International Women’s Day

Viscount Stansgate Excerpts

Friday 8th March 2024 Lords Chamber

[Viscount Stansgate (Lab)]

My Lords, it seems strange on International Women’s Day to begin a speech by saying “My Lords”, so I will say, colleagues, that I am very pleased to take part in this debate and to make a short contribution. Like every other Member, I wish the noble Baroness, Lady Casey, well in her maiden speech. That may not help her, but we all wish her well. I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, and to her daughter and granddaughter, that I remember standing up here and speaking a mere few hours after I became a grandparent for the first time, and I found myself instantly realising that I had a personal stake in the 22nd century.

The Motion we are debating today refers to

“steps taken to promote the economic inclusion of women”,

and I want to talk today about women and science. Why? Because studying science opens the way to an enormously wide range of opportunities in life, both personally and professionally, and science is as relevant and important a gateway to economic inclusion as any other. To get straight to the point, I want to talk about the scientific inclusion of women. I should say, as in the register of interests, that I am president of the Parliamentary and Scientific Committee, which is Parliament’s oldest all-party group.

I thank the many scientific organisations that contacted me while I was preparing for this debate to provide material and points that they would like made on their behalf. Frankly, I have been inundated and I am grateful to them all. For the sake of their right to be recorded in Hansard, I thank the Royal Society, the Institute of Mathematics and its Applications, the Royal Society of Biology, the Institute of Physics, the Royal Astronomical Society, the Royal Society of Chemistry, the Anatomical Society, the Nutrition Society, the University of Reading, the Campaign for Science and Engineering and the Library for its briefing on today’s debate.

The House should know that all these societies are strong advocates for the inclusion of women, as well as for equality and diversity, in science. They have all provided far more statistics than I could use, but all are engaged in a variety of initiatives designed to promote women. The Royal Society highlighted that just over a quarter of the STEM workforce are women, yet women as a whole comprise 52% of the workforce, so there is still a long way to go.

On the other hand, to be a bit more optimistic, there are signs of some change for the better. The Physiological Society brought to my attention that three of the most eminent scientists in its field are women, one of whom is a Member of this House. The Nutrition Society provided me with a long list of success stories featuring women who have won major awards. The Institute of Mathematics and its Applications pointed out that female mathematicians now occupy some of the most important and distinguished places in public life: the Government’s Chief Scientific Adviser, the director of GCHQ, the chair of the Council for the Mathematical Sciences, the president of the Institute of Mathematics and its Applications and the heads of the Isaac Newton Institute and the Heilbronn Institute for Mathematical Research. I emphasise that these are the first women ever to hold these roles.

Unsurprisingly, there are still areas where progress needs to be made. The well-documented leaky pipeline is as leaky as it was when we held this debate last year. In the chemical sciences and physics, the retention and development of women into senior roles remains poor; the higher up the career ladder, the smaller the proportion of women. We must do more to encourage women taking career breaks to keep in touch with their science and make it easier for them to return as soon as they want to—and not to positions clearly less senior than those they occupied before taking a maternity break, for example. The Royal Society of Biology highlighted “insufficient support” for those with caring responsibilities. The Royal Society, the Anatomical Society and the Royal Society of Chemistry agree—frankly, everybody agrees. If I have found one major theme repeated in the many briefings I have received, it is the question of how effectively to enhance support for women in mid-career. This also involves the problem of short-term contracts and funding, because those with caring responsibilities are predominantly women.

This Monday we held the annual STEM for Britain event, which brings early-career scientists to the House to meet their constituency Members of Parliament and exhibit their work. It is highly competitive, and the most brilliant young people came. As I handed out the prizes, I could not help but think to myself that the women getting the prizes would face hurdles in their careers that the men would not. I hope the Minister will acknowledge the crucial importance of this issue.

It is also well known that female scientists frequently fail to get proper credit for their research. Nature found that 13% fewer women were likely to be named as authors on a scientific paper to which they had contributed. When Watson and Crick won the Nobel prize, Rosalind Franklin, whose work had made it all possible, was not even mentioned. The men got the Nobel prize, yet if DNA is not a symbol of the 21st century, I do not know what is.

Role models are also terribly important. The Institute of Physics referred to “outdated stereotypes”. Thank heavens we have some women who can really inspire. Anyone who has seen Maggie Aderin-Pocock, who presents “The Sky at Night”, will know how inspirational she is. As the Oscars are coming up on Sunday, I note that a Barbie doll, whose dress features the sky and who has a telescope, is named after her.

My time is up, so I conclude by saying this. It is really straightforward: scientific inclusion is a vital ingredient of economic inclusion, and our country and economy cannot afford to waste the talents of half our population. Women and girls need science, science needs access to the fullest range of talent, and economic inclusion demands no less.

Local Government Finance Act 1988 (Prescription of Non-Domestic Rating Multipliers) (England) Regulations 2023

Viscount Stansgate Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd January 2024 Grand Committee

[Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)]

Once again, I am grateful to noble Lords for sharing their thoughts in this short debate.

As ever, the noble Lord, Lord Jones, rightly held the Executive to account. I always appreciate his questions. He asked how many small businesses there are. There are hundreds of thousands of them. I can tell the noble Lord that 90% of properties come under the small business multiplier, so only 10% pay at the standard rate; of course, that covers hundreds of thousands of properties, some of which may be used by a single business. We must recognise that the small business multiplier is really important because it covers most properties. As the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, pointed out, it was frozen at the Autumn Statement because we recognise and share his concerns about the impact of business rates on our high streets, which we want to keep as vibrant as possible.

The noble Lord, Lord Shipley, is right that this is a tax cut. Sadly, it is quite limited, but, nevertheless, we will take tax cuts wherever we can find them. As I mentioned in my opening remarks, it amounts to around £5 million and goes to charities. Charities get other reliefs as well, which is why the impact is probably smaller than one might otherwise think.

Monitoring and reviewing business rates is a really important area. The Valuation Office Agency is responsible for valuing non-domestic property for business rates purposes. As I mentioned, we have decided to reduce the revaluation period from five years to three years to make it a bit more flexible and agile. The agency is required by law to compile and maintain accurate rating lists for non-domestic properties in England; it must do this impartially and independently of central government. It follows international valuation standards and the RICS mandatory guidance on the appropriate method of valuation. Of course, the VOA remains happy to talk to ratepayers to ensure that it gets the number for the rateable value right.

It is also important to recognise that the VOA is undergoing a period of transformation. There are some opportunities to digitise business rates. There is also a positive opportunity to link business rates to the HMRC system, to make it much easier and so that there is better targeting and understanding of how the business rates system works with the tax data from businesses themselves. This reform programme is called the digitalisation of business rates, and it will be a major step forward in modernising the entire system.

The noble Lord, Lord Shipley, went on to ask what small businesses think of this and whether we have heard from them. I am pleased to be able to tell him that there was the 2023 business rates review consultation and the technical consultation. We heard from the Federation of Small Businesses and many other representative groups in those consultations; they provided us with valuable feedback on how we can make the business rates system more productive.

The noble Lord, Lord Jones, mentioned the issue of some in local government feeling the pinch at the moment. The provisional local government finance settlement for 2024-25 has made an additional increase of 6.5% in councils’ core spending power. A consultation with the sector closed on 15 January and we are considering the responses. The final settlement will be confirmed in early February. The Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities always stands ready to speak to any council that has concerns about its ability to manage its finances or faces pressures that it has not planned for. We are aware that a small number of local authorities have recently suffered financial distress because of issues specific to them. As I say, we are keen to work with local authorities to ensure that they continue to deliver services for the public.

The noble Lord, Lord Shipley, said that business rates are too high, although he gave credit to the Government, noting that we held the small business multiplier for 2024-25 in the Autumn Statement. That is a positive thing. There is an enormous number of reliefs available for different types of businesses— I was briefed on this—and it is worth making sure that businesses are aware of them. Noble Lords will be aware of the reliefs that we have been able to extend for hospitality, to ensure that our high streets remain vibrant places to go to and socialise. Indeed, there are plenty of others, such as the improvement relief. I think it is possibly quite complicated, but necessarily so, because it targets money to where we need it most.

The noble Lord, Lord Livermore, asked about unoccupied properties. Local authorities are responsible for administering business rates at a local level, and they would determine the occupation of the property. However, if there is any more information or guidance around that that I can provide him with, I will certainly write to him with an update on business rate evasion and avoidance.

Motion agreed.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Viscount Stansgate) (Lab)]

It may be for the convenience of the Grand Committee that we adjourn now, as there is about to be a vote in the Chamber, and reconvene 10 minutes from the moment the Division Bells begin.

IMF Economic Outlook

Viscount Stansgate Excerpts

Tuesday 31st January 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Penn (Con)]

My noble friend is right about the importance of investment, which is why the Government are maintaining record levels of capital investment: £600 billion over the next five years. We have permanently set the annual investment allowance at its highest-ever level of £1 million. My noble friend is also right about the importance of green investment and driving green growth in our economy. We have one of the strongest legislative frameworks for tackling climate change and nature loss, and we will continue to build on that. Our record is clear: we are one of the most significant decarbonising economies in the G20, and we have achieved that at the same time as growing.

[Viscount Stansgate (Lab)]

The Minister referred a moment ago to Brexit, and today happens to be the third anniversary of our departure. Can she remind the House of the Government’s attitude to the OBR forecast that Brexit has cost the UK about 4% of its GDP per year?

[Baroness Penn (Con)]

My Lords, I believe that that is not a forecast but a modelling assumption. We will look at the record of the UK economy since leaving the EU, and we continue to grow. Since the Brexit referendum, we have grown at a similar rate to Germany, and, last year, we had one of the highest growth rates in Europe. So we look at the record and the outturn, not just the predictions.