Ministerial and other Maternal Allowances Bill

Wendy Chamberlain Excerpts

Committee stage & 3rd reading & 3rd reading: House of Commons & Committee: 1st sitting & Committee: 1st sitting: House of Commons
Thursday 11th February 2021 Commons Chamber

[Stella Creasy]

I completely agree with my hon. Friend. The challenge that she is speaking to is the same as the one that the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) spoke to with regard to his member of staff. The Bill is not just about pay, but actual cover. As I said earlier, it is the commitment that the current Attorney General will not get an immediate phone call saying, “We know you are on leave, but we need you because of X.” Somebody else will be formally overseeing that role.

It is not by accident that when I was pregnant, I thought about what I wanted to do for my community. It was not about money, but about being conscious that if I had been awake for two or three hours at a time, I probably would not be as useful to my constituents as someone who could focus fully on the job. As I discovered with my first child, those pockets of sleep for two-and-a-half to three hours—the point at which I saw coffee as a medicinal substance to keep going—were in the first few weeks and months after childbirth.

It is absolutely right that we work to protect the family life of any woman giving birth, so that she has that time to bond with her child and to properly take time out, but we cannot do that in this job if there is nobody fulfilling the role that we are doing. It is the same for a local councillor and the same in our Assemblies. That is the challenge that we are facing here, and why it is so important that we assess the impact of this legislation.

[Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)]

I am listening intently to the hon. Lady’s speech. She is making some excellent points. Does she agree that today, what she is asking for is even more crucial? Given social media and emails, Members of Parliament are arguably never off.

[Stella Creasy]

I completely agree with the hon. Lady. At this point I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Stroud (Siobhan Baillie), who found herself being abused because she was on maternity leave. She was also abused by members of my own party. I remonstrated with them, pointing out that that was not the progressive approach to take.

My concern about the hon. Member for Stroud, and why the legislation is a missed opportunity, is that she sought to get cover. She was an MP who, like me, tried to get a locum. I had a fantastic locum. In fact, my locum, Kizzy Gardiner, was too good. People in Walthamstow were desperate to keep her, because she was an absolutely fantastic example of why maternity cover matters. Nobody in my constituency batted an eyelid about having someone else not just doing casework, but out there representing our community, working with groups, going into local schools before lockdown happened, and then when the lockdown happened, leading on that role. Watching the hon. Lady being abused and attacked, and watching her also trying to cope with those first few weeks of having a new baby alone, fired my enthusiasm on this. We cannot sit around in this place, watching as other people get those issues right, but failing to take action ourselves.

It is not by accident that the number of times pregnant women end up in this place, or in local government or in the Assemblies, are few and far between. That is one issue that an equalities impact assessment can take a look at. We all talk about wanting to get more diverse people into our politics. Sometimes the barriers to that are blindingly obvious. I know from talking to colleagues in local government just how frustrated they are. I know from talking to colleagues in other devolved Administrations just how frustrated they are.

When we pass legislation in this House, such as this Bill, we cannot be blind to the message that we are sending about how we have determined who is important enough to have that leave. If we think that is not something that should be bestowed as a discretionary pleasure, or as a benefit like a company car, then we also have to recognise the consequences of behaving like that, not just here but in other places as well. If we want to ensure that there is no trade-off between family life and public life for either men or women, we must look at the message we are sending. The honest truth is that this legislation, as it stands, sends a message that a two-tier system is acceptable.

Consider for a moment what would happen were we to look at local government and say, “Well, it’s okay for just cabinet members in local government to have maternity leave”. We would be horrified for young female councillors, or indeed for young men who want to be good fathers and spend time with their children, and want to be supportive partners, yet that is exactly what we are doing here. Frankly, in no other workplace would this be acceptable. If someone came to us in our constituency offices and said, “This is the experience in my workplace”, we would say, “Well, that’s clearly breaching various regulations. We must support you. We must get you trade union representation.” I am very proud of the trade unions, which I know have made representations on this issue already.

--- Later in debate ---

As I said in my speech last October, birth and pregnancy have always been perilous for women. That remains the case, yet we no longer talk about it, and that needs to change. At every opportunity that I get in this place—whether it is a maternity Bill or legislation on employment rights or other women’s rights—I will stand up for women who have lost their children and not talked about it or who feel so much pressure that they end up suffering from post-natal depression, which pushes them to the edge. We can only do this as a society when we back each other up. The Bill sends an important signal to society and women that the contributions we make to this Parliament as female MPs are valued at every stage of our lives. The Bill will give hope to young women who want to go into politics that their contribution, whatever stage in their life it is at, is valuable. It is important that we make a move, and I look forward to working with colleagues to improve conditions for all mums and mums-to-be.

[Wendy Chamberlain]

I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak in Committee, having been unable to do so on Second Reading. I start by wishing the right hon. and learned Member for Fareham (Suella Braverman) and the hon. Members for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) and for Enfield North (Feryal Clark) all the best in their pregnancies. Indeed, it is particularly poignant for me to speak in this debate today because I am currently receiving updates on my stepson’s partner, who is in the early stages of labour; they are on the way to the hospital as we speak. Step-grannyhood awaits. I am not quite prepared for that.

The Bill corrects what is fundamentally a clear unfairness in relation to ministerial appointment legislation. Clearly, as we heard on Second Reading, there is support from all sides of the House for ensuring that Cabinet Ministers can take maternity leave, and rightly so. However, like many Members across the House, I find it worrying that this huge hole in legislation has been spotted only now. Sadly, I think that speaks volumes about this place, the current Government and—dare I say it?—previous Governments, in which my party took a part.

While today we may be updating antiquated rules, the Bill takes us not so much up to the present day as into the 1990s. Of course, a particular element of maternity leave is ensuring that a new mother can physically recover from the birth. I was a police officer for 12 years, and it was critical that we took time off work. That is why all mothers should take at least two weeks off work in the first instance. It was therefore incredibly saddening to hear of the experience of MPs who have been forced to attend this place either immediately prior to giving birth or shortly thereafter.

In 2021, there is wide acceptance of the fact that, no matter how a person is becoming a parent, they should be entitled to leave, whether it is maternity leave, paternity leave or adoption leave, to give the child that is coming into their family—the child should be at the centre of this—the very best start in life that they can. We should therefore expand the scope of the Bill beyond maternity leave, because that is clearly the direction of travel that we see in society. This must be a legislative first step, and I welcome the Paymaster General’s comments on Second Reading that it is. I look forward to hearing the timetable accordingly.

I worked for a number of different organisations throughout my career before I came into this place. I have seen a variety of policies on parental leave, and I have seen them change over time. In fact, when I was a police officer, they changed between the births of my children; when I had my daughter, I had six months’ leave, and when I had my son, I was able to take longer. However, I would have really struggled financially if it had not been for my mother, who was able to help us cover childcare. There was just no way that, as a family, we could afford the multiple days.

[Stella Creasy]

The hon. Lady is making an incredibly powerful speech. May I be the first person to congratulate her on her forthcoming step-grannyhood? I am sure she will be super-gran. One statistic that is very important in this debate is that a third of women get into debt when they take maternity leave. She talks about the financial penalties that she faced. Does she think that one of the things that we would need to look at if we were to have an equalities impact assessment is the different access to maternity leave and the time that people can have, due to the financial consequences for them of taking it because we have such poor maternity leave in this country?

[Wendy Chamberlain]

Absolutely; I agree. Continuing on my experience of maternity leave, I had to get my mother to help so that we could afford the childcare, but my husband was a police superintendent at the time of the birth of our son, and his two weeks’ paternity leave operationally did not really happen because there were a number of things going on. It just did not work for us as a family, and he certainly did not get the quality time he deserved.

I empathise with the comments made by the hon. Member for Truro and Falmouth (Cherilyn Mackrory) about the role of fathers. I simply would not be able to serve in this House if it were not for my husband taking the lead at home, although I have warned the children that I am checking Satchel One for progress on online learning on a regular basis.

The global drinks manufacturer that I worked for prior to my election introduced a parental leave policy in early 2019, which means that, regardless of whether it is maternity, paternity or adoption leave, employees are entitled to parental leave equating to six months’ full pay. I agree with the hon. Member for Glasgow North (Patrick Grady) that this has been transformative, not just for mothers but for fathers too. The biggest impact, I would argue, has been on men. For instance, the director of the global learning unit that I was part of, a man, took his full parental leave allowance, and that sent a very important message. It meant that many men on the supply and manufacturing side of the business in more operational roles felt empowered to be able to take that same leave. That is incredibly important.

--- Later in debate ---

[Patrick Grady]

As I said, one of those deciding not to stand is Aileen Campbell, whom I consider a close friend. She was the first Scottish Government Minister to take maternity leave, and Fiona McLeod, an outstanding Minister, was appointed to cover for her. The hon. Lady is talking about the difficulties that Members have in this place. Her former leader, Jo Swinson, was very negatively impacted, because not only was there no proxy voting at that point, but her pairing was shamefully broken, either accidentally or on purpose. That shows the amount of work that still needs to be done in this place despite the points that are being made about the wider consequences for society.

[Wendy Chamberlain]

I agree. It is interesting that the Government are now much more supporting of proxies than they have been. The challenge around the pairing arrangements is not only the risk that they might be broken—that was certainly a very bad experience for Jo Swinson—but that the role that we play in this place is potentially much more visible than it has been in the past through apps such as CommonsVotes. People in our constituencies judge us, and rightly so, on our voting records, and pairing does not give people the opportunity to have their views recorded.

[Stella Creasy]

I have constituents who say, “I turned on the television and I couldn’t see you in the Chamber”, and I say, “Yes, that’s because I was working.” It is important to remember that only a third of what we do as Members of Parliament takes place in this room—there is also all the build-up to legislation, all the casework we do in our communities, and the role we play as an advocate for our localities. When we are considering the cover required, thinking only about what happens in this place and the end point of voting is a missed opportunity. We have to recognise what would happen in our communities if our role there was not played. Does the hon. Lady agree that we should not sell ourselves short with the idea that if we disappeared for six months people would not notice?

[Wendy Chamberlain]

I do agree. That would not only sell ourselves short but sell short the work done by our staff in our constituencies. Owing to the pandemic, it has been difficult for parliamentarians who came into this House in December 2019 to know what case workloads might normally look like, but I have experienced a very high level over the past year, and my staff have played a key role in relation to that. We need to be there to support our constituents. Constituents have said that they have had a better understanding of the role of MPs and what they can do as a result.

I do not want it to be thought that I do not agree with Cabinet Ministers being entitled to full pay and maternity leave. I absolutely support that; it is entirely right and in keeping with best practice, but it also potentially speaks to huge unfairness, on which other Members have touched. Secretaries of State will receive about £1,300 a week if they receive full maternity pay for six months, but millions of people around the country are eligible only for statutory pay, which after the first six weeks is just £151 a week—close to a 1,000% difference.

On Second Reading, the right hon. and learned Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman) spoke eloquently about the deficiencies in maternity pay and allowances. It does seem odd to me for the Government to say, “This is the standard we are going to give to a Cabinet Minister,” and on the other hand say, “The statutory minimum is the standard by which you should treat your employees.” That seems a case of “Do as I say and not as I do.” The organisation that I worked for previously is now giving six months of parental leave, regardless of whether that is maternity, paternity or adoption leave. That is a big organisation.

[Meg Hillier]

So many others have spoken about the real difficulty for so many women out there who do not get a good package of maternity cover. Does the hon. Member acknowledge that as MPs we get a good financial package and that we are paid all the way through? As the hon. Member for West Dorset (Chris Loder) highlighted, we get a good deal in that respect and we must ensure that we recognise that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Wendy Chamberlain]

Again, I agree. We are not only paid on maternity or paternity—if Members choose to take time off—but we do not receive sick pay because we continue to be paid at that time as well. I acknowledge that during this period a number of people in my constituency and across the UK are really struggling because statutory sick pay provisions are nowhere near adequate.

I worked for a global organisation, but I am conscious of the impact of parental leave on small businesses. That is why the statutory support needs to be so much better. We would view it as unacceptable if the Bill said that the Attorney General would receive only basic statutory maternity rights, and yet fundamentally that will be the case for millions of people.

Hon. Members have touched on MPs’ staff and IPSA contracts, where I also have concerns. Many MPs employ staff who have worked for other MPs, especially after the churn of an election—indeed, I did that in January 2020—but to qualify for full maternity pay on an IPSA contract, a staff member needs to have worked for over a year. If staff members change MP, even if they have worked for a long time in Parliament, they effectively start a new employment and are penalised as a result. Although, like the hon. Member for Walthamstow, I was pleased to see in my mailbox this morning correspondence from IPSA on this issue, it was specifically related to MPs. I urge IPSA to consider MPs’ staff as part of the review. My first 15 months have certainly taught me that having excellent staff and supporting them is critical to success in this place.

I want to reflect on the work I have done with 50:50 Parliament since my election. I have spoken at a number of its events—obviously enabled by being online during the pandemic—and the common theme in the questions that come from women interested in or considering standing either in this place, at local authority level or, indeed, at the Senedd or at Holyrood are around how to manage family time and find a work-life balance, and having children as part of that. I continue to urge the Paymaster General to regard this Bill as a first legislative step. We have a real opportunity to send out a strong, positive message about diversity in this place, but someone who has served as a Cabinet Minister for less than a year is to receive full maternity pay. As I say, that is right, but we have an issue to address when a staff member who might have worked in Parliament for years would receive only statutory pay.

It is now a month before the Attorney General’s maternity leave, and it is worrying that the Government have only now realised that this is an issue. Obviously, the business changed last week to allow us to debate the Bill today. That tells me that equalities are not at the heart of the Government’s thinking. I always think about an inclusion lens: everything that we consider in this place should be looked at in the light of inclusion and therefore we will see the issues before they are pointed out to us latterly.

[Stella Creasy]

I agree with what the hon. Member is saying. Does she agree that it is concerning that normally an equalities impact assessment would be produced as standard and yet we do not see that because this legislation is being pushed through Parliament at short notice? We are all aware that the Government have had a deadline to work to, but they will have known of that deadline for some months, so there could have been time to do some of the work we are asking for in the amendment, with our better understanding the consequences of the legislation as a result.

[Wendy Chamberlain]

I entirely agree. Indeed, earlier I joked that this legislation brings us not into the 21st century, but into the 1990s. When I was a police officer, doing equality impact assessments, whether for operations we were carrying out or for anything else that was planned, was very much part of that. So it is disappointing that we are not seeing that in this place.

That lack of focus on equalities has become apparent over the past year, during the pandemic, and it is really disappointing. The hon. Member for Glasgow North mentioned my Liberal Democrat colleague Jo Swinson, who worked not only on parental leave but on gender pay gap reporting, which was one of the first business requirements to be jettisoned during the pandemic, and as yet there are no plans for its return.

When we watch the frequent Downing Street press conferences, it is usually a man we see at the lectern. These are potentially disappointing messages that the Government are sending out. In contrast, the pandemic has had a disproportionate impact on women, and I note the recent findings of the Women and Equalities Committee in that regard. Again, the hon. Member for Walthamstow spoke powerfully about this earlier. I, too, commend the work of Pregnant Then Screwed and wish them success in their case, but obviously I am saddened that it has got to that stage.

The Government talk a lot about levelling up, but clearly there is work to be done to get their own house in order when it comes to gender equality, both internally and in relation to the impact of their policies across the country. That is why I was very happy to co-sign new clause 1, tabled by the hon. Member for Walthamstow, which calls for that equalities impact assessment for this legislation, as she described so eloquently.

There has been progress over the past 10 years. Thanks to the efforts of Jo Swinson, we now have shared parental leave, which has been an incredible success, and I know that many people across the country have taken up that opportunity. I know that more businesses and organisations have been improving the amount of fully paid maternity leave on offer, going beyond the statutory levels. That was the case with my previous employer, and indeed in the police service. However, it is very important that, as we consider the Bill, we think about how we can move forward, particularly in relation to covid. Given covid’s impact on businesses, with business margins tight, there is a concern that one of the first things to go will be provision that is above statutory levels. I am very concerned about that. Having had 10 years of progress, we cannot afford to have a lost decade when things go backwards as a result of covid. I therefore urge the Government to carry out an impact assessment on this issue. I hope the Paymaster General will address that point later.

To conclude, the aims of this legislation are very welcome but there is much more to be done. I hope that today’s debate will be the beginning of a conversation on how we modernise parental leave laws, how we encourage business to engage with that, how we recognise family life in 21st-century UK, and how we ensure that the legacy of covid is one of more flexible leave entitlements, rather than a reversion to statutory limits. Ultimately, however, the sadness of today is the Government’s failure to address the issue sooner. Perhaps they could have done that by carrying out an equalities impact assessment sooner. Sadly, that means we are talking today about one woman and the specifics of her case, and that should never have happened.

[Mr Holden]

It is a pleasure to follow North East Fife’s super gran, and to reflect on the views of the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) and my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth (Cherilyn Mackrory) that there will be no equality until fathers are able to step up. I will move on to speak about that a little later. My hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Jackie Doyle-Price) has dealt with her amendment sensibly and I have a huge amount of sympathy with the points she has made, so I hope that it will be properly addressed by the Minister.

I want to say a little about the equalities impact assessment proposed in new clause 1, because it has raised broader issues about paternity leave, adoption leave and shared parental leave. It is clear from today’s debate that fathers have been a bit of an afterthought. A report published by the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development in December 2020 found that 73% of men feel stigmatised over taking just the two weeks of paternity leave, never mind any longer, and 95% of men said that their workplace culture prevents them from taking extended paternity leave and that really needs to change. In fact, a report by Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs has found that the proportion of fathers taking paternity leave actually fell between 2018 and 2019, from 32% to 31%, and that just 1% of parents take shared parental leave, according to the most recent figures available.

We have a huge leadership role to play here. The Minister indicated on Second Reading that this issue will be rectified later, and I look forward to her re-emphasising that commitment shortly, because at this important stage, messages from the Dispatch Box are necessary to show all of us that fathers are important, and that equality for mothers and fathers will not be achieved until we allow them to step up.

Equitable Life

Wendy Chamberlain Excerpts

Thursday 21st January 2021 Commons Chamber

[Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD) [V]]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) on securing this important debate, which was scheduled to take place early last year, but has been much delayed, and I think that delay is at the heart of this whole issue. We now find ourselves in a situation where many of the Equitable Life policyholders have been retired for some time. Sadly, as other Members have alluded to, many have died, particularly the older policyholders in the pre-September 1992 with-profits annuity group, who never received any compensation at all.

The last time that the hon. Member held a debate on this issue was in 2019, and it is a tragedy that each time a debate is held, the number of policyholders who would benefit from the compensation is decreasing. That is simply not right. Time is limited, yet there has likely never been a time when the compensation would make more difference than right now. I know that is the case for my constituents who were Equitable Life policyholders.

The coronavirus pandemic has placed an enormous strain on financial resources for many people, and we have never experienced an economic case like this one. One group who were particularly impacted by the Equitable Life scandal have also been largely left to face the full force of the economic impact of covid without support: small business owners.

I believe there are some common themes between successive Governments’ treatment of Equitable Life policyholders and the provisions and support for the self-employed and small business owners during covid. The first is arbitrariness. My constituents who were policyholders cannot understand why they should be merely given 22.4% compensation; they have been excluded. Secondly, there is the refusal to expand support, justified by reference to the public purse. When the Government have made a commitment to provide support, as they did when they accepted the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman’s findings to compensate victims in full, they must follow through on their word. Thirdly, there is the very large degree of cross-party support. According to the website of the all-party parliamentary group for justice for Equitable Life policyholders, 282 Members of this place are members of that group. That is nearly a majority of the House, and plaudits for that should go to the determined campaigning of the APPG itself and EMAG.

Non-binding motions have previously been agreed by this House in debates just like this one, calling on the Government to make a commitment to provide full compensation, yet we find ourselves in the ludicrous position where, despite all that, there still appears to be no willingness from the Treasury to look again at the issue of compensation. How many more debates do we have to hold? How many more motions do we have to pass? How many more Members will have to join the APPG?

As I said earlier, delay is incredibly damaging, so I urge the Government to look again at the issue. I look forward to hearing from the Minister and to him making a commitment to providing full compensation. The Government should do so now, because we clearly cannot afford to waste any further time. This compensation has never been more needed. Justice delayed is justice denied.

Taxation (Post-transition Period) Bill

Wendy Chamberlain Excerpts

3rd reading & 3rd reading: House of Commons
Tuesday 15th December 2020 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Jones (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (Con)]

We have heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) about the importance of the “notwithstanding” clauses and about how unelected people should not seek to overturn democratic decisions. I agree strongly that we have seen attempts to overturn democratic decisions over the past four years, and they have been a stain on the democratic history of our country. We had a vote by the British people that had to be followed through on.

I disagree with my hon. Friend about the clauses, however. Putting them back in will not be viewed as an enormously helpful measure by those negotiating a deal, especially while our Prime Minister is out trying to get a deal that we can accept. Bringing the clauses back in will not be particularly helpful for that.

The Labour party has put forward some suggestions about providing clarity for business. That is a reasonable point because, clearly, we need to provide clarity for business. I come back from a business background, and knowing the environment that one is in helps to facilitate investment decisions. However, I have to say, the Treasury knows that. I spent some time working in the Treasury, and it gets that. It does not need to be told that. It will execute the Bill in as timely a way as it can, providing all the clarity that it can. That does not need to be legislated for.

We have had delays, because people have sought to overturn—ultimately, to negate—a democratic decision. I voted to remain in the referendum, but I immediately understood that it was a vote of the British people, and that the British people are bigger than individual politicians. Only recently have some people been able to work that one out.

The measures in the Bill are about the continuity of trade across all four parts of the UK. That is something that we should all be acutely aware of, because it is bigger than any other trade deal that could possibly be discussed anywhere.

The point in the Bill about creating a more level playing field between the online and the high street worlds of retail is, again, something that I think we should all be able to support easily. Everybody, I am sure, has had representations from retailers in their constituencies about how challenging the past few years have been. Obviously the clock cannot be turned back in any way—this is about embracing the future—but we must make sure that as retailers evolve the offer of our high streets, they are able to do so with a more level playing field. That is the objective we should be seeking in our policy.

I want to see such measures enacted as soon as possible, frankly. We are in uncertain times, and I want us to get to the position in which we can offer business as much clarity as possible, as soon as possible. I will therefore be supporting not the new clauses, but the Bill as it stands.

[Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)]

It is a shame that the Bill has been rushed through the House so rapidly. Members have had a short amount of time in which to get to grips with a rather technical and lengthy piece of legislation. The small number of amendments tabled today speaks to the incredibly tight time limits that have been put in place. Given the impact of the legislation on businesses operating across Northern Ireland and Great Britain, that concerns me, and it should concern us all.

For me, the Bill speaks to the heart of the many contradictions of Brexit—between what was promised in 2016 and what is being delivered today. We were told that Parliament will take back control, but this Executive, peopled by the same individuals who made those promises, have arguably more contempt for the legislature than any before them. That is summed up by an incredibly depressing piece of legislation, presented a couple of weeks ago, to repeal the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011, which attempts to engineer the first ever return of powers from the legislature to the Executive in our history.

However, the contradictions do not end there. A case in point is clause 6 of this Bill on the uprating of fuel duty for aviation gasoline, which, for me, is a microcosm of the whole Brexit process. The whole point of Brexit was to get our sovereignty back—was it not?—so that we could finally write our own laws rather than follow bureaucratic regulations from Brussels, the sort of stiflingly dull directives with boring names such as EU energy tax directive (Council Directive 2003/96/EC). We might have thought that directive was exactly the sort of red tape we would finally cut through in Brexit Britain, and yet the Bill proves that the reality is far removed from the rhetoric, because EU energy tax directive (Council Directive 2003/96/EC), which ensures that across the EU a minimum level of tax is applied on a whole type of aircraft fuel, is in this Bill being applied across the whole of the UK.

The explanatory notes rather patriotically inform us that,

“the UK is not bound to comply with the Directive in respect of Great Britain (GB) from 1 January 2021,”

but none the less Great Britain is complying with it anyway. Does that not say a lot about Brexit and the current trade negotiations, where effectively the Government have been toying with the idea of taking maximum tariff pain now in order to allow regulatory divergence that, in all likelihood, is not going to take place?

Turning now to the amendments, I agree with amendments 1 and 2 and new clause 3, tabled in the name of the Leader of the Opposition. Economic assessments have been conspicuously lacking over the past few months, covid notwithstanding: not only a lack of assessments of the impact of any potential deal with the EU, but the refusal of the Secretary of State for International Trade to tell us whether any of the trade deals she has struck will actually leave us any better off than our current trading relationships. The other conspicuous absentee when it comes to the economic impact of all this is the Chancellor. I find it very surprising that he has said very little about the threat of no deal, during a time when the UK finds itself in the midst of its worst economic crisis.

It is entirely right that we carry out proper economic assessments of all that, not least for Northern Ireland. I remember during the election campaign last year the Prime Minister was caught on camera telling Northern Ireland businesses that,

“Northern Ireland has got a great deal. You keep free movement, you keep access to the single market”.

In the words of the Foreign Secretary, Northern Ireland has “a cracking deal” because it has access to the EU market. Meanwhile, as we teeter on the edge of no deal, we are told by the Culture Secretary that things “will be choppy”, but that “we can survive”. I am sure those words will be a comfort to many of my constituents.

Finally, I turn to new clause 1 and new clause 2. During the debate on the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill earlier, I spoke about what a disaster the notwithstanding clauses in that legislation were for the future of the UK and elsewhere. I will not repeat myself, because exactly the same applies here; all I ask is for the Minister to give a guarantee that, if there is no deal with the EU, international lawbreaking clauses will not be introduced in this or any future business. We cannot afford to let a no-deal scenario be a proxy for further actions that are hugely damaging to our international reputation. For that to be the UK’s first action once it left the EU would be a truly regrettable matter indeed.

[Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to be called to speak in this debate. I will speak particularly to new clause 1 and new clause 2 because, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) said, this is a matter of sovereignty. I am very keen to explore where sovereignty ends and international law starts, and that is right at the heart of those new clauses, I guess.

We have made reference several times in these debates to section 38 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2020, where it says that,

“the Parliament of the United Kingdom is sovereign.”

If that is the case, and I accept that it is the case in areas of our jurisdiction, is there a need to reiterate it in every piece of legislation, or is it simply a fact that Parliament is sovereign?

My hon. Friend has rightly stated quite clearly that the UK Parliament has a general power to override treaties, but I am very keen to understand how that works in the sphere of international treaties, particularly in terms of trade agreements. As I quoted in my intervention earlier, there was a case between Mexico and the US, settled in 2009, where a US company, Cargill, took the Mexican Government to court on the basis that they had breached the general agreement on tariffs and trade regulations of 1994. The Mexican Government had applied some punitive tariffs on soft drinks coming from the US, produced by Cargill and other companies, which effectively blocked access to the Mexican market.

--- Later in debate ---

[Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)]

I echo the thanks of the Minister and the Labour and SNP Front-Bench spokespeople, the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton South East (Mr McFadden) and the hon. Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss), as well the hon. Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) and, indeed, my right hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael), who covered the earlier stages of the Bill on behalf of my party.

I became an MP a year ago and Whip for my party in September. Despite the covid challenges, the Leader of the House was giving Members two weeks’ notice of business up until two weeks ago. This Bill was tabled less than two weeks ago. Now, we find ourselves in a situation where the business for tomorrow was announced today, and where Bills are being given very little time for legislative scrutiny before they are considered by the House. This does not feel like a sovereign Parliament to me.

Despite covid, the Government have had a lot of time to bring forward the necessary legislation ahead of the transition period, whether there is a deal or not. If they felt that the challenge of covid this year was too great, they could have averted the current covid-Brexit collision by extending the transition period. I would ask when the Government realised that the measures in this Bill and, indeed, this week’s Trade (Disclosure of Information) Bill were needed. I worry what potential measures the Government may have failed to legislate for, and the extent to which we are prepared for the end of the transition period, deal or no deal.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

Future Relationship with the EU

Wendy Chamberlain Excerpts

Thursday 10th December 2020 Commons Chamber

[Penny Mordaunt]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. I congratulate him on reaching his anniversary, and I thank him for all the work he is doing to represent his constituents’ interests in this matter and many others.

[Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)]

This afternoon, the Government are finally removing the clause from the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill that would break international law, arguably after having committed to do so as a concession to secure a deal. If there is a no-deal outcome this weekend, do the Government have any plans to bring forward new measures that break international law, either in the Taxation (Post-transition Period) Bill, which was introduced this week, or as part of any unknown business?

[Penny Mordaunt]

The hon. Lady will know the reasons why those clauses were in the UKIM Bill. We will not compromise on the integrity of the United Kingdom. The fact that the Prime Minister made that offer shows that we are doing everything we can to be creative and try to ensure we get a preferable outcome. As I say, the Prime Minister has resolved that he will not move on those red lines.

UK-EU Future Relationship Negotiations and Transition Period

Wendy Chamberlain Excerpts

Monday 7th December 2020 Commons Chamber

[Penny Mordaunt]

I agree with my right hon. Friend. It is not just the issues that I have set out in the UK’s position that should be focusing the minds of the EU’s negotiating team and the Commission; it is also what is in the interests of their member states. Britain’s position—the United Kingdom’s position—is that we want this outcome not just for our own benefit, but for the benefit of all member states, and the businesses and citizens within them.

[Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)]

According to the Cabinet Office’s leaked reasonable worst-case scenario document, in the event of a no-deal Brexit, the supply of medicines and medical devices could be reduced by up to 40%. In the spirit of doing all we can, can the Minister advise us of which products might be affected and whether my constituents, and indeed the constituents of every Member in this place, should start to stockpile them?

[Penny Mordaunt]

As has been said at the Dispatch Box before, a reasonable worst-case scenario is not a prediction; it is the worst case that we need to prepare for and mitigate for. We thought it was right—as we do across many areas, including covid—to think through those consequences and put those documents in the public domain, and the reasonable worst-case scenario was a document that we published. Whether it is food supplies, medicine or anything related to the covid pandemic, we have put in place mitigations for all sorts of things that could happen and could go wrong. We are not anticipating disruption to those supplies, and the work that we have undertaken includes the stockpiling of certain goods, securing our own freight capacity and many other things.

Black History Month

Wendy Chamberlain Excerpts

Tuesday 20th October 2020 Commons Chamber

[Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Erith and Thamesmead (Abena Oppong-Asare) on securing this important debate.

I was born and brought up in Greenock, the main town of the constituency of Inverclyde. As a child it was just my home town. My main memory of the school trips to the local James Watt Museum was walking a friend, eyes closed, past the snarling stuffed bear, and certainly little of our colonial history. I never thought twice about the names of some of the streets I walked down—Jamaica Street, Antigua Street, Virginia Street—or what some of the merchants who built some of the larger houses in the town might have traded in.

Hidden in plain sight was another history of the place where I was growing up, because Greenock, like other ports, sadly played its part in the Atlantic slave trade. It was a port where traders carrying goods like iron and guns would depart to west Africa. These goods would be traded for enslaved people who were then transported to the Americas and sold in exchange for goods like sugar. As a child, the only sugar I was aware of in relation to Greenock was the Tate & Lyle refinery, and the wreck of the sugar boat MV Captayannis in the Firth of Clyde —the water was supposed to taste sweet round about it. That sugar was transported to the refineries of Greenock, and the warehouse, the Sugar Shed, still stands to this day.

That sugar, and the rum and tobacco, made some incredibly wealthy, but that wealth was not just kept in the pockets of the traders and their families: it is important that we acknowledge that it enriched all Scots and all parts of the UK. This was recently highlighted by the excellent blog and Twitter account, @WeirdScotland. Much of the philanthropy of the 18th and 19th centuries in Scotland, a lot of which admirably focused on promoting access to education, which we have talked about a lot today, was in fact funded by the slave trade. For example, the Royal Academy in Tain, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone), was opened in 1813 by Hugh Rose Ross of Glastullich, a slaver funded by £175,000, in today’s money, from donors in the Caribbean.

It is not just our places or our institutions but our people who have deep-rooted connections to the slave trade. The most famous Greenockian other than Victor Meldrew is James Watt. His father was a slave trader. While Watt did eventually argue for abolition, there is no doubt that he benefited from his father’s wealth, and sold steam engines to plantations in the Caribbean. I highlight Shaun Kavanagh’s excellent piece on Greenock’s role in the slave trade, where he says:

“In Greenock, we live in the shadow of slavery every day.”

How many people walk along the streets of Greenock, Glasgow, Edinburgh and elsewhere and fail to connect the dots—to realise the wealth realised via the slave trade?

Even Scotland’s bard, Robert Burns, in dire financial straits, accepted a job as part of a team of white overseers on a plantation in Jamaica. As Clark McGinn has outlined, being a bookkeeper was as much about managing the assets as the numbers. Burns would have had a daily interface with the truth of slavery, from assisting in purchases through to recording punishments and deaths—and an ambitious young man might seek advancement by volunteering to be more hands on. The publication of Burns’s poems, to instant acclaim, prevented his emigration and that future, but his story demonstrates how slavery permeated every part of Scottish life at that time.

We have to do so much more to educate ourselves about the horrors of the past, not least when, as has been demonstrated during the pandemic, the legacy of the unequal treatment of colour is still very much with us to this day. This year, Black Lives Matter has had a huge impact. In my semi-rural constituency of North East Fife, it has been the issue that my team and I have received the most correspondence about. I received many emails and letters on the murder of George Floyd, on the tragic death of Belly Mujinga and the campaign for justice for her, and on ensuring that black history is taught in our schools.

I have written to the Scottish Government about making sure that our curriculum is inclusive. I am concerned that potentially the diverse approach of the curriculum for excellence means that for some we will not be teaching that curriculum. Like others in this debate, I absolutely support the work of the Black Curriculum campaign and say that we do need a commitment that every child learns at school about Britain’s role in the slave trade.

Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme

Wendy Chamberlain Excerpts

Thursday 17th September 2020 Commons Chamber

[Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson) on securing this important debate. Last week’s Opposition day debate on the furlough scheme demonstrated that there is huge demand in all parts of the House for raising constituents’ cases, so we have a welcome further opportunity to do that today. Since March, we have all been receiving a huge amount of correspondence from constituents whose livelihoods have been affected by the pandemic. I wish to take a moment to pay tribute to my casework team, who were newly hired just as the pandemic hit and have done a fantastic job in getting up to speed and directing so many constituents to the different, varied and sometimes complex support schemes run by local authorities, the Scottish Government and the UK Government.

Across the whole of Fife nearly 30% of all employees were furloughed. That is a huge number and I give credit to the Treasury for its implementation of the scheme. It is an example of how pooling and sharing resources has allowed the prevention of huge job losses. We have already heard today that all this is put in jeopardy if the scheme ends next month unilaterally, and I re-echo the calls that have been made. I cannot stress enough how vital the scheme is to so many businesses in my constituency. But for all the good the furlough has done, the painful reality for a not insignificant minority of people is that they have missed out on the scheme, for reasons that are, in essence, arbitrary. I welcome the recognition of that in the motion.

For some, that reason is just a date. One of my constituents had not been in work, he started a new job on 29 February and the cut-off date meant he was ineligible for the scheme. He was let go from his job and there was no recent employer to rehire him. Another constituent was placed in a similar situation. She was switching employment just as covid-19 hit, and her new employer could not open the business because of the lockdown and so simply could not take her on. The rules of the job retention scheme were adjusted so that old employers could rehire those people caught in limbo, but that was a workaround, not a solution that is an any way meaningful. She was eligible for furlough but was not furloughed because her old employer refused to rehire her so that she could be furloughed, although that would have come at no cost to them. So she has missed out and instead has had to apply for jobseeker’s allowance.

Even for those who were furloughed the scheme has not always been perfect. One constituent, a childcare agency worker on a zero-hours contract, contacted me because the way furlough is calculated has meant that her regular full-time hours are not considered, and she has experienced an incredibly severe drop in earnings. That has meant an incredibly tough few months trying to survive on very little.

Those are three cases, but there are many more. For thousands of people in my constituency, this has been a difficult year. A lot of people who never thought they would be relying on our welfare system are now doing so because they did not meet arbitrary eligibility criteria and slipped through the gaps. It will now be clear to so many people that what is deemed as our “safety net” does not work. As we look to rebuild, I hope we will reflect on our welfare system and on whether it provides the right support for those who need it. I am increasingly convinced that a more substantial, universal safety net has to be the way forward.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

To sit down at 2.45 pm, I call Jim Shannon.

Covid-19: Future UK-EU Relationship

Wendy Chamberlain Excerpts

Wednesday 15th July 2020 Commons Chamber

[Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. There have been relatively few opportunities for me, as a new MP, to debate the current negotiations with the EU during this Session, so I welcome this debate. It is timely because, after several years of bluster since 2016, this week we have finally started to see some more details of what Brexit will mean in practice.

On Monday, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster set out the £705 million cost of new border infrastructure and a new comms plan, which has been reported to cost £93 million on top of last year’s £100 million defunct Get Ready for Brexit campaign. On Tuesday, the Government confirmed that some 250 million customs declarations will be required every year, at a cost of £13 billion per annum.

Some of us in this Chamber are old enough to remember that the current Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster promised that if we voted leave, the NHS would receive £350 million a week. We were told that leaving the EU would be easy and frictionless, but now this Vote Leave Government are spending, on my calculations, around £250 million a week to prepare us for the realities of Brexit, and that is just the tip of the iceberg. These were preparatory measures; we have no idea what the exact cost of our exit will be. There will be tariffs; the question is on what scale, and we now know that that means a deterioration in our terms of trade. It means higher costs for business, and ultimately it will mean a rise in the cost of living, which will hit the poorest in this country hardest.

I acknowledge that that means that, in many cases, those who voted for Brexit will be hit hardest, but this is not the Brexit that they were promised—all at a time when the country faces unprecedented economic disaster and the greatest public health crisis this century. This is not Project Fear; the Government’s announcements, slowly though they may have come, have continually confirmed that this is Project Reality. Members on the Government Benches might criticise me for talking Britain down, but as I highlighted in my question to the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster earlier this week, the current actual financial opportunities identified by the Government equate to absolutely zero.

Back in 2016, we were told that Britain would be welcomed, as we left the EU, with open arms by the international community. Despite lots of rhetoric around trade discussions, that welcome is far from certain. That rhetoric of leaving one Union to be welcomed by a host of nations is also used by Scottish National party Members, and that is not the only parallel between the campaign to leave the union in Europe and that to leave the Union of these four nations.

I have to question the consistency of advocating, on the one hand, that Brexit is doing a great deal of damage —with which I agree; so much, in fact, that delay is required—while failing to acknowledge that leaving the UK would be even more fiscally damaging. The UK has many similarities to the EU. The UK has a single market—one which, I acknowledge, is currently being undermined by our EU departure; a customs union; and a single currency. We share a currency and other far closer and deeper economic and social ties.

Britain carries out 40% of its trade with the European Union, and I agree with the SNP that leaving that institution is having, and will continue to have, profound economic shocks, but Scotland does over 60% of its trade with Wales, England and Northern Ireland, and impacting that would be cataclysmic.

The current crisis has been a clear indicator of the fact that working together can achieve better outcomes. It is likely that we will hear that, had Scotland voted for independence in 2014, with the obvious difficulties of separating from a 300-year-old Union, coupled with a likely currency crisis, it would potentially be in a very precarious place at this time, as it dealt with covid.

Earlier, I mentioned consistency. If the pandemic had struck in a world in which Scotland had voted for independence and was in a period of transition out of the UK, do we really think the Scottish Government would have been pressing for an extension to the date of Scotland’s departure due to covid? I do not think so; it is very likely that the SNP would be ploughing on. They would probably have had the same thinking as the current UK Government: given the scale of the crisis, no one will notice a bit more chaos, and if they do, we can point to the crisis. And why? Because they, like those on the Government Benches, do not acknowledge the costs of their beliefs.

The hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Andrew Bowie) stated that the SNP looks both ways on Unions. So do those on the Government Benches. If the argument is that coronavirus has such an impact on the UK that an extension to Brexit is required, why is the SNP continuing to push for a referendum on Scottish independence?

The First Minister claims that anyone who says anything contrary to the Scottish Government at present is being a political opportunist, but, too often, her party is happy to foster the politics of grievance. Last week, the Finance Cabinet Secretary, Kate Forbes, dismissed the financial support that went directly from the UK Treasury to Scottish people and businesses as if it did not exist. We have also talked about the Barnett formula today, and one of the benefits of the support that has been delivered directly by the UK Treasury is that it has not been subject to Barnett consequentials and has been absolutely based on the needs of UK businesses and employees.

I fear that responsible politics are in short supply these days, not least at the top of the UK Government. I mentioned a commitment made by the Prime Minister back in 2016, and he made another one almost a year ago on the steps of Downing Street, when he promised he would govern as a one nation leader. If that is the Prime Minister’s intention, he makes it very difficult to recognise it in his actions and those of his Government. In relation to the pandemic, what started as a four-nations approach with movement in lockstep—I have heard this on the Scottish Affairs Committee—quickly degenerated into acrimonious briefings and a breakdown in communications.

We have heard frequently in this Chamber from those on the Government Benches about the precious Union, but for me, the terminology “Union” and “Unionist” rings hollow. If the way the Government have handled relations with Scotland and the other devolved nations during the pandemic is Unionist, I am certainly something different. I am a Liberal. I am a federalist. I am an internationalist; I believe not in erecting borders but in dismantling them, and I do not think the politics of nationalism—on either side of this House—the politics of grievance and, ultimately, the politics of division are any way in which to conduct truly progressive politics. I am proud to stand here representing a constituency that voted both to remain in the UK and to remain in the EU.

As the Government look towards the end of this year, I urge them to remember that two constituent parts of the UK voted decisively to remain in the EU. The failure to properly take that into account in negotiations weakens the bonds of the UK. The pandemic has shown that devolution can deliver financial support, while nations and regions make different choices on their social and public health responses. On Brexit, it is incumbent on the Government be a Government for all four parts of the country, not just England.

We have clearly missed the opportunity of an extension, so now the Government must do all they can to seek a deal that will give us the closest possible relationship to the EU and minimise the impact of our departure during the covid crisis.

The Economy

Wendy Chamberlain Excerpts

Wednesday 8th July 2020 Commons Chamber

[Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)]

The delivery mechanism for the furlough and self-employment schemes has been responsive to where the support is needed across the whole of the United Kingdom. I am not happy with the way relations between the Government and the devolved nations have often fractured during the crisis, but no matter how one looks at it, each nation and region of the UK has benefited from the financial pooling of resources.

As a Liberal Democrat, I am very much in favour of devolution and the Scottish Parliament, but if all the furlough and universal credit decisions went across the desk of the Scottish Cabinet Secretary, we would get only a Barnett share—Scotland would get only 8.6% of English furlough money, even if demand were greater in Scotland. The other benefit is the speed of response. There has been no waiting for Barnett consequentials to be calculated and no delay while it is worked out how best to deliver the support.

I ask the Government to publish a breakdown of the amount of money that has been paid directly by the UK Government to people and businesses in Scotland. Making those figures visible will help to inform all Members of this House and those in Holyrood when we debate the merits of the United Kingdom.

Having praised the UK Government for a rapid response, I will now talk about things that have been anything but quick. I must express my disappointment at the length of time the Treasury has taken to respond to cases that I have raised on behalf of constituents. To give one example, back in early April I was contacted by a new starter at a small business in Auchtermuchty. His contract started on 29 February, which meant he was ineligible for furlough. As such, he faced having no income and no support. He is one of the excluded that the new APPG chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) is looking to support.

On 14 April, I wrote to the Chancellor to raise the specific details of my constituent’s case. I heard nothing back until two months later, when I was sent a “Dear colleague” letter that had already been sent to me in lieu of a specific reply. After chasing up twice, I received a further unsatisfactory response from the Government today during the Chancellor’s statement.

It is MPs who people go to when there is nowhere else to turn. Frequently, it is when people have tried to navigate the often bureaucratic and complex structures of Government agencies and heard nothing in response. I am particularly conscious that we are approaching a six-week recess, during which the furlough scheme will continue to taper off. The Chancellor described this earlier today as a “difficult moment”. It is not a difficult moment, but a difficult few months. The recently announced job losses are clearly just the start.

So yes, swift support from the Government is important, but for those who cannot access support and for those who get in touch with us as Members of Parliament, we need to be in a position to relay those difficulties and problems back to Ministers, and to hear back from them in turn. I hope that the Government can offer some reassurance on this matter.

Economic Update

Wendy Chamberlain Excerpts

Wednesday 8th July 2020 Commons Chamber

[Rishi Sunak]

My hon. Friend is right to point out the opportunities that we will now have, after leaving the EU, to tweak our procurement rules to ensure that we will of course always get value for money for the taxpayer, and that we can do so in a way that supports our local economies and—especially right now—local jobs.

[Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)]

Although it has and still does exclude many people, it must be acknowledged that support delivered directly via the Treasury, such as the jobs retention scheme, has been delivered quickly. That support is allocated on the basis not of proportion of population, the cost of support or the level of productivity, but on the need of those who apply and qualify. This is how devolution can operate. Will the Chancellor provide us with detailed figures so that we can assess exactly how much financial support has been delivered from the Treasury to the people and businesses in Scotland and the other devolved nations?

[Rishi Sunak]

Those numbers have been published. As I said, £4.6 billion is the total amount of Barnett funding that has been provided to Scotland throughout the crisis. The block grant adjustment resulting from the stamp duty cut will be finalised after we have final costings from the OBR.