House of Commons
Thursday 29 March 2018
The House met at half-past Nine o’clock
[Mr Speaker in the Chair]
On today’s Order Paper it is noted that, on 5 April 1918, Lieutenant-Colonel Percy Archer Clive, Grenadier Guards, Member for the Ross division of Herefordshire, was killed in action, while attached to the 1/5th Lancashire Fusiliers, at Bucquoy, France. We remember him today.
Oral Answers to Questions
The Secretary of State was asked—
Brexit (Food and Drink Exports)
In 2017 the UK exported more than £22 billion-worth of food and drink products to the world, an increase of almost 10% on the previous year. When we leave the European Union, as we will exactly one year today, we will free UK farmers from the constraints of the common agricultural policy and provide huge opportunities for Scottish businesses in emerging markets, where demand for quality produce is high.
Despite the brave words of the Secretary of State, he knows as well as we all do that the Scottish fresh food industry is in crisis because there is nobody to pick the fruit—his Government’s policies are deterring people from coming to Scotland to work. Can he give us just one example of a country anywhere in the world that has given a guarantee that, after we leave the European Union, Scottish food exports will be treated in exactly the same way as they are in the European Union’s market of half a billion people? Just one example, please.
For produce such as salmon, our exports are almost exactly 50% European Union and 50% non-European Union. Salmon exports to Japan, Taiwan and Vietnam are up 63% in the past year.
Weetabix, the great British breakfast cereal made in Burton Latimer near Kettering, gets all its wheat from farmers within a 50-mile radius. It was a famous British brand even before we joined the EU, and it will remain a famous British brand after we leave the EU. Will not the prospects for exporting more Weetabix be enhanced once we leave?
Our exports are largely determined by the growth of markets, and the International Monetary Fund says that 90% of global growth in the next 10 to 15 years will be outside the European continent. That is where the big possibilities for UK exporters are, including in food and drink.
The Minister’s colleagues are fond of talking about pork markets in China, but I urge him to pay attention to the potential pulses market there. The British Edible Pulses Association is keen to export faba beans to China, but the Department for International Trade is not talking to the BEPA at the moment. The Chinese want these beans, but there are some technical obstacles. I urge the Minister to respond to the correspondence and let us get this pulses market moving.
I am keen to ensure that that market is fully exploited. If the hon. Lady wants the representatives to speak directly to one of our Ministers, we would be happy to speak to them to see whether there are any technical impediments that can be swept away.
What has been the impact of the Food is GREAT campaign?
To get more people around the world to understand that high-quality British produce is a world beater.
Brexit (Creative Industries)
Yesterday the Government announced the creative industries sector deal. With a strategy and new money committed to boost our creative industries, trade and investment is a key part of that deal. Exports are booming in the sector, with £9.6 billion in services and £2.7 billion in goods in 2015, making this country a global leader.
I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
I thank the Minister for his answer, but the clock is ticking. Representatives of the live performance part of the creative industries tell me of their worries, based on current experience of touring theatre, dance and music outside the EU. Will he, like the DCMS Minister, the hon. Member for Stourbridge (Margot James), agree to meet representatives of the creative industries to discuss those significant challenges so that this massive growth sector of our economy can continue post-Brexit?
My colleagues and I are always happy to meet representatives of the sector. The sector’s export growth, and its activity both in the European Union and beyond, is actually growing. Only 34% of the sector’s total global exports are to the EU. A huge amount is already being done outside the EU and, when it comes to things like music, DIT has committed to make about £3 million of grant support available to help music small and medium-sized enterprises to be able to export up to 2020.
One of the biggest growth markets is in the film and creative industries: one of the biggest areas now, apart from Hollywood, is Bollywood in India. What relations has my right hon. Friend established to build that market up so that we can exploit opportunities with our good friends from India?
My hon. Friend, who has impeccable trade connections with India, makes a strong point. Film, TV and broadcasting as a sector in the UK grew by 6.6% last year, and a large part of that is in co-operation with India. Total spend in the UK on film production reached a 20-year high, and global UK-qualifying films enjoyed 21% of global box office success, including a lot of success in India.
British audiovisual exports are worth £7.4 billion a year, with more than £3 billion of that coming from trade with the EU. The industry has raised major concerns that its ability to export into the European market will be undermined, unless there is frictionless access for broadcasters and creative industries. Will the Minister reassure the sector and the House that this will be the case—or is this yet another area where the Government are failing to listen to British businesses?
I will take no lectures from the hon. Lady on listening to British businesses, on which this Government have an impeccable record. We are seeking frictionless trade—as frictionless as possible—with the EU. We are seeking a free trade agreement of much greater scope than any before, and it will cover services—including creative industries, which are such a key part of our export offer.
Helping SMEs to export is a high priority for the Department, and we are working through our overseas network, through online services on great.gov.uk, which has had more than 3 million visitors, through our international trade advisers and through export finance. Last year, 79% of companies supported by UK Export Finance were SMEs. Mr Speaker, if, like Roger Federer, I can press on—albeit without the same grace—I would say that exports from the west midlands increased in value by more than 80% between 2010 and 2016.
The Minister knows which buttons to press.
It is great news about the west midlands, but a constituent of mine who has a small business providing services around the world came to tell me about the challenges he faces in getting appropriate banking facilities and about the need to minimise losses on currency transfers. What steps is the Department taking to make sure that UK banks provide the facilities, support and advice that SMEs need in order to export?
As my hon. Friend will know from running a business, and as I do from my experience, this is a challenge and a work in progress. But we have established strategic relationships with the five leading UK banks. UK Export Finance launched a partnership with those banks in October 2017 to help not only exporters, but those who supply exporters, to easily access Government-backed financial support.
The Minister wants to talk about his experience; I recall that when he worked for a living he certainly did not work in the manufacturing sector, and nor did the Secretary of State, who worked in the health sector. I worked in the manufacturing sector, and I can tell the Minister that up and down the country SMEs are struggling to export, given that they are going to be blocked off from a 600 million market and left with a 60 million one.
This is a truly grim and sad time for those who want to see our departure from the EU lead to a collapse in investment and exports, as instead we have seen the exact opposite. We had record levels of foreign direct investment in this country. We have an improving climate for that and we have record numbers of exports from the hon. Gentleman’s area—from Yorkshire. It is about time he put the gloom away, because the facts keep defying him.
Actually, it is £500 million less in the automotive sector. On supporting SMEs, will the Minister explain what the Government are going to do to help those businesses export to China and India? He will be aware that Germany, within the EU, exports twice as much to India as we do and four times as much within the EU as we do.
I am afraid the right hon. Gentleman is a member of the same club. I hate to share this with the House, but exports to China were up by 30% last year.
Order. There is something of an internal Scottish National party competition. I do not know whether one of them is thought to have greater seniority, but not in my mind. I call Kirsty Blackman.
Many of our small and medium-sized enterprises are involved in premium manufacturing and other forms of high-value production. Will the Minister ensure that, in discussions with the EU, those things are taken into account when negotiators are discussing origin and the calculation of origin?
All such issues are taken into account. Of course, the Department for Exiting the European Union leads on the negotiations on our exit from the EU.
Future Trade Agreements
The Government believe strongly that Parliament has a vital role to play in the scrutiny of future free trade agreements, as it always has in the past. The Government are currently in the process of designing our future trade agreement policy. No decisions have yet been taken, as stakeholder consultations are ongoing.
When there is a new EU trade treaty, the European Scrutiny Committee can review it and the European Parliament can veto it; when there is a new UK treaty, all this House can do is delay its ratification by 21 days. Far from taking back control, does the Minister agree with the Commons Library that post-Brexit Britain
“may be seen as diminishing democratic accountability in relation to trade treaties”?
Will he fix that by supporting the inclusion of new clause 3 in the Trade Bill?
I will take no lessons from the Liberal Democrats in this regard. The hon. Lady voted against the Second Reading of the Trade Bill, which will allow this country to transition its 40 or more existing EU trade agreements into UK law. Those agreements have already been scrutinised in Parliament. As I say, future trade agreements will be a matter for future proposals.
Is it not the case that, under current plans, the British Government will be able to sign off UK-wide trade deals without the consent of the devolved Parliaments, meaning that the Belgian region of Wallonia will have more power over EU trade deals than Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland will have over UK trade deals?
I think the hon. Gentleman is confused. Existing trade deals have been scrutinised in this Parliament, with input from the Welsh Government in the usual way—more than 40 EU trade deals have already been scrutinised in this Parliament. He has confused those with future trade deals. We will, of course, work closely with Parliament and the devolved Administrations to make sure that their voice is heard on those future trade deals.
It is important that the Minister tries to clarify this issue. Brexit is supposed to be about regaining sovereignty and taking back control, so what is actually going to happen? Are this House and the devolved Assemblies simply going to be consulted, or are they going to have to consent to new trade deals?
Again, I think the hon. Gentleman is confusing existing trade deals, which are what the Trade Bill is all about, with the prospects for future trade deals. We have been absolutely clear on future trade deals. Trade policy is of course a reserved matter, but Ministers have engaged with the Scottish and Welsh Governments frequently, including at official level, and we recently did a deep dive with the devolved Administrations on what future trade policy might look like.
The latest statistics, released earlier this year, estimate total UK education exports and transnational education activity to have been £19.3 billion in 2015. That is an increase of 3% on the previous year and of 22% since 2010, in current prices. The Government continue to support education providers in this vital sector.
Many small businesses in and around my constituency either need help to begin to export or are already exporting in education and other goods and services. For example, a constituent of mine, Mr John Bowers, owns the company Bowers & Freeman, an SME that specialises in groundbreaking and innovative fasteners for the aerospace industry. What is the Department doing to ensure that SMEs such as Bowers & Freeman get the help that they need, whether in education or other goods and services sectors?
UK Export Finance offers competitive finance and insurance to SMEs of all sorts that want to export. My hon. Friend mentions one company in his constituency; I am pleased to say that UKEF recently provided bond support to another, Ram Universal, to help it to export its high-quality valves to India. The Government’s export strategy will look at SMEs’ need and design information and services appropriate to them.
Torbay’s language schools provide a valuable source of educational exports by encouraging students from across the world to learn here. What work is the Minister’s Department doing to assist them in securing trade from growing economies in Asia, as the Devon School of English recently did in Taiwan?
The Department for International Trade’s dedicated education teams are focused on developing a pipeline of overseas opportunities that are then matched with UK providers. That is enhanced by the DIT-led English language working group, which brings representatives together from across the sector. I look forward to seeking further export opportunities in Taiwan when I visit there in a couple of weeks.
Further to the reports that education exports are worth some £19 billion annually, does the Minister have an indication of how that figure will grow as we attempt to move our eyes away from only Europe towards a greater global vision?
I am delighted to say, as has been discussed so often today, that exports are up—not least in the education area. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has said, 90% of global growth is expected to be outside the EU. We will have a close and extremely important partnership with the EU, but the opportunities are out there, which is why he and other colleagues in this Department are so dedicated to building economic international opportunities for the country in the future.
Tech Sector Exports
Technology is at the heart of the Government’s industrial strategy, placing the UK at the forefront of the artificial intelligence and data revolutions. Exports of telecommunication, computer and information services increased from £17.8 billion in 2015 to £19 billion in 2016. Digital goods and services overall contributed £116.5 billion to the UK’s economy in 2016.
“Total War” is the phenomenally successful computer game produced by Creative Assembly in my Horsham constituency and exported to 98% of all the countries on earth. Creative Assembly is brilliant at nurturing domestic talent, but it also employs workers from 34 different countries. What reassurance can the Minister give that it will continue to be able to recruit the brightest and the best?
Like my hon. Friend, I am enthusiastic about the development of mathematics and digital and technical education. Some £406 million extra was announced in the industrial strategy to help address a shortage in science, technology, engineering and maths skills. The creative industries sector deal was published on Tuesday, and that highlighted the Government’s determination to ensure that we have the right digital skills for the future.
Section 232 Tariffs
Although we welcome the United States granting an EU-wide exemption from the tariffs applied under section 232 for a limited time period, we continue to argue that this is not an appropriate mechanism to deal with justifiable concerns in relation to the overcapacity of steel worldwide.
Some 15% of UK steel goes to America, and, quite frankly, a pause on the imposition of tariffs is simply not good enough. What steps is the Secretary of State taking to make sure that that pause becomes permanent?
We are working with the European Union to ensure a permanent exemption, and I spoke to Commissioner Malmström yesterday. On the specific case of the United Kingdom, the UK is responsible for only 1% of American steel imports. Much of that is high quality steel, which the United States does not manufacture itself. Some of our steel goes to American defence projects, which means that it would be quite absurd to exclude the United Kingdom, or to apply tariffs to the United Kingdom, on the basis of national security.
The hon. Gentleman is right: there will be a knock-on price effect and there is also likely to be a displacement effect in the global steel market, for which we may have to look at imposing safeguard measures; along with the European Union, we would do so. He is also right that there would be a knock-on price effect in the United States, too. It does not make any sense to protect 140,000 steel jobs in the United States and see prices rise for the 6.5 million US workers who are dependent on steel.
I thank the Secretary of State for meeting steel MPs this week. Will he say a bit more about the safeguards that he will try to ensure are in place against diversionary dumping as a result of this action by the United States?
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his comments. As he knows, our aim, along with our European Union partners, is for the tariffs not to be applied in the first place. We argue that section 232 is not an appropriate means of doing so. If we want to deal with the over- production of steel—particularly Chinese overproduction —the best way to do so is through the G7 steel forum, where there are 28 outstanding recommendations to which we are still awaiting a Chinese response.
UK steel faces a very real threat from dumping as a result of these US tariffs, but the Conservatives in the European Parliament led the group of MEPs that consistently blocked EU action against dumping. As the Manufacturing Trade Remedies Alliance says, in the Trade Bill—which has mysteriously disappeared—the Secretary of State is proposing the weakest trade remedies system in the world. It is simply not good enough. When is he going to stand up for the UK steel industry and for UK steel jobs?
It is hard to know where to start when there are so many wrong facts in a single question. Let us leave aside the European Parliament. It was the Labour party in this Parliament that voted against the customs Bill and the Trade Bill, stopping us creating a trade remedies authority in the first place. The Trade Bill itself only sets up the trade remedies authority; it does not set up the regime.
Order. We are running late, but I am not having Cleethorpes and Redditch missing out. I call Martin Vickers.
Brexit (Trade Agreements)
As part of its preparations for future trade negotiations, the Department for International Trade has established 14 trade working groups and high-level dialogues with key trade partners beyond the EU to explore the best ways of progressing our trade and investment relationships.
Many businesses in my constituency, particularly in the seafood sector, are reliant on the free flow of supplies. Does the Minister share my confidence that new arrangements can be made to ensure that, particularly in the seafood sector, supplies are maintained without any undue delay?
My hon. Friend is a passionate advocate for the fish and seafood sector in his constituency. Those sectors already contribute £1.3 billion to the UK economy. I am concerned about reports of problems at Five Star Fish in Grimsby, next door to his constituency, but I can tell him that leaving the common fisheries policy presents the opportunities to boost exports, expertise and fish-related services.
Last week I visited the innovative company, Mission Resources, in Abbots Morton. It has invented the home energy resources unit, which generates energy from household waste to reduce fuel consumption, furthering climate change reduction and the Government’s clean growth strategy. Given that the company is looking to expand to powerhouses such as China and India, what assurances can the Secretary of State give to my constituent about the opportunities for trade with non-EU countries?
Over the last seven years, this Government have made significant resource investments into clean energy and renewable technologies. We have put in a huge amount of effort to ensure that those capabilities are now exportable. The UK has the world’s largest offshore wind sector and quite a significant sector in resources such as solar. We need to take advantage of export opportunities, and that is where the Department for International Trade plays its role.
My Department is responsible for foreign and outward direct investment, establishing an independent trade policy on export promotion. Yesterday I chaired the 10th UK-Brazil Joint Economic and Trade Committee, where we signed memorandums of understanding on infrastructure, innovation and trade facilitation.
The Chinese Government recently turned the tap on exports of waste plastic to China. That has made a fantastic and very disturbing difference in the chemical market in Britain. If the Chinese Government did the same in higher education, what would be the impact? Has the Secretary of State done any analysis of that?
I had discussions in China only last week about exporting UK educational expertise. There is a huge appetite for that around the world, because there is an increasing acceptance that it is the gold standard. In fact, UK exports of education last year outstripped the City of London’s insurance business and continue to grow with Government support.
Far from being forgotten, advocating further exports of high-quality UK produce is at the top of the Government’s agenda. I can tell my hon. Friend the good news that the latest international market to open up to British lamb is Saudi Arabia, with enormous potential.
GKN has total sales of £10.4 billion, £9 billion of which are outside the UK. Profits from its operations in 30 countries around the world are repatriated to the UK. It will not be much of a global Britain if the Secretary of State’s approach is to stand idly by while a business like GKN that is so vital to our international trade is allowed to be subject to a hostile takeover that can lead only to its break-up and sale. Why has he stayed so silent on such a crucial issue for our trading prospects?
The allegation that anybody has stood idly by is utter rot. On Monday—perhaps the hon. Gentleman has not been following the news—my right hon. Friend the Business Secretary issued an open letter to Melrose, the company that is doing the bidding, to request certain safeguards for employees, and so on, if the bid was successful. Melrose has responded, agreeing to give those very assurances. We took action on this days ago. He needs to keep up with the news.
I am grateful for my right hon. Friend’s question. I would of course be delighted to meet him and colleagues to discuss food and drink, which is so important both to his constituency and mine. I am delighted to say that last year food and drink exports went up by £2 billion to £22 billion, and that, for the first time ever, we have a Department of State whose only role is to focus on the international economic interests of this nation. I will be delighted to meet him to discuss how we can do more.
I rather feel that I answered this question earlier. The EU will look to see whether we need to introduce safeguarding measures as a consequence of any diversion. We are working closely with our European partners to assess what the potential may be and what the joint EU response would need to be consequently.
I am happy to tell my hon. Friend that at the festival of innovation last week we had 284 UK businesses and seven universities with us, all of which were able to discuss future partnerships and sponsorships. There was a very warm welcome, and we actually began the initial discussions with the Government of Hong Kong about entering into a future trade agreement on services.
The best hope for British farmers is to be set free from the constraints of the common agricultural policy and to start to produce for export markets. There is a huge demand out there for UK food produce. The high standards that we have in this country, which we will maintain, are in themselves a kitemark for British produce.
At a recent Public Accounts Committee hearing, the permanent secretary at the Department for International Trade confirmed that although there are eight regional offices for the Department in England, there are none in Scotland. Will my right hon. Friend meet me to discuss adequate resourcing for the DIT in Scotland?
I met our DIT staff in Glasgow relatively recently. The point is that the Department for International Trade is a UK Department. It is there to help the trading interests, export interests and inward investment interests of the whole of the United Kingdom. Trade is a reserved matter.
As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State just said, we are working for all parts of the United Kingdom, by working with DExEU on our future trading relationships with the European Union and, as importantly, making sure that we open up trading possibilities beyond the EU. I mentioned earlier that we have 14 trade working groups working with major markets, and exports from the north-east will be right at the centre of that work.
Can the Secretary of State tell the House what he will be doing in 365 days’ time?
Watching the clock.
The liquid gold that is Scotch whisky is a major export good for our economy, but so far in the EU negotiations we are still not getting clarity on geographical indications, which many other drinks benefit from as well. When will we get clarity on GI for Scotch whisky and other drinks that we enjoy?
It always comes round to whisky at some point in these discussions on a Thursday morning. As the hon. Gentleman will know, the Government accepted that we would roll over the EU treaties that exist at the present time, including those on GIs. It is a pity that he voted against that in the House of Commons.
The ceramics industry stands ready to play its part in helping to boost global exports from the UK, but the reciprocal arrangement we need for that is protection from Chinese dumping of tiles and tableware. Will the Secretary of State ask his Cabinet colleagues to look favourably on the amendments that I have tabled to the customs Bill, which would ensure that the protections we currently have in Europe were written into British law?
The hon. Gentleman is right about his amendments, but his party voted against setting up the trade remedies authority that would implement them. He cannot have it both ways.
The African continental free trade area agreement was recently signed. Will the Secretary of State assure me that economic development and fair trade will be at the heart of the free trade agreements he looks for?
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her question. It is very important that we tie together better than we have in the past our trade policy and our development policy. The Secretary of State for International Development and I will be making some announcements on exactly how we can do that, and we will be discussing at the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting with some of the relevant trade partners exactly how we can make that happen.
Finally, in one short sentence without semi-colons or subordinate clauses, Wera Hobhouse.
The EU has around 60 trade agreements with third countries. How many trade agreements with those countries does the Secretary of State estimate will have been agreed by December 2020?
We hope all of them, but that means we have to transition them into UK law, which of course the hon. Lady voted against.
Women and Equalities
The Minister for Women and Equalities was asked—
I am delighted to say that the latest data from the Universities and Colleges Admissions Service shows that there has been a 25% increase in the number of women accepted on to full-time undergraduate science, technology, engineering and maths courses since 2010, which is significantly more than the 14% increase among men. That is good progress, but there is more to do.
That is superb news, and I thank my right hon. Friend for her answer. Does she agree that the best way to encourage more women to study STEM subjects is via activities at school that bring them to life, such as the weekly STEM club at Torquay Girls’ Grammar School?
I congratulate Torquay Girls’ Grammar School on having those weekly meetings, which I am sure act as an inspiration for young women to take up STEM subjects. I am pleased that since 2010, we have seen an 18% increase in the number of girls taking STEM subjects at A-level.
In order to choose STEM subjects at university, girls need to have seen what fantastic careers STEM and engineering can offer. I know that many engineering companies want to go into schools and show that, but there is no co-ordination and no signposting of how they can do that. Will the Minister commit to ensuring that there is a central point where companies and schools can come together to get engineering into girls’ lives?
I agree with the hon. Lady that young women need to see the benefits of studying STEM subjects, because then they can see the huge range of options opening up to them in the modern world. In fact, we have an ambassadors programme, to which 30,000 ambassadors are signed up, who go into schools and provide just the sort of inspiration that is needed.
We know that gender stereotypes are established extremely early in a child’s life, so what support is the Department giving to campaigns to promote gender-neutral toys?
I would say that there is sufficient peer pressure to make sure that producers and manufacturers of gender-specific toys are increasingly being encouraged to think again about that, so that we can encourage young women to make sure they take seriously their career options.
It is essential that women have opportunities to enter employment and to progress in work, and universal credit is designed to give them the assistance and tools to do so. Colleagues across the Government regularly discuss the impact of policies on women, and indeed on all groups.
We know from the Women’s Budget Group that the cuts baked into universal credit—the two-child cap, the cuts to the work allowance and the benefits freeze—are having an even more detrimental impact on women than on men, so when will we see an urgent review of the gendered impact of the social security changes?
The hon. Gentleman is mistaken in seeing welfare reform work in isolation from all the other assistance that has been offered to the low-paid, and in particular to women. Other measures, such as shared parental leave, the right to request flexible working, the 30 hours of free childcare and indeed the 85% of childcare funded through universal credit—or 600 hours of free childcare in Scotland—alongside the national living wage, which has given the lowest-paid their highest pay rise for 20 years, and the fact that we are taking millions out of tax by raising the personal allowance, offering training and assistance, and reducing the gender pay gap all point towards and have created the highest employment levels for women, at 70.9%, that this great and glorious country has ever seen.
Is there evidence that the existence of in-work benefits disproportionately depresses female wages?
My right hon. Friend often emerges from the forest to ask difficult and challenging questions, as he has now done to me for the second time this week. I am not aware that there is such evidence, but I am happy to go away and research it, and I will write to him if there is any.
I ask the Minister to place a copy of his reply in the Library, because we will all be greatly interested in it.
The Government claim that their universal credit alternative payment regime allows partners to apply for split payments in exceptional circumstances. However, few women are aware of this option, and 85% of domestic abuse survivors who contacted Women’s Aid have said that applying for split payments would anger their partners. Does the Minister agree with me that this should be mandatory, with payments split from day one?
We are obviously very sensitive to the issue of domestic abuse, which is completely unacceptable in any circumstances. Work coaches in jobcentres are specifically trained to identify situations in which domestic abuse may be occurring and to offer options and assistance to people subjected to it, including alternative payments. We do not currently see the need for default split payments, because the current benefits system does not operate in that way, and a number of benefits are paid into joint accounts. However, we are aware that the SNP Government are working on an alternative, and we are happy to work with them on that in Scotland and to see how it goes.
I will, if I may, push the Minister slightly more on that. We know that many women are prevented from accessing money because they are in abusive and controlling relationships. Given that, did the Government not give any consideration to the consequences for these women when they made the decision to put universal credit into a single bank account?
We very obviously did consider that, which is why we created the alternative payment method. The current benefits system does not operate on a split payment basis, and we have not yet seen any evidence, in areas where universal credit has been rolled out, that the current system is exacerbating the situation. We firmly believe in our policy on domestic violence and abuse—the Government have made a significant commitment to that—and legislation on a comprehensive plan will come out later this year. We are not convinced that the benefits system is the way to solve domestic abuse, albeit we need to identify, in particular, women who are subjected to it and signpost them to the right kind of assistance, accommodating them in the system if we can. We do not think that doing this on a default basis is the correct approach at the moment.
BBC: Gender Pay Equality
The Minister for Digital and the Creative Industries and I will discuss pay equality with the BBC. We are clear that the BBC, as a public service broadcaster that is funded by the licence fee, has a responsibility to set an example on pay and other equality measures in the workplace. Getting that right is important for licence fee payers, as well as for all the talented women who work at the BBC.
Even more disgraceful than its continued pro-remain Brexit coverage is the way in which the BBC discriminates against female employees. Will my hon. Friend invite the director-general into her office for an interview without coffee to make it quite clear that this continued maltreatment of female employees must stop immediately?
We are in the process of arranging exactly such a meeting, but I must confess that I have not yet put my mind to our precise hospitality arrangements.
Words are clearly not enough, so what steps are being taken to enforce gender pay equality in the BBC, as it seems that previous discussions on the issue have been supremely unsuccessful?
We are clear that it is against the law to pay women differently when they do the same work as men, and that has been the law for some 40 years. The deadline for the gender pay gap data is next Wednesday, and large employers such as the BBC must have published their data by then. This is precisely about drawing open those areas where women are not being treated as fairly by their employers as men.
Taylor Review: Pregnancy and Maternity Discrimination
As we said in the Government’s response to the Matthew Taylor review, we will update and consolidate pregnancy and maternity discrimination guidance on gov.uk this summer. We will also review statutory redundancy protection for pregnant women and new mothers, and consider whether it is sufficient.
The Government have twice, and perhaps now three times, committed to review legislative protection against unfair redundancy for pregnant women and new mothers. When will that review be published, and do the Government still intend to consider the legislative options recommended in the report by the Women and Equalities Committee?
We have stated that the review of the legislation on redundancy protection will consider that issue and report within a year. I recognise that this is a serious matter and I am trying to turbocharge the process to ensure that we report sooner. I reassure the hon. Lady that we take the recommendations of the Committee very seriously, and all options are open.
The Minister knows that pregnant women deserve better—I know he is about to become a dad, so this is a very personal issue for him. It is estimated that about 54,000 women a year are dismissed or made redundant, or feel that they have no choice but to leave their jobs, and that is not good enough. Much of this is cloaked in secrecy because of the use of non-disclosure agreements to withhold information about potentially unlawful acts of dismissing women when they are pregnant. I hope that the Minister will put NDAs on his list of things to consider when he reviews the legislation, as he has generously promised to do.
My right hon. Friend is right: the Griffiths household is waiting with bated breath—it is days before the next Griffiths generation appears on the planet.
I thank my right hon. Friend for the advice that the Committee has given me since I have had ministerial responsibility for this issue. Discriminating against women in the workplace because they are pregnant or new mothers is unlawful, and the Government are determined to stamp it out. She raises the issue of NDAs, and that topical and serious matter is at the top of my agenda.
The same bated breath may be expected to be detected in the Swinson-Hames household.
Thank you, Mr Speaker. I wish the Minister well with his impending arrival. In addition to my obvious interest in this question, I remind the House of my former role as chair of the charity Maternity Action.
It is now two years since the Government published research by the Equality and Human Rights Commission that I commissioned as a Minister back in 2013. That research showed that one in 25 pregnant women felt forced to leave their jobs because health and safety risks are not addressed. It is more than time for concrete action to tackle that, so will the Minister bring forward legislation to give pregnant women a clear right to paid leave if their employer cannot, or will not, provide a safe working environment?
I thank the hon. Lady for her work in this area and wish her the best of luck with her impending arrival. Health and Safety Executive guidance helps employers to meet their health and safety obligations towards pregnant women and new mothers. Working with the Equality and Human Rights Commission, we have delivered several presentations to partnerships to share good practice, but she is absolutely right that we need to do more. I understand her point, and while I cannot commit to the request she makes today, we are certainly considering all options in this area.
Gender Pay Gap: Action Plans
Last year we introduced groundbreaking regulations requiring employers to publish gender pay gap data. Reporting is an important first step, but what matters now is that employers actually take action. While this is not mandatory, we strongly encourage employers to publish a plan alongside their figures.
It is clear from the most recent figures that the requirement on companies to publish pay data is not making a material difference to women’s pay. With the gender pay gap at 18.4% and a quarter of a million women paid less than the national minimum wage, does the Minister agree that the Government are all talk and no action on pay equality, and that to achieve pay parity we need much tougher measures?
The gender pay gap, although completely unwelcome, is at the lowest level that we have ever seen. It is actually 9%, and the gender pay gap reporting that we have now mandated will help to drive that down. We are already seeing it very much as part of people’s conversations and I think we will see a material difference.
The response to the Government’s gender pay audit has been slow, and global banks have revealed gender pay gaps as high as 60%. Does the Minister agree that, as Labour has proposed, companies should prove that they are taking timely action to close their pay gaps—apparently it takes a year to turbocharge something—or face a substantial Government fine?
I share the hon. Lady’s outrage at some of the sizes of the gender pay gaps, but I feel that that just gives even more weight to the fact that it was absolutely right to bring forward last year’s legislation. Revealing pay gaps is exactly how we will start to get proper action.
What assessment has the Minister made of recent gender pay gap analysis showing that multi-academy trusts have some of the worst gender pay gaps in the UK?
The hon. Lady will be aware that multi-academy trusts are also covered by this requirement. We will see their reporting, which is taking place right now, and we will then assess what the consequences are, and whether additional action or influence is needed to ensure that improvements are made.
What sanctions are available if companies fail to meet their legal obligations to help to close the gender pay gap?
What is the law is that gender pay gap reporting takes place. The EHRC has the ability to take measures that can end up with fines and further sanctions. In terms of proposals for companies to actually close the gap themselves, we encourage them to put forward their own plans.
Two weeks ago, I met senior managers at the BBC and discussed the gender pay gap. It is right that the BBC continues to attract talent, but has the Minister determined whether the gender pay gap at the BBC is due to men being overpaid or women being underpaid?
The BBC certainly has a case to answer. We are aware, because it has disclosed this, that some senior male members of the BBC have addressed that by taking pay cuts. What really matters to us here, however, is that we get pay equality.
I congratulate the Government on commencing the Labour party’s legislation—section 78 of the Equality Act 2010—that requires companies to report on the gender pay gap. Does the Minister agree with Labour Members that reporting is not enough if we want to close the gender pay gap? We need mandatory action plans for companies and sanctions.
I thank the hon. Lady for congratulating the Government on doing something that Labour failed to do for 13 years. I am pleased that she welcomes the good responses that we are getting from companies in both the public and private sectors, but there is obviously more to do. I want to make sure that companies actually take action as a result. When we discuss this with them, they say that they will do that.
Diets During Pregnancy
The Government are very keen to work collaboratively to help everyone to improve their diet, including women during pregnancy. Dietary guidance for women before, during and after pregnancy is available on NHS Choices and Start4Life, and via health professionals.
Even with my large number of children and grandchildren, I am sure that the hon. Lady knows more about this than I do, but it is essential that pregnant women have a healthy and sensible diet. The approach on the ground is not joined up. Local authorities’ health education budgets have been under-resourced, and there is no join-up between health education and the other players.
The hon. Gentleman is, of course, a father and a grandfather to many, so he knows an enormous amount about this. He is absolutely right that co-ordination across the piece is absolutely vital. It is also vital that we help to protect the less advantaged to make sure that everyone is able to have the healthy diet that they need during their pregnancies. That is why we have the Healthy Start programme, which helps hundreds of thousands of pregnant women, families and children under four who live in low-income households to sustain a healthy diet.
Caste (Equality Act)
The Government’s consultation on how best to ensure that there is appropriate and proportionate legal protection against caste discrimination received more than 16,000 responses. This demonstrates how important the matter is to some groups and communities. We are analysing the responses and will respond in due course.
I thank my hon. Friend for her answer, but she failed to report that the consultation ended last September, meaning that the Government have had nearly six months to consider the huge weight of responses. I urge her to get on with the work, given the level of response, and to deal with this through the statute book once and for all, as is demanded by thousands of Hindu citizens across the country.
I thank my hon. Friend for his question. He has been an ardent campaigner on this point, not least, I suspect, because so many of his constituents are Hindus. We are rightly proud of our domestic anti-discrimination legislation, which provides one of the strongest legal frameworks in the world, and I have very much taken his comments about timing on board.
Women’s welfare during IVF treatment is extremely important. The regulatory framework established by the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 means that IVF can be provided only by clinics licensed by the UK regulator, which must ensure that all IVF services are safe and of high quality.
This year we celebrate 40 years of IVF, and more than a quarter of a million children have been successfully conceived in the UK. However, a staggering 3% to 8% of women undergoing IVF suffer from moderate to severe occurrences of the completely avoidable ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome, with a shocking three deaths every 100,000 cycles. Does the Minister agree that the outdated Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act should be amended to make essential provision for the welfare of women?
The hon. Lady is absolutely right to talk about this. IVF has made a massive difference to families up and down this country. I know that she has worked long and hard on this particular issue, for which I thank her. Health professionals always have a duty to act in the best interests of the patients whom they care for, and fertility treatment is no exception. The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority is leading work to better understand OHSS, and it will be supporting clinics to ensure that care is of the highest standard.
Shared Parental Leave
The Government want more families to take advantage of the opportunities offered by shared parental leave. That was why the Government launched a £1.5 million communication campaign in February to raise awareness of the shared parental leave and pay schemes. This is ongoing, and is supported by improved advertising and guidance for parents and their employers.
I welcome the Minister’s answer, but may I ask what discussions the Government have had about implementing the recommendation in the Fawcett Society’s sex discrimination law review that shared parental pay and paternity pay should be the right of all employees from their first day of employment?
It is an obvious point. Many people say that one of the barriers to their taking shared parental leave is the difference in pay in relation to fathers rather than mothers. The shared parental leave scheme was only introduced in 2015; we are currently evaluating it to see how it is working, and we will report in the spring of 2019. However, the hon. Gentleman’s points are very relevant, and we are keeping abreast of the issue.
I pay tribute to the hon. Lady for the work that she has done on this important issue. Upskirting is a disgusting and horrifying offence. There is a great deal more that we can do to educate the police and prosecuting authorities about their current ability to prosecute offenders under the outraging public decency offence, but we are also looking very actively at the private Member’s Bill tabled by the hon. Lady.
I thank the Minister for agreeing to meet me in May to discuss the issue, but may I ask why he believes that the law is currently adequate? A 10-year-old girl was a victim of this crime not far from my constituency, but nothing could be done under the current law.
The formal answer to that question is that, as the hon. Lady knows, the decision was made independently by the Crown Prosecution Service, but there are a number of laws under which we can currently secure successful criminal convictions. There is the outraging public decency legislation of 2015, and, in the case of a child, indecent images legislation. However, we clearly need think more about digital images in the current age, and we are happy to sit down and continue to discuss the hon. Lady’s Bill.
The reforms will mean that the same amount of money that would have been available through housing benefit in 2020-21 will be made available as a grant to fund bed spaces directly. However, we are listening to the views of everyone involved in the domestic abuse sector, and we are carrying out a comprehensive audit of how domestic abuse services are delivered locally and how we can implement the best way to deliver those services.
The Minister has said that she is aware of the huge concern in Women’s Aid and other domestic violence charities about the ending of housing benefit for those in refuges, but there have already been cuts amounting to more than £6.5 million over the past eight years. Will she undertake to work with her colleagues in the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government to develop proposals to address those concerns and ensure that places in refuges are available to those who need them?
Refuges are a vital part of helping women and children to deal with the awful crime of domestic abuse and build better lives for themselves. We know that the number of bed spaces has increased by 10% since 2010, but we do not for a moment approach this issue complacently. I have said repeatedly, as has my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, that no options are off the table. We hope very much that the hon. Lady and others will contribute to our domestic abuse consultation to ensure that the law that we hope to introduce by the end of the Session is the best possible law to help the victims.
Will the Minister reassure the House that any changes that the Government make will not reduce the number of women’s refuges? In particular, will she guarantee that they will not affect victims of human trafficking, whom the Government look after very well at the moment?
My hon. Friend has led a long campaign on modern slavery and human trafficking. We are very happy to give the reassurance for which he asks. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and, indeed, the Prime Minister have made that commitment, because, as my hon. Friend knows, it is a personal priority for both of them.
If I may, I will briefly return to the issue of gender pay gap reporting. Tomorrow is the deadline for employers in the public sector to report their gender pay gaps, and all other employers with more than 250 staff must report by next Wednesday. I have this morning’s figures from the update of gender pay gap reporting, and I can inform the House that we have 98% registration and 81% reporting from the public sector and 82% registration and 45% reporting from the private and voluntary sectors. I hope that employers will take this opportunity to accelerate their reporting, because it is unacceptable in 2018 that there are still differences in the amounts that men and women are paid in industries from finance to beauty, and we intend to take action.
As the local elections approach, will the Minister tell the House what steps the Government are taking to tackle online abuse of women in public office?
This is such an important question. We all know how terrible the growth of online abuse has been, particularly towards women, and when we want to encourage more women to participate in public life, it is shameful that it takes place. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has ordered a Law Commission review to ensure that what is illegal offline is illegal online and the appropriate action is being taken to follow that up.
Many women will have slept a little more soundly last night after the decision by the Parole Board not to release the rapist John Worboys. The Government argued that a challenge was highly unlikely to succeed, but the brave survivors and the Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, proved the Government wrong. Will the Minister explain why, given the clear evidence that Worboys was a danger to women, the Government refused to take action?
I thank the hon. Lady for raising this issue, which is so important. I know that everybody feels enormous sympathy and concern for the victims of this terrible atrocity. I welcome yesterday’s result. We need victims to be supported and to feel that the law works for them. My right hon. Friend the Lord Chancellor has said that he will look at making sure that in future there are changes to the Parole Board to ensure that there is much more transparency in such incidents.
I thank my hon. Friend for that question, and there are few in this House who have done more to champion apprenticeships and the benefits that they can bring, particularly to young people. We want all young people and everybody in work to benefit from the apprenticeship scheme, which is why we are committed to having 3 million apprenticeships by 2020. So far, we have achieved 1.2 million. It is also why we are spending some £2.45 billion in cash terms, double the amount we spent in 2010.
It is essential that disabled people can go about their daily lives. Particularly as we move towards the local elections, it is important that they can get out, so that we can ensure that everybody participates in voting. On the hon. Gentleman’s specific question, I will find out from the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government whether it has made any such assessment.
On equality in politics for women, does the Minister for Women and Equalities agree with some senior Members in this House that the next leader of the Labour party, for instance, should be a woman and that perhaps that implies that the next leader of the Conservative party must be a man?
Those are not matters for the Minister for Women and Equalities. Who knows, she might have a personal interest in these matters—I do not know? Let us hear from her anyway, because it is very interesting.
I step forward gingerly following that introduction, Mr Speaker. My hon. Friend will know that on the Government Benches we believe that merit should be the decider for high office, while believing that women should be equally represented. We feel that our selection process and our promotion process allow both things to take place, and we are proud of the party that has had two women leaders and two women Prime Ministers.
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that question. I will have to look into it and get back to him.
I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising the fact that this is National Autism Week. We are all wearing our badges with pride, and I hope that he will take part in the Back-Bench debate on this subject later today. He is right to say that girls get diagnosed later and less frequently than boys, and this is something that we are looking at very carefully as we renew our work on the autism strategy.
As the hon. Gentleman will know, this issue has been debated widely and extensively in this House. I would ask him to contemplate what inequalities would be produced for men, and indeed for women born in the 1960s, if changes were made to the pension arrangements, which have effectively been advertised since 1995, for women born in the 1950s.
The appalling abuse of Alice Terry on social media overnight demonstrates the totally unacceptable direction of travel of political debate in this country. Does my right hon. Friend agree that no party should have any problem whatever with signing the respect pledge?
I thank my hon. Friend for his question. I was shown the sort of abuse that Alice Terry received overnight, and it was particularly horrific and persistent. A lot of my colleagues on the Government Benches have stated their support for her, and I would urge some—not all—Opposition Members to take more action to speak out against such abuse because, as Lord Bew’s independent review of this issue has shown, a lot of it comes from the hard left, also known as Momentum.
Order. I am sorry. I do try to help the House by extending the envelope for topical questions, but it is not fair if Members then ask very long questions—[Interruption.] Forgive me; I do try to help Members, but Members must help one another.
The hon. Lady will know, because we have spoken about this, how much I care about it. I thank her for bringing the matter forward. The consultation has concluded, and we are now looking at it. I will make sure that she is one of the first to know when we decide how to bring it forward.
Gender pay gap reporting has made me angry, not just because companies need to do more but because we all need to do more. Does the Secretary of State agree that we should all check whether we have gendered expectations, particularly of children, and that those of us with influence should be very careful about how we treat young people?
The hon. Lady is absolutely right. One of the benefits of gender pay gap reporting is that it reveals what has been hidden before. In a lot of issues to do with gender, this is about making certain elements much more transparent than they were before. The hon. Lady might be angry, but I take the view that we need to take action. Taking action will do more than being angry.
Infected Blood Inquiry
(Urgent Question): To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office to reconsider the decision to deny funding for legal assistance and advice to those affected by the contaminated blood scandal during the consultation on the terms of reference for the infected blood inquiry.
The infected blood inquiry is a priority for this Government. The infected blood tragedy of the ’70s and ’80s should never have happened, and the victims, who have endured so much pain and hardship, deserve answers. The Government will ensure that the inquiry has the resources it needs to complete its work as quickly as a thorough examination of the facts allows. We are committed to making sure that all those who have suffered so terribly can have the answers they have spent decades waiting for and that lessons can be learned so that a tragedy of this scale can never happen again.
We want to make sure that all those who need to contribute to the inquiry can do so. The Inquiries Act 2005 allows for the chair to make awards for legal representation for the inquiry itself once it is formally established—in other words, after the terms of reference have been set. We know that the inquiry chair intends to make early provision for core participant designation and legal expenses awards after the inquiry is formally set up. So the Government are not denying funds for legal representation at the inquiry. These funds will be available as soon as possible after the inquiry is up and running.
In addition, I can confirm that Ministers have decided that reasonable expenses properly incurred in respect of legal representation for the purpose of responding to the consultation by the infected blood inquiry on the terms of reference prior to the setting-up date will be awarded. Any claims will be handled by the solicitor to the inquiry, and it will be for the solicitor to determine these expenses. I hope that that is good news to the House.
I know that the chair of the inquiry, Sir Brian Langstaff, is keen to ensure that all those affected by this tragedy have a chance to make their voices heard. I know that last night he held a meeting with interested groups and that he is continuing to engage with those who are affected and the bereaved families. Sir Brian wants to ensure that the consultation process is as user-friendly and inclusive as possible, and such that legal advice is not a necessity for being able to respond to the consultation on the terms of reference. He wants to ensure that everyone has the chance to share their views, which will inform the terms of reference.
We believe that this is an exceptional circumstance. Thousands of people have been fighting for years to get answers to why this terrible tragedy happened, and they want to be part of ensuring that such a tragedy can never happen again. I know that the whole House welcomes the fact that the Government have established this judge-led public inquiry to provide the answers that victims and families have had to wait for. I and others here today, I am sure, will continue to play our parts passionately for our constituents.
I thank the Minister for her response. I just wish that the decision had been made earlier. As she outlined, this is a group of people who have battled for many, many years for a public inquiry, and we now want to make sure that the terms of reference are so drafted as to incorporate all the concerns of those affected. As she will know, many of those implicated in the inquiry will have access now to legal advice and expertise in their submissions on what the terms of reference should be.
I must add that the letter of 23 March, drafted by the Minister’s civil servants, which tried to draw a contrast with the families affected by Grenfell—who have been granted exceptional funding for legal assistance—saying that those families were more deserving than this group of people, has caused enormous hurt in the community. Of course we want to make sure that the Grenfell families find out what happened, and 71 lives were lost in that case, but in this case, 2,400 people have already died, and since the announcement of the public inquiry last year, another 70 have died. Many are living with HIV and hepatitis C, and many are co-infected, so they are in poor health. I am really pleased, therefore, that the Minister and the Government have accepted the argument that, while the organisations are well funded to put their cases, individuals should also have access to legal advice and guidance.
I want to say finally that I have met with Mr Justice Langstaff, and I believe that he will do his best to get justice for this group of people. He met with some of the campaigning groups last night, and I know that those meetings went well, but I hope that the Minister will pay particular attention, between now and when the inquiry is set up and Mr Justice Langstaff takes over, to making sure that no more decisions are made that put these individuals, who have been so damaged by the state, in a position where they feel hurt and lack confidence in what I think the Government are trying to do, which is to have a public inquiry that instils the confidence and good will of everybody.
As I have said from the Dispatch Box before, I pay tribute to the hon. Lady for her work, her campaigning and her compassionate tenacity on this issue. I have worked with her over the years, as have many other Members, and I am pleased that she welcomes the news that I have been able to bring to the House this morning. I reiterate that Ministers share her concerns and are keen to be able to get on with the inquiry as quickly as possible. It will be ably led by Sir Brian Langstaff, so that the constituents whom we all serve can get the answers that they deserve.
In response to her questions, it may be useful for the House if I say that, under the Inquiries Act 2005, it is for Ministers to make decisions, on an exceptional basis, on whether funds might be made available during this preliminary stage. That is what we have done today, because we believe that the circumstances are exceptional.
My constituent Lesley Hughes was infected with hepatitis C back in 1970, and that timescale suggests that thousands of documents must be held by the relevant Department. Will the Minister assure us that full disclosure of all such relevant documents will be made?
Technically, it is for the inquiry chair to give that assurance, but Ministers, officials and the machinery of Government will be fully co-operating with the inquiry and will give evidence if asked. All the relevant papers will be submitted, and the inquiry can also request evidence under oath.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson) for continuing to champion this important issue. I echo the concerns that she and other colleagues have raised.
The victims of this appalling tragedy have been waiting decades for answers and for justice. Sadly, they continue to wait for the justice they so desperately deserve. I note the Minister’s personal commitment to the victims of the scandal, and I welcome the movement that she has made today towards correcting a perceived wrong that we heard about in the House yesterday. I am sure that the Minister appreciates that it was deeply concerning for many of the victims to be informed by the Cabinet Office that they had been denied legal aid funding for advice during the crucial consultation period on the terms of reference, but we welcome the movement today.
The letter from the Cabinet Office caused understandable upset among contaminated blood victims and their families, particularly the comments relating to Grenfell. While the contaminated blood scandal and the Grenfell fire are obviously different, there are two key similarities—both have had a devastating impact on the lives of those involved, and both should not have happened. The contaminated blood tragedy has killed over 2,400 people, and 70 people have died since the inquiry was announced last year. I hope that the Minister appreciates why the letter of 23 March has caused offence; will she apologise for it on behalf of the Government? The active participation of Grenfell victims led to the terms of reference in that inquiry being wider than those initially suggested by the chair. It is therefore welcome news that victims of the contaminated blood scandal will now be afforded the same opportunity to influence the terms of reference for this inquiry.
I thank the Opposition Front-Bench team for their support for what I have been able to announce today. I share the keenness of the hon. Lady and all colleagues to see the inquiry done and done well. I have reflected on the letter that was sent by my officials, and I am sorry for any concern that has been caused by it. By way of explanation, I return to the fact that Cabinet Office officials were expressing the normal position under the Inquiries Act, which is that, as I explained to the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson), Ministers may decide to provide funding for the preliminary stage of any inquiry on an exceptional basis. I have already explained that we certainly see this tragedy as exceptional and Ministers have therefore made the decision that I have conveyed to the House today. I hope that it is clear that the normal position under the Inquiries Act is that there would not be such funding, but we have decided that there ought to be.
The people who know most about a tragedy are often the victims and their families, so will my hon. Friend do all she can to listen to them, especially with regard to the terms of reference, and to deliver for those affected by the contaminated blood scandal?
I welcome that reminder that the people we are doing this for are those who have suffered so awfully over too many years, which is why I am pleased that Sir Brian Langstaff is moving forward on making sure that the terms of reference are as they should be and reflect what people who have suffered need to make known to the inquiry. That work is being done at the moment, and I look forward to the good-quality terms of reference that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster or I will present back to Parliament shortly.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson) on securing this urgent question and on her persistence in standing up for the victims of this scandal. I also warmly welcome what the Minister has said today.
Getting the answers that the victims of this scandal deserve requires asking the right questions and making sure that the inquiry has the right remit, and it is good that what the Minister has said means that that will now happen. I share the concern that the letter from the Cabinet Office was, as some have described it, contemptuous and insulting. How that came about should be looked at.
Is it not now time for the ongoing review of legal aid to be made entirely independent of Government? Will the Minister make sure that the provision of legal aid for those involved in public inquiries is part of that review, including the operation of pre-inquiry funding?
I believe that the hon. Gentleman raises an issue that is not what we are discussing today. I would be happy to come back to him with more detail on the broader review of legal aid, but I do not believe the issues we are discussing today are specifically those of legal aid, as we commonly use that phrase. I hope I have explained the position that applies to this inquiry, but I would be happy to come back to him on his other question relating to legal aid.
I start with the words of my constituent:
“The miracle of child birth tainted and forever seen as a sadness by my advice to abort my child at 7 months old. An empty vessel of a lost life and its opportunities of normal happiness and future building.”
Gone forever, after which she was advised that she should be sterilised. How tragic. This happened 30 years ago, and she still lives in secrecy. I want her voice to be heard by the Minister in this place. My constituent has not told a soul to this day. Given that she has waited for 30 years, I am sure that she will welcome the legal aid. How much longer will she need to wait for the final answers?
That is one of the most awful things I have heard during my time in this place. It speaks for itself.
On the timeline, I can give my hon. Friend the reassurance for her constituent that the consultation on the inquiry’s terms of reference will close in late April. Very shortly afterwards, Sir Brian Langstaff will review what he has received and report to Ministers, who will then lay the way forward before Parliament. Thus the inquiry will start very shortly in the weeks after 26 April.
As I have previously relayed to the House, the judge intends to conduct the inquiry as quickly as possible, consistent with getting to the truth and getting to those answers. In that sense at least, I hope that my hon. Friend’s constituent will be able to draw a little comfort from what we are doing.
In light of the Minister’s helpful initial answer, will she and the Government reconsider the decision that, from April 2018, compensation payments will not be increased in line with inflation?
I will write to the hon. Gentleman on that point in order to give him the fullest possible answer.
Victims of other scandals, such as Epilim—valproate—and surgical mesh, report that they have not always been properly represented by the interested groups. Will my hon. Friend therefore ensure that those individuals who feel they are not being represented by particular interested groups have access to proper legal aid so they can put forward their case, rather than just being represented by a group of people?
My hon. Friend makes an important point, and one that the chair of the inquiry has also pointed at: that he wants people’s real voices to be heard. Some will feel comfortable for that to be done on their behalf through campaign groups—I pay tribute to the work of many of those groups, which have walked these long miles over the years—but others will prefer to do it in their own individual ways. I hope that the decision I have relayed to the House this morning can accommodate both.
As I mentioned, the consultation on the terms of reference is still live, and I encourage constituents of every right hon. and hon. Member to have a look at it and participate. The way that is produced is designed to be as user-friendly as possible, and therefore as open as possible to those who wish to respond in their own right. None the less, as I have said today, all reasonable expenses properly incurred in this respect will be looked at by the inquiry.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson) on the dogged way in which she has pursued this matter. I also thank the Minister for the statement she has made today. She will acknowledge that many victims of the contaminated blood scandal are feeling angry and frustrated at the lack of progress to date. Will she keep an open mind on any representations that may be made arising out of her statement today?
I certainly will. The Government are keen to hear any and all representations that are relevant here although the focus rightly begins to turn towards the inquiry that is to be set up, and it is for its chair to hear those representations fully.
I have said in my remarks today and previously that this matter has taken too long to reach the justice that we now hope can be done, but the Government are now acting swiftly. I would not accept the right hon. Gentleman’s characterisation that at present the Government are in some way delaying, as we are not. We are getting on with the inquiry, and that is as it should be.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson) and thank the Minister for her statement. Will she confirm that the judge will engage properly with the victims and representative groups? Will she set out what lessons have been learned, so that nothing like this ever happens again?
I know that Sir Brian Langstaff wants to do exactly that. I will not be able to answer today as to what the lessons learned are, as that will of course be the work of the inquiry, but I know Parliament will be kept fully informed of this process so that we can continue to reassure our constituents.
May I reiterate to the Minister that these families, including the Smith family from Newport whose tragic story was told in an excellent article in The Guardian recently, have been through so much? That is why it is so important that we are sensitive to getting this process absolutely right.
I welcome the fact that the hon. Lady and other hon. Members have been able to voice their constituents’ words, both in this session this morning and on several other occasions in Parliament. Too many people have felt that they do not have that voice. Members of Parliament may be able to help in providing that, and I hope that this inquiry can also assist in providing it.
I welcome what my hon. Friend has had to say today. As she might be aware, one of my constituents experienced real difficulties in accessing the treatment that she so desperately needed, and we have managed to resolve that. Is that ease of access to treatment something that could be considered by the inquiry?
The inquiry will specifically be about the cause and conduct in respect of the problem as is it has unfolded over the years. As my hon. Friend and the House will be aware, other present-day policy questions arise as to what is available to the victims of this scandal. I know that my colleagues in the Department of Health and Social Care will have listened to what he has said today and will be keen to continue to provide that assurance to the House also.
The Minister will realise that those affected by the contaminated blood scandal have very low levels of trust in the Government and other authorities, not least because they have been literally short-changed over so many years. Today’s announcement is good, but will the Minister say whether the Government will make funds available going forward, particularly to fulfil any recommendations made by the inquiry?
As I have already said, the inquiry will most certainly be fully resourced and fully facilitated by the Government. For rather obvious reasons, I will refrain from commenting on what the recommendations of the inquiry might be—I cannot do that today—but I have confidence that we will return to discuss in this place what needs to be done afterwards, and that we will give that our very fullest attention.
I thank the Minister for her response to the urgent question. We should be grateful to the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson) for her dogged perseverance on this matter—for us in this House but even more so for the people outside the House. I thank her very much.
Will the legal aid and terms of reference be extended to the victims of the contaminated blood scandal in Northern Ireland who have been greatly disadvantaged and whose health has been affected? They equally qualify for the financial assistance that the Minister referred to.
The previous time I updated the House on this inquiry, Members spoke about the need for the inquiry to respond to the needs of victims in all the nations of our country. I am happy to write the hon. Gentleman and, indeed, to other representatives of constituencies in Northern Ireland, Scotland or Wales, should they have such questions, to set out exactly what the situation will be for their constituents.
My constituent, a victim of the contaminated blood scandal, has asked the Minister the following: now that a cover-up and illegal research have been acknowledged in Parliament, the Prime Minister has used the word “scandal” and the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State has said that this should never have happened, why are dying victims waiting for compensation? Why will the Cabinet not show leadership? At what point do the Government increase the insult by failing to acknowledge their liability for what the Prime Minister has described as a scandal?
We are having an inquiry to answer those questions.
I thank the Minister for her announcement. It is important that the terms of reference are considered widely. My constituent has suffered not only from receiving contaminated blood at the time of the birth of her daughter in 1986, but further injustice because the medical records have been lost. Does the Minister agree that it is important that she makes the case for the fullest possible terms of reference? Her announcement today will help with that.
The hon. Lady gives us yet another example of how people have suffered in this terrible saga, over time. I hope that her constituent’s experience will be reflected in the terms of reference. I urge the hon. Lady and all Members to encourage their constituents to complete the form, which is extremely easily accessible on the inquiry website, to ensure that their voices are properly heard. The inquiry can then proceed to do its full job.
My constituent, Sue Sparkes, wrote to me and described as “crass” and “insensitive” the letter that made the comparison with Grenfell. Will the Minister do two things today? First, she has rightly rowed back from that position, but will she undertake to consult my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson) before the Cabinet Office issues letters of that kind in future? Secondly, will she apologise for the hurt caused by that letter?
I think the hon. Gentleman would have heard me do so earlier, but I am happy to say again that I am sorry for the concern caused by that letter. In case he missed it, I shall repeat the explanation that I gave a little while ago. My officials in the Cabinet Office were carrying out what is actually the normal legal position for inquiries, which is that Minister would decide by exception whether to provide funding for legal assistance in this preliminary period. I refer to section 40 of the Inquiries Act 2005. I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s reminder that the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North has done so much work here. I am happy to meet her at any time to discuss the issues at hand in a way that is appropriate around the work of the inquiry.
The Minister has made a gracious and positive response to my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson), but will she indicate to the House whether there is a cap on individual financial support in the consultation period and, crucially, in the actual inquiry period?
What I have said to the House today is that it will be for the solicitor to the inquiry to determine those expenses, so I am not in a position directly to answer the right hon. Gentleman’s question today. As I have said, my colleagues and I have decided that reasonable expenses, which are properly incurred in respect of legal representation for the purpose of responding to the consultation of the inquiry on the terms of reference, will be awarded.
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson) for bringing this issue to the House and, indeed, to the Minister for accepting the issue and for her tone this morning. Since being first elected in 2015, I have been in regular contact with victims of this scandal, who have been deeply frustrated by the pace at which the Government have been dealing with this. Will she commit her Government now to do what is in their power to move this process on as quickly as possible, with dignity and compassion, for those who have been affected by this outrageous scandal?
As I have said this morning already and have said before, we want this inquiry to move as quickly as possible so that people get the answers that they deserve, and have deserved for many years.
Business of the House
Will the Leader of the House please give the House the forthcoming business after the recess?
The business for the week commencing 16 April is as follows:
Monday 16 April—Second Reading of the Laser Misuse (Vehicles) Bill [Lords], followed by general debate on housing and homes.
Tuesday 17 April—General debate on anti-Semitism followed by debate on a motion on redress for victims of banking misconduct and the FCA. The subject of this debate was determined by the Backbench Business Committee.
Wednesday 18 April—Consideration in Committee and remaining stages of the Laser Misuse (Vehicles) Bill [Lords], followed by general debate on industrial strategy.
Thursday 19 April—Debate on a motion on surgical mesh, followed by debate on a motion on cancer treatment. The subjects for these debates were determined by the Backbench Business Committee.
Friday 20 April—The House will not be sitting.
The provisional business for the week commencing 23 April will include:
Monday 23 April— Second Reading of the Rating (Property in Common Occupation) and Council Tax (Empty Dwelling) Bill.
Young people are vital to our democracy. Their participation and their voices are crucial to a fair and equal society, so I was very sad to hear of the sudden death of Clarissa Slade, the UK’s youngest councillor, representing Tiverton. I am sure that the whole House will join me in sending our thoughts and prayers to her family and friends.
During recess, we will mark 20 years of the historic Belfast agreement. That agreement, along with its successors, has been fundamental in helping Northern Ireland move forward from its violent past to a brighter, more secure future. Our support for the 1998 agreement remains resolute.
This weekend is a hugely important celebration for millions of people. Christians celebrate the extraordinary sacrifice of Jesus Christ and his resurrection, giving us hope for everlasting life. For those of the Jewish faith, tomorrow is the beginning of Passover, a time of celebrating their liberation by God from slavery. May I wish everyone of all faiths and of none a very happy and peaceful Easter?
Finally, today marks a year until we leave the EU. I am confident that the decision taken by the people of the United Kingdom offers us a superb new chapter in the history of our great nations. As the Prime Minister has said, “Let’s get on with it”.
I thank the Leader of the House for the forthcoming business. Yet again, it is only for a week and a day. I also thank her for the list of ministerial responsibilities—it is in a Vote Office near you.
The Leader of the House announced the business after the Easter recess: it is just general debates. Can we have a debate on racism, particularly in light of the leaflet by Havering Conservatives, claiming that the Leader of the Opposition and the Mayor of London want to turn Havering into Hackney, Newham and other London boroughs—not like Essex? Will she condemn that leaflet, just as her colleague, the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Nick Boles), has done?
I am going to keep asking until we get it: when will the Trade Bill, the Taxation (Cross-border Trade) Bill and the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Bill return on Report? And I am going to ask again about the statutory instrument on postgraduate nursing bursaries—the Education (Student Support) (Amendment) Regulations 2018—that has been prayed against, but has not been listed for hearing. Indeed, the shadow Secretary of State for Education raised a point of order on this matter on Monday. Mr Speaker, you made it very clear that this House runs on conventions and precedents. That is why we want a debate when we pray against a statutory instrument. The Government appear to be throwing out the conventions of this House.
I ask the Leader of the House about the debate on early-day motion 1111 in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds East (Richard Burgon), praying against the Criminal Legal Aid (Remuneration) (Amendment) Regulations 2018. There is clearly plenty of time for this, because the Leader of the House has only scheduled general debates. Lawyers are at breaking point. They are concerned about cuts to legal aid, the burdens of disclosure and racial inequality in the criminal justice system.
The Government have offered full support to the Mental Health Units (Use of Force) Bill put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon North (Mr Reed). The Bill received unanimous support on both sides of the House, including from the Health Minister. The Bill was due to go to Committee four weeks ago, but the Government failed to lay a money resolution, so the Committee was cancelled at short notice. It was then scheduled for the week after, but the Government again failed to lay a money resolution so the Committee was cancelled. The following week there was no money resolution, so the Committee was cancelled again. This week—yet again—the Government have failed to lay a money resolution. That is four weeks in a row.
Apparently, the Government Whips have said that there is no time for business, but the House adjourned early this week and last week. When will the Government lay that money resolution? The Homes (Fitness for Human Habitation and Liability for Housing Standards) Bill promoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Westminster North (Ms Buck), with which we all agree, still has no date to enter Committee. It seems that the Government do not want to fix any business and want to gag the Opposition by flouting conventions and fixing general debates. There is a danger that we will become like Northamptonshire County Council—a large, fancy building with a bankrupt Government inside.
Will the Leader of the House ask the Foreign Secretary to stop calling people names, including my right hon. Friend the Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry), the shadow Foreign Secretary? He was hoping that that would be the headline. In political terms, it was a dead cat on the table, because the only name that he should have been using was that of Christopher Wylie, who gave evidence for four hours on Cambridge Analytica and possible breaches of electoral law during the EU referendum. Will the Leader of the House reassure the House that the Information Commissioner will get further resources to do these investigations, if she requires them?
As the Leader of the House has said, it is half-time for the article 50 process. The regions are still anxious about what Brexit will mean for them. In Northern Ireland, the people voted to remain. There has been no decision on a hard border, but the Department for Exiting the European Union has suffered the loss of Simon Case, who was director general for Northern Ireland and Ireland. Scotland voted to remain, and the Government’s own analysis shows that a hard Brexit could cost Scotland’s economy £12.7 billion by 2030. Wales, which voted to leave, is looking at other methods of economic development and new energy, one of which is the Swansea Bay tidal lagoon. Ken Skates, Cabinet Secretary for Economy and Transport in Wales, has said that Wales is
“prepared to consider a loan and/or equity investment”.
It now needs the UK Government to declare whether they will support the development. My hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Christina Rees), who is sitting here, would be very happy to accompany the Prime Minister to have a look at the site of the Swansea Bay tidal lagoon while she is walking in Wales.
When will we have a statement on the Galileo satellite project? UK companies have been at the forefront of the technology. The Prime Minister is apparently scrambling to stop Britain being excluded from the project. Can we have a statement on what the Government are doing to ensure that the UK remains part of the Galileo satellite project and is not locked out of the Copernicus project?
I, along with 107 other MPs, met Alfie Dingley’s parents in Parliament last week. That was organised by the right hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Sir Mike Penning). Alfie had 150 seizures a month. Since he has been put on the medication, tetrahydrocannabinol, in the Netherlands, he has only had one. When will the Government agree to his medication exceptionally?
I want to pay tribute, along with the Leader of the House, to the very, very young councillor, and her commitment to public service too. It is absolutely heartbreaking for her parents.
I also want to pay tribute to the former Leader of the House in the other place, Ivor Richard. He had a distinguished career in both Houses as MP for Barons Court from 1964 to 1974, British ambassador to the United Nations from 1974 to 1979, and a European Commissioner from 1981 to 1985, before being made a peer in 1990. He was a brilliant parliamentarian in both Houses.
I thank you, Mr Speaker, and those in your office for their unfailing courtesy in helping me to do my work, and everyone else who supports me—all the Clerks and House staff, including the Doorkeepers, the House of Commons Library, the Official Reporters, catering and cleaning staff, postal workers, and especially security and digital services. I wish all right hon. and hon. Members a happy Easter. I hope that we can take on the Easter message of renewal and hope.
The hon. Lady has raised a wide range of subjects. As is often the case, I have to remind her that discussions on debates and offering time for debates take place through the usual channels.
On the hon. Lady’s specific point about the nursing bursary statutory instrument, I do not think she is up to date on where we are with that. It is a matter of parliamentary convention that where a reasonable request for a debate has been made, time should be allowed for a debate. It was not possible for the Government to accommodate time within the praying period of the instrument that was laid before the House on 6 February, so we revoked the regulations on Tuesday and laid new regulations identical in substance to the original on Wednesday. Those regulations came into force today. This was as part of the arrangements made to give effect to the request from the official Opposition for a debate in Government time. We have fully worked with the Opposition to ensure that that request can be paid careful attention to and that we will be able to give time to that debate. I hope that that satisfies her.
The hon. Lady asks about other SIs that have been prayed against. Where a reasonable request for a debate has been made, it is the convention that time is allowed for it. That continues to be the case, and the Government continue to abide by all Standing Orders and conventions in this place.
The hon. Lady makes the assertion that there is no business going on. She will be aware that there have been some incredibly important debates. [Interruption.] She says from a sedentary position, “General debates”, as if somehow the only debates that are worth having are those on voteable motions. I have to disagree with her, because only this week we had a very important and very well-attended debate on national security and Russia. [Interruption.] Hon. Members are yelling from a sedentary position. At business questions each week, I get lots of requests for debates on subjects that are of significant interest to our constituents, to the national security of this country, and to diverse groups across the United Kingdom. Hon. Members cannot have it both ways. They cannot insist on having only voteable legislation brought before the House but then criticise me when we do not give them debates on general subjects that are of vital importance to the United Kingdom. I do urge hon. Members to keep that balance in mind.
The hon. Lady asks about private Members’ Bills. There are a number of very valuable Bills that are supported right across the House and in the United Kingdom, and we will be bringing forward money resolutions in due course.
The hon. Lady asks about Cambridge Analytica and the Information Commissioner. As the Prime Minister said, the Information Commissioner’s powers will be strengthened, and if more resources are necessary, they will be forthcoming.
The hon. Lady asks about the European Commission’s threat that potentially the UK will be blocked out of projects such as Galileo and Copernicus. The UK makes a very strong and, in many areas, unique contribution to these projects. It is a matter for negotiation, but it is fully our intention to continue to collaborate and work closely with our EU friends and neighbours as we leave the European Union.
Finally, I join the hon. Lady in thanking all those who provide such good service in protecting and supporting us in our work in this place.
Yes, indeed. Of course, I think we all feel very strongly that the staff of this House should be supported in every way. Indeed, some of us feel extremely strongly that they should be well paid and, where possible, better paid each year—and Parliament will be the judge of that, rather than any other institution.
May we have a debate on areas of outstanding natural beauty and how we can increase the protection of those areas? During that debate, we could discuss the Chilterns AONB and the possibility of the Government designating it as a national park, to maintain its integrity, which is threatened by development on all sides. If we do not increase its protection to the highest level, which would be afforded by designating it as a national park, we could lose that precious environment as an asset for future generations to enjoy and benefit from.
My right hon. Friend raises an issue that is of enormous importance across our United Kingdom. She will be aware that in our 25-year environment plan, it is the Government’s intention that we will be the first generation to leave our environment in a better state than we found it. The Government will be commissioning a review of designated landscapes in England which will examine their coverage, so there is more information to come, which I am sure she will welcome.
I thank the Leader of the House for announcing the business for after Easter.
As we have heard, it is now one year until we leave the European Union—Members are supposed to cheer at that point. I note that the Leader of the House said in a tweet this morning that she punches the air with joy at that prospect every morning. In Scotland, we are not quite doing that, as we have heard that it is going to cost us £12.7 billion. My country did not want Brexit. We did not vote for Brexit, yet Scotland will be taken out of the EU against our national collective will. I remember that in another referendum, we were told the only way to preserve Scotland’s EU status was to vote no. Well, that worked out well for us, didn’t it?
As for the business, or the non-business, when we get back, it is general debate central. This is business that has ceased to be, is bereft of life and has shuffled off its mortal coil and gone to meet its maker. This is as much ex-business as that unforgettable Norwegian blue parrot. It is a business statement from a zombie Government that pine for the fjords.
In Scotland and across Europe, people are being arrested just for having a political idea and vision for their country—people like Clara Ponsatí, a professor at St Andrews University who was arrested with a Spanish European arrest warrant. Her crime was believing that her country would be a better place if it governed itself, and peacefully and democratically making that her political aim. The UK is a country that hates state oppression, loves democracy and speaks out against injustice throughout the world, so can we have a statement on that, even if it is just to ask Spain to think about what it is doing and the reputational damage it is causing itself?
Lastly, Mr Speaker, I wish you, your staff and staff right across the House a very happy Easter. It might come as a shock to some Conservative Members, but I understand that the Prime Minister is going for a walking holiday in Wales. Forget about hard borders for Ireland. The gentlemen on the Conservative Benches should be hastily constructing one in Wales, so that we do not suffer the same fate as we did last year.
I am delighted to hear the hon. Gentleman quoting from the fabulous Monty Python. It is lovely to hear it. There is a good opportunity over Easter to catch up on some Monty Python films.
The hon. Gentleman raises a really important point about Catalan independence and the extradition warrant applied for against a Member of the Catalan Parliament. Spain is a key ally of the United Kingdom, and of course we support its right to uphold its constitution. Nevertheless, I have some sympathy with the hon. Gentleman, and we always urge every one of our allies to look carefully at the backdrop to these cases.
The hon. Gentleman also talks about the Prime Minister going to Wales. I think we would all encourage her to take a break, put work behind her and think only of the beautiful countryside and fabulous Welsh food. Can I be any clearer than that?
As the House of Commons is not sitting on 1 April, will the Leader of the House pay tribute today to the Royal Air Force, which celebrates its centenary on Sunday, and will she join me in paying homage to all those who have given their lives to protect our freedom?
Yes, I am of course delighted to join my right hon. Friend in paying tribute to the RAF—as he says, on 1 April it will have been protecting our nation for 100 years—and to the so many who have given their lives to the service or made the ultimate sacrifice for their country.
I am very grateful to the Leader of the House for the business announcement, including the fact that we now have an important Back-Bench debate on Tuesday 17 April on redress for victims of banking misconduct and the Financial Conduct Authority. In hearing the bid for that debate, it was all too clear why this Chamber needs to debate such an important issue. Am I to understand that it will be preceded by a business of the House motion protecting the time for that debate with a minimum of three hours? If so, that would be greatly appreciated.
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, and I will certainly look at whether we can do that.
Will my right hon. Friend find time for a debate on the excessive pay of certain so-called senior people in the public sector? With regard to certain BBC executives and presenters, certain senior management in the NHS and the like, I just do not understand how any of them can possibly be worth more money than our Prime Minister.
I certainly agree with my hon. Friend on the latter point. We must all ensure that public services show restraint and value for money. The BBC is of course independent of the Government, so the amount it pays its staff is a matter for the BBC. However, as a public service broadcaster funded by the licence fee, it has a responsibility to set an example to others, and of course to lead the way in promoting equality in the workplace. Transparency is vital right across the public sector, and the public certainly deserve to know how taxpayers’ money is being spent.
May we have a debate on the growing concern that the US Administration could be on the point of withdrawing from the Iran nuclear deal, which through patient negotiation has succeeded in controlling Iran’s nuclear ambitions? In that context, may I draw the attention of the Leader of the House to early-day motion 1143, in my name and that of the hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr Bacon)?
[That this House notes with concern the possibility that the US Administration could move towards abandoning the Iran Nuclear Deal, the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JPCOA); believes that this would undermine what has been achieved in controlling Iran’s nuclear programme and damage both our credibility as international partners in negotiation and the pursuit of diplomacy as a means of promoting peace and ensuring security; asserts that weakening the deal would make it more difficult to keep Iran nuclear-free after the expiry of the special provisions of the JCPOA; and therefore expresses its support for the joint initiative from French and German Members of Parliament to urge members of the US Congress to stand by the Iran Nuclear Deal.]
The early-day motion expresses our support for the joint initiative of French and German parliamentarians to urge Members of the US Congress to support the Iran nuclear deal, a call to which I hope Members of this House will add their names.
The right hon. Gentleman raises an incredibly important issue. I know there is concern about the intentions of the US Administration regarding the Iran deal. I encourage him to seek an urgent debate in Westminster Hall or a Back-Bench business debate specifically to address this issue with a Foreign Office Minister.
Cricket is under enormous threat at the moment, because of what has happened with Australia, which is unacceptable. It is our national game, and I also want to mention the British situation. Somerset county cricket club, of which we are all very proud—I am one of the MPs representing the county—has just taken on a chairman who has been done for price fixing in his company and heavily fined. May we have a debate about our national game—in my eyes, it is our national game—which is important to all of us and is enjoyed by many thousands of people across the United Kingdom?
I certainly share my hon. Friend’s enthusiasm for the sport, and his concern about the way in which its reputation is being damaged by recent allegations. I encourage him to seek at the very least an Adjournment debate to address in particular the recent press stories of misconduct.
Order. More than 30 right hon. and hon. Members are still seeking to catch my eye, but I remind the House that there is a statement to follow and then two debates under the auspices of the Backbench Business Committee, of which the first is enormously heavily subscribed. There is a premium on brevity— to wit, single-sentence questions and replies that are comparably brief.
Has the Leader of the House seen early-day motions 1024 and 1036, calling for a commemoration of the 100th anniversary of the end of the first world war, and for giving shop workers and shoppers time to enjoy it by pushing back the Sunday opening hours on that day? EDM 1024 says:
[That this House believes that all people in the UK should be able to pay their respects on 11 November 2018 to those who made the ultimate sacrifice for their country during conflict; notes that this year marks the centenary of the end of the First World War; further notes that many people working in retail will not be able to commemorate this important anniversary due to the Sunday Trading Act (1980); and calls on the Government to encourage all shops covered by Sunday trading regulations to open from 12pm to 6pm on 11 November 2018 so that those working in retail are not required in work until memorial events have concluded.]
Will she look at those early-day motions and find time for such a debate?
I would be delighted to consider that, and if the right hon. Gentleman would like to write to me, I will respond to him more fully.
May we have an assurance that the forthcoming announcement on whether there will be a competition for the new generation of mechanised infantry vehicles will be made to the House when Parliament is sitting, and not in the recess?
My right hon. Friend raises an important point. I cannot answer that question at the moment, but Defence questions are on 23 April, and if he wishes to write to me I will ask the Ministry of Defence on his behalf.
For the avoidance of doubt, the answer is very clear: the announcement should be in the House of Commons. That is the situation, and it is the responsibility of office holders to ensure that that is the case. I know the Leader of the House will take seriously her responsibility on that matter.
We seem to have been waiting for the S4C statement, published today, longer than “Pobol y Cwm” has been on air, and there are still questions to be answered. May we have a Government statement that sets out a clear commitment to protect S4C’s budget, to allow it to maintain its independence and integrity, rather than simply top-slicing, and to allocate a separate, immediate budget to enable it to make the transition to digital and compete on a level playing field?
The independent review will ensure that S4C continues to produce first-class content and serves Welsh-speaking audiences across the UK. The additional funding announced today will give S4C the certainty that it needs for the next two years to deliver its much-needed reforms.
Following the welcome announcement yesterday that NHS money will become available in north Essex, may we have an urgent statement from the Health Secretary to outline when capital funding will be made available for west Essex and Harlow? The Health Secretary has visited Harlow’s hospital a number of times, and he is aware that the Princess Alexandra Hospital is not fit for purpose, and that our town desperately needs a hospital fit for the 21st century. Will my right hon. Friend ask the Health Secretary to do everything he can to ensure that Harlow has the new hospital it needs?
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for drawing the attention of the House to yesterday’s welcome announcement. The Princess Alexandra scheme submission was one of the largest in capital value, and further work will be needed on those large schemes to ensure that we use centrally available capital to demonstrate value for money and affordability to the health economy. NHS England will soon contact my right hon. Friend’s sustainability and transformation partnership to communicate the next steps.
On 23 November 2016, 30 March 2017, and 9 February 2018 I wrote to the Government to ask for a debate in Government time on anti-Semitism. Over those 18 months, on all three occasions I was told that there would be such a debate. Now that it has been scheduled, and considering the importance of the issue, half a day is simply insubstantial and insignificant. We need a full day’s debate, and I am sure that Labour Members would be happy to agree to a rearrangement of business to give it a full day. Will the Leader of the House please take that suggestion away and consider it?
I share the hon. Gentleman’s grave concern about anti-Semitism, and in recent weeks we have seen some appalling examples of anti-Semitic behaviour, which is utterly unacceptable. I will take away his request, but he will appreciate that there are lots of competing demands on time in this Chamber.
In view of research by the Institute for Fiscal Studies that highlights how home ownership has declined over the past 20 years, may we have a debate on what the Government are doing to help people on to the housing ladder?
My hon. Friend’s point is incredibly important to this Government, and we are fully committed to tackling that issue. There were 365,000 new first-time buyers in the UK last year, which is the highest number since 2006. There is a lot more to do, and we are committed both to tackling supply problems and to helping people on the demand side.
I thank you, Mr Speaker, the Leader of the House, and everyone else who attended last week’s memorial service for Keith Palmer and all the other victims of the terrorist attack. It was a splendid, thoughtful and moving occasion. Thank you. May we have an early debate on knife crime, which is killing and injuring so many young men in our towns and cities? It is a national scourge, and we need a debate on that.
I join the hon. Gentleman in paying tribute to the excellent service last week, which was a very fitting tribute to those who lost their lives. He is right that knife crime is a challenge and a real problem. The Home Office is looking at ways to tackle it and will be bringing forward its serious violence strategy soon. Operation Sceptre combines police forces to tackle the carrying and use of knives. I would certainly welcome a Backbench Business debate on knife crime, unless I can find Government time for a debate.
May I thank you, Mr Speaker, for championing Back Benchers over a long period of time? In your rest over Easter, will you have the opportunity to read today’s excellent Daily Express, which has a wonderful front-page headline? Inside, the Foreign Secretary is quoted as saying:
“Like an unstoppable express, we are heading for Brexit and frankly my friends, we can’t arrive soon enough.”
Could the Leader of the House somehow manage, in the next few weeks and months, to arrange one or two debates on the European Union?
My hon. Friend will be aware that we have already had one or two debates on the European Union, including two days of debate in response to demands from right across the House. As he will appreciate, I am under some pressure not to allow general debates, as Labour Members seem not to appreciate them, but as ever I will try to balance the requirements of all Members.
I know that the Leader of the House will seek to do that. I also know that in seeking to do that extremely conscientiously, she will bear in mind that if you did a straw poll of members of the public and asked them, “What do people in Parliament do?” the answer would be debate and vote—quite elementary, really.
May I press the Leader of the House to make time available for a further debate on the draft EU withdrawal agreement so that we can discuss the outstanding matters therein, such as the role of the European Court of Justice, the settlement of disputes, European arrest warrants, and Ireland and Northern Ireland? In that debate, would she expect the Department for Exiting the European Union to make it clear that the most difficult issues are still unresolved, and that the UK will not cut and run and get into transition with those matters still unresolved?
The right hon. Gentleman might be pleased to know that there is a debate on Brexit and justice today at 1.30 pm in Westminster Hall. As I mentioned, we have just had two days of general debate on the EU. There will be many more opportunities to discuss the Government’s determination to get a good deal that works for the United Kingdom and for the European Union.
May we have a debate on the rise of protectionism around the world, especially in relation to Government contracts, such as when a British company is not able to apply for a contract with another country but a French company, say, is able to take a contract awarded by the British Government?
My hon. Friend raises a very important point. The evidence is that free trade improves prosperity and opportunity for everybody. We intend, as we leave the EU, to be a global proponent of free trade, which will be in all our interests.
This week, a serial thief with 156 offences to his name appeared in a court near me. May we have a debate on how persistent offenders are dealt with in the judicial system, including a discussion on the use of exclusion orders?
The hon. Lady raises a very important issue—she often raises important justice issues—which clearly has great resonance in her constituency. She will be aware that the Government have invested £100 million in recruiting 2,500 new prison officers, and that we are creating 10,000 new high-quality modern prison places to ensure that we can focus our efforts on changing behaviour to try to minimise reoffending. At the same time, our work on reforming probation means that we are now monitoring 40,000 offenders who would previously have been released with no supervision. There is much more to be done, but we are improving the way in which we monitor those who have offended.
From next Tuesday, when my Homelessness Reduction Act 2017 comes into force, every English local authority will have a statutory duty to assist local residents who are threatened with homelessness or who are homeless themselves. The Act will assist anyone threatened with homelessness, but may we have a statement after Easter on what the Government will do to help to combat the problem of rough sleeping right now?
I congratulate my hon. Friend again on his Homelessness Reduction Act, which is going to transform lives. He talks about the importance of solving the problem of rough sleeping and he is absolutely right. The Government are measuring it better. We have a “No Second Night Out” policy to actively identify and support rough sleepers, and we are taking unprecedented action to help people before they become homeless. Those are all very important measures.
My constituent Patrina Fraser was told yesterday that her application to register as a British citizen had been refused for a second time. Patrina is just one of thousands of people who arrived in the UK from Commonwealth countries as children. They grew up believing that they were British, and have worked hard and contributed all their lives, but they are now being told that their status as citizens is in doubt. It is an outrageous situation. Can we have a debate in Government time about how this injustice might be addressed?
There are very clear rules around citizenship status. The hon. Gentleman raises an important constituency matter that I am sure Home Office Ministers will look at. If he wants to write to me, I can take it up on his behalf. I also say to him that Home Office oral questions are on the first day back—16 April—and he might want to raise his specific point then.
On Tuesday I was delighted to host, along with my hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Mr Jones) and the Sikh Channel, a “Respect the Turban” event here in Parliament. It was fantastic to see many right hon. and hon. Members hearing of its significance. Sadly, the event was required due to a recent mindless attack on a Sikh gentleman outside Parliament. Will my right hon. Friend join me in thanking the Sikh community for their valuable contribution to the UK over many decades, and may we have a statement on what more the Government can do to prevent hate crimes in our society?
I join my hon. Friend in thanking the Sikh community for the fantastic contribution that they make to the United Kingdom. I absolutely commend him for hosting the recent event, and I was so sorry to hear about the unacceptable attack on a guest of the hon. Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi) just outside this Palace. All hate crime is condemned by all hon. and right hon. Members across the House. I can tell my hon. Friend that since 2010 we have published a hate crime action plan. We are working with the police and communities to tackle all forms of hate crime, including by improving police recording of such crime so that forces now capture data on all five monitored strands and can deal with it accordingly.
As the Minister knows, S4C is the only Welsh-language broadcaster in Wales. People will have been alarmed today to see the headline, “S4C set to lose UK government funding by 2022”. I am sure that people will lobby the Prime Minister when she is in Wales today, because there will be a lot of concern. I know that there is a lot more to it than this, but we should have a debate.
Since 2010, the Government have provided S4C with nearly £700 million of public funding. We remain committed to this very important Welsh-language channel, and the independent review will ensure that S4C continues to produce first-class content and to serve Welsh-speaking audiences right across the UK.
Imagine my pride when Mr Emdadul Hussain, the chef at Redolence Spice in Redditch, took the Tiffin cup—the most fiercely fought competition held in this place. Out of 12,000 Indian restaurants, his was declared the winner, and if you knew how many Indian restaurants there are in the west midlands, Mr Speaker, you would understand how significant it is that this cup has gone to a west midlands company. Given the importance of the Indian food industry, which is worth £1.8 billion, may we have a debate in this House about how such restaurants can be properly supported as a key part of our local high streets?
I pay tribute to all the fabulous Indian restaurants that provide so many Saturday night dinners for all of us. The only observation I would make in congratulating my hon. Friend’s local restaurant on its superb achievement in winning the Tiffin cup is that I am sure you and I, Mr Speaker, should probably be judges of next year’s competition. Would you not agree?
Oh, I do—I rather like the idea. I am rather partial to a curry myself.
May we have a statement from the Government on support for mortgage interest, which is due to change next month? My Sandyhills constituent, Eileen Flynn, has cancer and is receiving chemo at the moment. Serco is tasked with dispensing the loan, but it is not doing very well at that. Can we have a debate on this, and will the Leader of the House arrange for the Secretary of State to look into Eileen’s case?
The hon. Gentleman raises a serious constituency case, and I am very sorry to hear about it. If he wants to write to me, I can take it up with the Department for Work and Pensions on his behalf. As for the general point about changing what are effectively donations or benefits into mortgage interest loans, he will appreciate that the important point from a policy perspective is the balance between value for taxpayers and support for those who are in need of help with their mortgage interest payments.
The prospect of losing a child is a nightmare for parents, and the horror of its reality is exacerbated when they cannot afford to pay for a funeral. Will the Leader of the House arrange for a ministerial statement in response to the campaign by the hon. Member for Swansea East (Carolyn Harris)? The financial support has been frozen for 15 years, and the heartbroken cannot be made to suffer any longer.
I absolutely agree with my right hon. Friend, and I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Swansea East (Carolyn Harris), who has campaigned on this subject for a very long time. I think that there is support for the proposal throughout the House, and I will certainly look into it.
Children of my constituents who were sent to the two free schools set up by Raja Miah had a terrible educational experience. The schools were unsafe, there were no computers, children with special educational needs were given no support, and the teaching was of a poor standard. Both schools will be closed by the summer. The main beneficiary of this episode, which involved public expenditure of £13 million, seems to have been Mr Miah. Will the Leader of the House arrange for the Secretary of State for Education to explain, in either a statement or a debate, why he will not release the audit on the two schools, what he is doing to recover the money, and whether he has engaged the police in this matter?
The hon. Gentleman raises a serious issue and I am very concerned to hear about it. It is obviously of great significance to children in his constituency, and I urge him to seek an Adjournment debate. I am sure that you, Mr Speaker, would look favourably on that.
Many high streets throughout the country are suffering, partly because shopping habits continue to change. May we have a debate so that we can discuss how the Government can help local authorities to reconfigure and regenerate our town centres?
We all agree about the importance of thriving shopping centres in our high streets, and it is commendable of the hon. Lady to raise the issue in the Chamber. The Government have sought to encourage councils to do more to develop their high streets by changing the way in which business rates accrue to them. However, I urge the hon. Lady to seek a Backbench Business debate so that all Members can share views and ideas about how we can improve the prospects for our high streets.
May we have a debate on today’s National Audit Office report on the cancellation of three rail electrification projects? The electrification of the midland main line was one of the projects that were cancelled but, astonishingly, the report says that the bimodal trains that were supposed to take the place of electrification do not exist. That is outrageous. People in Nottingham and throughout the east midlands are furious about this decision, and we need some explanation from the Secretary of State for Transport.
The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the Transport Secretary announced in July 2017 in a written ministerial statement that new technologies would make it possible to improve passenger services before that could be achieved through rail electrification. In other words, the introduction of those bi-mode trains would enable far greater improvements, with far less disruption to passengers, long before the end of the disruption that would be caused by electrification.
Last Thursday I asked the Leader of the House which Department led on British sign language. She wrote to me this week—very efficiently and very kindly—to tell me that the Cabinet Office would respond to me directly, for which I am grateful. However, my parliamentary question to the Cabinet Office in September, and subsequent correspondence on 23 October, 19 December and 6 February, have so far failed to secure the information. Did the Cabinet Office say when I might expect a response?
I can only apologise to the hon. Gentleman for the fact that the issue has not yet been resolved. I am happy to write to the Cabinet Office again.