Historical Forced Adoption
Cat Eccles Excerpts(3 weeks, 4 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister
We have to tackle misogyny in all its forms, wherever it rears its head. It is here with us today, and as she rightly says, we have even heard of it this week in the Chamber, in various debates in which issues have been raised; these issues are constantly raised. It is important that we address this by looking at it historically, up to today, and then forward, in and across the board. I thank the hon. Member for raising it.
Cat Eccles (Stourbridge) (Lab)
I add my thanks to the Prime Minister for this long overdue apology from the Government for the historical forced adoptions in mother and baby homes across the country. It is something that I have campaigned for since coming to this place. For far too long, the horrific experiences of mothers and their children were ignored. Sadly, many passed away before this day finally came. I join everybody here in paying tribute to all the mothers, children and campaigners, and the relatives who have supported them along the way. They have fought tirelessly; I recognise their courage and determination. Today, we take away their shame, because it is not theirs to bear.
Many have been left scarred by the trauma that they endured—a lifetime of feeling unworthy, unloved, judged and guilty. Many babies lost their life due to poor maternity care, and the locations of their burials are not known. Could the Prime Minister consider a way to memorialise the lives lost and give back some dignity? Does he also recognise that even modern adoption practices are inadequate, leaving adoptees and their families ill-equipped to deal with trauma, attachment issues and identity struggles, and that we must learn lessons from all these historical events?
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for her campaigning on this issue. In both respects, we have to find a way of providing memory to those who lost their lives. To those mothers who passed away before today, this took too long. As a result of that, they are not hearing this apology. We need to be clear: that is an additional injustice.
MPs’ Second Jobs: Prohibition
Cat Eccles Excerpts(3 weeks, 5 days ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Cat Eccles (Stourbridge) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Western. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds East (Richard Burgon) for securing this timely and important debate. I know how hard he has worked on this issue over a number of years.
Before the general election, Labour wanted to ban second jobs for MPs. It seems that ambition has now been placed on the “too difficult” pile to deal with another time, but the issue has not gone away. Public trust in politicians and institutions is at an all-time low, and we are duty-bound as elected Members to change that for the sake of democracy itself. Being an MP is a full-time job. In fact, it can and often does become a way of life. We never truly switch off, even on a rare free day.
Before coming to this place, I worked for over 20 years as an operating department practitioner in the NHS. Long days, staying late and overtime were the norm, but I could leave my work at the door. I must admit, I would not want to do surgery working at home—it is not particularly suited to it. I am pleased that my hon. Friend has made exceptions for people like me who have a professional registration to maintain. Doctors, lawyers, nurses and allied health professionals work hard to gain their qualifications and registrations, and regular practice is required to maintain them. I also served as a local councillor for Wollaston and Stourbridge Town before coming to this place. My term was due to end in 2028, but I always said I would stand down at the next electoral cycle as it would not be feasible or fair to my residents for me to hold both roles. I stood down in May this year, having served without taking an allowance.
However, that is not what we mean when we talk about second jobs. We mean paid consultancy and advisory work, often with conflicts of interest and lobbying expectations; paid roles as TV presenters; and people being paid for giving speeches and attending events. It all adds fuel to the fire of public commentary about elected politicians having noses in the trough and being on the gravy train—and let us not forget those brown envelopes.
I believe that most hon. Members come to this place in earnest to serve their constituents and communities and to make people’s lives better, but those who seek to use it as an opportunity to bolster their bank accounts have not come here in good faith, and they damage public trust in all of us. We are not here to serve big businesses and corporate interests, or to facilitate contracts with Government and make introductions to important people. A clear line needs to be drawn under scandalous second jobs, and it is in our gift as Government to do so. Even during the covid lockdowns, when the rest of us were staying at home to prevent infection spreading—I was working as an operating department practitioner in emergency maternity theatres—some MPs saw it as a golden opportunity to cash in, with second jobs and dodgy contracts totalling nearly £5 million.
While we are debating corruption and trust, I must also mention ongoing concerns about companies lobbying hon. Members, offering them hospitality or gifts. Those companies then appear in Hansard or in communications with the Government down the line. None of that is about what we know; it is all about who we know. Members should always have their eyes wide open to possible corruption and influence from outside bodies.
An MP’s time is best spent prioritising their constituencies and the people they serve. If any Member feels their remuneration is not adequate, perhaps they should consider a different job. My current salary is nearly three and half times higher than what I have earned at any point in my career and I recognise the enormous privilege that has been bestowed on me, especially in the context of the ongoing cost of living crisis. It is also a huge privilege to represent my hometown of Stourbridge and the wonderful people who sent me here. They are the top of my agenda.
This is an opportunity to show that MPs are not just out for themselves and to begin restoring public trust. Let us ban second jobs and start transforming our democracy with transparency, accountability and integrity.
Mike Wood (Kingswinford and South Staffordshire) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Western. I congratulate the hon. Member for Leeds East (Richard Burgon) on securing this debate. This is a vital discussion that goes to the very heart of how our democracy functions, how our legislature connects with the public and how we maintain institutional integrity. Although we disagree with the prescription of a blanket ban, I certainly respect the sincerity with which the argument has been put forward. We all share the fundamental goal of protecting and restoring public trust in this House.
There is no question that public support for MPs having second jobs has reduced drastically over recent years. The public rightly expect us to be working for them, rather than prioritising our own interests, and we must make sure that that is what we are doing. If we are considering a ban on second jobs, however, we ought to be clear as to why. Some have argued in this debate that the issue is the time spent on outside jobs, and that the time ought to be directed entirely to MPs’ parliamentary constituency work.
I do not have an outside job, but before the general election I served as a Government Whip. It was a paid position, and it almost certainly took up more of the time that I was in Westminster each week than any outside job would. While those in Government posts—or for that matter House roles, such as Chairs of Select Committees—do necessary work for the proper functioning of Government and Parliament, I would struggle to argue that my constituents benefited directly from me having that additional job.
The same would be even more true for many ministerial positions, but most Ministers of all parties are able to fulfil those demanding roles without their responsibilities as constituency MPs suffering. If we accept that a Minister can balance the immense, exhausting weight of working in a Government Department with their duty to the electorate, it is logically inconsistent to argue that a Back Bencher cannot do the same with a few hours a week of external professional practice.
If the primary problem is not the time diverted from representing constituents, perhaps it is the money. But if we go down that route, there is a danger of us getting drawn into an argument over good jobs versus bad jobs. Few people would complain about the shadow Minister for Health and Social Care, my hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Dr Johnson), continuing to work as a consultant paediatrician; I informed her in advance that I would mention her.
It is necessary for my hon. Friend to continue to work so that she can maintain her professional qualification, and it adds immense real-world value to her shadow ministerial role. She also properly declares her interests during relevant debates. Similarly, Members across the House have often been rightly congratulated on their ongoing work as surgeons, GPs and nurses, but these medical jobs are no less time consuming and, in some cases, may be better remunerated than some of the other interests that are more often the focus.
Cat Eccles
Does the shadow Minister recognise that this is not necessarily about the amount of remuneration, but the risk of corruption and the types of employment that have been mentioned by many Members in this debate?
Mike Wood
I thank the hon. Member for making the point that I was about to move on to.
Some of the jobs that I have mentioned are better remunerated, so it is incredibly difficult to know where a formal line should be drawn in explicit rules. If medical jobs are acceptable, why not the legal work that some Members have legally and properly been paid to do as Back-Bench MPs? If paid newspaper columns are allowed, which the Government’s current plans notably exempt, it becomes much harder to explain to the public why work advising a manufacturing business on global supply chains is completely unacceptable.
The point that the hon. Member for Stourbridge (Cat Eccles) rightly made was that we must differentiate between work and influence. The real threat to public confidence has never been an MP spending a few hours a week doing genuine practical work in business, law or the media. The threat is and always has been paid advocacy and lobbying, which is why the rules were fundamentally overhauled. We have an absolute ban on paid advocacy and an explicit prohibition on MPs acting as paid parliamentary strategists, consultants or advisers. In July 2024, the new Opposition gladly supported the removal of exemptions regarding public policy advice.
Oral Answers to Questions
Cat Eccles Excerpts(2 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Cat Eccles (Stourbridge) (Lab)
A constituent of mine is currently going through the process of adopting a little boy. She and her husband have one daughter already, conceived following several rounds of IVF, but, sadly, that has since been unsuccessful for them and they have chosen to adopt one of the many looked-after children looking for a loving home. My constituent runs a local business—a haberdashery and sewing workshop—that is extremely popular with local people, but in order to integrate the little boy into her family, she has taken time away from her business to be with him at home. She has since discovered that she is not entitled to statutory adoption pay as a self-employed person and will have to take this time off unpaid.
When adopting children from care, there is a really small window of opportunity to successfully integrate the child with minimal disruption. Costs to local authorities for looked-after children are rising. Would you agree that extending adoption pay to self-employed people in line with maternity pay would provide better outcomes for looked-after children?
Covid-19 Inquiry
Cat Eccles Excerpts(2 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Pat McFadden
Scrutiny is always good, and I am sure that what we do will be scrutinised. It is really important to have a proper dialogue with the public about these things, because it does no harm for us as citizens, and as Government Ministers, to have a conversation about resilience, about what we do in an emergency, and about we think about that. We do not want to frighten anybody, but it is a good thing to do, and it is a proper role for Government to have a good dialogue with the public about this.
Cat Eccles (Stourbridge) (Lab)
I visited the wall this week, and it was a stark reminder of my own experience during the pandemic. I am an operating department practitioner, and I worked in emergency maternity theatres during that time. From day one, there was next to no strategy. Staff were fighting over inadequate personal protective equipment. We tried to speak up, but we were not heard. We were given out-of-date masks, gowns that were ill-fitting and visors that just fell off our faces.
Even when colleagues sadly lost their lives to the disease, the chaos continued. I sat with new mothers, holding their hands because their partners were not allowed to be with them. We stood by the bedside of a colleague on life support as they lost their battle with covid. Even now, staff are traumatised all over again when people who have waited so long for treatment cannot be helped. Will this Government ensure that NHS staff can have an input in future pandemic planning, as it is we who know how best to protect our patients?
Pat McFadden
I am very, very grateful to my hon. Friend for reflecting her experience. There is nothing that I can add to the power of her words. She is absolutely right that in planning for future pandemics, we have to listen to the voice of the staff, who are the people the country will rely on if we face any kind of similar emergency in future.