International Women’s Day: Language in Politics

Wendy Morton Excerpts

Thursday 29th February 2024 Commons Chamber

[Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)]

I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Dame Maria Miller) for securing this important debate on language in politics, which gives us an opportunity to mark International Women’s Day.

As the 431st female Member of Parliament, the first female MP for my Aldridge-Brownhills constituency and the first female Conservative Chief Whip, I start by stressing the importance of increasing female participation in politics. Sadly, women face many barriers to entering a career in politics. One of those barriers is the often unpleasant and abusive language to which they are subjected. This is totally unacceptable and it cannot, and must not, be tolerated. We have to work constantly to change that.

This is a cross-party debate and, to set the scene for my speech, I start with this quote:

“elect me for what I am and not for what I was born.”—[Official Report, 27 April 1992; Vol. 207, c. 15.]

Those are the notable words of the late Betty Boothroyd when she became the first female Speaker of the House of Commons. Her initial entry into politics was not easy. It took her five attempts to be elected as an MP, which is something with which many of us will be familiar. It took me three attempts to make it to Parliament.

Historically, the House of Commons has often been seen as a man’s world. It has often been compared to a private gentlemen’s club, and it was only with the Parliament (Qualification of Women) Act 1918 after world war one, underpinned by the suffragette movement, that women were allowed to stand as candidates and be elected as MPs. As we know, the first sitting female MP was Nancy Astor, who was elected as a Conservative MP in 1919. Since then, we have undoubtedly made progress, and by the 1960s no one doubted that women should be part of the political process. Yet here we are in February 2024 with 226 female MPs in the House of Commons, which is 35% of all MPs—that is hardly reflective of our country. The Conservative party currently has 88 female MPs. Although that is a triumphant leap from the days when Nancy Astor was the sole female MP, it is still only 25% of all Conservative MPs.

With women clearly under-represented in Parliament, we have to ask the question: why? One decisive factor as to why many women choose not to enter politics at all is its aggressive and intimidating nature. Sadly, Parliament and politics all too often remain overwhelmingly masculine in culture, language and space. Even after 100 years in politics, many female politicians continue to suffer from bullying, harassment, misogyny and sexism, both in this place and beyond. To see that, we can just take a look at the toxic nature of Prime Minister’s questions some weeks, where women have been known to be called “stupid woman” and have even been told to “Calm down, dear”, in an insulting and often patronising tone. Surprisingly, when we look in the guidance on “Rules of behaviour and courtesies in the House of Commons”, we see that although it contains a section titled “Parliamentary language”, there is not a single mention of sexist language being inappropriate. I know that Mr Speaker is doing a huge amount of work to change the culture and behaviour in this place, but perhaps that is something else we could seek to look at a little further.

This language issue extends beyond the Chamber and to all forms of communications and settings, be it social media, mobile phones, tweets or WhatsApp messages. This abusive language has to be unacceptable, and I urge all Members of Parliament, on both sides, to report it and call it out. Many female MPs have been subjected to hate messages on their Twitter posts—we have heard some examples of that this afternoon—and, sadly, some have even received death threats. That is why I very much welcome the Home Secretary’s announcement of a £31 million package to counter threats to MPs’ security, which includes cyber-security advice and a dedicated named police contact. That is fundamental to protecting and upholding our democracy. As the Home Secretary recently said, no MP should have to accept threats or harassment as “part of the job”. That applies to all MPs, but it applies to female MPs in particular.

Some people may perceive politics to be centred around assertiveness and power, but I believe that it is slightly different; empathy, compassion and our respect must also be at the very core of it too. We see that just by looking at the role of women in the peace and security agenda. I believe that if we all remembered why we entered politics in the first place, which is to strive to make a positive change for society, we would all be treated with more respect. Most importantly, more women would be encouraged to enter politics.

Like everyone else here today, I hope that in the near future not just 50% of all MPs will be women, but that at least 50% of all MPs will be female. When my party has an organisation called “Men2Win”, I know we will have succeeded. Fairly representing our population is where we need to get to; we need everyone to be treated with dignity and respect at all times. I still pinch myself when I come into this place. I remember how I felt the first day I sat on the green Benches. It was then, and still is, the biggest privilege and honour of my life to be a Member of Parliament and to serve the community that elected me, Aldridge-Brownhills.

Charity Lottery Fundraising Caps

Wendy Morton Excerpts

Wednesday 5th July 2023 Westminster Hall

[Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the potential merits of removing the caps on charity lottery fundraising.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray, and to bring forward this debate on the important work of Britain’s charity lotteries. I must first draw attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests as a vice-president of the Lotteries Council. The charity lottery sector is worthy of Members’ time, as I am confident today’s contributions will demonstrate, and I am grateful to Members present. As I found when researching the debate, the interest of Members from across the House is evident from Hansard and, as I am sure the Minister is aware, from the number of questions to his Department on this important topic.

Back in 2017, the now Lord Bellingham secured a Westminster Hall debate on the future of society lotteries and the limits on prize values. I remember it well because I attended. The debate was well supported by Members from all sides of the House. A little over six months after that debate, the Government concluded their consultation on society lottery reform, and recommended that the maximum draw prize increase to £500,000, that the draw limit be raised to £5 million and, most importantly, that the annual cap increase to £100 million. In 2020, a revised annual limit came into effect, albeit that it was a reduced amount of £50 million.

Today, charity lotteries, or social lotteries, as they are more formally known, generate over £400 million a year for charities and good causes the length and breadth of Great Britain, meaning they constitute a significant funding stream for many well known charities and local community groups alike. I am sure we will hear from Members today about some of their local charities that benefit from those lotteries. Charity lotteries are regulated via the Gambling Act 2005 and are subject to heavy bureaucratic burdens, though the national lottery is not. For example, charity lotteries are subject to stringent caps on annual sales, caps on sales in each individual draw, and caps on the prizes that operators are allowed to offer, and there is rightly a statutory minimum return to good causes—I completely agree with that.

To put it simply, despite existing to fund charities and good causes, the sector is mired in exactly the sort of red tape that our Conservative Government should be focused on eliminating. To be honest, given that charity lotteries predate the national lottery by at least three decades, it is somewhat baffling as to why such a heavy regulatory burden exists at all. From the mid-2000s, the idea took hold in some quarters that the national lottery required protection from charity lotteries, and that is a myth that I am keen to see debunked on the basis of the available evidence. For example, years of Gambling Commission industry statistics show continued growth in sales, and returns to good causes from both sectors have reached record levels.

The recent Culture, Media and Sport Committee report on the national lottery explicitly acknowledged that charity lotteries do not negatively impact the national lottery, and called out the oddly hostile attitude that Camelot has shown to the sector over the years. It is imperative that we do not lose sight of the fact that when both sectors thrive, it is the charities and good causes in all our constituencies that stand to benefit the most. The complementary nature of both funding streams cannot be understated—sorry, overstated; we must ensure Hansard gets that right.

I am sure that many Members present will be familiar with the People’s Postcode Lottery through their constituency or the effectiveness of its advertising, which, as well as admirably shining a spotlight on supported charities, has been known to feature the likes of Jason Donovan. I am certainly aware of fantastic work done in my constituency by a number of organisations that are in receipt of funding from the People’s Postcode Lottery. Such organisations help to deliver vital funding for voluntary sector groups of all sizes.

Funding has been delivered locally to RicNic, Walsall’s “own the stage” project, which provides drama-based classroom resources and workshops to get children to participate in the arts; the Canal & River Trust, which has restored the Black Cock bridge, a Victorian bridge that was built in around 1880 in Walsall Wood, over the Daw End Branch canal; the Royal Voluntary Service, which operates locally from Brownhills Memorial Hall on Litchfield Road, a building known locally as the Memo, where the RVS runs groups who help elderly and vulnerable people to keep active and socially engaged; the Walsall-based Cats Protection, which also has a retail base in my constituency; and Manor Farm Community Association, which was awarded funding for the Silver Connections outreach programme for older people. I could go on, Mr Gray, but I will not. I hope I have given you a flavour of the type of organisations in receipt of this support, and I am sure you have some in your constituency.

Given the huge benefits of those and many other organisations to communities across my constituency—a pattern that I know is mirrored in constituencies right across the country—I am proud to play my part as a champion of the low-risk, not-for-profit charity lottery sector, which exists to fund good causes, some of which I have just name-checked. That is the reason why I felt it was important to secure today’s debate.

In addition to confirming the complementary nature of charity lotteries, the DCMS Committee report to which I referred made clear recommendations on empowering charity lottery operators to set their own prize limits of up to £500,000, and on ensuring a level playing field with unregulated prize draws. Those are important recommendations that I would like the Government to adopt as policy. I urge my good friend the Minister and the Government to remove the annual sales cap on charity lotteries without further delay, to ensure that this vital fundraising stream can maximise its charitable returns. It is open to Ministers to deliver that crucial reform, and most of the other reforms I have mentioned, by way of a statutory instrument. I do not believe it needs parliamentary legislation, so I hope that the Government can find time for that.

An analysis undertaken by the People’s Postcode Lottery demonstrates that the £50 million annual sales cap on the sector is restricting the funding that can be provided to 40 large charity partners, depriving them of millions of pounds in funding annually. That is despite the success of the brand in generating lottery ticket sales well in excess of the £50 million permitted annually per licence. Newly released analysis shows that over the next five years, caps on annual sales will deprive more than 70 People’s Postcode Lottery-supported charities of some £200 million in vital funding. It almost goes without saying that charities can ill afford to lose those funds.

I was astonished when I heard that the People’s Postcode Lottery has to operate a structure encompassing over 40 individual gambling licences in order to comply with the law on annual sales limits. That creates a heavy burden of duplication, which constrains the scale and flexibility of the funds so generously raised by the lottery’s players. The over-regulation of charity lotteries means that some well-known charities—for example, Girlguiding, Keep Britain Tidy, Young Lives vs Cancer, the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children and the Royal Voluntary Service—are losing out. Put simply, the sector is mired in needless red tape that could easily be removed by us in the House of Commons with Government support.

The Government previously committed to a £100 million annual sales limit for charity lotteries. However, if they removed the cap completely instead of increasing it, that would benefit not only the largest operators but smaller charity lotteries such as Essex & Herts Air Ambulance and the local hospice lotteries. It would be a more efficient use of the Department for Culture, Media and Sport’s time, as it would remove the need to revisit the sales cap frequently. Operators such as those that I mentioned could also shed the additional licences associated with the requirements of the Gambling Act 2005, which operators say are difficult and costly for small not-for-profit lotteries to navigate.

It is completely unclear why the sales limits exist. In fact, the Gambling Commission is on record as saying that it has been

“unable to uncover any reference as to why these limits were put in place”. 

The sales limits cannot affect player behaviour in any way, so they do not impact on sales, but they have a negative impact on the charities that receive funding, and they add to the bureaucracy for lottery operators. It seems counterproductive to continue limiting charities’ income in such a blunt manner, particularly at a time of growing charitable need.

Removing charity lotteries’ annual sales limits could better equip the third sector to support those most in need, without costing the Treasury or the taxpayers a single penny. That makes the argument even more compelling. I put it to the Minister that this aspect of the debate is very much worthy of the Chancellor’s consideration, as the change would be cost-neutral fiscally. Perhaps the Minister will put a good word in with the Chancellor ahead of the autumn statement.

As I draw my contribution to a conclusion, I draw attention to the striking support that lifting the cap on charity lotteries and these common-sense sector reforms have attracted from colleagues from across this House, as we see today. That speaks volumes about the value of the charity sector, and of charity lottery reform. I acknowledge that the Government have shown themselves willing to act in support of Britain’s charity lottery sector in recent years—my good friend the Minister comes from a background of fundraising in the charity sector. I commend the reforms to date, but it is clear that further action is required now.

I recognise that the Government have to manage many competing priorities, but charity lottery reform can be undertaken via a simple statutory instrument, or by including the changes in any new gambling Act. Reform has the support of over 100 of Britain’s best-known charities, the sector itself and Members from across the House. I politely call on the Minister to please prioritise action on this worthy issue.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Stuart Andrew)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray.

I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton) for securing this debate and I thank everybody who has taken part. It has been good to take some time out from the complexities of the gambling White Paper and the questions about levies, betting terminals, casinos and loot boxes, and instead hear about and discuss the fantastic work of the society lottery sector, the great things that it does and the funding that it provides. That includes organisations such as the air ambulances, hospice lotteries, Age UK, the Royal British Legion and so many others up and down the country.

As I said in the House recently, in a previous role I set up a society lottery for the hospice that I used to work at, so I understand the important contribution that society lotteries make to charities’ incomes. I am absolutely committed to doing everything that I can to make sure that charities get as much money as they can. That is precisely why I fought for the £100 million with the Treasury: I went into battle to help with the current situation that many charities, which have been so brilliantly celebrated today, are facing.

Through my wider ministerial role, I have seen at first hand the real impact that funding from charity lottery players has in supporting a huge range of good causes, and it often sits alongside grants from the national lottery. For example, just last week I visited the London LGBTQ+ Community Centre in Blackfriars, which receives funding from the National Lottery Community Fund. Ahead of the Eurovision final in Liverpool, I saw the support that the fund had given to Daisy Inclusive UK for the work it is doing with youth social action groups in that city.

Members have articulated the tremendous amount of work that goes on in their constituencies. Indeed, the People’s Postcode Lottery has supported a range of projects in my constituency, including some that have been mentioned—the Woodland Trust, Magic Breakfast and Farsley Community Orchard. I also recognise the fact that many good causes receive funding from both the national lottery and society lotteries. The V&A in Dundee received over £19 million from the national lottery and £1.2 million from the People’s Postcode Lottery.

As Members will be aware, following a comprehensive consultation, which received more than 1,500 responses, the Government legislated in 2020 to introduce a wide package of reforms to the framework that governs society lotteries, and as a result of those reforms we significantly increased the annual sales limit, from £10 million to £50 million. For many charities that are running their own lotteries, there is plenty of headroom there, but I will come to some of the specific issues shortly.

We also increased the draw sales limit from £4 million to £5 million, which was warmly welcomed by the sector, and the increases also enabled lotteries to offer a prize of up to £500,000. I believe that package of reforms struck the right balance to achieve the best possible outcome at that time. It is important to remember that there were different stakeholders with different perspectives and priorities then. Some wanted us to go further, and called for an increase in the sales limit to £100 million and a maximum prize limit of £1 million, but others thought we had gone too far and felt that those increases would have a negative impact on, say, the national lottery and the good causes it funds.

[Wendy Morton]

I think we all recognise and welcome the changes that the Government made at the time, but having listened to the Minister I want to press him on two points. First, does he accept that there is a place for both the national lottery and the society lotteries? We are not talking about either/or; it is not competition. When we get it right, both sectors can benefit.

Secondly, I appreciate that when there is a consultation there will be lots of different stakeholders to accommodate, but when it comes to the People’s Postcode Lottery specifically, the issue is that charities are being negatively impacted and that, with a bit of tweaking and adjustment from the Government, charities could benefit a lot more.

[Stuart Andrew]

I take those two points. I absolutely agree that society lotteries and the national lottery can coexist; they have done throughout the existence of the national lottery. I will come to the point about the People’s Postcode Lottery in a moment.

Just last week, I met the current operator of the national lottery. It reminded me that the national lottery was purposefully set up to be the most efficient way to get money to good causes. It is important to remember that since it began in 1994, more than £47 billion has been raised for good causes. That is significant, and it equates to the national lottery raising more than £30 million each week. The majority of that funding goes straight to the heart of all our communities. We obviously need to ensure that that continues, because it delivers to a diverse range of groups and organisations in our communities. Given my wider portfolio, I know it is also critical for sport provision and elite sports. It is important to think about that.

In recent months I have learned a great deal about the complexities of transitioning from one national lottery licence to another and about transitioning for the first time to a new operator. It is clear that our objective for the lottery sector is for the national lottery and society lotteries to thrive together. It is also important to remember that our Secretary of State has a statutory duty to enable national lottery receipts to be maximised, and the continued growth of society lotteries needs to sit alongside that.

From the evidence that I have seen, we seem to have got the balance right to date, but, as with most things, there may be a tipping point, and I continue to bear that in mind. We last reviewed the 2020 reforms 12 months after they were implemented. We concluded that there was not yet enough available evidence to determine the full effect of the changes, and we wanted to see more substantive data over a longer period before considering any further changes. It still feels like the right approach to me, but I strongly believe that an evidence-based approach is always the right one. That is why we got the gambling White Paper into a good place: because it was all based on evidence.

We also want to make sure that the regulatory requirements placed on society lotteries are proportionate to their size. Should we enable society lotteries to sell £100 million-worth of tickets each year, we would also need to consider whether the largest lotteries should have placed on them further requirements, such as on the level of information they provide to consumers, and whether the percentage of sales they return to good causes should increase. It is important that we make those challenges too and look at some of the comparisons. I want to make sure that not just one area sees an increase but there is also an increase to charities.

The guiding principle, then and now, is that the regulatory framework regime that governs society lotteries should encourage the maximum return to good causes, and that the licensing regime should be light, protecting players without placing unnecessary burdens on operators. We will continue to work with the Gambling Commission as it keeps the sector and the case for further changes under review.

It is also not certain, when we look at the detail, that a further increase to the sales limit would necessarily result in a significant increase in funding for good causes. For example, despite a five-fold increase in the annual sales limit in 2020, I understand that what the People’s Postcode Lottery returned to good causes did not increase by nearly the same amount. We have to consider such things, so evidence and the consideration of conditions are important. For those who ask me to make further changes immediately, even if there were robust evidence to do so, there are processes that we are obliged to follow.

[Wendy Morton]

May I press the Minister a little more on that? If he is not willing to deal with it immediately, would he look at it as a matter of urgency, given the number of charities that are being detrimentally affected?

[Stuart Andrew]

My right hon. Friend has obviously seen a copy of my speech, because I am coming to that in a moment. We will need to carry out a consultation—we have to do that— take account of those views, study the evidence, seek the views of other Government Departments and find time in a busy parliamentary schedule to bring any proposals to the House. It is not as simple as might sometimes be portrayed. Nevertheless, I have heard in the debate, and throughout my time in post, that there is a desire for us to be clearer about when any such review may take place, so I will ask officials in the Department to consider the matter in more detail with the Gambling Commission to see what is realistic. I will provide an update in the autumn to those who have attended this debate.

As I said, I met the People’s Postcode Lottery just this morning, and my priority remains delivering our ambitious commitments in the gambling White Paper, because I think there is some serious work that needs to be done there. I am also keen to ensure the smooth transition of the fourth national lottery licence and to make swift progress on the horserace betting levy review, which is really important. In this morning’s meeting, the People’s Postcode Lottery recognised the considerable work that we are trying to get through.

The consideration of any further changes to the framework for society lotteries needs to be considered in the context I have set out, but I have committed to continue to explore what flexibility there already is within the system to get us through the interim period ahead of any further detailed review. In the meantime, I am confident that, thanks to the millions of people who enjoy playing the lottery or buying a scratchcard, both society lotteries and the national lottery will continue to raise much-needed funding that benefits so many people. For many independent society lotteries there is plenty of headroom. I recognise many of the points that have been made about the specifics of the People’s Postcode Lottery and assure Members that I will keep a close eye on the matter.

[Wendy Morton]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Minister for responding to the debate, and I am equally grateful to everyone who has contributed. The message was very clear: we understand the value of the charities and the work they do in our communities. I welcome, and look forward to receiving, the autumn update. However, although I understand the importance of the gambling White Paper and know that we have to get that right, some of the women in this place—and gentlemen—will continue to gently push the Minister, because we are so passionate about this. I also recognise the passion that the Minister has for the charity sector, given his experience before he came to this place.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the potential merits of removing the caps on charity lottery fundraising.

Whistleblowing Awareness Week

Wendy Morton Excerpts

Thursday 23rd March 2023 Westminster Hall

[Mary Robinson (Cheadle) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered Whistleblowing Awareness Week.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms McDonagh. I am pleased to be here today to consider Whistleblowing Awareness Week. As chair of the all-party parliamentary group for whistleblowing, I would like to recognise the work of our secretariat, WhistleblowersUK, and other partners and supporters in bringing together a programme of events to mark the UK’s first Whistle- blowing Awareness Week.

What is Whistleblowing Awareness Week? In short, it is a celebration of the people and organisations who work hard to do the right thing and shine a light on abuse, corruption, fraud, patient safety concerns and other wrongdoing that would otherwise continue to go unchecked. It is a chance to use the past to shape the future, and to acknowledge what works and what needs to change. It is an opportunity to demonstrate how reforming existing legislation with a new whistleblowing law would put the public interest first and ensure that UK standards are global standards.

We need standards that protect whistleblowers by empowering people to speak up and normalising doing so, investigating concerns, stopping wrongdoing and saving money. We need to have penalties—this must have teeth—that incentivise organisations to do the right thing, and education and access to help and support people and organisations.

Why do we need to raise awareness? Whistleblowers are often described as the canary in the coal mine. What an analogy that is; we all know that the canary suffers in order to let people know that there is a problem. Whistleblowers are ordinary people who see something that is wrong and speak up to stop it, with an expectation that those who have the authority to do something will put things right. It is a fair expectation, but, sadly, it is often far from the reality.

Very often, others in an organisation are also aware of the wrongdoing, but only one person has the courage to speak out and to keep speaking out—the person who will not be fobbed off. This is the person with integrity, who believes in policy and procedures, who believes that the organisation they work for wants to know, and who believes that it will act to stop wrongdoing and protect others from abuse or harm.

[Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)]

I hope to speak in the debate later, so I will keep my intervention short. Does my hon. Friend feel that we need some sort of cultural shift and cultural change that creates a safer space, with the attitude that whistleblowing is not bad, but can actually help an organisation, society and individuals?

[Mary Robinson]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. We know that when people do not speak out, it is because of the culture. We have seen that this week with the report on the Metropolitan police, which I will go on to consider later. She is entirely right that the culture in organisations needs to be changed. I believe that that culture change needs to be led by a change in our legislation.

Name an industry or a sector, and I can name a scandal brought to light by whistleblowers, who have been stifled, ignored or gaslit rather than listened to, and who have then been bullied and harassed out of their jobs. People who see that happening think twice about blowing the whistle. Unfortunately, as my right hon. Friend has rightly said, all too often people who could and should speak out fear the culture in an organisation and are silenced by it, with devastating results.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mary Robinson]

That is at the heart of the problem. If people see that nothing is going to happen, why would they come forward? If they see that somebody is going to be bullied out of their job, why would they come forward? If they see that complaints or information about wrongdoing that they take to their senior leadership will not be acted on, why would they come forward? That is exactly at the heart of the problem.

We need to consider not just the impact of whistleblowers coming forward, making a complaint and letting people know what is going on, but also the impact of not doing that. We need to consider the impact when there is somebody in the police force who is known to indulge, or suspected of indulging, in bad or criminal behaviour, but nothing is done, nobody speaks out and the leadership does not act.

For this Whistleblowing Awareness Week, participants at a series of events in Westminster have heard from a wide range of whistleblowing experts from across the globe—legal, financial and human resources professionals, and those who have turned their lived, first-hand experience into action and passion for change. On Tuesday morning, my hon. Friend the Member for Erewash (Maggie Throup) chaired a roundtable on whistleblowing in the healthcare sector. I hope she will speak about that later. We heard from a range of experts, including the national guardian for freedom to speak up in the NHS, Dr Jayne Chidgey-Clark. That role came out of the recommendations of the 2015 “Freedom to Speak Up” report by Sir Robert Francis KC, which found that NHS culture did not always encourage staff to speak up or facilitate their doing so. That failure had a direct and negative impact on patients and staff.

Time and again, we have seen the impact of that failure in health trusts across the country: people have been impacted by scandals and lives have been lost in tragic circumstances. The national guardian is tasked with leading the change in NHS culture—look, it must change. Her most recent report includes many positive voices, which is good, but it also highlights that 58.3% of freedom to speak up guardians believe that barriers to speaking up include the concern that nothing will be done, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North (James Daly) said. Alarmingly, 69% believe that a fear of retaliation or suffering as a result of speaking out is a deterrent. Clearly, there is more to be done to break down these barriers.

Patient safety depends on the success of a speaking-out culture, and that should sit alongside a learning culture where mistakes are not covered up for fear of blame. Doctors, nurses and other staff in healthcare settings have lives in their hands and they must feel comfortable, confident and able to report errors and mistakes.

It is often the whistleblowers themselves who give the most powerful testimony. Dr Chris Day is not only a whistleblower—he raised serious patient safety concerns while working as a junior doctor in an intensive care unit—but a change maker who exposed a gap in whistleblowing law that was subsequently reformed. After having blown the whistle on the understaffing that he witnessed, there was another battle on his hands: who can be held to account under existing legislation? As a junior doctor, his training and career were in the hands of Health Education England, who argued that as it did not directly employ Dr Day, the law did not apply to it. He challenged that, and the court found that junior doctors did come under the extended definition of worker. It also found that a worker could have two employers under whistleblowing legislation. Although the issues that he raised as a whistleblower have not been resolved, Dr Day’s actions have resulted in a change to the law.

During our roundtable on Wednesday this week, exploring the new approach to whistleblowing, we heard from Jonathan Taylor, who exposed bribery in the oil and gas industry. Although his disclosures resulted in SBM, a Dutch multinational, paying out more than $800 million in fines and related payments, his whistleblowing also put a stop to an economic crime that had run to hundreds of millions. A statistic that is shared many times in Parliament, including by me, is that 43% of economic crime is detected and exposed through whistleblowers. The Minister has previously said he believes that about 100% of economic crime detection could be attributed to whistleblowing. So, if we want to know where economic crime is being committed, we need to encourage whistle- blowers and others to speak out.

However, speaking up came at a huge personal and professional cost to Mr Taylor. Not only did he spend a year under house arrest in Croatia, but he lost his career. We cannot overestimate the mental and emotional toll that whistleblowing has on people, and he is not alone in his experience. It is no wonder, after having heard the detriment suffered by so many whistleblowers, that people are averse to speaking up.

We also had the pleasure of welcoming Zelda Perkins, who, in breaking her non-disclosure agreement, shone a light on sexual abuse in Hollywood and helped to expose a top film executive who would later be prosecuted for sexual assault and rape. She went on to co-found the Can’t Buy My Silence campaign, which seeks to make NDAs unenforceable except in the case of preventing the sharing of confidential business information and trade secrets, which was their original purpose. The campaign’s efforts contributed to the Department for Education’s introduction of its pledge to end the use of NDAs in universities. That is progress, but we need to go further.

NDAs are often used not just to settle employment disputes, but to silence people. Fraud, corruption, incompetence, environmental damage, abuse, avoidable deaths and cover-ups are silently buried through the use of those agreements. Instead, I would like to bury the use of NDAs for that purpose. We have a situation where some people want to speak up but are bound by such legal agreements, and we have others who could speak but fear reprisals and repercussions. Either way, wrongdoing goes unchallenged. So now what?

Baroness Casey’s Met police review highlights systemic and chronic problems that can arise across any organisation where there is a culture of fear and cover-up. We have a police force riddled with misogyny, racism and homophobia, with inadequate management structures, a lack of leadership and a culture of fear. She describes an organisation where:

“The culture of not speaking up has become so ingrained that even when senior officers actively seek candid views, there is a reluctance to speak up.”

Whistleblowers must have trust and confidence in internal processes, but whistleblowers often come from outside these organisations. I remain concerned that our lack of an inclusive and effective whistleblowing law will continue to hinder progress.

Colleagues may know that last year I brought forward a private Member’s Bill that would reform our whistleblowing legislation. Although it fell because of lack of time, I remain determined to see changes to how we support, encourage and protect the brave people who are prepared to speak out and report wrongdoing. The Bill proposed to create an office of the whistleblower, which would be responsible for setting, monitoring and enforcing standards in the management of whistleblowing cases. The office would provide advice services and a clear avenue for disclosure, and it would direct investigations and handle redress for whistleblowers. Importantly, it would support anyone blowing the whistle.

[Wendy Morton]

My hon. Friend makes it clear that whistleblowing can affect anyone, no matter what organisation they are attached to. Does she agree that that is why we need some changes to the legislative framework to ensure this much-needed change happens? Cultural change alone will not do it; it needs a nudge from Government.

[Mary Robinson]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right in making that point. In the context of employment law, the existing legislation relates only to people in an employer-employee relationship. As I was going on to say, there is evidence that an office of the whistleblower would incentivise disclosures. People would have a safe space in which to speak, and currently they do not have that across every sector and in every way.

--- Later in debate ---

[Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms McDonagh. Like others, I want to start by commending my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle (Mary Robinson) for introducing the debate. She is nothing if not tenacious and persistent, and she should be sincerely applauded for that.

I want to start with a very short history lesson. As my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle alluded to, my predecessor was the late Richard Shepherd, the former Member of Parliament for Aldridge-Brownhills. Sir Richard had a record of defending whistleblowers and fighting for transparency, as well as of campaigning on many other things. Back in 1997, believe it or not, he was drawn in the private Member’s Bill ballot, and he introduced the Public Interest Disclosure Bill. With cross-party support, it was enacted in 1998, and is now referred to as PIDA. That was almost 25 years ago. We could stand here and argue that Sir Richard’s Act of Parliament is one of the very few pieces of legislation to have stood the test of time with very little change. However, I think most present, if not all, would argue differently. I am hoping that the Minister is on board, given his knowledge and expertise in this field of policy from before he became a Minister.

As we have heard, 2023 will mark the first Whistleblowing Awareness Week in the UK. This week, thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle having secured the debate, we have an opportunity to raise awareness and debate this really important issue, and to highlight some of the many whistleblowing cases. Many cases make it into the public domain——we have heard this week from the Casey review—but many others do not. Important acts of whistleblowing help to keep us all safe.

Legislative change is needed now more than ever before. As I have said, we often think of the high profile cases that make the newspapers and are turned into fascinating films and documentaries, yet the truth is that, 25 years since the Act was passed, too many people are still not protected—from job applicants to volunteers, to name just a couple of groups. Too many who speak out suffer victimisation. Those who do not probably fear it.

As we have heard, there is clearly an appetite in Parliament to do something and to take action. In April last year, my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle introduced her ten-minute rule Bill on whistleblowing; alas, it ran out of time, as sadly often happens with ten-minute rule Bills and private Member’s Bills, as I know only too well. In June 2022, a private Member’s Bill was introduced in the other place called the Protection for Whistleblowing Bill. It had its Second Reading in December last year, and I think we all hope that it will continue to make good progress.

My hon. Friend has long campaigned for change and for protection for whistleblowers. She has articulated today, through her words and through the examples that she has shared with us, how much knowledge she has on this particular topic, and how much evidence and appetite there is for that change. It is time to make it easier for concerned employees, contractors and stakeholders to raise a concern. It is time to encourage employees to speak up by offering them confidentiality and options for reporting. It is also time to set minimum standards for whistleblowing policies.

It takes a very brave person—a hugely courageous person—to be a whistleblower. Often it takes just one, and others will follow. That first person has to be incredibly brave to report certain types of wrongdoing or to reveal information about activity within an organisation that is deemed illegal. When that is done properly, when the right protections are in place, whistleblowing can be positive and can lead to the much-needed change, betterment and improvement from which so many will benefit.

It is time to make whistleblowing a tool for business improvement and safeguarding, and to step back from the “who” and focus much more on the “what”. I support my hon. Friend seeks legislative change—changes to the framework, and changes that start to drive the buy-in of organisations. Those organisations need to be nudged to take up the responsibility, and to be responsible for driving forward buy-in from their employees by encouraging and developing what I would call a healthy culture, which means that when a person needs to speak up it is possible to do so, that they are listened to and that what they say is acted on.

Equally, there must be protections for those organisations against vexatious whistleblowing. I acknowledge that there is a slight balance and nuance that must be addressed, too. None the less, whistleblowing can have a real value when it is viewed as good for business and good for organisations. The 2019 report of the all-party group for whistleblowing concluded that whistleblowing

“can help prevent harm to the fundamental values of society, including individual rights and liberties, justice, health, economic prosperity and stability”.

The Government have committed to review the whistle- blowing framework. May I gently urge the Minister to get on with it, please? In doing so, perhaps he could also consider the point that my hon. Friends have raised about the Government Department in which this should sit. Is the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy the best place for it? Perhaps, given that it is such an overarching issue, it would be better placed in the Cabinet Office.

Whistleblowing must be seen through the prism of keeping us all safe. It is good for business, good for organisations and good for society, but it also needs to work for the individual, so we must protect whistleblowers from being victimised. We should seek to work together with the Minister to deliver that cultural change. That will then start to make the difference that I know my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle and so many others are seeking to achieve.

[Siobhain McDonagh (in the Chair)]

I call the SNP spokesperson, Martin Docherty-Hughes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I will come on to what we are trying to do to make the legislation more effective. Do I think the legislation is where it needs to be today? No, I do not. That is the case for the changes we need to make. We need to look at all the different evidential points to ensure we move to the right place. Ian Foxley was a contractor, which is why he did not have the opportunity to get compensation in his case.

The SNP spokesman, the hon. Member for West Dunbartonshire (Martin Docherty-Hughes) made a good point about volunteers. They may also be the eyes and ears we need. He made the alarming point that people who blow the whistle could lose everything, which all of us should take into account. People who clearly do not feel they will be properly protected or properly compensated should feel more assured that they will.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton) pointed to the fact that the legislation was implemented 25 years ago by one of her predecessors. To give some reassurance, since the introduction of that legislation, the Government have continued to strengthen some of its provisions using non-legislative and legislative measures. We have produced guidance for whistleblowers and prescribed persons, as well as guidance and a code of practice for employers. We have produced guidance on how whistleblowers can make disclosures.

In 2017, we introduced a new requirement for most prescribed persons to produce an annual report on whistleblowing disclosures made to them. That duty is a direct response to concerns about the lack of transparency surrounding how disclosures were being handled. Most prescribed persons are now required to report on the number of disclosures, state whether they decided to take further action and give a summary of any action taken. We have also expanded the list of prescribed persons—the individuals and bodies to whom a worker can blow the whistle. In December 2022, I took forward some legislation to add six new bodies and all Members of the Scottish Parliament to the prescribed persons order. We continue to welcome proposals for appropriate additions to that order.

[Wendy Morton]

I appreciate that there have been updates to the original 1998 Act, and I recognise that work needs to continue. I want to push the Minister on the review. Will he give us any timescale or any indication of when we will see the Government undertake further work in the light of some of the thoughts, ideas and recommendations from the APPG?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I was just coming on to that. As a former Chief Whip, my right hon. Friend will be familiar with a word we often hear in this place: soon. I will say very, very soon. It is fair to say that we talking about days, not months. We are closer to days than months; that is where I would say we are.

Many have spoken passionately today, and on previous occasions, about the experiences of whistleblowers, and raised concerns about the whistleblowing framework. As I said, the Government have committed to reviewing the framework. It is clearly a major priority of mine, and it has been since I joined the Department. My right hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills made the important point that while we must ensure we protect the right people, we do not want to allow for vexatious whistleblowers because that could have a detrimental impact on businesses and other organisations. It is important that we protect those who should be protected.

Indeed, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North said, we must protect the people who would have blown the whistle had they had confidence in the framework. That is one of the big problems here. People are not coming forward because of their concerns and because of what has happened to other whistleblowers. That includes, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle mentioned, Jonathan Taylor, who blew the whistle in the oil scandal and was pretty much under house arrest for a year in Croatia. That was disgraceful treatment.

As I said, making progress on the review has been a priority of mine from day one. There will be an announcement on that very, very soon. That is what we are expecting. We are keen to engage with parliamentarians from across the House, both here and in the other place. Once that review is announced, I am keen to engage particularly with my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle so she can make her points about the right way forward in terms of the provisions we need to make and future changes to legislation.

My hon. Friend talked about the policyholder for this particular brief and whether it should be the Department for Business and Trade or the Cabinet Office, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills suggested. I am very keen to keep it under my auspices, because, as Members have said in the debate today, I have a long-standing interest in this particular area. I am very keen and ambitious for it, so I am keen to keep hold of it. However, it is right to point out that it is the legislation around whistleblowing and employment that is held with me. Of course, the particular issues around Departments—the whistleblowing requirements—are held by each individual Department. For example, as my hon. Friend the Member for Erewash will confirm, whistleblowing in the NHS is very much a matter for the Department for Health and Social Care. That is the right situation regarding this particular policy.

[Wendy Morton]

From my experience as a Minister, I know how whistleblowing policy does cut into other Departments. I understand the Minister’s passion and willingness to drive this policy forward, but looking to the future, in whatever work he is doing can he really ensure that it embraces all of Government? That is why I was pointing towards the Cabinet Office.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I quite understand my right hon. Friend’s point and why she made it. My view, both as a Back Bencher and as a Minister, is that we need to work more on a cross-Government basis than perhaps we do now to make sure that these kinds of measure are properly implemented across Government.

A number of Members, including the spokesman for the Scottish National party, the hon. Member for West Dunbartonshire, talked about NDAs. As he will know, being a member of the legal fraternity—