backed by the National Crime Agency, to crack down on criminal smuggler gangs and secure our borders, Conservative and Reform Members linked arms in the voting Lobby to vote against it. The Conservatives spent three years and £700 million on their ludicrous Rwanda scheme, and saw four volunteers returned. Does the Prime Minister agree that there is only one party that is serious about repairing our broken immigration system?

[The Prime Minister]

Yes, and let me remind Reform and the Tories what they voted against earlier this week in our borders Bill. They voted against making it an offence to organise the buying, selling and transport of small boats, against making it an offence to endanger lives at sea, and against powers to arrest suspected people smugglers before the smuggling takes place. They voted against. They voted for open borders—both of them.

Oral Answers to Questions

Preet Kaur Gill Excerpts

Wednesday 17th April 2024 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

This year, the Government announced a further £600 million in extra funding for local councils—a real-terms increase, as has been the case in every single year of this Parliament. But we all know what happens when Labour is in charge—whether it is racking up debt in Warrington, as my hon. Friend said, increasing council tax by 21% in Labour-run Birmingham, slashing services in Nottingham, or, as I have just said, higher crime on average in each Labour police and crime commissioner area. It is crystal clear that, whenever Labour is in charge, it is working people who pay the price.

[Preet Kaur Gill (Birmingham, Edgbaston) (Lab/Co-op)]

While 64,000 people are on the waiting list for a council house in the west midlands, families are living in hotels, cold and damp homes and mouldy flats. The Mayor of the West Midlands, Andy Street, has built 46 social homes in eight years. Does the Prime Minister think that that is good enough?

[The Prime Minister]

Andy Street is absolutely delivering for the west midlands. Unlike the Labour Mayor in London, he has delivered on all his housing targets. It is the Labour-run council in Birmingham that is imposing on the hon. Lady’s constituents and others a 21% council tax rise, and what are they getting in exchange? Six hundred job losses and cuts to services. On some streets, they are even turning off the lights. What Labour has done to Birmingham the Conservatives will never let it do to Britain.

Oral Answers to Questions

Preet Kaur Gill Excerpts

Wednesday 15th November 2023 Commons Chamber

[Saqib Bhatti]

I thank my hon. Friend for his remarks. We have just had a global, leading AI safety summit, which had immense coverage on that and also focused on frontier risks. We have always been clear that we will take a pragmatic, proportionate and contextual approach. With the 28 countries plus the European Union who have agreed to the Bletchley declaration, there is a great opportunity to use AI for our benefit, but we should also be wary of the risks involved.

[Preet Kaur Gill (Birmingham, Edgbaston) (Lab/Co-op)]

4. What steps the Government are taking to regulate AI.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology (Saqib Bhatti)]

The AI regulation White Paper set out how we will regulate AI through a flexible framework. We have taken steps to implement our approach, including establishing a central AI risk function and the AI Safety Institute. We are engaging closely with regulators and their sponsoring Government Departments to understand their readiness to regulate AI effectively.

[Preet Kaur Gill]

This weekend I was disturbed by news of a deepfake audio of Sadiq Khan circulating online, clearly manufactured to whip up hate and disinformation. That is cause for grave concern for elected representatives. As the National Cyber Security Centre warned yesterday, advances in artificial intelligence will be exploited by “malicious actors” seeking to spread disinformation and undermine our democracy, and the technology is already falling into the wrong hands. With elections next year, does the Minister recognise the urgent need for binding, not voluntary, regulation of frontier AI?

Oral Answers to Questions

Preet Kaur Gill Excerpts

Wednesday 15th July 2020 Commons Chamber

[Anne-Marie Trevelyan]

This Government remain absolutely committed to the 0.7% commitment, which is enshrined in law, and that will continue in the framework of the new Department. On scrutiny, clearly it is a question for Parliament how that scrutiny takes place and what the new framework of Committee assessment might be. However, the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary are absolutely clear that scrutiny should continue to be an absolute focus. It is incredibly important, and all of us as parliamentarians know just how important it is that we watch over, and can provide insight and broader reflection from all those we talk to, to make sure that Government do their best possible. The Government are continuing to support that, and the Foreign Secretary will set out where he hopes to do that in due course.

[Preet Kaur Gill (Birmingham, Edgbaston) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is with great disappointment that this is the last DFID orals, and I want to pay tribute to all those officials in the Department for their work. I want to assure all those who recognise the importance of development and of supporting the world’s poorest that we in the Opposition will not follow the misguided path of the Government.

In recent weeks, we have heard the Secretary of State and hundreds of non-governmental organisations contradict the Prime Minister’s claims that there was

“massive consultation over a long period”—[Official Report, 16 June 2020; Vol. 677, c. 678.]

of time ahead of his announcement that he would scrap the Department. Can the Secretary of State tell us whether the Prime Minister misled Parliament, whether she misled the Select Committee last week and when an apology will be forthcoming?

[Anne-Marie Trevelyan]

I concur absolutely with the hon. Member that all those who serve—now and in years past—have brought a commitment to helping the UK do as much as it can to support poverty reduction. That commitment will continue and those who are making that their life’s work will continue to be part of the FCDO.

The Prime Minister was clear, as I have been, that any announcement is always brought to Parliament first. The ongoing consultation is now working continuously, and Baroness Sugg is leading that. However, consultation with NGOs was going on before that in relation to all sorts of other issues. That relationship with our NGOs and civil society organisations is something we take very seriously, and we will continue to do so.

[Preet Kaur Gill]

The decision to axe the Department was done on a whim by the Prime Minister to try to distract from his handling of the pandemic. That is why there are still no details of what the new Department will look like, how it will operate or how it will be scrutinised to guarantee value for money for UK taxpayers who are rightly proud of the work DFID has done in tackling poverty around the world. Will the Secretary of State guarantee that funds will be focused on the world’s poorest and that any cuts to the aid budget come from funds that currently go to middle and upper-income countries or have been found to have limited development impact, such as those outlined in the ONE campaign’s real aid index?

[Anne-Marie Trevelyan]

DFID it is world renowned for its focus and programme expertise, and that will continue to be the case. Poverty reduction will continue to be a critical focus on how we spend the 0.7% that the Government continue to be committed to. We enshrined it in law and it will stay: the Prime Minister is absolutely committed to that. Interestingly, I think there is a real challenge with the sustainable development goals—there are 17 of them—and the ability to help a country become self-sufficient and climb up that ladder will absolutely continue. We will continue to commit to the 0.7% target, based on GNI.

Oral Answers to Questions

Preet Kaur Gill Excerpts

Wednesday 10th June 2020 Commons Chamber

[Anne-Marie Trevelyan]

It is lovely to welcome a scientist to our Green Benches. As my hon. Friend suggests, organisations right across the UK are playing a vital role in innovating to develop a coronavirus vaccine. It is a great pleasure to thank all the communities across the island of Ynys Môn helping to fight coronavirus with their technological solutions. My officials are also working closely with the Action for Global Health network to draw on the expertise of a range of UK charities and organisations as part of our approach to shaping global vaccine efforts. If UK-backed candidates for vaccines are successful, the Department for International Development funding for international efforts will help to ensure that those are scaled up and support equitable access for all who need them globally.

[Preet Kaur Gill (Birmingham, Edgbaston) (Lab/Co-op)]

Happy birthday, Mr Speaker.

I start by welcoming the Secretary of State’s apology concerning the sharing of an unacceptable, offensive and xenophobic image, but it was extremely disappointing that it took so long to apologise.

The Secretary of State has said she wants to ensure equitable access for many new vaccines once developed. AstraZeneca has guaranteed the US and the UK the first 400 million of any new vaccine in September, while those in the world’s poorest countries will not begin to get any until the end of the year, at the very earliest. Does she think this is equitable access?

[Anne-Marie Trevelyan]

The vaccine challenge, and the race for scientists to crack that code and for industry to come in behind them to support, to produce and to deliver, is critical. AstraZeneca is leading the way with us and has now signed a licence for 300 million doses, should the Oxford vaccine be successful, which it has committed will go to low and middle-income countries, which is fantastic news. This is a huge piece of work, which is led by the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy and which DFID is involved in, to draw together that scientific effort. The key point about any vaccine that is found—obviously we hope one will be found—is delivery, which is why Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance is so critical, because it can reach out. It has effective networks for delivering vaccines in those poorest countries, where we want to make sure that everyone who needs it gets that vaccine.

[Preet Kaur Gill]

The “Oxford Dictionary” defines “equitable” as “fair or just”; what the Secretary of State has just outlined is neither. She rightly praises Gavi and the number of people it has vaccinated, but as she knows the alliance would not be needed if access to vaccines was actually equitable. There is a disconnect between the Government’s rhetoric on this issue and their actions. Rather than outsourcing responsibility, will she step up and commit to attaching clear, transparent conditions on British taxpayers’ money to accelerate development and guarantee truly equitable access to vaccines based on need, not how deep your pockets are?

[Anne-Marie Trevelyan]

The UK taxpayer, through UK aid, has made a huge commitment. We gave £250 million to CEPI very early on in the crisis. Those who use that CEPI money as part of their vaccine development work have that commitment. That is fantastic. Gavi is a fundamental part of ensuring the whole world works together to make vaccines available. By being the organisation that vaccinates nearly 50% of the world’s children, it brings down prices. It can bring huge negotiating benefits so the value is spread across the world.

Oral Answers to Questions

Preet Kaur Gill Excerpts

Wednesday 4th March 2020 Commons Chamber

[Anne-Marie Trevelyan]

I thank my hon. Friend for his service to education before coming on to the green Benches, and I know that he will support our commitment to educating girls. Girls in emergencies and crises are more than twice as likely to be out of school, so the UK prioritises quality education in conflicts and crises. We are the largest donor to Education Cannot Wait, the global fund for education in emergencies, and bilaterally, we are supporting education for over 600,000 girls in Syria and surrounding countries.

[Preet Kaur Gill (Birmingham, Edgbaston) (Lab/Co-op)]

I welcome the Secretary of State to her place. International Women’s Day is a focal point of the year to celebrate the movement for women’s rights and gender equality, and we welcome her Department’s focus on girls’ education, but does she agree that girls’ education is a basic and universal human right, not something that should be used simply as a means to achieve other ends? Will she commit to implementing a gender-transformative approach across DFID’s work to help dismantle the structural causes of gender inequality?

Local Government Finance

Preet Kaur Gill Excerpts

Wednesday 5th February 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mr Virendra Sharma (Ealing, Southall) (Lab)]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to speak in this crucial debate. Let me first congratulate all those who have made their maiden speeches today and represented their constituencies so well, and wish them good luck for the future.

Once again, we have come to the Chamber because the Government are failing the people of the United Kingdom. Money is being kept from those who need it. While local authorities in Conservative areas are awash with money, Labour areas lag behind. The typically Labour metropolitan boroughs are set to lose, on average, £300 million under the Tories’ so-called fair funding formula, while—as my right hon. and dear Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) pointed out—leafy, well-off shire counties such as Surrey and Buckinghamshire will find the vast majority of that money funnelled into their already gilded pockets. The former Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark), agreed in 2016 that this iniquity should not continue unabated. The Conservatives have repeatedly cut the budgets of local authorities since 2010. Councils in London have been the hardest hit, having seen a decrease in core funding of more than 60%.

[Preet Kaur Gill (Birmingham, Edgbaston) (Lab/Co-op)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the huge cuts of £142 million resulting from central Government settlement funding assessments for Birmingham between 2015 and 2020 are unsustainable, and that any consequent reductions in services should be firmly and resolutely laid at the door of the Conservative Government?

[Mr Sharma]

I completely agree, and that is the story of every borough and every area in the country.

My own local authority, Ealing Council—where I served as a councillor for more than 25 years—now has only 34p for every pound that it could spend in 2010. Austerity and government cuts mean that less money goes to those who need it, particularly vulnerable children and adults who rely on social care services. Mental health and child safeguarding services have all been put at risk by the Government’s plans. Ealing is the third most populous and fastest-growing London borough, yet it has no maternity unit. My hon. Friend the Member for Ealing North (James Murray) raised the parlous state of GP surgery provision in our borough. With an ageing population and a homelessness crisis in London, demand for services is set to soar beyond sustainable levels.

Funding for youth clubs and youth workers has also been slashed. The link between cuts in youth spending and the knife crime epidemic has been made clear by the all-party parliamentary group on knife crime. Youth clubs in the heart of my constituency that once welcomed young people are now shuttered. Young people need safe spaces and positive role models to prevent them from sliding into a cycle of criminality and poverty that will follow them throughout their lives. Far from saving money, local government spending cuts have driven the costs of policing and welfare ever higher and have proved to be a false economy, not just in terms of the social cost but as an added drain on the public purse. They have made our streets less safe and have put our young people at risk, and it is incumbent on the Government to do more to make our streets safer. However, it is not just our young people whom this Tory Government are hurting; it is also the elderly and vulnerable, who rely on strong social care and public services to live independent, dignified, full lives.

Throughout his time as London Mayor, the Prime Minister supported a Government who oversaw swingeing cuts in the London boroughs that he was supposed to stand up for. More recently, when he first took office as Prime Minister, he promised that he would fix the social care crisis once and for all. That undoubtedly lofty aim cannot be reconciled with the reality of this paltry local government finance settlement. London is home to some of the most deprived areas in the country, and Tory cuts have only made it worse as successive Conservative politicians have pursued frivolities such as the Garden Bridge.

Local government is the only part of government that most people experience. It means their everyday life: bin collections, potholes, schools, and green spaces. After a decade of neglect and years of undue pressure to make savings, this Tory Government have pushed local government to the brink. The funding settlement favours Tory shires, and takes from the most in need. Our society needs investment to get rid of the inequalities that are so rife in this country. The Government must act, and offer more money for our public services, more money for our young people, more money for social care, and more hope for those who are still faltering under a decade of austerity. That is why I will vote for the motion tonight.

--- Later in debate ---

[Michael Tomlinson (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron), whom I always listen to with care, and the several maiden speeches from both sides of the House, especially those of my hon. Friends the Members for Keighley (Robbie Moore), for Orpington (Mr Bacon) and for North Norfolk (Duncan Baker). It is great to hear such strong voices on the Government Benches, and I look forward to further contributions.

Local government in Dorset has changed significantly over the past year, with nine councils merging into two in the run-up to the elections. My constituency is one of only two that covers both new unitary authorities. Of course, there were many reasons for the changes, but one of the main drivers was financial. Back-office savings, the rationalisation of office space, and a reduction in the number of senior staff have been painful but necessary decisions to ensure that frontline services can continue to be maintained.

Despite the changes, both Dorset Council and BCP Council remain in a challenging financial position. Additional funding is welcome, of course—I always say that—and it has added to both councils’ spending power. However, that is often offset by greater demands, not least in relation to adult social care and children’s services. Dorset has many advantages. It is a great place to live and work, but is also a great place to retire to, with an above average 17% of the population over the age of 70. That proportion is growing, so we are facing adult social care challenges. Social care is by far the largest part of the budget, placing considerable strain on our local councils.

I therefore welcome the Government’s promise to produce a social care Green Paper. A long-term solution is absolutely required, and I particularly welcome the recognition in the Prime Minister’s amendment this afternoon of

“the pressures on adult and children’s social care”

and the move to a fairer funding formula. Much has been said by Opposition Members about the fairer funding formula, but it will be absolutely crucial for residents in Mid Dorset and North Poole. We need a fairer settlement that reflects the challenges of living in rural areas. My hon. Friend the Member for St Austell and Newquay (Steve Double) made an intervention at the outset of the debate noting that deprivation was not only found in inner-city areas, because it is found in all our constituencies and in rural areas.

However, despite what we have heard from Opposition Members, the majority of the increases in council funding this year have been seen in urban areas. Once again, shire counties have received comparatively less. The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne), refused to take my intervention earlier, so I will tell him now—I am pleased to see him still in his place—that rural and shire counties receive an average of £240 per person. That is the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) was making in several interventions, but he is better than I am at intervening. Rural and shire counties receive £240 per person compared with £419 for metro- politan and city authorities and £601 for inner-London authorities. That is why it is crucial that the Government grapple with this issue in their fair funding review, as I know that they are doing.

[Preet Kaur Gill]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that councils of all political persuasions are already, as he said, in severe financial trouble following 10 years of savage cuts by the Conservative Government? The Government’s new adult social care funding formula, which will actually see Birmingham lose almost £50 million, will further exacerbate inequalities both within and between councils.

[Michael Tomlinson]

I am grateful for the hon. Lady’s intervention, but I do not accept her point. My point is that we need to look more broadly. The funding given to rural areas is not enough, including in my constituency of Mid Dorset and North Poole. I do not accept or recognise her figures. Indeed, I am sure the Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, my hon. Friend the Member for Thornbury and Yate (Luke Hall), will dispute those figures, as the Minister for the Northern Powerhouse and Local Growth did in opening.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill) said that our local authorities needed greater security through a longer-term financial settlement. I understand what he says, and he makes a valid point about the need for a one-year settlement, but we need a longer settlement to give councils the greater financial certainty that is required. That will mean they can move on and be more strategic in future, so I welcome what the Northern Powerhouse Minister said in opening.

I hope the Under-Secretary will echo and re-emphasise the importance of this funding and reassure my councils in Dorset and Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole that he recognises the need for a longer-term financial settlement.

Councils in Dorset have taken the brave and commendable steps to reorganise and to ensure that frontline services are given the greatest priority. Ever-increasing council tax is not a long-term solution, as I know Ministers recognise. I welcome the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister, and I will support it in the Lobby this afternoon.

Census (Return Particulars and Removal Of Penalties) Bill [Lords]

Preet Kaur Gill Excerpts

3rd reading: House of Commons & Committee: 1st sitting: House of Commons
Monday 7th October 2019 Commons Chamber

[Preet Kaur Gill (Birmingham, Edgbaston) (Lab/Co-op)]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

[The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment (a) to new clause 2, at end insert “, Jains and Zoroastrians”.

Amendment (b) to new clause 2, at end insert “and Kashmiris”.

New clause 3—Homeless people and questions on gender identity and sexual orientation—

“(1) The Secretary of State must make a statement to both Houses of Parliament on what steps the Office for National Statistics will take to ensure that people who are homeless have an opportunity to answer any questions about gender identity or sexual orientation under the Census Act 1920 or the Census Act (Northern Ireland) 1969.

(2) The statement in subsection (1) must be made within two months of the passing of this Act.

(3) In this section, “homeless” is defined as set out in section 175 of the Housing Act 1996.”

This new clause is intended to ensure that the Office for National Statistics takes steps to increase the participation of homeless people in the Census so that data on sexual orientation and gender identity includes information from people who are currently homeless.

[Preet Kaur Gill]

Sikhs are being discriminated against. This new clause tabled in my name and those of other right hon. and hon. Members would mean that if the census included a question on gender identity, it would have to be written in such a way as to provide information about gender identity in different ethnic groups.

Discrimination exists in different ways within different communities and the only way to successfully understand the outcomes and the reasons behind discrepancies as well as to provide services is to look at intersectional areas, including the breakdown of gender within different ethnic groups. At the national and local level, public bodies including schools, hospitals, police forces, local authorities and central Government Departments only use ethnic group categories specified in the census to collect data for public service planning and decision making. I want to make it clear that contrary to what the Government have stated, public bodies do not use the religion category to provide public services. That is an important point. In total, there are 40,000 public bodies across the country. This amendment will allow the underestimation of Sikh numbers and inadequate allocation of resources to Sikhs based on current census statistics to be overturned.

According to the Women and Equalities Committee, the quality and depth of data on ethnicity collected by Departments varies widely, which is hindering efforts to tackle racial discrimination in public services. As a result of not being monitored as an ethnic group, Sikhs of all genders are left out of the equation in policy decisions. The Government have stated that the option to tick “other” and write in Sikh as an ethnicity in the census is adequate, knowing full well that public bodies ignore the “other” option and that this will do nothing to counter discrimination against Sikhs in their own right.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the hon. Lady for tabling this new clause, and as chair of the all-party parliamentary group for international freedom of religion or belief, in which the Sikhs are a stakeholder, I think that her point is very important. I support wholeheartedly what she says and I think that the Government need to be responsive to a changing society in which Sikhs are playing an important, crucial and critical role. I therefore urge the Government to support the new clause.

[Preet Kaur Gill]

I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has taken on board the issue of ending discrimination, because that is exactly what this new clause does, and that he fully backs it. As legislators, we should uphold the law and, given that Sikhs are already classed as an ethnicity in legislation, we should end this kind of discrimination—that is what we are here to do.

[Mike Gapes (Ilford South) (IGC)]

My hon. Friend knows that my name is among the six at the top of this new clause. She will know that the Sikh community is very concerned to have this level of recognition, and that there are many people who have been pressing for many years for the resolution of this issue and for a box on the census that Sikhs can tick. Does she not agree that it is time this matter was dealt with seriously by the Government?

[Preet Kaur Gill]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention, and he is absolutely right. There has been cross-party support. This campaign commenced in 2001 and has had immense support in favour of addressing the discrimination Sikhs have faced in this country because of the fact that they are not counted and that, as a result, public bodies do not recognise that they need to provide services.

The relevance of the new clause and the importance of gender equality in the Sikh community date back to Guru Nanak Dev Ji, whose 550th birthday we are celebrating this year. He promoted fairness and gender equality and denounced discrimination of the sexes. My new clause would allow us, as parliamentarians, to do what we are elected to do and to challenge inequalities and unfairness. It would enable us to understand the obstacles facing the Sikh community in greater detail and to ensure that every public body knows what it is supposed to be doing and what impact it is having.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Foster]

I am happy to clarify that there will be a tick box for Sikhs under the religion section but not under ethnicity. There have been 55 requests for particular tick boxes on the census that the ONS is not recommending, and having a Sikh tick box under ethnicity is one of those that the ONS is not recommending.[Official Report, 14 October 2019, Vol. 666, c. 2MC.]

As I said, the Government will be guided by the ONS’s recommendations on what the census should include. Of course, Members can discuss the issue more fully when Parliament considers the main census orders that set the questions, but the Government will be guided by the ONS’s recommendations in this area.

Anyone who wishes to identify in the 2021 census as having Sikh or Kashmiri ethnicity, or Jain or Zoroastrian religion, will be able to do so under the existing proposals using the write-in option or the new “search as you type” facility.

[Preet Kaur Gill]

Will the Minister meet me to discuss this? I have had numerous meetings with the ONS, which has not been able to explain how it will use the tools because they have never been used before. This conversation has been had on many occasions. I know he refers to religion, but we are talking about how we deliver public services in the United Kingdom. We do not use the religion category. I challenged the ONS and asked it to make that category mandatory. It said there was no public acceptability in respect of that.

What I am requesting from the Minister is some challenge back to the ONS. If there is no data on Sikhs, especially when the Cabinet Office has looked at a hundred datasets across Government, surely we should present some challenge back. In the last census 90% of Sikhs—83,000 Sikhs—ticked “other” and wrote in “Sikh” as a protest vote. I would like to feel assured that he will present some challenge back, especially given that, as legislators, we should be upholding the law and Sikhs are classified as an ethnic group.

[Kevin Foster]

I am more than happy to meet the hon. Lady to have a more in-depth conversation about this issue, and I will make sure that ONS representatives are also present so that she can put her point directly to them.

I make it clear that the census is about data collection, and it is a criminal offence for a person not to respond to the overall census, but it is right that the questions are seen as having been professionally recommended for data collection purposes, rather than a Minister personally choosing the questions and tick boxes that are included.

Today’s debate is about the questions on these two issues being voluntary, rather than coming through schedule 6, which would make them compulsory. For reasons with which many of us will agree, this is a very sensitive area of data.

Given that these analytical possibilities already exist, we believe there are no grounds for this new clause, which is potentially damaging to the integrity of the census. It would require changes to questions that have been extensively researched, tested and consulted on by the ONS in its independent advisory capacity over the three years of evidence gathering to inform the proposals for the 2021 census. It would also serve to introduce the risk of confusion and concern for individuals completing the gender identity question. My early discussions with the ONS indicated that, as was referred to by the shadow Minister, it would be likely to recommend that this question was not included in census 2021 if this new clause were passed, given the changes it would make to that question.

--- Later in debate ---

Complexity or confusion lowers the quality of the data in any census question, but for a deeply personal aspect of the census the effect is likely to be greater, and that is especially true here as respondents’ reactions to these amendments are untested. I know it is not the hon. Lady’s intention to undermine the integrity and quality of this vital data collection, and that she wishes to stand up strongly for the community she wants to represent in this place. I therefore hope she will agree to withdraw her new clause.

[Preet Kaur Gill]

I thank the Minister for his comments. It is worrying to hear him say that the ONS would think about pulling this whole section if this proposal went through, because, as the ONS will know, disaggregating data is very important and we know that there are a lot of issues to address on the data on gender and especially on ethnic minority groups. I am grateful to him for offering a meeting to discuss this further. As elected legislators in this House, it is our duty to challenge all public bodies, especially when they are not working to ensure that communities that have not been counted are. There is a real need here, because the ONS has said time and again that it accepts, recognises and understands there is a demand to have a Sikh ethnic tick box. Despite that it is not prepared to do this. All we are asking for is the option of a Sikh ethnic tick box, which is very doable. We all know that when the census order comes to this House it will be very difficult to make any amendments at that time, so any work that needs to be done needs to be done between now and the laying of that order. Once again, I thank the Minister. I would not wish to jeopardise this section on the basis of what I am pursuing, but I will persist and I am grateful to him for offering a meeting. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

As indicated on the Order Paper, Mr Speaker has certified that clause 1 relates exclusively to England and Wales and is within devolved legislative competence. As the Bill has not been amended during Committee, there is no change to that certification.

The appropriate consent motion has been tabled. Does the Minister intend to move it?

Oral Answers to Questions

Preet Kaur Gill Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd April 2019 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I know how passionately my hon. Friend has campaigned on this issue for some time now. He refers to the deal that the Government have put forward being rejected. Of course, the Leader of the Opposition’s deal has also been rejected by this House, as has a second referendum. What I believe we should be doing is delivering on the result of the first referendum, which is why I will be sitting down with the Leader of the Opposition later today.

[Preet Kaur Gill (Birmingham, Edgbaston) (Lab/Co-op)]

Q5. My constituent Georgia Stokes has two children with autism who have been unable to get the support they need and are therefore not at school because of incorrect diagnoses. Every child with autism is unique, which is why awareness raising and education about autism is vital. Some 34% of children on the autism spectrum say that the worst thing about being at school is being picked on. This World Autism Awareness Week, will the Prime Minister commit to speeding up the time between referral for autism and diagnosis, and will she promise to fund mandatory training for healthcare professionals so that parents such as Georgia are not left to fend for themselves?

[The Prime Minister]

The hon. Lady again raises the important issue of autism. I am sure that, as constituency MPs, we all see cases where parents have found it very difficult to get support for their children who are on the autistic spectrum. It is important to ensure that there is the awareness and the ability to deal with this issue. As I said in response to my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Dame Cheryl Gillan), we are looking again at our autism strategy, because we want to ensure that we have in place all we need to support those with autism.