Budget Resolutions

Wera Hobhouse Excerpts

Wednesday 6th March 2024 Commons Chamber

[Dame Meg Hillier]

I do not have time to explain, but no; it is the responsibility of the council. Many properties were sold off under right to buy, which means that fewer properties are available. People like my constituent are living cheek by jowl with people in private rented accommodation, often sold to cash buyers if it is above seven storeys, who pay private rents at the rate that I mentioned. The differential is extraordinary, and it means that no one can move from one to the other. The social rented housing that is so desperately needed because of the cost of buying or renting private housing is not available.

Under this Mayor and the previous Mayor, my borough has been building council housing for social rent, as have many housing association partners, but because there is no Government subsidy, every time they build a social rent they pretty much have to build another to sell at market rate in order to cross-subsidise. That is a quick lesson in social housing economics. That shows the detachment, because people in this Chamber do not realise the reality of life for so many in London.

Let us look at the real human impacts. There are 3,777 children in temporary accommodation in Hackney—enough to fill eight primary schools, and equivalent to 1% of the borough’s population. Those children want to live in London but cannot afford to do so. Not only that, but they are being passed from pillar to post, from temporary accommodation to temporary accommodation, and moving school regularly. This is a squeeze on opportunity.

For those at the higher end who might be able to get on to the housing ladder, the lifetime ISA is an opportunity missed in the Budget because it provides support only for a property purchase of up to £450,000 nationally. That rate is higher in London, but even that does not cover the cost, given that, typically, a brand-new two-bedroom property costs £750,000. Who is able to afford that?

On public spending, the Chancellor merrily talked about reductions in spending in most Departments. I have not had time to go through the Red Book in detail, but we see a huge drop. The Home Office budget alone is going down significantly, which is a concern considering all the challenges in policing, immigration and other security issues that it has to deal with, and we could look at education, too. All those budgets are reducing.

There are big nasties out there in every Department that will cost money for whoever is in power. There is the civil nuclear decommissioning and rebuilding of our nuclear power stations, the nuclear enterprise and the costs of decommissioning nuclear submarines. We have not even decommissioned one of those—the first will be done in 2026—and that is becoming an urgent crisis.

There are 700,000 pupils in crumbling schools. These are just some issues where input is needed. On the schools budget, the Department for Education wanted £4 billion a year to build the new schools that were necessary, but it was granted £2.7 billion. We have already seen its capital budget reducing.

The Chancellor talked about public sector productivity and reform. The Public Accounts Committee, which I am proud to chair, examines that endlessly, and too often we see optimistic plans that do not deliver, as I said. He is already spending what he is promising to deliver on that. Let me tell hon. Members that this takes a long time. We need reform and digital transformation, but we cannot deliver those changes and budget savings overnight. We need a long-term approach—slow politics, if you like—where both sides of the House, whoever is in government, agree that some things just have to happen and should not be at the whim of a Government who are on their last desperate stages to try to prove that they have something to offer the British public.

[Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)]

The hon. Lady is making an excellent speech about all the things that were not in the Budget. Does she agree that the biggest missed opportunity is not investing in the green transition?

[Dame Meg Hillier]

There are so many missed opportunities. The child benefit issue was a mess of this Government’s making. They have now broken the independent taxation rule and that is a problem.

This Government have broken Britain. My constituents are worse off than they were 14 years ago, and worse still, they have no hope. We need to see a Government who will deliver hope, opportunity, housing and school improvements, and cut waiting lists. We need to mend broken Britain; we need a general election and a Labour Government now.

International Women’s Day: Language in Politics

Wera Hobhouse Excerpts

Thursday 29th February 2024 Commons Chamber

[Dame Maria Miller (Basingstoke) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the use of language in politics in light of International Women’s Day; agrees that the respectful use of language is an important feature of a strong and inclusive democracy; and calls on all parliamentary candidates to pledge that respectful language will be used at all times in the upcoming General Election campaigning period.

I would like to start the debate, on behalf of members of the all-party parliamentary group on women in Parliament, by saying thank you. I thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting the debate, which we should never take for granted given the pressure to hold debates in the Chamber, and I thank the Fawcett Society, which provides the secretariat to the APPG. Like all APPGs, ours is open to all Members and is cross-party. There is more that unites us than divides us when it comes to women in politics and particularly to women who stand for elected office.

Let us start the debate to mark International Women’s Day, which I have to remember is a national holiday around Europe, by celebrating the women who make our communities great. Like everybody else I have a long list I could recite, but I would just like to highlight Dr Avideah Nejad, a consultant gynaecologist at Hampshire Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, who took the time last Friday, along with Dr Dominic Kelly, to speak to students at my local sixth-form college about our brand new hospital and the work she does to inspire another generation of young people to take up medicine. We need more people like that in our communities.

The APPG want this debate to be more than a celebration. We want to continue our work to ensure that the amazing women on these Benches and in our communities see elected office as a way they can contribute to the future of our country. Women are now more likely than their male counterparts to come out of the best universities with the best degrees. They make up the majority of solicitors and the majority of students studying medicine, so why has the House of Commons not seen the same leaps as other sectors when it comes to attracting women into our midst? There are still two men elected to this place for every one woman. There are many reasons for that and I remind colleagues of the excellent research the APPG launched in September, but today’s debate invites us to focus on one element.

At the moment, as we heard in the statements today, too many women reject the idea of standing for election because of the abuse they face, in particular the abusive language used on social media. Abuse affects all of us, but it is disproportionately aimed at women and is more likely to put women off from standing for election. That is not to say that abusive language is acceptable to anyone. There is far more that online media platforms could and should be doing to stop online bullying and abuse among all their users, but the evidence is that it disproportionately negatively impacts women. That poses a huge risk to the retention of women in this place and, in turn, to democratic representation.

Over nine in 10 women MPs who took part in the research reported that online abuse or harassment negatively impacts how they feel about being an MP, compared with seven in 10 men—still not a great figure. Similarly, all the black and minoritised MPs who took part in the survey reported that they were negatively impacted by online abuse. The nature of the abuse was described as misogynistic and racist, with it taking a considerable toll not only on them but their families.

Lots has been done to recognise the problem. I pay particular tribute to Mr Speaker and his team in Parliament for the work they do in monitoring and acting on online abuse against Members, and ensuring increased levels of support are in place, as we heard in the statement by the Minister for Security, my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Tom Tugendhat) a few moments ago, so that MPs have support to live their day-to-day lives as they want to, and not in an isolated ivory tower. Abusive and threatening language is spilling over into real-life behaviour. This is something I and others raised in the debates on the Online Safety Bill.

Politicians are not delicate flowers, but there can be few people who would be unaffected by having two work colleagues murdered in the last eight years. David and Jo were just going about their work as constituency MPs. We have seen the shift to protesters feeling a legitimate right to camp outside MPs’ homes, and maybe not just outside, and to attempt to intimidate MPs through their children, partners, husbands or wives—something I have experienced myself. The additional security is essential, but it will not solve the problem. We have to challenge and change the culture of online abuse, and the online abuse that is now spilling offline, too.

Free speech and its protection is often cited as a reason why we should not be regulating the online environment. Free speech is a crucial part of our democracy. The passing of the Online Safety Act 2023 into law demonstrates that the Government understand there is a line to tread between free speech and protections. But free speech is not the only thing we must safeguard. Speaking freely is just as important. Too many women in particular fear organised attacks if they speak up and speak freely on the issues that matter to them. In research, three quarters of women MPs said they do not speak up on certain issues because of the abusive environment online. The same goes for men; the numbers who are impacted are much smaller—around half—but that is still something we should be concerned about. The ability of this place to speak freely is being curtailed.

There is another aspect to this. Parliamentary privilege and the parliamentary language we use in this place means we have an obligation to choose our words carefully. People who watch our debates note that every time. But are we as careful outside the Chamber? Is political campaigning being shaped to fit the medium of social media: polarised, binary, simplistic, and chasing the algorithm first and foremost at the expense of nuanced debate? There are serious implications for our democracy if we allow our politics to be shaped by—I am afraid—a mob mentality that can thrive in the online world. The Online Safety Act can only be the start. I reiterate my call, which I mentioned in earlier proceedings, for a Select Committee for online safety to keep the issue under constant review.

In advance of the debate, I received a note from the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, who is contacted by thousands of members of the public every year with their views on parliamentary standards. The language we choose to use matters in maintaining a culture of respect in political debate. Robust debate is not the same as personal intimidation and abuse. Is referring to your opponent as “scum” part of free speech and a robust debate, or is it abusive political campaigning? We all need to think carefully about that.

[Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)]

The right hon. Lady has mentioned online platforms and a form of responsibility, but does she believe that Parliament itself should take more responsibility for the barriers that women are facing, or citing as their reasons for not entering Parliament, and for the language that we use here? What might that responsibility look like?

[Dame Maria Miller]

I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention, and for her support for the all-party parliamentary group. Trying to make this a place that people want to come to should be a cross-party effort, along with tackling social media abuse and not only holding online platforms to account, but ensuring that they take down abusive images and messages inciting violence against Members of Parliament. That should be done much more quickly than it has been in the experience of many Members. There is so much more, over and above social media, that we need to change if we want more women to be willing to come here. Although half the population of our country is female, very few women want to stand for election, for reasons including some that I have mentioned.

--- Later in debate ---

[Caroline Nokes (Romsey and Southampton North) (Con)]

Every year, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Jess Phillips), reads out that list. I do not think that I have ever had to follow her directly, and it is not an easy job to do. We are here to celebrate as well as commemorate, and as International Women’s Day is coming up next week, it is important that we reflect on what improvements there have been, but also on the failures.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Dame Maria Miller) has brought forward a motion about the language of politics and the language that we use. I apologise if, following that horrendous list, the language that I use is a bit flippant. I want to celebrate some of the achievements. I look at the fantastic, joyful experience we had last summer with the “Barbie” movie—a film directed by a woman. It was the biggest ever debut, and it was a wonderful celebration of all that is frivolous and pink, but had an important underlying message. But what did we learn? That the Oscar nominations would go to a man.

Over the last 12 months, my Select Committee has worked with some incredible women who have come to the Committee and told their stories. I particularly reflect on Vicky Pattison and Naga Munchetty, who came and spoke so emotionally and importantly about the experiences they had gone through with adenomyosis and a particular type of premenstrual tension that had caused Vicki to go, in her own words, “really quite mad”. I remember the language of politics immediately after they left. I remember the email I got from a man—surprisingly—who told me that he was not interested in hearing from my “celebrity mates”. I pointed out to him that they are not celebrities; one woman is a broadcast journalist and the other, Vicky Pattison, is a very successful broadcaster in her own right. I send a message to Vicky today: you are not just the woman from “Geordie Shore”. He criticised the fact that we had them in front of the Committee and not other, “serious” women. That afternoon, I sent him an email asking whether he had sent the same email to the Chair of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Dame Caroline Dinenage), who had had George Osborne in front of her Committee. Did Mr Osborne count as a celebrity friend? The man admitted that he did not.

I would like to reflect on women’s achievements in sport, particularly the achievements of the Lionesses, who did such an incredible job to get to the final of the World cup. I would like to celebrate Spain—I really would—but a man spoilt that for us, didn’t he? I look at that individual, who made sure that the story of female triumph in sport was, once more, all about the bad behaviour of men. I will not name him.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke said that we need a world where women not only have free speech, but can speak freely. I reflect on the sports commentators who came in front of my Committee and said that when they make identical comments to those of male commentators, they are attacked on social media for being stupid or for being female, yet the men get away with their comments with no remark whatsoever. I commend my right hon. Friend for her pledge, and for the APPG’s work to make sure that, in the coming general election, we are careful with our language and think about the words we use. It really ought not to be necessary. I would like to think that I can get through this entire election campaign without being racist, sexist or homophobic—it really is not that high a bar to have set. Let us see what actually happens.

Sticking with sport, I would like to reflect on Mary Earps—Mary Queen of Saves—but all we got to talk about was her shirt, not her brilliant prowess on the field in making all those saves that got England to the final. We had to talk about the fact that Nike did not think that her shirt was important enough to have bothered to print one. Of course, when she won sports personality of the year, The Sun was the first one out there to talk not about her brilliant prowess, but about the fact that we could see her knickers through her dress.

I would like to talk about Taylor Swift, who was Time magazine’s “person of the year” for a second time, and who has a monthly reach of 100 million people on Spotify. It is an absolutely incredible achievement. We cannot talk about Taylor Swift without also having to talk about Kanye West and his efforts to silence her, criticise her and, indeed, use her in his music.

I would like to talk about Claudia Goldin, the solo female winner of the Nobel prize for economics—the first time there has been a solo female winner. Of course, she was studying the obstacles that women face in obtaining equal pay, because we are still there. We are still struggling to obtain equal pay and to see the gender pension gap shrink.

On today of all days, when we have heard about horrific abuse and the measures that have had to be put in place to protect Members of this place, what has been really striking is that colleagues have spoken not about the abuse they face, but about the abuse their family faces. Our families feel it. I know that the abuse is bad on social media, despite “block”, “mute” and “delete” being my best friends. My daughter will send me a text message that just says, “Are you okay?”. That is how I know that it is bad out there.

[Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)]

It is so important to remember all those who are affected alongside a Member of Parliament. That includes our staff, doesn’t it?

[Caroline Nokes]

It absolutely includes our staff. My staff are criticised for working for me, when all they have done is apply for a job that they thought might be quite interesting and rewarding, and that might give them an opportunity to contribute.

There are many challenges, and we have to use our role in this place to do better. I always say that we can all do better. It is important to emphasise that none of us is perfect, and we should always strive to improve and be the very best Members of Parliament we can be.

Journalists the world over ask me whether the job of a Member of Parliament is worth doing, whether I feel safe and whether I would recommend it to any young woman, and I leave them with these important words: do it, because it is the best job in the world. The job means that you can make a difference for your community, and it means that our democracy is not dominated by white, 45-year-old men. I apologise to my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Paul Holmes), my constituency neighbour. He is not 45.

[Carolyn Harris (Swansea East) (Lab)]

I also thank the right hon. Member for Basingstoke (Dame Maria Miller) for securing today’s debate. It is always an honour to be here to mark International Women’s Day.

Today’s debate calls for respectful language to be used in this place and in the upcoming general election, as the public look to us for leadership and example. It is crucial that we respect each other and those who elected us to be their representative.

I reflect on my nine years of serving the people of Swansea East in Parliament, and I am confident that I have built mutually respectful relationships both across the House and throughout the communities that I work with. Like many colleagues, I have had my fair share of abuse, particularly online. It saddens me that it is generally nothing to do with my politics or the causes that I champion; it is always because of my gender or my appearance—my hair colour, my choice of outfits, my size, or my glasses.

Just this week, following a debate in Westminster Hall, I was subject to some very interesting abuse from people who purport to disagree with my stance on an issue. However, their comments on X, formerly known as Twitter, had little to do with what I said. To give a flavour:

“I wouldn't let that thing decide what boxer shorts I was wearing in the morning.”

That says more about them than me, I think.

“It is of my opinion that you are obese. See a doctor immediately. Bring in affordability checks for all the”

stuff—I have used another word instead of theirs—

“you must eat to make you that fat.”

Another wrote:

“F these blue hair fat ugly freaks.”

And another:

“Shouldn’t this buffoon be serving jelly and custard to five year olds or on lolly pop duty?”

As a former dinner lady, I do not find that at all insulting.

That is just a snapshot of the disrespectful, misogynistic rhetoric that these bullies—that is what they are—feel that they are entitled to post, just because we are MPs. I agree that the language we use in this place is important, but there is a bigger issue that needs to be addressed.

Members would be disappointed if I did not talk about the menopause. Earlier this month, Avanti showcased its menopause toolkit for staff. It contained, among other things: a fan “for hot sweats”; tissues for “if you’re feeling a bit emotional”; a paperclip “to help you keep it all together”; a jelly baby “in case you feel like biting someone’s head off”; and a pencil “to write down things you might forget.” That is hardly the kind of language we should use about anyone, let alone women who are perimenopausal or menopausal. It is insulting, and it belittles symptoms that are so debilitating for many. I am sure it was done with the best intention and was perhaps meant to bring a bit of humour to the situation, but the choice of language is so important. I know from the communications I have received that it was deeply offensive, not only to a lot of women but to men, too. People working for the company were disappointed that this was Avanti’s response.

[Wera Hobhouse]

We are hearing terrible things in this discussion about banter. People say things are just banter, but banter can be very offensive. We should not be intimidated by people who say that we cannot take banter. It is important that people realise that some banter is offensive.

[Carolyn Harris]

I agree. Before I was elected, my husband always told me that I would need to have a thick skin. Well, it has gone past having a thick skin. At the end of the day, I am a human being. People would not speak to a person on the street like that, so why should I or anyone else have to experience it online? It is not banter; it is degrading.

My mission is to ensure that our conversations and the language we use normalises the menopause in communities locally, nationally and even globally. I have had some exciting opportunities to do this, but none more exciting than the opportunity I had last week to join a team of wonderful friends and colleagues, with good knowledge and expertise, in going to Eastwood Park women’s prison in the constituency of the hon. Member for Thornbury and Yate (Luke Hall). Menopause has over 40 symptoms, ranging from anxiety and brain fog to urinary tract infection and vaginal dryness. Many women struggle to navigate this time of their life, and they suffer as a result. Imagine not being able to pop out for fresh air during a hot flush; having night sweats while sleeping on a plastic mattress; or suffering crippling anxiety while locked up alone. That is the reality for women in prison. The difference I saw in the women between the Monday and the Friday was mind-blowing. We delivered a message that made a difference. I am hugely grateful to Davina McCall, Hazel Hayden and the Bristol menopause clinic, Kate Rowe-Ham, Lavina Mehta, Michelle Griffith Robinson and Kate Muir, who came with me to do this work. I am even more grateful to Eastwood Park’s governor, Zoë Short, and her team—Abbie Garrett and Alison Rivers—not only for trusting us to share the message with the women, but for being so proactive in supporting them.

Financial Risk Checks for Gambling

Wera Hobhouse Excerpts

Monday 26th February 2024 Westminster Hall

[Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under you in the Chair, Sir Edward.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Neath (Christina Rees) on introducing the debate, which has already shown that this is very much a question of balance. We recognise the problem of gambling and gambling addiction, but we also understand that there are many forms of gambling, and the majority of people speaking today are here because we support horseracing and racecourses. We must ensure that we try to stop harm, which we are all absolutely in favour of doing, but do not put the baby out with the bathwater by putting out of business the wonderful facilities in our communities that enjoy so much support.

If affordability checks are to be implemented, they should be carefully and deliberately targeted at those most at risk of harm. We have already heard that exact sentence this afternoon. We need to ensure that problem gambling does not ruin more lives. We all believe in the need to protect people from gambling harms, and reforms are overdue: the UK has 400,000 problem gamblers, including some 60,000 children aged 11 to 16. Those figures are stark.

My constituency, however, is lucky to enjoy an active and vibrant horseracing scene. Bath is Britain’s highest flat racecourse, with a distinguished history of racing going back to 1811. Racing was first recorded in Bath in 1728, which is a reminder that people did not go to Bath just to take the waters. Bath racecourse is an incredibly important venue for the city. It hosts more than 20 races each season but, much more, it is also a venue for family days, live music and many other large-scale events. It was also a vaccination hub during the pandemic. It is an important employer and welcomes thousands of visitors.

Not surprisingly, many of my constituents have signed the petition. British racing is particularly vulnerable to changes made to gambling regulations and, as we have already heard many times this afternoon, we must ensure that we get this right. The racecourse has expressed concerns to me about proposed affordability checks. It believes that a one-size-fits-all approach will not work, and I echo that. Proposed affordability checks currently will be the same for everyone, no matter how much they can earn or what their disposable betting income is.

Bath racecourse has welcomed Government assurances that most consumers will not actively notice checks taking place. It is right that checks will be frictionless, but Bath racecourse is concerned that intrusive checks could put off punters, as we have heard. I am not an expert—I do not own any moderately successful racehorses—but occasionally I go to a race, and it is absolutely true that it is fun to put a bet on a horse, because we are invested in that horse. That is fine for most people. We should absolutely ensure that that sort of betting is not intrusively checked; that if somebody wins, they can bet and try their luck again; and that we are not stopping all those types of betting or the fun that people have at racecourses—the majority of people have harmless fun.

The majority of gambling problems stem from people chasing their losses and spending more than they can afford; I think I have heard that about gambling addiction, although I am not an expert. Ultimately, people get most excited by betting more if they have lost something. In fact, we have also heard that when people are winning, they are sometimes excluded from betting more. That is absolutely not right.

We Liberal Democrats are adding something to this debate: we would adopt a public health approach to gambling legislation. We propose that there should be a soft cap on gambling losses set at £100 per month. That proposed cap is much higher than the vast majority of gamblers lose in a month, so occasional gamblers would not be affected in any way and would not appear on any database. As I have said, many gambling companies already require financial data for gamblers to be able to open an account, so for many who reach the £100 cap no additional information would be required. If someone wished to bet beyond that loss limit, they would be required to provide financial data to show that they can afford to do so.

The affordability checks would be run separately from any individual gambling company. There would be confidential sharing of data between different gambling companies so that an individual could not get close to the cap with several companies at the same time. We need a single, independently run system of affordability checks that treats people with dignity. Data collected for that purpose would be held securely and confidentially and solely for that purpose. The affordability checks would not apply to cash gambling, for example, at horseracing. Those are some proposals that the Minister might have a look at.

It is important that there should be reform, but it is also important that we get this right. It is particularly important to me that such a wonderful facility as Bath racecourse is not affected by a hammer approach to tackle the problem. That would have unintended consequences and put wonderful community facilities such as Bath racecourse out of business.

--- Later in debate ---

[Peter Aldous]

If I have misinterpreted the hon. Lady, I apologise profusely. LBOs are very important on the high streets. They also tend to have a family feel about them in that the staff, many of whom now are women, have a good family relationship with the punters. If people start getting out of control, they very quickly say, “Hang on, do you know where you are going on that?” There is a long supply chain.

We have also heard about unintrusive and frictionless checks. The feedback that I get is that they are very difficult to put into practice. We will either see the rise of the black market—the large article on the front of the Racing Post indicates that that is a reality—or a lot of small punters will say, “Well, I give up. I’m not going to do it.” That then impacts on the levy and it spirals down to the impact on racing.

Finally, there is an element of hypocrisy about this in that the lottery is not included. The lottery is great and it is probably one of the best legacies of the Major Government. Its impact has been profound and positive. When I was growing up, very rarely did we win Olympic gold medals. I remember listening to David Hemery when he won in 1968 in Mexico. We now win in so many different sports, and that is the direct result of the lottery. The lottery is a great thing, but it is a game of chance rather than a game of skill. It is random betting and it can take over people’s lives. I remember one statistic put to me that if I gambled on the national lottery every year since Moses was pulled out of the bulrushes, I still would not have won. We need to look at all forms of gambling and betting together.

In conclusion, I was reading the Racing Post a few months ago. One of its leading journalists, Chris Cook, son of the former Labour Foreign Secretary Robin Cook, made a comment that left me thinking. He said that you would not have expected a Conservative Government to do this to horseracing. I agree with him. On that point, I urge the Minister, who is listening very intently to the great speeches that we have had—

[Wera Hobhouse]

I have followed the whole of the debate, and I want to say quickly that this is not a party political issue. It is an issue for all those who feel that horseracing gives us so much across all communities. I sincerely hope that the Minister believes it is a cross-party issue that we all must address.

[Peter Aldous]

The hon. Lady is right that it is not party political, but it is a point that Chris Cook made. If we look back, we all remember seeing Robin Cook at the racecourse in his Barbour jacket, down by the final fence. Alex Salmond is actually a great punter as well. It is not party political but at the moment, we have a Conservative Government, so I urge the Minister to take on board what he is hearing this afternoon.

[George Freeman (Mid Norfolk) (Con)]

They say that all good things come to those who wait, so I hope the Minister will listen to my words and then reassure me that I have not waited in vain. I am grateful for the chance to speak in this debate. When more than 40 or 50 colleagues turn up to Westminster Hall—for those listening, and who are not aware—we clearly have a problem. Actually, I suggest we have two problems that the Minister present has the great honour of helping us to deal with.

The first is the very serious problem of the increasing number of people in this country who find themselves in the turmoil of addictive online gambling. That is a real problem. The second is the fragility of the finances of racing, a sport that we all love. We need to be clear about those two problems and not to conflate them too much, as has been done, and to work out how to deal with them both, because both problems are real.

I have no particular interest in racing, other than a long family history and connection. I have been to the races many times, both before my time here and as a Member of Parliament, and occasionally as a guest of the BHA, which supported the work I did to create the Bridge of Hope charity. I was, with pride, closely involved with the 2013 Offshore Gambling Bill, promoted by my right hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk (Matt Hancock), who represents Newmarket, to bring offshore betting within the purview of the levy to give racing a serious boost. I do not have a racetrack in my constituency yet; I have waited for the Boundary Commission to put Fakenham in my patch for many years, but it has refused to do so. I enjoy the little tracks as much as the big—a point that my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous) has just made. It is a great pleasure to follow him. My brother trains in California, and I have spent many hours as an underpaid hot walker, walking his hots around the track in both California and, in rather cooler weather, at Woodbine in the winter. I am a happy and assiduous attendee at Fakenham races, one of the country’s great regional tracks

I think the House will be aware that I really stand this afternoon because of my own family experience. My father was a jump jockey who rode through the ’40s and ’50s. He rode for Sir Peter Cazalet and rode Her late Majesty the Queen Mother’s horses. In 1958, he won the grand national on Mr What and the King George on Lochroe. With my mother, he bred Specify, who went on to win the national in ’71. However, my father’s is a tragic story. After many head injuries, head injury-induced depression and psychosis, alcohol addiction, gambling and bankruptcy, his life—indeed, that of my family—collapsed in 1967. It is a familiar tale for many sporting heroes, but a story that, thanks to the great work of the racing industry, we do not see any more because we are better at looking after jockeys and better at detecting head injuries.

It is in that context that I want to make clear that I rise today because I take the unintended consequences very seriously—the damage of great sport when not properly regulated, and the damage of gambling and bankruptcy. I am not at all relaxed about those dangers. I hope it is, therefore, all the more powerful when I join colleagues who have spoken today in saying how seriously I worry that this well-intended measure, designed to tackle the curse of online gambling, is in danger of not solving that problem, but exacerbating another: the deeply fragile finances of a great sport that all Members present, across all parties, have expressed our love for.

I am fearful that we are in danger of making a mistake that, in 15 years in Parliament and 30 years of watching, I have seen all too often, which is the mistake of do-somethingery: “Something must be done. This is something—let’s do it.” It is using a sledgehammer to crack a nut, with the law of unintended consequences, punishing the innocent and doing very little to tackle the real problem, and seriously damaging the financial resilience of this great industry. I think it would be a huge mistake, and a great shame on us as a generation and on the Government who allowed it to happen. In that spirit, I am here to try to give the Minister some helpful tips on how we might find the right way through this.

I thank the petitioners who brought us here today, as well as the Racing Post and the British Horseracing Authority, which have done such good work to raise the issues. I will highlight three important pieces of data shared in the British Horseracing Authority brief. The first relates to the impact of these measures. More than 15,000 horserace bettors took part in the Right to Bet survey in the autumn. Of those, more than half said they will stop betting, or bet less, if new checks are introduced, while one in 10 bettors is already using a black market bookmaker. Some 40% are prepared to use the black market if clunky enforcement affordability checks are implemented, 90% oppose postcodes or job titles being used to determine their ability to bet, and 26% have already experienced an affordability check ahead of the passing of any legislation.

Secondly, the briefing makes clear the full impact of these reforms if introduced as they stand. There will potentially be a £50 million cost to this industry, which, as my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney has just made clear, is already struggling. That is not something that we should accept lightly.

Thirdly, the briefing points out that a £500 a year upper threshold for frictionless checks works out at a net spend of just £1.37 a day. Are we seriously intending to damage the viability of this great sport and this great industry in order to look busy in monitoring a £1.37 risk? This is a disproportionate measure and I fear that it will have major unintended consequences.

I will not repeat or rehearse the arguments that have been made very eloquently by many colleagues. I will just highlight the fact that there are many who are not able to speak here today, including many peers in the upper House, whom I will not name but who have taken a very strong interest in the issue, and my right hon. Friends the Members for Stratford-on-Avon (Nadhim Zahawi) and for Witham (Priti Patel), and my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Guy Opperman), who is a Minister. He is also a distinguished amateur jockey who would have spoken today had he been allowed to do so. Many people from across the House have not been able to speak in this debate but would have done so very forcefully.

I will make one or two points that perhaps have not been made as fully as they might have been. First, as has been said, racing is a vital mainstay of the decentralised rural economy all round this country, and it is absolutely key to the levelling-up mission that the Government have set out. Yes, it is the sport of kings, as others have said, but it is also the sport of stable lads and ladesses, and the sport of small businesses all around the country. It is the sport that provides the pyramid at the bottom of which are the point to point races, the pony clubs and all the grassroots equestrian activity that we love and rely on.

From Yarmouth to Chepstow, from Wincanton to Kelso and from Cartmel to Catterick, many tracks are integral to their local economy. Horseracing touches on and is instrumental in 60 marginal seats, which is not a small number in an election year, creates 80,000 jobs directly and 100,000 indirectly, and 8,000 small and medium-sized enterprises are involved with it. This is not a fringe activity; it is a very key activity at the heart of our decentralised economy.

I will just make another point. An earlier speaker suggested that we do not need betting to support the boat race or one-off events. Horses are not machines and we cannot have an industry based on one race a year. The reason we can have the Derby is that we have all the other races that build up to it, and it is the same with the grand national. Those two races are the pinnacles of great pyramids of activity that start at small, windy tracks all around the country. Also, horses cannot just be parked for 364 days a year and then asked to run; the training and the conditioning of horses requires activity all through the year.

[Wera Hobhouse]

Throughout this debate, we have not really mentioned these beautiful creatures, the joy we get from watching them race, or all those people who work with, train and look after them. That is really important to all of us who have spoken today.

Draft Gender Recognition (Approved Countries and Territories and Saving Provision) Order 2023

Wera Hobhouse Excerpts

Tuesday 6th February 2024 General Committees

[Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)]

Thank you, Mrs Murray, for calling me to speak. I apologise for not being aware of the rules for such a Committee; this is the first time I have served on one, and I was not aware that I had to say in advance that I was going to speak, so thank you for letting me say a few words.

The vast majority of people across the UK agree that we need to make sure everyone’s rights and dignity are respected, and that includes legal recognition of their gender. From what I have just heard, it is difficult not to think that this measure is a political gesture. I am the last person who would want to put the rights or the safety of women at risk, but it is interesting that the women—on the Opposition Benches mostly—in whose name these policies are often designed are far less concerned about the way that this political debate has been held in the last few months or years. I believe that both sides need to be heard, and both groups are very vulnerable, so we need to make sure that we get the balance right.

The proposal in this order is that people from countries that have moved towards forms of self-ID for transgender individuals will be made to produce medical documentation when applying for a gender recognition certificate in the UK. In essence, those changes appear designed to make life for transgender people coming to the UK more difficult, especially if they come from countries that are most politically aligned with us. Surely, the Government have a good basis for doing that, and I would welcome an explanation as to what evidence the proposed changes are based on, apart from the fact that other countries have changed their rules.

No single-sex spaces or protected spaces currently require the presentation of a gender recognition certificate. Instead, trained staff undertake a dynamic risk assessment as to whether it is appropriate to grant admission to someone. I would be interested to hear from the Government who they believe these changes benefit and whether any assessment has been made of their potential harm.

For almost 20 years, we have had a system that allows transgender people to have their gender recognised in law. The Conservative Government themselves concluded in 2018 that the current process is “too bureaucratic” and “intrusive”. What has changed since then?

We are now in the odd position where the Government are declaring that countries that have chosen to allow forms of self-ID are “not vigorous enough”, even though the Conservative Government supported the reforms in 2018. We Liberal Democrats still believe that the current gender recognition process is too bureaucratic and intrusive. The Government must have changed their minds since 2018, but other countries have not, and nor have the Liberal Democrats.

I would like to understand what the Government’s thinking is when they say that our system is too bureaucratic, but people from countries that have introduced something less bureaucratic are now excluded from coming into this country unless they produce more evidence. I would be very interested to hear the argument.

Children’s Mental Health Week 2024

Wera Hobhouse Excerpts

Tuesday 30th January 2024 Westminster Hall

[Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)]

It is an honour to serve while you are in the Chair, Mr Pritchard. I congratulate the hon. Member for Tooting (Dr Allin-Khan) on introducing the subject in such a wide-ranging and compassionate way. I prepared only a few notes because I thought the debate would be over-subscribed, but I hope we will still fill the time. I might add a few things that I have not prepared.

I want to focus particularly on adverse childhood experiences. I have been the chair of the all-party parliamentary group for the prevention of adverse childhood experiences, which we now call the APPG for childhood trauma, for some years. Listening to and understanding the science of adverse childhood experiences has given me a real insight. I commend the WAVE Trust, which has also done a lot of work on attachment disorder and the importance of a child’s early attachment to their mother. The trust has been a fabulous supporter of the APPG for childhood trauma.

Our children are falling through the cracks. It is clear that our approach to childhood mental health is not working—I agree with the hon. Member for Tooting on that. As the chair of the APPG for childhood trauma, I will focus my attention on trauma in mental health.

Adverse childhood experiences, also known as ACEs, are the biggest drivers of poor mental health in children. They can be anything that threatens to overwhelm the child, including abuse and neglect. Being unable to process prolonged stress can alter a child’s normal brain function, which often stays with that person all their life. That is what we call trauma. A child’s brain helps them to survive in the moment, but it assumes that persistent stress or danger is normal and it therefore adapts to constant adrenalin. Because of that, those who experience childhood trauma are twice as likely to develop depression and three times as likely to develop anxiety disorders.

Very often, children’s behaviour at school is also affected. I asked a question in Education questions earlier this week about the Government’s behaviour policy, because ACEs are not even mentioned in it. If we do not talk about ACEs more—I use every opportunity to talk about them—gaps appear in the behaviour policy or guidelines to schools. The Department for Education does not even mention ACEs and childhood trauma; that needs to be corrected.

Many children carry their traumatic experience into later life. Someone’s chances of dropping out of school, being obese or even developing diseases such as strokes are higher the more ACEs they have experienced. The life expectancy of those with six or more ACEs is 20 years lower than that of peers with none. There is no limit for the reach of ACEs. That does not mean that people who suffer adverse childhood experiences are invariably condemned to a life of disadvantage, but it is so much more likely. We therefore have to focus on it.

Poverty is also an adverse childhood experience. That is why the connection between mental ill health and poverty is so important. We need to focus and see it for what it is.

[Sir Jeremy Quin (Horsham) (Con)]

The hon. Lady is making a fascinating speech, and I look forward to hearing more from her on a future occasion. She draws attention to how young people can get support and be recognised. In my constituency, we had a series of tragic events. Out of that, the NHS has provided i-Rock Horsham District, which is an opportunity for young people without a referral—without being told by a teacher, parent or doctor that this is the appropriate path—to present themselves for professional support. It will not be fully-fledged psychiatric support but it will have that triaging process, sometimes helping them with more basic issues or reassuring them, but often helping to pick up where they really need the kind of support my hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Dr Hudson) and others have referred to. That is proving extremely effective in my constituency.

[Wera Hobhouse]

I could not agree more. I hope my speech will make everybody here realise that we need much more understanding about ACEs. Some countries have that understanding and roll out trauma-informed services across the board, including police, education, welfare and health. A better understanding of ACEs will lead to more specialism and more people understanding this area. Trauma-informed schools, for instance, would also mean that teachers pick things up and go deeper into the issues of childhood trauma. I was a secondary school teacher before I became a Member of Parliament, and I sometimes wish I had known about ACEs, given some of the behavioural challenges I faced, which would make someone think, “That is just a very difficult child.” If I had known more, I would probably have picked up the behaviour as that of a traumatised child, rather than that of somebody who was consistently causing trouble. We would therefore deal with children differently.

[George Freeman]

The hon. Lady is making a powerful case, and I am keen to hear as much of it as I can. To the point I was trying to make earlier, extreme poverty is one cause of childhood trauma, but there are many others. Like many people in this House—I put my own hand up—I experienced childhood trauma, but I was in a materially privileged family. Poverty can provide a lot of those drivers that the hon. Lady has talked about, but I was taken out of the arms of my father by the police at 11 months, and I was a child carer of an alcoholic parent. Poverty has a part to play, but does the hon. Lady agree that we need to make sure we frame this in the context of the real causes, some of which are not related to poverty but to other chronic problems, such as alcohol, addiction or domestic violence? If we view the matter simply through the prism of a poverty attack, we are in danger of missing out some of the causes that are really embedded in repeated patterns of trauma within families.

[Wera Hobhouse]

First of all, it is brave that the hon. Gentleman is sharing his experiences of trauma. I think we need more people to do that. He is also absolutely right that not all of this is directly linked to poverty. Poverty or extreme poverty is one ACE among many others, and these things can happen in any family. Those who are doing research into ACEs would always recognise that trauma is not just suffered in a particular type of household but across socioeconomic backgrounds. The hon. Gentleman will know how difficult it is to overcome the traumas of early childhood and deal with them.

I want to make some progress. I am sorry that I cannot expand on ACEs now, but I encourage everybody who is here to inform themselves about them and the research that the WAVE Trust has done into the subject, which is fascinating and ongoing. That research suggests that the adverse childhood experiences of abuse and neglect alone, which can happen in any family, cost the UK more than £15 billion a year. Clearly, the cost of preventing adverse childhood experiences is less than that of inaction.

Unnoticed and unaddressed, adverse childhood experiences can be a lifelong sentence. Childhood trauma does not end with the child and it gets transferred to the next generation—that is also something that the APPG for childhood trauma has researched further. Then, there is a spiral or a vicious circle of repeat trauma. If childhood trauma is not addressed, those who become parents will carry their adverse childhood experiences into the next generation, and their children may suffer trauma, too. We must end this cycle, and that starts with early intervention. One factor that can help to prevent childhood trauma is whether the child feels capable and deserving. A supportive and reliable adult presence is key, and we often hear about how teachers, for example, have helped a great deal because they, as an adult, have been in the room when home life has been very difficult.

As I have said, trauma-informed services across the board—in schools, the NHS, the police and our prisons—would have a transformative impact on the whole of our society. Social workers must be supported to recognise the effect of ACEs early in children’s lives. Early years practitioners can spot signs of trauma at the age at which it is most likely to be resolved. I hope to hear commitments from the Minister on implementing trauma-informed services. Examining how trauma affects minds allows us to gain an enriched understanding of behaviour, and I have mentioned how that would support teachers. Rounded insights and changes in approach lead to better care for children, and better care for children now will be felt for generations to come.

[Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)]

I had not intended to speak, but there appears to be an opportunity to do so, and I am not one to pass it up, so I will make just a few comments. I declare my interests as per the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. Until recently, I was also for six years the chair of the trustees of the Parent-Infant Foundation, which did and continues to do very important work on infant mental health awareness, attachment and the provision of services.

I again congratulate the hon. Member for Tooting (Dr Allin-Khan) on securing this debate. It is a subject about which she knows much, and her passion shows through. I disagree with little of what she said, although her speech became a little partisan at some stages. This issue has besieged Governments over many years, but if one looks at the figures, most alarmingly, the incidence of mental illness among children has got particularly bad since the beginning of covid, and there are reasons for that that we should continue to be worried about. This is not a gradual progression; there has been a very serious downturn in recent years, which I will come back to.

I agree with all the comments that have been made about the disproportionate impact on children in the care system, children from black and minority ethnic backgrounds and those in poverty. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Norfolk (George Freeman) said, the issue is not exclusive to people from deprived backgrounds. In some projects run by the Parent-Infant Foundation around the country, we see parents from well-to-do city backgrounds who have serious attachment problems with their children. At times, we forget that mental illness spreads across the whole of society in different ways, and we need to be open to all of them.

[Wera Hobhouse]

Does the hon. Member not recognise that those from a less deprived background have better access to help than those from a poorer background?

[Tim Loughton]

There is something in that, and people from better-off backgrounds may have recourse to the private sector as well, but the point is that the illness impacts on everybody, although I certainly agree that the capacity to get early help for that illness is differentiated across families.

The impact of covid should not be underestimated. During covid, we saw the impact on new parents, particularly new single parents. One of the biggest impacts was the absence of health visitors able to go across the threshold of new parents’ homes, particularly on single parents having a child for the first time. There were the other horrors of covid going on, and people were detached from the normal family networks they might have, such as grandparents coming along to share their experience and give support. On top of that, they did not have a health visitor coming to visit them physically, because about three quarters of health visitors were diverted to the frontline of dealing with covid. It was only in the most deprived cases, where there were concerns, that health visitors physically got to go and visit.

On top of that, we had a decline in the numbers of health visitors, which reversed the position that the coalition Government produced, where we had an additional 4,200; quite rightly, that was a pledge by the Government, and it was actually delivered in the lifetime of one Government. Since then, numbers have declined again. I think there is absolutely a false economy.

Excess Death Trends

Wera Hobhouse Excerpts

Tuesday 16th January 2024 Westminster Hall

[Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con)]

I am here because a number of my constituents—the people I work for; they are my employers—have asked me to be here. I congratulate the hon. Member for North West Leicestershire (Andrew Bridgen) on securing this debate. He is right to ask the questions that he did, and right that the Post Office Horizon scandal has taught us that asking hard questions is really important.

This country generally does hard science well, and I am very proud of that. I do not think it is immodest to say that we are a science and technology superpower. However, science always needs to be evidence-based. We need to be unafraid to ask difficult questions, and we must never lack the professional curiosity to challenge and interpret data. That is really important for all of us. We have had references to lockdowns. I do not think that Parliament will ever agree to lockdowns again, because the situation is completely different now. We now have testing, vaccines and medicines, so I cannot ever see a future Parliament agreeing to lockdowns again.

I am one of the 93.6% who freely chose to be vaccinated against covid. That was my choice, but I support people who did not choose to be vaccinated. However, it is worth just mentioning that figure of 93.6%, and I am grateful for the opportunity to have been vaccinated.

I will just look at the facts. Unlike the hon. Member for North West Leicestershire, I do not have a biotechnology degree, but it has been put to me that according to the Office for National Statistics, which is independent, the mortality rate in 2022 in England was significantly lower than it was in 2020, before the arrival of covid-19. Also, analysis from the ONS published in August last year shows that people who have received a covid vaccination have a lower mortality rate than those who have not been vaccinated against covid. I accept that there are other data sets, and I completely agree with him that if there is more information that should be in the public domain, it should be put there; I support him in that regard. However, I also support the independent ONS. We challenge it at our peril, because it is important that we politicians have reliable data that is genuinely independent.

[Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Andrew Selous]

I am afraid that I will not, because I have so little time in which to speak, and I do not want to knock other speakers out.

What is the NHS doing about people dying who should not be dying? There are such deaths from cancer, cardiovascular disease, stroke, diabetes, respiratory disease, dementia and musculoskeletal conditions, because people stayed away from their GPs or from hospitals for too long. To be fair to the Government, there is a major programme in place. We want an additional 9 million treatments and diagnostic procedures over 2023 and 2024, and 30% more elective activity. There is £8 billion extra put in by the Chancellor, and a big focus on pharmacy. However, I think there should also be a focus on diet, exercise, lifestyle and air quality, all of which are important issues.

Post Office Horizon Scandal

Wera Hobhouse Excerpts

Wednesday 10th January 2024 Commons Chamber

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I thank the hon. Lady for her point. I am not aware of the particular case to which she refers, but it is certainly our position that we want to work closely with people who have been through that scheme. The advisory board originally just covered the group litigation order claims. We then expanded its remit to cover all three schemes, so that it could ensure that they provided fair outcomes to all those involved. We wanted to give a level of consistency across the three schemes. The hon. Lady may want to contact Lord Arbuthnot or the right hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) to discuss her concerns. I am happy to discuss the matter with the advisory board to see what might need to be done.

[Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)]

We can never right the original wrong or undo all the suffering; all we can do is make sure that the misery is not ongoing. For those who do not look for a grand pardon, what rights of appeal exist other than a request to the Criminal Cases Review Commission?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

The hon. Lady is right to say that no amount of final compensation can ever make good what has happened to many of these people, whether it is loss of home, loss of business, loss of livelihood, loss of reputation or loss of life. No amount of money can ever compensate for that, but we are keen to make sure that, wherever we can, people do get compensated across all those different areas. Compensation schemes provide for pecuniary and non-pecuniary losses, which are some of the things that, sadly, have happened to people in their personal lives. That is exactly what we have set out today. We are keen to make sure that, if people are overturning convictions, there is no requirement to go to the CCRC to do that. It is something that we can do through legislation in this place, and we will be setting out exactly how we will deliver that in the coming weeks.

Autumn Statement Resolutions

Wera Hobhouse Excerpts

Thursday 23rd November 2023 Commons Chamber

[Matt Western]

I thank the right hon. Lady for that clarification. She is right but, as we saw through the pandemic, it was local authorities who did so much to make up for the failings of the over-centralised Government, who—through the covid-19 inquiry—we now understand were incapable of getting to grips with the pandemic in our communities. That is why local governance is so important. I will move on to my speech.

[Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)]

On the delivery of net zero projects, does the hon. Member agree that local authorities are well placed to deliver on the ground and that, rather than having centralised delivery, it is much better for them to do that work?

[Matt Western]

I absolutely agree. We should take pride in our local authorities. They understand the landscape and the needs of communities, but they must be properly funded to deliver these essential services. I am afraid that, as with the reinforced autoclaved aerated concrete problem we see right now in our schools—two particular schools, Myton School and Aylesford School, in my constituency have RAAC—we see delays in rectifying problems because the Government have become so over-centralised.

If I may, I will move on to my speech—I am sure that everyone is waiting for it. I am afraid that, in the last 24 hours, we have seen holes beginning to appear in the Chancellor’s autumn statement. There are holes in the claims he made about lowering taxes, holes in its credibility and holes in the public finances, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) alluded to. For the public, the manifestation of that is probably most often seen and understood through the holes in our streets and on our roads. That is the reality of the decay we face across our country.

What surprises and disappoints me is the Government’s chutzpah and the claim that they are making long-term decisions when just five weeks ago the supposedly cautious Prime Minister and his Chancellor stated that it was “virtually impossible” to make tax cuts. It now seems that the Prime Minister realises not only that has he got an election coming up soon but that he does not have many options, so it is best just to spend some money and run. His five pledges, even, have wasted away—they have reappeared as five long-term decisions. What will we expect next month on his five promises to the country? It is yet another reset—I think we have had 11 already.

As I mentioned in an intervention, we are a year on from the kamikaze Budget, which cost the country an estimated £40 billion—[Interruption.] Forgive me, Madam Deputy Speaker; my voice is quite weak due to a chest infection. At the time, I asked the then Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Spelthorne (Kwasi Kwarteng), whether he had

“not just fired the starting gun on a run on the pound”.—[Official Report, 23 September 2022; Vol. 719, c. 964.]

He was utterly dismissive of my assertion, but of course that is entirely what happened, and that is what we saw on the financial markets within minutes of him speaking. Of course, that translated into higher interest rates, which in turn meant higher interest rates for mortgages, so this year we see 1.5 million households moving off their fixed rates and facing higher mortgage costs averaging a further £250 a month. Next year, we will see a similar number of households moving to higher mortgage costs. That comes at a real cost to households up and down the country.

The Prime Minister talks about inflation being a tax, which is a bizarre way of considering it, but we have to remind the public of why we have such high inflation— he may suggest that he has managed to halve it; he is claiming the success from it, although he did not seem to claim responsibility when it went up—and why we faced higher inflation than the majority of the major G7 nations. The truth is, we still face an inflation premium relative to the United States, Germany, France and all the other major nations purely because of what happened a year ago. That is costing our households and businesses. It is costing us all; and, indeed, it has massively damaged our reputation.

That comes on top of 13 years of austerity and failure, with people really feeling the costs on their lives of the austerity that the Government imposed on us. They see services collapsing around them and feel the fabric of society being weakened by successive Conservative Governments.

As we look at the economy and what was announced yesterday, I am reminded of a photograph that I saw a couple of days ago of the Chancellor and the Prime Minister at a further education college. I do not know whether hon. Members noticed how both of them were trying to hold a screwdriver, but it was almost as if they had never held one before. There is a real need to reskill this country, and we could start with some of the people in power. We have a former Prime Minister who, we are now told, could not understand graphs or data, and therefore struggled to interpret how we should react to the pandemic.

We now face a stagnant economy, as we are told by the OBR and all the balanced economic observers: it was flatlining at just above zero for the last quarter, and we are looking at absolute zero in the current quarter. But somehow the Chancellor wants us to applaud growth rates of 0.7% next year and, possibly, 1.4% in 2025—a huge downgrade on what was forecast earlier this year. The public are being duped by the claims the Government made yesterday that things are rosy and will be positive next year. The public know that they have suffered 13 years of mismanagement, in which the Government have failed to solve the productivity puzzle. I used to work in France, where the average worker is 20% more productive than the UK worker. Why is that? Is it down to employment legislation or the lack of investment incentive in this country? The harsh reality is that we all have to work much harder in order more or less to stand still versus the French.

The Chancellor quoted an aggregated growth figure in his statement, but any credible observer should have looked at growth per head, which is far weaker in the UK than in the US, Japan and Spain, and is fractionally ahead of France. In the real economy, people are feeling the impact of the last 13 years, and particularly the last couple of years. They have less money in their pocket, and the money is not going as far. They are suffering a real-term loss of income. We are told that next year their real-terms income will fall a further 1%. Energy costs now account for a much larger proportion of income, having increased by 50% over the last two years: gas has increased 60% in the two years since 2021, and electric is up 41%. Energy bills have increased an average of 51% versus 2021-22. This was not all necessary. We can talk about global energy price increases and inflationary pressures, but the UK suffered because we did not have the energy storage or resilience, particularly in low-cost onshore wind.

We also have some of the least efficient housing stock in Europe. People have to spend more to keep their homes warm, because their houses are inefficient. The houses built since 2016—1.2 million homes—should have been zero-carbon homes but, because all that legislation was torn up, they are not. Instead, they need more gas and electric, which means higher demand. Without that, total aggregate demand would have been brought down to a lower level.

Let me talk about the predicaments facing students. They face a much higher rate of inflation than the typical UK adult, but maintenance loans have not kept up with inflation. According to the House of Commons Library, there has been an 11% real-terms cut in maintenance loans. That equates to them being £1,200 worse off a year as a result of this Government.

I listened to the Chancellor on this morning’s media round. It was only a matter of time before being economic with the truth would give way to the truth about the economy. He was asked whether there were tax cuts when taxes continue to rise, and about his selective approach to cuts being undermined by stealth and concealed taxes, resulting effectively in higher rates of tax brought on by what economists refer to as fiscal drag. He was asked about the freezing of tax thresholds that will see 7 million people overall paying higher levels of tax: 4 million who have never previously been liable having to pay income tax, and 3 million who have moved from the lower to the higher threshold. His promises on lower taxes are empty, and the public will know that.

Let us not forget that this Conservative Government have imposed the highest tax burden in the post-war period, and the most regressive. The Conservatives like to present themselves as the party of lower taxes, but let us remember that when they came into power in 2010 the first thing they did was increase VAT, from 15% to 20% ultimately—33% up on the most regressive tax of all. There has been a whole raft of other stealth taxes, including on insurance. The public need to know that they face five years of further tax rises.

Let us be clear: the Chancellor is funding these tax cuts by tightening non-protected public services. Given the country’s experience over the past 13 years, the Government’s plans should ring alarm bells, because they sound remarkably like “Austerity II: the sequel.” Given the deep damage they exacted on our communities and our social fabric, that will come with a real social cost.

It would be churlish not to acknowledge a few welcome moves—plagiarism is the most sincere form of flattery. The NHS workforce plan was something that Labour proposed. Planning reform is welcome, but the Government do not seem as ambitious as the Labour party. Elsewhere, I welcome the expensing changes to encourage business investment, but I do not know why it could not have happened earlier, because we have not seen the scale of investment in the UK that we should have seen. On support for innovation and certain developments, I would like to see more, particularly on the role of universities.

The support for the UK automotive sector is particularly welcome for companies such as Jaguar Land Rover, Aston Martin and the myriad supply companies in my constituency. The Government talk about an advanced manufacturing plan, but where has it been for the last few years? They have not had any form of industrial strategy. In fact, the former Chancellor could not even bring himself to use those words when he was in post. I add my support for the Winser report and the rolling out of the grid. It is way too late, but we need to get on with it. It is essential that we electrify the UK economy.

Increasingly, this appears to be a Government without a cause. If they have a purpose, it is as a self-preservation society, as perhaps was exposed yesterday. At their heart is a weak Prime Minister. His King’s speech betrayed a lack of vision and substance; out of ideas and out of road. I am afraid that the public will be underwhelmed by this statement, and by a Government so utterly out of touch. As they say in examinations: compare and contrast the clear direction and purpose of the five missions forged by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer) with the soft, fluid aims of the current Prime Minister.

Overnight, analysis from independent think-tanks such as the Institute for Public Policy Research and the Resolution Foundation has underlined the inequality in the tax burden, where those on the lowest income and those least able are paying disproportionately more under the Conservatives. Overall, the average household faces a £4,500 increase in taxes in the period 2019 to 2028. The Prime Minister and the Chancellor may pat each other on the back, but in this Parliament alone they have presided over a £1,900 tax increase, according to the Resolution Foundation. After 13 years of failure, chaos and mayhem, when energy prices are rising astronomically and food prices dramatically, we now see changes to the tax threshold. The public are really hurting. I am afraid the Government just do not get it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Western]

The hon. Gentleman has made his own case, but as a keen campaigner on all aspects of our housing crisis, I very much agree with his sentiment.

[Wera Hobhouse]

We have heard from the Government Benches that the taxpayer’s bill for the local housing allowance is about £34 million. If the Government were finally willing to build a great many more social homes, the taxpayer would not have to face that enormous bill.

[Andrew Western]

The hon. Lady is right about social homes. A number of leading organisations working in the housing sector would say that we need 90,000 social homes per annum. However, let me gently point out that it is not just a question of the supply of social homes; the spike in rent that we have seen in recent years is also exacerbated by a broader shortage of housing supply of all types and all tenures. That is why my party has committed itself to a fundamental review of not just of our planning system but, importantly, the supply of land, and I hope that everyone in the Chamber who is serious about considering how we can build the homes that we need will commit themselves to a similar process.

I turn back to the thrust of my contribution. This autumn statement is a damning indictment of the Government, leaving people with a higher tax burden at the end of this Parliament than when they were re-elected in 2019. It is the latest economic failure at the end of 13 tears of national decline. It is time for change: a change away from high taxes, low growth and falling living standards; a change away from dodgy contracts, covid fast lanes and looking after their friends; a change away from the Conservatives.

The Labour party is offering that change, with a plan to cut household bills by £3,000 a year by investing in clean energy, building new homes and insulating the homes we already have; a plan to prevent another catastrophe like last year’s mini-Budget by putting a fiscal lock into law; and a fully funded plan for a healthy society and a healthy economy by investing an additional £1.1 billion a year to deliver 2 million more NHS appointments, scans and operations so that people are genuinely supported back to work. That is Labour’s offer and, if yesterday was the Conservatives firing the starting gun on the election, that day cannot come soon enough.

--- Later in debate ---

[Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)]

The United Nations has warned that we are on track for 3°C of global warming. That is unacceptable and would be a catastrophe. We urgently need to limit global temperature rises to 1.5°C. We cannot pretend that the UK is safe from climate change. Last year, the UK suffered the most intense heatwave it has ever faced. Hospitals struggled to cope, there were around 3,000 more deaths among people aged over 65 and 20 % of operations were cancelled. These impacts will only get worse.

Sadly, our Government are in denial. The Chancellor speaks about economic growth, yet fails to understand that reaching net zero is an opportunity as well as a necessity. The green transition can encourage billions of pounds’ worth of investment, yet this Government are ignoring that unprecedented opportunity. The US Inflation Reduction Act and the EU’s green industrial plan will see a combined $670 billion of green investment. Even Canada, an economy smaller than ours, announced a package that offers nearly £50 billion-worth of tax credits for clean technologies. This autumn statement was an opportunity to equal the ambition of our international partners, but the Chancellor is explicit that the UK will not match the ambitions of other countries

If the UK does not invest now, we will turn our backs on investment worth potentially £1 trillion by 2030. I am pleased that the Government plan to halve the time taken to build new grid infrastructure, but why has it taken 13 years to see the problem? I am also pleased the Government will provide tax relief for meeting energy efficiency targets. However, why are they waiting until 2025 to put these measures in place?

All the dither and delay gives the Government time to U-turn on their commitments. Their record speaks for itself, including on transport. After months and years of defending HS2 and spending millions of pounds preparing for it to go ahead, the Government are now in chaos and without a vision. Transport is the largest emitting sector in the UK. Rail produces 76% less carbon dioxide emissions than the equivalent road journey. We must encourage a move away from polluting transport modes, towards greener public transport, such as trains.

[Dr Coffey]

I hear what the hon. Lady is saying, but instead of building the extra bit of HS2, the money will be used in a variety of ways, mostly on roads and the electrification of train lines. That is an important way of decarbonising our existing rail industry. Between 2010 and 2015, both Secretaries of State, including the current leader of the Liberal Democrat party, were Secretaries of State for the Department of Energy and Climate Change, so they were there when that policy was being developed in a variety of ways, early on in the lifetime of the Government.

[Wera Hobhouse]

I am not sure what the right hon. Member’s question is, but I am not denying that we need to invest more in all these sectors. The worst thing about HS2 is the dither and delay, the back and forth about decisions. That is what wastes the millions of pounds of taxpayers’ money and is unacceptable.

The decision to scrap the northern leg of HS2 will mean 500,000 more lorry journeys up and down the country. Meanwhile, as the right hon. Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey) has just said, the Chancellor plans to take £8.6 billion meant for the railway to support road use.

The Government also want to increase aviation. I was shocked to hear that Luton Airport has called for an expansion in passenger numbers to 32 million a year. Hertfordshire’s skies would become polluted with endless planes and noise. The plans directly contradict the Climate Change Committee’s recommendation of no net expansion in airport capacity. I urge the Government to do the right thing: listen to local people from Harpenden and Berkhamsted and block the Luton Airport expansion, which flies in the face of our climate commitments.

This Government have failed to invest in renewables, have failed to support greener public transport, and are now failing to keep our constituents warm. Last winter was devastating, with the average annual household bill increasing by nearly 178%. Many people had to make severe sacrifices in order to heat their homes. It is a scandal that some people had to restrict themselves to one shower per week. This was not a blip. The Government need to realise that, even under the energy price cap, annual bills this winter will be 69% above summer 2021 levels. People need help. Lowering energy bills must be a priority, yet there was nothing in this autumn statement to support my constituents from the increase in energy bills.

We Liberal Democrats propose that the Government implement a social tariff. This would bring in lower energy bills for vulnerable customers. The Government must also ensure that the warm home discount is made available to all customers in vulnerable circumstances. That would prevent a repeat of last year, when suppliers set limits on the number of people who could access this money.

The green transition is a huge opportunity. We need a Government with the political courage to treat climate change with the urgency it demands. The country needs a bold Government with a bold plan. This autumn statement is simply another missed opportunity.

Menopause

Wera Hobhouse Excerpts

Thursday 26th October 2023 Commons Chamber

[Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)]

I commend the APPG on bringing this important issue to the House, and I thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting today’s debate. The menopause is a time of change for every woman. For some, it can be completely debilitating. Big physical and emotional changes in one’s body can be extremely unsettling. Some 51% of our population are women, who all go through the menopause, yet the experience of the menopause remains shrouded in mystery and stigma. That means there are far too many barriers to support. Too often, women must fight before their symptoms are taken seriously, which adds insult to injury.

The culture of silence that surrounds menopause makes bearing and dealing with symptoms even harder. Research by the Fawcett Society found that only 22% of people who experience menopause disclose it at work, because they are worried about the stigma they may face. Why should women feel too ashamed to talk? The Government’s appointment of the first menopause employment champion is a step in the right direction to start this much-needed conversation. However, it has taken far too long and there is still much to do.

As we have heard, many women choose to leave the workforce prematurely because they feel unsupported by their employer during the menopause. That is not new information: the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development found in 2019 that almost 900,000 women in the UK had left their job because of menopause symptoms, and we have made little progress since. Women with years of experience are still forced to sacrifice their career, retire early or choose not to put themselves forward for promotion. Not only does that contribute to an absence of women in executive positions, but it lessens workplace productivity.

Eight out of 10 women say that their employer has not given them adequate support. I am pleased to hear of good examples in this space; it is important that we share them, because there are still far too many bad examples. Such support could include a menopause absence policy to help women balance their career with the major life changes associated with the menopause.

I welcome the Government’s commitment in the women’s health strategy to ensuring that employers are well equipped to support women during the menopause, but the Government have shown little interest in trialling menopause leave in England, despite the evidence presented by the Women and Equalities Committee that it would make considerable savings. The private sector is beginning to understand the economic benefit of menopause leave. The Government should explore all avenues to best support women experiencing menopause, including a trial to see the benefits of menopause leave.

Alongside difficult everyday symptoms, those who experience menopause face risks to their health. During menopause, the body produces less oestrogen, which can increase the risk of coronary heart disease, heart attack and stroke. Women also face greater risk of osteoporosis—I am pleased that the hon. Member for Bradford South (Judith Cummins) talked extensively about that—caused by the loss of bone density in the first few years after the menopause.

I am proud that the Royal Osteoporosis Society is based in Bath, and I congratulate it on its campaign with the Sunday Express for greater access to fracture liaison services and a good standard of services across the country. We have heard today about the Better Bones campaign. I hope that everyone in the Chamber will champion it and help it along, because we really need that gold standard across all hospital trusts. The Royal Osteoporosis Society has a very helpful helpline that everyone can access. Just by googling the Royal Osteoporosis Society, every woman can access advice, which is so necessary.

We have also heard extensively about hormone replacement therapy, which can lessen the health risks from menopause. HRT is a welcome treatment for many struggling with menopause symptoms. It can reduce hot flushes and protect cardiovascular health. However, it remains out of reach for many women across the UK. Women face a postcode lottery when it comes to accessing vital HRT treatment. A report conducted by the APPG on menopause last year found that there is a stark socioeconomic divide between women who can access HRT and those left without it. Financial struggles should not be a barrier to healthcare. I commend the APPG on menopause for all seven of its recommendations. The call for all parties to include those recommendations in their manifestos is a good one.

We Liberal Democrats welcome new measures to ensure that women in England pay less for repeat HRT prescriptions. However, the list of exemptions for prescription charges is out of date: it has not been fully updated since 1968 and contains many anomalies. The current prescription charge system is grossly unfair and must be urgently reformed.

Menopause currently affects 13 million women. We cannot continue to allow a common health issue to force women out of their jobs. It is unacceptable that accessing vital healthcare is still a postcode lottery. I have not actually experienced any adverse symptoms from menopause, but I was still completely uncertain about what to expect, and that in itself is very unsettling. Young women know what to expect when their period starts, but why are older women not given at least some advice by healthcare professionals about what to expect when the menopause starts, what the symptoms are and so on and so forth? It is very unsettling for every woman that complete mystery still surrounds the menopause, and that definitely needs to change. I hope that the debate will help to break the culture of silence and end the stigma.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Member for Bootle (Peter Dowd) for setting the scene so well. I have made a few interventions, but I will add a few words to put on record my support for the motion, as I am here on behalf of my party.

The hon. Member for Walsall North (Eddie Hughes) made an interesting point to which I subscribe from a personal point of view. My wife Sandra went through this, and it was quite difficult for her, not just physically but emotionally. The hon. Gentleman put forward some incredibly helpful ideas: better understanding in the home, better understanding in the family and better understanding in the workplace. I employ seven girls and one fella in full-time and part-time roles, and although I am not better or more knowledgeable than anyone else, I do understand some of the issues that are apparent in the office. That understanding has to start with me and end with everyone in the staff to ensure that the right things happen.

Over the last period, we have had a menopause support group in Northern Ireland. It was created for one reason. The hon. Member for Walsall North referred to a private place. Sometimes people need a private place where they can discuss their experiences and talk about what is happening with others, sharing information on the perimenopause, the menopause and any hormone-related issues. I know the knowledge that women will be able to give each other in those private circumstances and discussions. That is so very important.

The hon. Member for Bradford South (Judith Cummins), who has the Adjournment debate on osteoporosis, reminded us all of the increased risk of osteoporosis, fractures and brittle bones through menopause. She clearly and helpfully reminded us that when it comes to understanding those things better, the health sector needs to be a bigger part of the picture.

[Wera Hobhouse]

It is important that everybody understands that osteoporosis leads to many premature deaths. That is why we need to talk more about it. I am glad that we have all been talking about osteoporosis in connection with the menopause. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that we need to raise awareness of it, because it leads to many premature deaths?

[Jim Shannon]

I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention. I referred to the groups in Northern Ireland because, in many cases, we find that it is the women themselves who are initiating the private support groups and ensuring that things are happening. I ask the Minister, is there any help from Government to ensure that these advice groups are available?

To go back to the subject of osteoporosis, the hon. Member for Bradford South is right. In my office, I have a staff member specifically tasked with looking after benefit issues, and the work for that lady is enormous; she is probably working the equivalent of a five or six-day week. She tells me that, in many cases, the issue is access to personal independence payments. I know that this does not come under the Minister’s Department, but is there a process in place to help ladies understand and apply for that benefit, which is there for a purpose? Government have created the benefits system, and people should never feel that they should not apply for a benefit if it is there for them, which I believe it is.

When people are drained and emotionally raw, which many are, and when the sweats mean they have to shower several times a day and they need prompting to eat and take care of themselves, we need a system, and we need someone there to help along the way. I am my party’s health spokesperson, and I want to add my support to all those who have spoken.

The Government need to be proactive and ensure that guidance is given to businesses, so that they can do things the right way. Some 45% of women felt that menopausal symptoms had a negative impact on their work, and 47% said they needed to take a day off work due to the menopause. That underlines the need for support.

With that, I will conclude, ever mindful that we are fortunate to have a shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Erith and Thamesmead (Abena Oppong-Asare), who will add her support to the debate—I look forward to hearing from her—and a Minister who well understands our requests. I am very confident that we will have the help we need, not for us, but for our constituents, for the women who contact me, for my wife and for all the other women who find it very hard to deal with these issues.

Worker Protection (Amendment of Equality Act 2010) Bill

Wera Hobhouse Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Friday 20th October 2023 Commons Chamber

[Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)]

I beg to move, That this House agrees with Lords amendment 1.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendment 2.

[Wera Hobhouse]

Workplace sexual harassment blights our society. Not a week goes by in which we do not hear about sexual misconduct in an organisation somewhere in the UK. Some 43% of women have experienced at least three incidents of sexual harassment at work. Most victims do not report it, for fear of not being believed or of damaging their working relationships and career prospects. Although sexual harassment is not confined to women, the vast majority of victims are women.

Harassment has a devastating impact on victims. Nearly half of women harassed at work said that it had harmed their mental health. One in four said that they avoided certain work situations, such as meetings, courses, locations and shifts, to avoid the perpetrator. More than one in four said that they wanted to leave their job but could not. Nearly one in five left their job as a result of this treatment.

Every person should be safe from sexual harassment, but every day new stories expose the extent of the problem in our workplaces. Just this year, there has been a torrent of misconduct allegations against prominent companies and organisations. There remain questions to be answered at the CBI, Odey Asset Management, the Royal National Lifeboat Institution, the fire services, the National Crime Agency and even our NHS.

[Ruth Jones (Newport West) (Lab)]

The hon. Lady is making a very important speech about a powerful topic. As a former NHS employee for over 30 years, I am aware of some poor practice and lack of control over certain individuals who are sexual predators. They are only a small minority, but they have a massive impact on other NHS workers. Does she agree with me that we must protect our precious NHS staff and stamp out sexual harassment in all workplaces?

[Wera Hobhouse]

I could not agree more. The hon. Lady points out that a few individuals damage the reputation of a whole organisation and, especially when it comes to our NHS, that is devastating. The Bill should be good for organisations because it protects them as well.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

Will the hon. Lady clarify—I am not sure from her remarks so far—whether she is in favour of Lords amendment 1, or is she speaking against it?

[Wera Hobhouse]

I will come to that later, but I will be supporting the Lords amendments.

There are many good employers who have implemented measures to safeguard their employees. However, far too many have not done enough to prevent and punish sexual harassment.

[Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)]

My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech about an issue that, as she says, has blighted our workplaces. Does she agree that part of the problem is that employers do not act when harassment begins at a low level? Putting workers down, talking over them and belittling them is just the start and it grows from there. Too often in the past, people have just been moved to a different department. Will her Bill put an end to that sort of atmosphere in the workplace?

[Wera Hobhouse]

Yes, it should be the beginning of a culture change to prevent sexual harassment happening before it gets to a point where it has such damaging effects.

The Equality and Human Rights Commission found that in nearly half of cases reported the employer took no action, minimised the incident or placed the responsibility on the employee to avoid the harasser. What one also finds again and again is that the employer does not really know what to do. When the Bill becomes law, there will be guidance for employers so that they know exactly what is expected of them. That should help organisations to face those problems.

[Anna Firth (Southend West) (Con)]

I thank the hon. Lady for giving way, because she is making a very important speech. Protecting people, especially women, from harassment is hugely important. The Government have a fantastic track record of bringing in legislation to protect vulnerable people. I had strong concerns about the Bill in its unamended state, particularly on making employers responsible for third-party harassment. However, yesterday I contacted Denise Rossiter, the chief executive of Essex chambers of commerce, to ask the opinion of Essex businesses. The message I received back was clear: local Essex employers warmly welcome the amendments made to the Bill in the other place. I am delighted the Government have backed them. I welcome the amendments, in particular Lords amendment 1, and I support the Bill in its amended state.

[Wera Hobhouse]

I thank the hon. Lady for that intervention and I am pleased we have come to a point across both Houses where we can pass the Bill, as amended, into law. I will come to the amendments later in my speech and she will hear what I have to say.

The current laws on sexual harassment mean that employers often adopt individualised responses to institutional problems. That creates space for employers to minimise what is going on and leads to confusion about how to respond appropriately. Only 45% of managers felt supported by their organisation when reports were made to them. Ultimately, our current laws do not protect people who have encountered traumatic experiences. We can and must do better.

My Bill will strengthen the legislative protections against workplace sexual harassment. It will help to create safer working environments that are fit for the 21st century. It introduces a standalone duty for employers to take responsible steps to prevent sexual harassment within their organisations. That will make a real difference, as it will require employers to take proactive steps to address sexual harassment. It will help to instil a culture change, and it will ensure that people who abuse women and others can no longer rely on their workplaces turning a blind eye. Instead, they will be held accountable for their actions, making workplaces safer, more productive and more enjoyable for everyone.

--- Later in debate ---

[Danny Kruger]

The hon. Lady defines exactly the issue. She talks about the intent of the Bill being to protect people from feeling distressed, which I think is absolutely right—we should all intend that—but it is difficult for law to manage and protect people’s feelings. The consequence of writing that into black and white means that we then require courts to adjudicate on all sorts of very difficult emotional issues.

The hon. Lady talks about the intent behind the Bill. We all intend the right thing here. We are all in unity that we disapprove of harassment and incivility, but we disapprove of all sorts of things that we cannot and should not try to criminalise. The consequence of criminalising bad manners—even very bad manners—is fundamentally to curtail free speech and the freedom upon which all of our civility as a society depends.

[Wera Hobhouse]

I am glad that we are having this discussion in a very respectful way, because that is how it should work. I recognise that that discussion may not have been had enough and we need a little more time having it. Does the hon. Gentleman think that legislation guides better behaviour and that, for that reason, it is important that we pass certain laws? That is the intention of the Bill. As I say, I have accepted the Lords amendment, but does he agree that legislation guides better behaviour and that is what we should aim for?

[Danny Kruger]

This is an important discussion. The hon. Lady is saying that the law is a teacher—indeed, it is—and influences the culture. It is also true that the law needs to reflect the culture, so we modernise our legislative framework in response to public opinion and how things are. We now legalise things that were illegal in the past in response to the way culture evolves.

However, the law is a teacher in a bad way too. It can introduce negative effects into our culture and chill free speech. It can inhibit the sorts of conversation that are necessary for the development and progress of our society, which is a topic that will come up later in other legislation. There were significant attempts during the pandemic to effectively criminalise or inhibit free speech around the pandemic response, on exactly the same grounds that we might use in this debate, namely that it is important for public protection and the protection of the vulnerable that misinformation, disinformation and, in this context, harassment should be criminalised. That was wrong, and I really worry about the possible chilling effect of this legislation.

A narrow gap is left in this law to criminalise free speech. Many Members will raise the outrageous and unacceptable behaviour that many employees have to put up with in the workplace—I recognise that too. We absolutely need to insist that that does not happen, but that is a job for the culture and for employers. In a sense, it is a job for all of us to instil the right sort of moral conduct in our communities, but frankly it is impossible to write legislation in black and white that achieves the outcomes the hon. Lady wishes without also inhibiting free speech.

I will end with an observation about another piece of legislation that I understand is being contemplated for the King’s Speech: a conversion therapy ban. I am afraid that that is another instance where, under the noble and honourable impulse to stop outrageous and unacceptable practices going on, we are proposing a piece of performative legislation in response to a vocal and activist lobby group that will put into law an imprecise and fuzzy set of moral aspirations. Once Opposition Members get hold of it in Committee, on Third Reading and in the House of Lords, the scope will be expanded and then courts will be required to criminalise conversations between adults and their therapists, parents and children, which is exactly what happens in other countries where this well-intentioned legislation has been passed into law. The law is a teacher, but it is not an opportunity for moral grandstanding and virtue signalling. We have an obligation to put into black and white words that the courts clearly understand and that do not end up curtailing free speech.

--- Later in debate ---

[Justin Madders]

I thank the Minister for her comments. The Government have a majority, so if they wanted to keep the Bill in its original form they could have ensured that it passed. Let me quote what she said at Committee stage. She said that

“the Government committed to a package of new measures aimed at reducing incidences of workplace harassment. That includes the two legislative measures being brought forward in the Bill: explicit protections for employees from workplace harassment by third parties, such as customers and clients; and a duty on employers to take all reasonable steps to prevent their employees from experiencing sexual harassment.”––[Official Report, Worker Protection (Amendment of Equality Act 2010) Public Bill Committee, 23 November 2022; c. 10.]

[Wera Hobhouse]

It is true that I have accepted the Lords amendment. Indeed, it was ultimately me who proposed that we should go all the way in order to preserve one thing that I find incredibly important, which is the preventive duty on employers. Does the hon. Member not agree that this is an important step and for that reason it is right that I accept the Lords amendment?

[Justin Madders]

I accept what the hon. Member says. We will certainly not oppose the Bill, but we do have to challenge the Minister on why she has changed her mind, given that, last year, she said that the measures in the Bill

“continue to form a key part of the Government’s national strategy for tackling violence against women and girls.”––[Official Report, Worker Protection (Amendment of Equality Act 2010) Public Bill Committee, 23 November 2022; c. 10.]

Why have the Government decided to change their mind on it? It seems to me that they have folded to pressure from their Back Benchers. Let us not forget that the Bill came about as a result of an extensive Government consultation, which received more than 4,000 responses.

--- Later in debate ---

I am very happy to support the hon. Member for Bath, and thank her again for all her work in this place on the Bill and for her pragmatism. I know that the amendments were difficult ones to accept, but this Bill will make a difference to the safety of workers in the workplace, and I congratulate her on her work.

[Wera Hobhouse]

Private Members’ Bills are fragile things: they rely on cross-party support, but also support in both Houses. For that reason, it was very important to be pragmatic; otherwise, the whole Bill would have fallen. I am grateful for the Government’s patience and their support for the part of the Bill that we all can agree is so important, which is to create a preventive duty on employers. If the Bill passes today, it will be a good day, and I hope everybody will be able to support the amendments so that it can pass.

Lords amendment 1 agreed to.

Lords amendment 2 agreed to.