European Union (Withdrawal) Act

Kate Green Excerpts

Tuesday 15th January 2019 Commons Chamber

[Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)]

I did not come into Parliament to spend my time working on the future of the European Union. It is not what my constituents, when they elected me first in 2010, intended me to spend my time on either. They wanted me to concentrate on their living standards, their security, the future for their children and grandchildren, and a better planet for the future of our world.

Actually, however, all these things are encompassed in the decision we make tonight about whether we accept the deal before us, and about our commitment to our ongoing relationship with our European Union neighbours. I will not vote for a deal that will make my constituents poorer, that will make them less secure, and that means we will have less influence in the decisions taken that will affect them and that will reduce our highly respected and highly regarded standing in the world.

I am distressed, as all hon. Members are, at the divisions that this Brexit story has revealed and opened up in our country, but our duty now is to concentrate on healing them. I do not believe it will ever be possible to do that if we deliberately make our country poorer, more unstable and less influential than it would otherwise have been. We need to concentrate on building a positive, prosperous, powerful future for this nation. Voting to leave the EU, and voting for the Prime Minister’s way of leaving tonight, will not enable us to do so.

European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

Kate Green Excerpts

Committee: 2nd sitting: House of Commons
Wednesday 15th November 2017 Commons Chamber

[Dominic Raab]

Perhaps shortly, but I am going to make some progress now, because I am hearing censorious noises from the Chair and I want to respond very obediently to them.

I turn to amendment 70, in the name of the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford). I think the sentiment behind the amendment is laudable, but I reassure the House that the amendment is unnecessary for the protection of rights. In fact, it is potentially counterproductive. Clause 4 will save all the directly effective rights that arise under the EU treaties to the extent that they are available now; that is the point that I wanted to get across to the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon). We have deliberately not included a list of those directly effective rights in clause 4 or in the rest of the Bill, because there is no single, comprehensive and reliable list of all directly effective rights in the EU treaties. They are not set out in legislation—UK, EU or otherwise—but they are determined by the courts. Our approach is therefore based on procedural as well as substantive legal continuity.

The explanatory notes to the Bill set out a list of the articles from the treaty on the functioning of the European Union that the Government consider to contain directly effective rights, which will remain available in domestic law following our departure from the EU. That list, which includes article 157 on the right to equal pay, is intended to be illustrative of some of the rights that will continue to be available under clause 4. If we were to define a single list—especially if it was a non-exhaustive one—and legislate for it, we would inevitably run a significant risk of inadvertently omitting or mis-stating rights that individuals and businesses rely on, or suggesting to the courts that those rights were supposed to have a special status beyond the ones that were not listed.

We can reasonably expect individuals and businesses to want to rely on any list that we produced. Quite reasonably, they may not realise that they can rely on a wider set of rights that are not on any such list. The effect of amendment 70 would be at best to create legal uncertainty, and at worst—this is my concern—to mislead people about the rights available to them. The Government do not want that to happen, and I hope that I have persuaded the hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Neil Gray) not to press the amendment.

I want to turn as briefly as possible—I will not take any further interventions to allow others to speak—to amendment 148, in the name of the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green), who is in her place. It is important that the issue of children’s rights has been raised through the amendment, and I hope I can give her some reassurance. Most importantly, I want to reassure the Committee that the UK’s commitment to children’s rights and the UN convention on the rights of the child is and will remain unwavering. Our ability to support and safeguard children’s rights will not be affected by UK withdrawal from the EU.

Domestically, the rights and best interests of the child are protected in England primarily through the Children Act 1989 and the Adoption and Children Act 2002, as well as in other legislative measures. Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland have their own measures for the protection of children’s rights, in accordance with the UN convention on the rights of the child.

The UK will of course continue to be a party to the UN convention, but amendment 148 is flawed in seeking to apply an EU principle of direct effect to a global UN treaty, which is of course governed by general principles of international treaty interpretation under the Vienna convention and customary international law. I am afraid that that is a recipe for legal confusion.

In any event, we already give effect to all our international obligations under the UN convention. For example, the Children Acts 1989 and 2004 set out a range of duties to safeguard and promote the welfare of children. In 2013, we issued statutory guidance to directors of children’s services, which requires them to have regard to the general principles of the convention and ensure that children and young people are involved in the development and delivery of local services. The Children and Social Work Act 2017 is a further example of how we constantly seek to make sure that we not only protect children’s rights but enhance them.

[Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)]

The Minister says that we already have a number of vehicles to ensure that we give effect to our obligations under the UN convention, but does he not accept that we have had cases in this country of decisions by the courts saying that legislation that is not compatible with the convention is, none the less, not unlawful?

[Dominic Raab]

As I have said, we continue to keep these matters under review. If there is a court decision, we will obviously comply with it, whatever it is. I suggest that her amendment would not meaningfully or practically enhance such rights. If what she wants to do is outside the scope of this vehicle—the snapshot that we are taking of EU law and reproducing in UK law—she should make the case for further innovations. She is of course at liberty to do so, and I would expect her to do so.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kate Green]

I rise to speak to amendment 148 and the other amendments and new clauses in my name, which relate to the rights and interests of children. Most of the debate this evening has not concentrated on that important group of people, who will be affected significantly by this legislation, and many hon. Members will share my deep concern at the shockingly limited amount of time we have been given over the debates on the Bill to attend to such vital matters.

The decision to leave the European Union and the manner in which it is done could not be of more importance for our children and young people. They are the generation who will live with the consequences of our decisions, yet they did not get a say in them, so we have a special responsibility in this place to make sure that we put their interests at the heart of this legislation.

My amendments and new clauses seek to place that responsibility on a statutory footing and to remedy the constitutional gap that will otherwise arise in relation to children’s rights when we leave the EU. They take as their basis our existing commitments as a signatory to the UN convention on the rights of the child, which is itself the basis of the EU law and rights framework that applies to children.

The Government said that rights and obligations in the UK should, where possible, be the same after we have left the EU as they were immediately before we leave. I heard what the Minister said, and I will reflect on it: he believes that other provisions in UK domestic law will serve to continue the protection that is currently in place through EU law and its relationship to the UN convention. However, I do have concerns, and although I do not intend to press my amendments and new clauses to a vote tonight while I consider the Minister’s position, I hope that he will consider some of those concerns, particularly in relation to the Henry VIII powers. Those powers mean that amendments could be made in future to the rights currently enjoyed by children and that those rights would not necessarily be properly protected, as they are now, by the UN convention.

We have seen a number of EU instruments enacted that have conveyed direct entitlement for children on a whole range of issues, from migration, child protection, health and safety, medicine, and access to social and economic rights, to family breakdown. Some of those rights have been conferred under directives that have been partly implemented and incorporated into UK law. Nevertheless, the missing bits of the directives can be automatically accessed by children because of our membership of the EU and because the constitutional underpinning to the EU rights framework for children is that the UNCRC is followed in EU law. We see that in the treaty on European Union and in the charter of fundamental rights, which impose a constitutional obligation on member states to adhere to children’s rights standards when implementing EU law.

The position in the UK, however, is somewhat different. Although the UK has ratified the UNCRC and therefore remains bound by it, the UNCRC is viewed merely as an interpretive tool for other human rights instruments and the common law, which are directly justiciable in the UK. There is no explicit constitutional commitment to children’s rights in the UK at central Government level. Instead, our children’s rights framework relies on a combination of domestic legislation, as the Minister said, of directly applicable EU law and regulations, and of interpretation of those measures in the light of our obligations under the UNCRC and other treaties.

That gives rise to a number of concerns about the protection of children’s rights post Brexit. Unlike the Court of Justice of the European Union, the UK courts and tribunals, particularly at first instance, are largely resistant to drawing on the UNCRC or the EU charter to interpret domestic obligations. All evidence to date reveals patchy compliance with the provisions of the convention, and the UK’s human rights instruments, such as the Human Rights Act 1998, do not provide full protection for children—as we saw, for example, in the recent Supreme Court case of SG, where it was found that, despite being in breach of the UN convention, national law could breach children’s rights and still not be unlawful.

This incomplete coverage calls children’s rights into question in future when EU law is either not fully transposed or where the Bill will enable the Government to modify legislation post Brexit. That is a concern, for example, where national law is silent on the implementation of specific positive obligations, and where the absence of comprehensive protection for children across UK domestic law means that children will face gaps in their rights. Even if transposition is complete, the Bill will allow the Government to modify legislation in ways that might not conform with international obligations, without further scrutiny.

This is also a concern in relation to trade deals. Under current EU law, the free circulation of goods and services between member states has to be balanced against the need to subject such goods and services to sufficient scrutiny with a view to protecting the welfare of children who may be exposed to them. As the UK embarks on new trade deals, particularly if it withdraws from the customs union, we will need a comparable mechanism to ensure that any new trade deal includes sufficient safeguards for children who will be exposed to foreign products and services.

There are questions in relation to children’s residence and citizenship status. EU law requires that any decisions on residence and status must take into account the best interests of the child. The continuing lack of clarity in relation to the position of EU citizens, including EU child citizens, in this country is deeply troubling. Serving the best interests of children should not mean that their rights are dependent on the rights of their parents, but without a clear instrument for protecting children’s rights and interests post Brexit, they could be so dependent.

Given the range of potential gaps in the domestic legal framework for children’s rights, direct incorporation of the UNCRC into domestic law would provide sturdier protection against any diminution in children’s rights under EU laws following Brexit. Amendment 148 therefore seeks to preserve after our withdrawal from the EU any rights or obligations arising from the UNCRC. It would ensure that the rights that children have previously been able to rely on before the CJEU do not become illusory in the absence of an explicit UK constitutional commitment to children’s rights in future.

Amendment 149 would ensure that new legislation introduced by Ministers to deal with deficiencies arising from withdrawal would have to be UNCRC-compliant. Amendment 150 makes a similar provision in relation to regulations introduced by Ministers for the purposes of implementing the withdrawal agreement. New clauses 34 and 36 would require public authorities to act compatibly with the UNCRC after exit day. New clause 34 would also require a child rights impact assessment to be conducted.

In summary, my amendments would ensure that additional powers afforded to Ministers in this Bill do not contravene our international obligations. They would place on a statutory footing the Government’s undertaking to protect the same rights that children have on leaving the EU as they have before we leave. They demonstrate that the UK fully recognises the importance of children’s rights and the seriousness with which we take them.

[James Heappey (Wells) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green). I am conscious that other Opposition Members still wait to speak, so I will try to keep my remarks quite brief.

New clauses 60 and 66, while I do not support them, demonstrate that there is a real consensus across the Committee about the requirement to maintain EU environmental standards beyond Brexit. Those standards are a good thing and they have done good things for our environment. Colleagues on both sides of the House have been very thoroughly briefed by, among others, Greener UK. I can report that the response to that briefing among Conservative Members was very enthusiastic, as I am sure it was among Opposition Members. The disagreement is not about what we are trying to achieve but exactly how it is to be achieved. There is no doubt that the Bill will not provide the environmental protections that we would wish, but that does not necessarily mean that there is a requirement for amending it.

The Government are already demonstrating great credentials on the environment. I hope that the ban on microbeads, the consultation on single-use plastics and the clear action plan on clean air will reassure colleagues on both sides of the House that the Government have a clear commitment to raising environmental standards in the UK, not just because we are subject to EU laws but because we seek to create the very best environmental conditions for our country. I understand the Opposition’s cynicism and perhaps scepticism and therefore why amending the Bill seems so appealing. In reality, the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has indicated that legislation for environmental protection is forthcoming, and I think that that resolves the matter somewhat.

I support keenly the proposal by my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin) for a national policy statement, at the suggestion of which the Secretary of State nodded enthusiastically when he was in the Chamber. The NPS will expand on and explain in a UK context the principles committed to in article 191 of the Lisbon treaty, and it will clearly set out the Government’s policy on those matters. It is a good way to proceed, and it arguably provides more than the amendments would do, if we accepted them.

I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset that there must be an independent body to enforce those principles, and I was heartened to see the Secretary of State nodding enthusiastically when my right hon. Friend talked about the need for such an enforcer. Such a statutory body—independent, funded and with teeth—which could to take the Government and others to court, would be most welcome and exactly what we need.

We have gained a great deal from being subject to EU environmental law. It has raised standards and made our beaches, coastlines and rivers far cleaner than they used to be. In my constituency, it was announced yesterday that the bathing water quality in Burnham-on-Sea had again fallen just short of the EU standard. Although some people in my constituency might argue that that is an excuse to leave the EU, abandon those standards and say that they are no longer an issue, I disagree. We should expect to have the cleanest possible beaches. We have been set those standards, and we should seek not only to achieve them but to exceed them.

We should remind ourselves that just because we are leaving the EU it does not mean that we are turning our back on the standards that have led to such environmental improvements while we have been in it. Given the Government’s success in pursuing an exciting environmental agenda right now, we can be enthusiastic—thanks to the national policy statement and the support of a body that will help to hold the Government to account for their delivery of environmental principles—about the fact that we will be able to do far better than the EU standards when we set those standards for ourselves.

Oral Answers to Questions

Kate Green Excerpts

Thursday 29th June 2017 Commons Chamber

[Karen Bradley]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. The creative industry is one of our great strengths in this country. It can bring high-quality, high-value jobs to the nations and regions. As I said in answer to the previous question, I met the director-general and the chair of the BBC on Monday to discuss exactly that point.

[Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)]

12. BBC Radio has begun a commissioning process to tender 60% of eligible network radio by 2022, and there are concerns that programmes currently produced at MediaCity could be lost to our region. What assurances can the Secretary of State give that regional voices will be protected in the tendering process?

[Karen Bradley]

I agree with the hon. Lady. MediaCity is such a great success story. The fact that more people are employed in MediaCity at Salford quays than in its heyday as a major port is a great example of how creative and new industries can bring wealth to the nations and regions. As I said in answer to a previous question, I have discussed the matter with the chair and director-general and will continue to do so.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

I am sure the hon. Gentleman will require no encouragement whatever.

[Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)]

T5. Further to my earlier question to the Secretary of State, there are concerns that the tendering process for BBC Radio could lead to a weakening of pay and terms and conditions. Will the Minister join me in asking the BBC to reconsider that figure and the impact it could have on people’s employment?

[Karen Bradley]

We are determined that it will have exactly the opposite effect, but I will of course meet the hon. Lady to discuss that.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Solicitor General]

Like many other appointments of this kind, I can envisage the sort of accountability that the hon. Gentleman mentions. The publication of annual reports is a regular and common occurrence. Again, it is a particular point that we will consider very carefully indeed.

[Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)]

6. What assessment he has made of the effect of the aggravated offences regime on the level of successful prosecutions for hate crime.

[Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab)]

7. What assessment he has made of the effect of the aggravated offences regime on the level of successful prosecutions for hate crime.

[The Solicitor General (Robert Buckland)]

The Crown Prosecution Service has taken a number of steps to improve its prosecution of all strands of this type of crime, including the aggravated offences, and that includes the delivery of vital face-to-face training. Its hard work in this area has resulted in significant increases in the use of sentencing uplifts in all strands of hate crime.

[Kate Green]

In 2014, the Law Commission proposed that disability hate crime should be given parity with other hate crimes in relation to aggravated offences and to so-called stirring-up offences. In November 2016 in a debate in Westminster Hall, the Solicitor General said that the Government were reviewing that report. Will he update the House on when the Government will make a decision, as it is of great importance to disabled people?

[The Solicitor General]

The hon. Lady knows that I have had a long-standing interest in disability hate crime. The Government are particularly interested in the strand of work conducted by the previous Home Affairs Committee. We are looking to its successor Committee to carry on that work. We want this House to play its part in the response to the Law Commission recommendations, and we very much hope that, as soon as possible, we can craft a suitable response to get the law right.

Oral Answers to Questions

Kate Green Excerpts

Thursday 16th March 2017 Commons Chamber

[Matt Hancock]

Yes, we are making some progress in Lancashire, but there is much more to do. I hope that my hon. Friend’s support for the Digital Economy Bill and the universal service obligation will help to make sure that we can connect everybody in Lancashire with a decent speed over the next couple of years.

[Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)]

4. What steps her Department is taking to encourage diversity in broadcasting.

[The Minister for Digital and Culture (Matt Hancock)]

We are firmly committed to improving diversity and social mobility in broadcasting, as we are in all other areas of the creative industries. Next week, we will host the first ever formal diversity forum at the Abbey Road Studios, bringing together people from music, film, theatre, broadcasting and sport to build a country that works for everyone.

[Kate Green]

Will the Minister update the House on the discussions he is having and the progress that is being made on securing minimum levels of access—subtitling, signing and audio description—in on-demand services?

[Matt Hancock]

We have made some progress with on-demand services, and the broadcasters do a very good job of making sure that subtitling is available. Technology has obviously changed the way people consume video, and a lot more of it is on-demand, so we are going to introduce rules to ensure that on-demand gets the same sort of subtitling.

Oral Answers to Questions

Kate Green Excerpts

Thursday 14th April 2016 Commons Chamber

[Ben Gummer]

I can confirm that and it shows once again my hon. Friend’s attention to the detail of the contract. It should be made clear to the House that the British Medical Association agreed almost all of the contract that we are now putting in place, including many of the aspects that the Opposition are now seeking to attack.

[Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)]

It surprised me to hear both the Minister today and the Prime Minister, during Prime Minister’s questions yesterday, claiming that the contract is good for women, when the equality impact assessment provided by the Minister’s own officials specifically says that it will have a disproportionate impact on women—an equality impact assessment that the Minister will not be at all surprised to hear that I have read in detail. How can it be right to introduce a contract, announce its imposition in Parliament in February and then only sneak out the equality impact assessment six weeks later during recess? Will he and his colleagues get back to the negotiating table and negotiate a contract that is good for patients and good for all junior doctors?

Oral Answers to Questions

Kate Green Excerpts

Thursday 25th February 2016 Commons Chamber

[Harriett Baldwin]

We are putting more money into the NHS to ensure that everyone benefits from the good healthcare that has resulted in one of the remarkable features of our age—the fact that people of both genders are living much longer, which we should welcome.

[Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)]

Women’s under-participation in the labour market costs the UK economy £600 billion in lost productivity, according to the Government’s own analysis. Will the Minister guarantee that the forthcoming Budget will reverse the universal credit cuts that reduce work incentives and guarantee a childcare place to every working mum who needs one, and will she ask her colleague the Chancellor finally to change course and stop introducing a series of measures that disproportionately penalise women?

[Harriett Baldwin]

I am afraid that the hon. Lady, who is my twin, is completely wrong on this. The facts are that we are extending the free childcare offer to many people and bringing in tax-free childcare for many, many people. I share her aspiration to unleash the economic potential of women in our economy. The OECD has said that if the participation rates of men and women were equalised, the economy would be 10% larger. We are therefore taking a range of steps to encourage that to happen.

Oral Answers to Questions

Kate Green Excerpts

Thursday 14th January 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Gauke]

We are engaged in a wide-ranging renegotiation addressing issues about economic competitiveness and the roles of Parliament and so on. This is not explicitly part of that renegotiation, but we are, as a Government, going out making the case to other member states, and we will have the report from the Commission in March and we have made our position very clear.

[Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)]

The funding the Government are putting into services for women fleeing sexual and domestic violence has been described as like filling a bath with the plug pulled out. End Violence Against Women says the tampon tax cannot possibly fill the gap, while across the country refuges and specialist services are closing. Will the Minister commit to a full review of the effect of the Government’s fiscal policies on the availability of services and to publishing the information?

[Mr Gauke]

We have already announced £40 million in funding for domestic abuse services between 2016 and 2020, as well as a £2 million grant to Women’s Aid and SafeLives to support early intervention. The hon. Lady raised a very broad point, and, in reply I would say the best future for the entire country is to ensure we have strong public finances, a credible economic policy and a long-term economic plan that delivers jobs and growth. That is what this Government are doing.

[Kate Green]

I am afraid that the Government’s economic policies are not protecting women from violence. Research published yesterday by Professor Sylvia Walby of the University of Lancaster shows that violent crime against women has been under-reported and has in fact been rising since 2009. That is a result of cuts to services, cuts in the police, a lack of housing to move into, financial pressures on relationships and difficulties accessing justice. Does the Minister not recognise that the holistic effect of the Government’s policies has been to place women in danger? Will the Government take urgent action to address this?

[Mr Gauke]

The hon. Lady makes the point that domestic violence is under-reported, and we accept that that is a problem, although reporting has increased. Indeed, the number of convictions has increased. She also made the point that there had been cuts in police services. The Chancellor made it clear in his autumn statement, however, that because the economy was performing better than had been the case before, we could afford not to cut police funding over the course of this Parliament. Again, I make the point that Labour can oppose every single cut and every single change that we make to try to bring the public finances under control, but if we do not take those decisions, I am afraid that we will run into a crisis. That was what the 2015 general election was fought on, and the result was very clear.

Oral Answers to Questions

Kate Green Excerpts

Thursday 26th November 2015 Commons Chamber

[Karen Bradley]

We have seen some success with the stalking offences that my hon. Friend asks about. We are seeing more and more police forces using the stalking offences and making sure that victims are protected. It is so important that we protect victims and give them the support they need, and make sure that perpetrators are dealt with in such a way that they cannot get to those victims and that they suffer the right penalties.

[Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)]

Black, Asian and minority ethnic women face particularly high incidences of violence and abuse, and research the other day from the charity Tell MAMA showed that incidents of hate crime against Muslims had risen by more than 300% since the appalling attacks in Paris, and particularly against Muslim women. What steps can the Minister take to stamp out gender, faith and racially motivated violence against women and girls?

[Karen Bradley]

The hon. Lady will know that the Government recently announced that we are publishing new data sets to show racially motivated hate crime, particularly hate crime against Muslims, because we agree that we need to understand the scale of the problem and we need to make sure it is absolutely clear that it is not acceptable. There can be no excuse in any religious text for hatred and nobody should think they can get away with it.

[Kate Green]

I am grateful to the Minister. Does she recognise that the women’s sector is under enormous pressure, particularly specialist organisations that, for example, support black, Asian and minority ethnic women? The charity Eaves was forced to close earlier this month, Imkaan reports that 67% of its members are uncertain about the future sustainability of their funding, and generic providers are increasingly being commissioned to provide specialist services. Is it not time for a proper, sustainable funding strategy for services for victims of domestic and sexual violence, rather than gimmicky short-term fixes such as the tampon tax, which only women pay for?

[Karen Bradley]

It is a shame that the hon. Lady makes that comment. While we are in the position of having to pay that VAT, it is right that we use it to provide additional support for the services in question, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Will Quince) on coming up with the idea. The hon. Lady is quite right that we need those specialist services, but it is not that many weeks since the Labour party voted for a 10% cut in police funding. The Conservative party has maintained police funding, which will make sure that victims of these horrendous crimes get the support they need.

Oral Answers to Questions

Kate Green Excerpts

Thursday 15th October 2015 Commons Chamber

[Nicky Morgan]

My hon. Friend might be interested to know that the gender pay gap in her constituency is 18.2%, which is just below the national average. I agree that this is an important issue. We have more women on FTSE 100 boards than ever before. In fact, we now have no all-male boards in the FTSE 100. Women now make up more than 25% of those boards. However, there is much more to do. She is absolutely right to talk about the executive pipeline. We have to get more women into management and executive positions, and we are currently looking at that issue.

[Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)]

I welcome the Minister’s commitment to introducing regulations on compulsory reporting. There is clearly a way to go when the UK’s gender pay gap is 19.1%, which significantly exceeds the European Union average of 16.4%. But does she agree that publishing alone will not be enough? If the information is to be useful, it needs to be consistent, standardised and readily available to workers and their representatives.

[Nicky Morgan]

I welcome the hon. Lady to her position on the Front Bench. I entirely agree that transparency is important, but the next thing will be what employers, organisations and others do with that information, and how it drives change so that the gender pay gap is eliminated. Also, as we heard from one of her colleagues earlier, it is about how we ensure that women are represented in greater numbers throughout all our workforces.

[Kate Green]

I am glad that the Minister agrees that the information should be accessible and meaningful, and companies must know that the Government treat this matter with the utmost seriousness. Will she therefore explain why, in the very week that the Prime Minister was proclaiming his support for action at the Conservative party conference, Conservative MEPs were voting against a recommendation that companies should disclose their gender pay gap? Is she not worried about the message that that sends out?

[Nicky Morgan]

I cannot remember another occasion when a Prime Minister has turned up to something like a CBI conference and chosen the issue of the gender pay gap to highlight. I think that sends the greatest signal. With regard to our MEPs, the view that was taken was that this is a matter for member states, and we could not have a stronger signal from the top of this Government downward that, in this member state, this Government and this Prime Minister intend to tackle the gender pay gap and eliminate it.

Serious Crime Bill [Lords]

Kate Green Excerpts

Monday 23rd February 2015 Commons Chamber

[Fiona Bruce]

Absolutely right. That is the purpose of new clause 1. I will come on to explain why it is so important to many of the women who are suffering as a result of the lack of clarity in the law.

This House must make the matter clear. If we cannot get a consistent line from abortion providers on whether or not it is illegal to abort a girl—it is usually girls but not always—for the sole reason that she is a girl, then the law is not fit for purpose. To do so constitutes a gross form of sex discrimination. Indeed it is the first and most fundamental form of violence against women and girls. Surely no one can object to a clause that simply states that that is wrong.

New clause 1 will do more than that, because if it is passed, by virtue of clause 79 (2) the Government will be able to issue guidance to help address this abuse and support affected women. That is why new clause 25 is inadequate when taken alone. What it is proposing is a Department of Health assessment or review of the issue. The Department can already do that. Without new clause 1, it is inadequate, because it fails to go to the heart of the issue and to clear up the very real confusion that exists. It fails to clarify the law, as new clause 1 does, that sex election abortion is illegal in this country.

Let me turn now to some of the objections to new clause 1. Much of them have misrepresented its impact and some have been plain scaremongering. First, it is said that it will criminalise women. That is flatly untrue. The clause applies only to authorising doctors; it does not affect an expectant mother’s standing in law. We have also heard that it will stop abortion for disability where there is a sex-linked condition. That is also totally incorrect. I can reassure colleagues that there is nothing in this new clause to prevent a doctor from diagnosing substantial risk of serious handicap via the sex of the baby. In such cases, the ground for the abortion is the risk of the disability, not the sex of the baby. New clause 1 will not change that, and I have been careful to obtain expert legal opinion to that effect.

[Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)]

The hon. Lady spoke rightly a few moments ago about the importance of clarity in law. Does she not agree that there would be reluctance and confusion when the grounds for a termination were the genetic disorder, but the only way in which that genetic order could arise is in relation to the gender of the foetus?

[Fiona Bruce]

Not at all. We can trust our medical practitioners to be professional in that respect. It is quite clear that the ground for the abortion in such cases would be the genetic condition and not the sex of the child.