Fleur Anderson MP: speeches

Speeches

• 15 Jan 2025 · Employer National Insurance Contributions: Job Creation · Hansard source

  More

  There are many pressures on businesses that we are constantly assessing and talking to businesses about. The hon. Member is right to raise the subject of job creation in Northern Ireland; it is a priority for this Government. We are supporting businesses in many ways, including through Invest Northern Ireland’s fund for small businesses, and by directly supporting jobseekers through our funding for employment support schemes.

• 15 Jan 2025 · Employer National Insurance Contributions: Job Creation · Hansard source

  More

  Even after accounting for employer national insurance contribution impacts, the Office for Budget Responsibility expects real wages to rise by 3%. Raising the revenue to fill the £22 billion black hole required us to take difficult decisions, but they will result in improved public services, which is good for all people in Northern Ireland.

• 15 Jan 2025 · Supply of Goods: EU Regulations · Hansard source

  More

  The Government are absolutely committed to ensuring a smooth flow of goods across the UK internal market. We understand that many companies have adapted easily to GPSR, while for some it is more difficult. The Secretary of State has met the Minister for business this week to discuss further guidance and assurance, and will continue to have such discussions.

• 15 Jan 2025 · Supply of Goods: EU Regulations · Hansard source

  More

  The updated EU general product safety regulations largely formalise how businesses already operate in the UK, and the majority of businesses have adapted to continue trading within the UK and with the EU. In December, the Government published guidance for businesses on the application of the regulations in Northern Ireland. The Secretary of State has this week met ministerial colleagues, and will keep this under review.

• 7 Jan 2025 · Draft Representation of the People (Northern Ireland) (Amendment) Regulations 2025 · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That the Committee has considered the draft Representation of the People (Northern Ireland) (Amendment) Regulations 2025. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Mundell. As we set out in our manifesto, this Government are committed to strengthening and encouraging participation in our democracy. The draft regulations will help to achieve that by ensuring that those who remain eligible to be registered, but who did not respond to the last electoral canvass, can remain registered while attempts are made to contact them. I thank the Electoral Commission and the chief electoral officer for Northern Ireland for their support in the design of the retention framework that is set out in the draft regulations. Unlike the process in Great Britain, there is no annual canvass in Northern Ireland. Instead, the CEO is required to conduct a canvass at least every 10 years; the last was held in 2021. During the canvass, all eligible individuals must respond by completing a full new application form; otherwise, they risk removal from the register. The current law provides that individuals who do not respond to a canvass can be retained for up to three years if the CEO continues to be satisfied of their eligibility; such individuals are called retained electors. The CEO is able to assess eligibility by cross-checking the register with local and Government data. Following the 2021 canvass, there are 87,000 retained electors on the register, or approximately 6% of the electorate in Northern Ireland. As that canvass took place three years ago, under the existing provisions they would all be removed from the register next month. That is why it is really important that we are all here today. The CEO’s assessment is that almost all of these retained electors remain eligible. The draft regulations would correct the position by extending the retention period from three to six years. Given that three years have already elapsed since the 2021 canvass, the current retained cohort will start the new framework in year four of the 10-year cycle and will be subject to the provisions relating to years four to six of the scheme. Electors retained on the register following any subsequent canvass, including the one scheduled for 2030, will be subject to the steps for years one to six. Crucially, the new provisions stipulate the required minimum engagements by the CEO in each retention year to encourage re-registration, including an annual audit of retained electors and a framework of correspondence. The provisions are designed to prevent the loss of retained electors, which would have a negative impact on the quality of the electoral register in Northern Ireland and would potentially disenfranchise electors. The CEO is clear that he has full confidence in the quality of the data available, allowing him confidence in retention and removals where they are warranted. Owing to additional data and improvements in data science, the data available is of a much higher quality than when the current law was conceived. I will explain a little more about the details of the framework. The draft regulations will introduce a new residence audit that the CEO will be required to conduct annually to check residence details of retained electors against the external data available. Where the audit raises a question as to the elector’s residence, a removal warning notice must be sent. If the elector does not re-register within 28 days of the notice, they will be removed from the register. In years one to three following the canvass, if the CEO remains satisfied as a result of the audit that the elector remains eligible to be on the register, no further action will be taken. However, in years four to five of the electoral cycle, which is where we are now, if the CEO is satisfied that retained electors remain resident, they will be sent a household notice showing which electors must re-register or risk removal. They will not, at that stage, be removed, but the primary legislation is clear that non-respondents may not be retained indefinitely. Consequently, in the sixth and final year, all remaining retained electors will be sent up to three notices informing them that they will be removed if they do not re-register. If they fail to respond, they will then be removed. The purpose of the framework is to ensure that reasonable efforts are made to prevent the loss of eligible electors from the register. As the last canvass was held in 2021, only those provisions in the regulations concerning years four to six will apply to the current retained electors. I hope that the Committee agrees that these changes will encourage and secure participation in the democratic process in Northern Ireland.

• 7 Jan 2025 · Draft Representation of the People (Northern Ireland) (Amendment) Regulations 2025 · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Members for Brentwood and Ongar and for South Antrim for raising those questions. The draft regulations are an important piece of legislation and it is important to get them right. The number of retained electors sounds very high, but given the total electorate of 1.36 million, some 87,000 is not an unusually high number in the history of elections in Northern Ireland. It is increasingly difficult to get people to fill out forms, but we hope that by enabling electors to be retained for another three years, the draft regulations—along with a concerted effort of correspondence and checking—will increase the number. The draft regulations set out how the CEO will try to contact non-respondents. The CEO does not consider that the number is unusually high or that it represents a particular spike. The numbers who are not on the electoral roll, but could potentially be on it, are in line with the standard across the United Kingdom. The CEO has made assurances about the reliability of the data, which is achieved through cross-checking it with other systems. If, as a result of cross-checking with other Government data, someone is found to have moved, they will be asked to be removed from the system. Those who are retained are on the system in another area of Government data, so the reliability of data can be assured. The harmonising of the system in Great Britain is a whole other issue, but making the draft regulations will give the Government an extra three years to consider what changes could be made and to look again at the issue. We will be looking at other ways in which to increase democratic participation; it will be a subject of discussion for the next three years, but the draft regulations will enable exactly that. There is a different history in Northern Ireland, which is why there are different systems, so a direct harmonisation is not as easy as it sounds, but it needs to be discussed. The shadow Secretary of State asked about using voter ID. I do not know about speculation in the press, but I can ask the relevant Minister to get back to him on the question of when it will be discussed. I know that the Government are committed to extending the franchise to 16 and 17-year-olds; that will be on the table for the next few years and it will be discussed. In answer to a question asked by the hon. Member for South Antrim, the CEO has confidence, but I will ask for a breakdown of the numbers by constituency. It will be interesting for hon. Members and others to see whether there are differences, discrepancies or reasons why there are fewer retained electors in certain constituencies. Cross-checking is done with other data. Can an individual query the register? That is a system for the CEO to look at. The draft regulations will put the method of using cross-checking every year into legislation, but an individual querying whether another person should be on the electoral register is a different matter entirely. I thank both hon. Members for their questions and thank all hon. Members present, as well as my Northern Ireland Office officials and the Clerks, for being here so that we could consider the draft regulations, enabling us to ensure that we strengthen the electoral system by doing all we can to encourage engagement in democracy. Confidence that the system works for us all is essential. I am pleased to commend the draft regulations to the Committee. Question put and agreed to.

• 6 Dec 2024 · European Union (Withdrawal Arrangements) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I do not know where in the world mutual enforcement has worked. I understand how it can work in some limited ways, but not in the wholesale way outlined by the right hon. Member. I am afraid it is in the tradition of unreal answers to real and complex challenges to which the Windsor framework remains the only credible solution.

• 6 Dec 2024 · European Union (Withdrawal Arrangements) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Let me begin by expressing thanks to all those who have contributed to this debate so far—I am sure that there will be many more after me—and to the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister). He has set out his view to the House with the same ardour as he did a fortnight ago, although at greater length than he was allowed to in Westminster Hall, and he made his case during his time in Stormont as well. It is important to restate to him what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland said to this House a fortnight ago, which is that the Government want Northern Ireland to prosper and flourish as an important part of the Union. On that, many of us will find agreement. We are here to do what is best for the people of Northern Ireland. I also reiterate the Government’s commitment to both the Windsor framework and to the UK internal market. It was on that point that the Secretary of State respectfully disagreed with the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim in this House a fortnight ago. I will set out the Government’s objection to this Bill, which is not compatible with international law, does not account for Northern Ireland’s unique circumstances, and would in effect take away powers that are given to the Northern Ireland Assembly to make decisions about Northern Ireland. It would result in a regulatory black hole that would be very bad for businesses, jobs, growth, the Northern Ireland economy and the rest of the United Kingdom. I will start by outlining some of the good news for the Northern Ireland economy—news that shows what the Windsor framework, the prospect of stability, the Executive returning, and the stability of a new Labour Government are doing for the economic outlook in Northern Ireland. The Northern Ireland composite economic index indicates that economic output increased by 0.4% over the quarter to June 2024 and by 2.3% over the year. Ulster University’s economic policy centre shows that Northern Ireland has a forecasted growth rate of 1.4% in 2024 and 1.7% in 2025. The region’s economy is performing better than was expected at the start of the year. This has been driven by strong growth in employment, particularly in the transport, construction and health sectors. The Northern Ireland Statistics and Research Agency’s interdepartmental business register shows that the number of businesses registered for VAT or pay-as-you-earn operating in Northern Ireland in 2022 is estimated to have risen by 1,550 since 2021 to 77,640, and is continuing to increase. [ Official Report , 6 January 2025; Vol. 759, c. 4WC.] (Correction) I could go on and on; I have a longer list of the good news stories for Northern Ireland. The economy is working, but all the businesses I speak to talk about the need for stability, and the underlying premise of this Bill would change that stability. We would go into uncertainty and chaos, which would not be good for the Northern Ireland economy.

• 6 Dec 2024 · European Union (Withdrawal Arrangements) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I will give way, but I will not do so too much, as I will not have time to go through all my points otherwise.

• 6 Dec 2024 · European Union (Withdrawal Arrangements) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  It would be dangerous.

• 6 Dec 2024 · European Union (Withdrawal Arrangements) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  There are absolutely minimal stops along the border. It is not a hard border, but circumstances would be very different under the Bill, which implies an ideological hard Brexit—

• 6 Dec 2024 · European Union (Withdrawal Arrangements) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I will make some progress now, because time is running out in this debate and I want to get to the end. On the consent vote, it is simply wrong to claim that all major decisions in Northern Ireland require cross-community agreement. As the hon. Member for Belfast South and Mid Down (Claire Hanna) pointed out, cross-community agreement was not required for Northern Ireland to leave the EU and is not a requirement for constitutional change, in line with the principle of consent in the Good Friday agreement. The reality is that the Good Friday agreement never envisaged a device such as the consent vote, so the arrangements for that vote were determined by this House and the amendments that it made to the Northern Ireland Act. Let me briefly thank right hon. and hon. Members who have contributed to the debate, including my hon. Friend the Member for Bootle (Peter Dowd), the right hon. Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson), the hon. Members for North Down (Alex Easton) and for Belfast South and Mid Down, the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith), my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing Southall (Deirdre Costigan) and the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart), and others who have yet to contribute. I am grateful to Members for raising many issues, which I will take away. I am also grateful for the comments from the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar and others about continuing to speak, and about dialogue. I turn now to the substance of the Bill. I shall set out three reasons why the Government cannot support it today. First, the Bill cannot be said to be compatible with international law. I know that the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim has made assertions about international law, but the absolute truth is that the Bill is premised on replacing the agreed measures under the Windsor framework with unilateralism and uncertainty. In the circumstances, that would constitute a breach of the UK’s agreements, which would be unlawful under international law. This Government are committed to the rule of the law and to meeting the UK’s international obligations, and the Bill contains a set of unilateral measures that do no such thing. This is not an abstract matter; it is a matter of consequence. We must be clear that it is never in any nation’s interests to flagrantly disregard international law and treaty obligations. Doing so would weaken our standing abroad and our prospects for beneficial international agreements in the future, which matters, particularly for Northern Ireland. As the House knows, the Government were elected with a mandate to reset our relationship with the EU and tear down trade barriers, including by negotiating a sanitary and phytosanitary agreement. Hon. Members have raised concerns about the operation of the Windsor framework, but there is significant potential for practical issues to be improved or addressed through the negotiation of such an agreement. That is in the best interests of Northern Ireland, and it is in the interests of the United Kingdom as a whole, but a nation that turns its back on prior commitments cannot hope to persuade others to enter new and beneficial arrangements. I know that, as a proud Unionist, the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim will appreciate the potential benefits of such an agreement to Northern Ireland and to strengthening the Union, so I confess that I am somewhat baffled that he is promoting legislation that would be so detrimental to the prospect of securing future agreements. It is playing fast and loose with the rule of law, which is very bad for business. The Bill would create conditions in which businesses and citizens can never be certain about which rules will be respected and which will not. It would create uncertainty over the regulatory framework on which businesses in Northern Ireland now rely to trade, including the ability to trade across the island of Ireland without friction. It would do so automatically by bringing down a hard guillotine on the trading arrangements in just three months, leaving businesses no time to adjust. It would be an economic shock. In my time working on international development campaigns, I saw at first hand at the World Trade Organisation what regulatory certainty and uncertainty can do for the prospects of small businesses, the jobs they create and the economies they contribute to. I can personally attest that it is better for those businesses to work on the basis of agreed trade arrangements than to leave them stranded in the choppy waters of regulatory uncertainty. Secondly, the Bill does nothing to account for Northern Ireland’s unique circumstances. Let us be honest: these issues have been discussed, debated, analysed and dissected in this House for nearly a decade now, as other Members have said. They have occupied the political life of the nation for some time, and it is right that they have done so. The concerns of the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim, and those of right hon. and hon. Members from the Democratic Unionist party and the Ulster Unionist party, are real and legitimate, and deserve to be taken seriously. But, although I understand and respect the strength of feeling behind the Bill, I say respectfully to the hon. and learned Gentleman that neither this Bill, nor the similar variations on its proposal that have been advanced over the past nine years, do anything to address the practical issues in a more stable and sustainable manner than the Windsor framework addresses them.

• 6 Dec 2024 · European Union (Withdrawal Arrangements) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Member for mentioning one area in which this process would be disallowed. However, there is a long list of areas on which we are currently working, in which systems are working well, that would be disapplied. We could go back to 1880 and the Acts of Union, when there actually were differences between the island of Ireland and the rest of the UK, and I could say more about those, but I will end my speech by saying this. I believe that if the Bill were passed, far from strengthening our constitutional settlement—although I am sure that the right hon. and learned Member for North Antrim would wish that to be the case—it would weaken the UK’s constitutional foundations and its international standing immeasurably. It would not be good for businesses in Northern Ireland, and it would not be good for the people of Northern Ireland. For those reasons, the Government will be voting against the Bill today.

• 6 Dec 2024 · European Union (Withdrawal Arrangements) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  No, I will make some progress now.

• 6 Dec 2024 · European Union (Withdrawal Arrangements) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Several years ago, former Prime Minister Boris Johnson told us that there was an oven-ready deal. That was clearly not the case, because we are still discussing this. The hon. and learned Member has mentioned mutual enforcement, but nowhere in the world does mutual enforcement happen wholesale under trading regulations between countries. The only workable deal that has been struck was reached not by politics, but through a pragmatic working out, and that is the Windsor framework. Is he selling something that cannot actually work? The mutual enforcement idea has been described by the EU Commission as magical thinking.

• 6 Dec 2024 · European Union (Withdrawal Arrangements) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I am going to make progress. As I said earlier, the core challenge remains the trilemma: how do we preserve the integrity of the UK’s internal market, avoid a hard border on the island of Ireland, and respect the legitimate interests of our EU partners in protecting their single market, just as we seek to protect ours? The Windsor framework provides an answer to a very difficult question. I say simply that, across several elections, the vast majority of right hon. and hon. Members elected to this place have been elected on a platform of avoiding a hard border. For good reason, then, we need to support the Windsor framework. Thirdly, the Bill would serve to prejudice the democratic decision that the Northern Ireland Assembly is making itself. Last month, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland initiated the progress for the Northern Ireland Assembly to decide on the continued application of articles 5 to 10 of the Windsor framework. That vote is provided for in the Windsor framework and under domestic law, which was strengthened under the terms of “Safeguarding the Union”. It is now a matter for Northern Ireland’s elected representatives to decide on. I am pleased that the elected representatives of the people of Northern Ireland are able, as part of the functioning devolved institutions, to exercise the important democratic scrutiny functions included in the Windsor framework. The Bill would fatally undermine the powers that those in the Assembly have over scrutinising regulations that apply in Northern Ireland. The Government will only support sustainable arrangements for Northern Ireland that work for business, protect the UK’s internal market and uphold our international obligations. The Windsor framework does just that, and the Government are firmly committed to it, just as stridently as we are committed to the UK internal market and to Northern Ireland flourishing within a strengthened Union. Just as important is that we will be honest with the people of Northern Ireland about what is and is not possible, and what the trade-offs are with various options. There will be no more magical thinking; no reopening of the wardrobe into a political Narnia of mythical solutions to the practical issues that we must consider in respect of trade; and no more simplifications that work as soundbites but do not stand up in reality. At this crucial time, the people of Northern Ireland deserve honesty.

• 6 Dec 2024 · European Union (Withdrawal Arrangements) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I will come to his important point on the 300 areas of laws, because it is important to put that in context. However, I reiterate that having a framework within which to negotiate is better for all those areas than not having one, resetting things and trying to do in just three months what has been done and talked about for the past eight years. That is what this Bill would do. I will cover the points made by the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim and by others. They were sincerely made, but the Government sincerely disagree. Before I come to the substance of the Bill, it is important that this House should deal in facts, and I am afraid that the opening speech of the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim contained a number of factual inaccuracies that it is important to correct. He claimed that a Stormont brake is nothing more than a request from the Assembly for the law to be disapplied. Back-seat driving was referred to. That is incorrect. In fact, schedule 6B of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 places a strict legal duty on the Government to act where the brake is validly used by Members of the Northern Ireland Assembly. The hon. and learned Gentleman has used hyperbolic and frankly incendiary language, impugning the motives of our partners and allies, all the while ignoring the fact that this House voted for the arrangements that now apply. I can only presume that he supports the sovereignty of this Parliament. Indeed, he has opposed the existence of the Northern Ireland Assembly under the Good Friday agreement, so he should reflect on the fact that the Windsor framework represents the democratic will of this House. He made repeated reference to the 300 areas where EU law is applicable to Northern Ireland. He ignores the fact that, under the Windsor framework, more than 1,700 pages of EU law, with accompanying European Court of Justice jurisdiction, have been disapplied. They cover areas such as VAT, medicines, which were referred to, and food safety; the UK Government can decide on them, and UK courts can interpret issues to do with them. I have my own views on the whole process, but that was faithfully applied after the democratic vote to withdraw from the EU.

• 6 Dec 2024 · European Union (Withdrawal Arrangements) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  There was this trilemma, involving the integrity of the UK internal market; avoiding a hard border on the island of Ireland; and respecting that our EU partners have a legitimate interest, and being able to co-ordinate trade with it. Those 300 regulations, which are a very small amount of the whole, allow for things like dairy farmers moving milk over the border and back, which I am sure the hon. and learned Gentleman would agree is necessary. They allow for smooth movement of trade. Those remaining regulations enable businesses in Northern Ireland to go about their business. The hon. and learned Gentleman has claimed that the vast majority of veterinary medicines are at risk of being discontinued at the end of next year. That is also incorrect. He is right that there are ongoing issues that the Government are working hard with industry and farmers to address, and I am glad that they have been raised by Members today. However, he is simply wrong to say that the vast majority of veterinary medicines are at risk, and engagement with industry suggests no such thing. The hon. and learned Gentleman claimed that the Windsor framework has caused shortages in medicines for diabetes. Again, that is incorrect. Various factors can sometimes give rise to gaps in medicine supplies across the United Kingdom. The overwhelming majority of medicines are in good supply, and we have well-established processes to manage supply issues. His claim that such issues are in any way a result of the Windsor framework, or are specific to Northern Ireland, is wrong. The hon. and learned Gentleman held up the Good Friday agreement and asked where it demands that there be no border infrastructure on the island of Ireland. I know he has his own reservations about that agreement; perhaps that is why the facts have not been understood. That agreement was one of the proudest achievements of the last Labour Government, and the peace and security it has produced are premised in no small part on the normalisation of security. The absence of a hard border is an overwhelmingly good thing. The hon. and learned Gentleman asked for quotes, and I shall oblige him. The agreement committed to a normalisation of security arrangements and practices, and committed the British Government to “the objective of as early a return as possible to normal security arrangements”. The common travel area has existed for more than a century, and is integral to the movement of people and goods on the island of Ireland.

• 6 Dec 2024 · European Union (Withdrawal Arrangements) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  indicated assent .

• 6 Dec 2024 · European Union (Withdrawal Arrangements) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I hope the right hon. Member understands that I am talking about the difference between a hard border and a soft border. The Windsor framework enables the smooth flow of trade, which is good for businesses on both sides of the border and also safeguards the Union. The Windsor framework does not damage the Union; it actually strengthens it and ensures that it can continue.

• 6 Dec 2024 · European Union (Withdrawal Arrangements) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I am going to make some progress. To the Government’s mind, this commitment to normal security arrangements could not be met, under the common travel area arrangements, with a hard border of the sort that the Bill would institute. The hon. and learned Gentleman indicated that, come what may, he wants his part of the UK enabled to follow the rest out of the EU. I need not remind him that the whole of the UK left the European Union, and that the debate has been settled. We can see that he would prefer that damaging hard border for Northern Ireland.

• 6 Dec 2024 · European Union (Withdrawal Arrangements) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I listened carefully to the examples that the hon. Gentleman gave on behalf of his constituents. They are concerning, and we need to listen to them carefully. I absolutely understand the concerns raised by other Members in this debate as well. It is useful to have this debate, so that we can talk about those issues, but without the Windsor framework, there would be no framework from within which to negotiate changes. Many changes have been made since the establishment of the Windsor framework, and that shows that it can flex, allow negotiation, and allow for practices and schemes, such as the internal market scheme, that enable the smooth flow of trade. That is the benefit of having the Windsor framework, rather than ditching it.

• 27 Nov 2024 · Northern Ireland Assembly: BME Representation · Hansard source

  More

  I am horrified to hear of that online abuse, and I am horrified to hear of any abuse that any politicians receive. I commend Jay for his courage in saying, “Actually, this is not putting me off. I want to stand again.” The hon. Member is quite right to raise this matter, as we would all want to do, and to show support for Jay and others who want to be able to say that they can stand and not receive such abuse. We should call it out whenever we see it.

• 27 Nov 2024 · Northern Ireland Assembly: BME Representation · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend for raising this issue. I would like to start by paying tribute to Anna Lo, who passed away earlier this month. As the first ethnic minority politician elected to the Assembly, she was a trailblazer, and I extend my sympathies to her family and friends. The Northern Ireland Assembly currently has no Members from ethnic minorities or ethnic minority backgrounds. I have met many community groups that have raised this matter with me. The key to changing it is the membership and selection processes of the political parties in Northern Ireland, and we should think about what we can all do as Members to speak with people from ethnic minority backgrounds and represent them.

• 27 Nov 2024 · Northern Ireland Assembly: BME Representation · Hansard source

  More

  I recently met Lilian Seenoi Barr, the first mayor in Northern Ireland from an ethnic minority background, who is showing the way for others. I agree that people must see themselves represented, so I join my hon. Friend in urging all parties across Northern Ireland to look at their selection processes and their invitations to meetings, and to make sure that all parties welcome everyone from every background.