Sarah Russell MP: speeches

Speeches

• 2 Jul 2025 · Whistleblowers · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Turner. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset (Lloyd Hatton) for securing this debate. As is well known, I worked as a solicitor prior to coming to this place, and I advised a significant number of clients on whistleblowing matters. Based on that experience, I think my hon. Friend is quite right that whistleblowers make an immense contribution to society and that their protection is extremely important. I will take this opportunity to highlight two gaps in the law as I saw them in practice. The first relates to who is covered by the existing law. The EU whistleblowing directive would have introduced in this country coverage for self-employed people under the purview of the whistleblowing Act, but of course we have left the EU, so I assume we will not be implementing it. That is a terrible shame, because self-employed people are really important in this picture. I have some casework relevant to this matter that I cannot refer to because it is going through tribunal, but in 2022 Inside Housing magazine found that, post Grenfell, fire risk assessors were coming under pressure from their employers or, if they were self-employed, their commissioners to downgrade their assessment of fire risk in social housing, because it is so expensive to remediate. In other words, fire risk assessors were whistleblowing that they were concerned that, when they had to make a professional judgment about danger, they were being put under pressure to assess things as being less dangerous than they actually were. A lot of fire risk assessors are self-employed and are incredibly vulnerable, particularly if they have a major social housing client, as many do. They have all the vulnerability of being a whistleblower but none of the protection of employment legislation. They also work for other people, so they are not an employee and may not meet the definition of worker, so they are currently completely excluded. Protect has been campaigning for us to introduce protection into the law, and the EU has recognised that we need protection in law for self-employed people who whistleblow. I would very much like to see the law changed. It would be in the best interests of the whole country and everybody’s safety if we did so. The second problem with whistleblowing law is that it is hard to advise a client that it is worth their taking the risk to bring a case because it is very difficult to prove reliably that what caused the breakdown of the relationship with their employer is the fact that they whistleblew. Employers understandably do not want to admit that their employee was mistreated because they whistleblew, to the extent that they systematically delude themselves about why that person was excluded and subsequently dismissed. There are two ways in which that happens. In a financial services context, I have seen a person’s performance being heavily criticised as “non-commercial”. What that actually means is that the person is not giving the advice that people want to hear, which is quite different from not being commercial; it means that the person actually has regard for the law, and that is unpopular. We have seen examples of that. It is well known that the in-house counsel for the Post Office stopped being invited to meetings because she was not providing the advice on the law that people wanted to hear, so the board and the chief exec just started shutting her out. It definitely happens in legal contexts and financial services contexts. People’s performance starts to be criticised very heavily, but to the person advising them there will be a systematic set of evidence that shows that they were being performance managed. The person advising the client has to tell them, “This is high risk. Your employer is going to say that you were underperforming. I am going to say, on your behalf, that you were being penalised for whistleblowing, but some of this will depend on what the tribunal finds on the day.” That is quite a difficult environment in which to advise people to continue to whistleblow. The second line of case law that is really problematic in a whistleblowing context is about the irreconcilable breakdown of relationships. There is a whole line of case law about how badly people fall out with their colleagues when they start whistleblowing. I have seen that in an NHS context—in fact, the line of case law comes from an NHS context. The employer says, “Oh, no—you haven’t been penalised for whistleblowing. You’re an impossible human being. You are impossible to work with. You have fallen out with all your colleagues and you have been dismissed completely legitimately for another substantial reason: you cannot work with anyone, and that is compromising patient safety.” I have watched an NHS trust systematically trying to line up a member of staff—it is clear from reading the papers—to say that they absolutely cannot get on with their colleagues any more. It carried out independent investigations to find that the person cannot get on with their colleagues. The reason why the person cannot get on with their colleagues is that they are repeatedly raising concerns about their clinical practice, which those people do not want to hear, so they all round on the whistleblower. The case law on the irreconcilable breakdown of relationships is hugely problematic for whistleblowers, and we need clarity in the law such that employers cannot hide behind—or frankly, construct—an irreconcilable breakdown of the relationship to hide, and make potentially lawful, a dismissal that in any other circumstance would clearly be a whistleblowing dismissal. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset for securing the debate, and I look forward to hearing from the Minister. There is a significant need for legal change in this area.

• 3 Jun 2025 · Dementia Care · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Member for South Devon (Caroline Voaden) for securing this debate. Caring for a relative with dementia is one of the most tremendously difficult things that many people will ever have to do. I pay tribute to the many people in my constituency who are caring for a relative with dementia; it is incredibly challenging. Over time I have spoken to many people on the doorstep whose relatives were suffering from dementia, and who were finding things very difficult. When I read a dementia care plan, I saw that 51% of carers providing unpaid care in my constituency are providing more than 100 hours a week. That is the most phenomenal commitment, and I thank ever so much all those who are doing that. I have heard the Minister speak extremely movingly about his family’s experiences and I know that he is very committed to improving dementia care in this country. However, it is shocking that at present only about 67% of people with dementia in my constituency will actually receive a diagnosis. I recently spoke to a resident whose mother has been in a care home with advanced dementia for three years, but is still undiagnosed. As long as we do not have a full set of diagnoses, we cannot properly explore good healthcare outcomes for people, what proportionate spend would look like and how we can improve the system generally. A huge amount of unpaid care is provided by women—although, of course, there are people of all genders providing it and I salute everyone who does so—which is one reason why the gender pay gap doubles when women are in their 40s. Work by the Women’s Budget Group has shown that as well as improving the wellbeing of those providing that care, investment in the care sector could create 2.7 times as many jobs as the same amount of investment in construction. I do not think that we should be providing better care just because there is a good economic basis for doing so—we should be doing it because it is the right thing to do—but it is important to note that there would be huge economic benefits. I welcome the Government’s launch of an independent commission into adult social care as the first step towards creating a national care service. In Cheshire East, there has been inconsistent funding of Admiral nurses, which has led to inconsistent support. I have been impressed by the care provided by local hospices; although traditionally associated with cancer care, they are now often involved in dementia care. I would like us to provide more funding for hospice care as soon as we are able to do so. The services that people receive are hugely important to them, whether they are delivered in the community or in care homes. A dentist in my constituency has told me that due to an issue with insurance, many dentists are no longer covered to provide services in care homes, which is a huge loss as those people deserve dental care. The Alzheimer’s Society has called for dementia training for paid carers, and I agree that we should be moving to do that at pace. I want to thank not just the unpaid carers, but the volunteers in my constituency who are doing the most incredible work. In Congleton, we have the Congleton Lions dementia buddy scheme and the New Life church “Forget-me-not” group for carers and those living with dementia; we have over 1,000 Dementia Friends in Sandbach and the “Bring me sunshine” group at Sandbach library; we have memory cafés at Alsager library, Astbury village hall and Holmes Chapel Methodist church; and I would like to say a huge thank you to everyone involved in making Holmes Chapel a dementia-friendly village. I have not captured the full range of support provided and I apologise to the groups that I may not have picked up on, but the variety of services provided by people on an unpaid basis across my community is staggering. However, that does not take away from the fact that we need the right paid services for people in their homes and subsequently in care homes, if that becomes the right choice for families. I thank everyone who is providing enormous support to the people who they care for, across our entire society. I know that hon. Members from all parties will agree that we need to provide more support to those giving that care.

• 16 May 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. On that point, does my hon. Friend agree with my concerns about new clause 2, which, although genuinely meant and intended, is in danger of being read, together with new clause 1, to indicate that it should not be discussed with children at all, even if they raised it first, because of the difference between the wording of the two clauses?

• 16 May 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Will my hon. Friend give way?

• 16 May 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend for giving way. On that point, I have particular concerns—

• 15 May 2025 · Solar Farms · Hansard source

  More

  The climate crisis grows more urgent, and our children’s future is under threat. Solar energy will play a crucial role in the mission to produce secure, affordable energy in this country. Since the general election, the Government have consented to more solar power projects than were consented to over the entirety of the past 14 years. Great British Energy is investing £200 million in new rooftop solar energy panels, including for the roof of the newly built Leighton hospital near my constituency, and in renewable energy schemes for schools, hospitals and communities. That will take hundreds of millions of pounds off public sector energy bills. New building standards will ensure that all new build houses and commercial buildings are fit for a net zero future. The standards are expected to encourage the installation of solar panels, and I welcome that. It is critical that we exclude slave labour from the supply chain for solar panels, both on moral grounds and to enable alternative producers to compete on a fair playing field. Much of the global supply of solar-grade polysilicon —a key component of solar panels—is manufactured in Xinjiang, China, where over 1 million Uyghur Muslims are imprisoned in a vast network of forced labour camps. This week, I met people from Open Doors to learn more about its work tackling religious persecution around the world. It said in its 2022 report that “In Xinjiang you are always watched; a computer decides your fate, against which there is no appeal.”

• 2 Apr 2025 · Non-disclosure Agreements · Hansard source

  More

  Members who have heard me speak on these issues before—I do so a lot—know that I am a solicitor specialising in employment law. I am not currently practising, but I spent 13 years doing employment and particularly discrimination law work. A small amount of it was for small employers, but predominantly it was for employees. I have seen a lot of settlement agreements—pretty much every client I ever had ended up with one—and it is extremely unusual for them not to contain some form of NDA. The typical wording states that the person cannot discuss the terms of the agreement, nor the circumstances surrounding the termination of their employment. There are too many difficulties to unpack in seven minutes, but one is that some of the people who put forward the agreements are not solicitors. A lot of businesses have a human resources adviser who is not regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority. Many of them are good people who do a good job of providing affordable advice to businesses; I do not want to universally condemn HR consultants. The reality is that at some point they will have been given a precedent settlement agreement by a solicitor—we might be talking 20 years ago—and those agreements contain NDAs, so they are still in widespread use. As a solicitor, I would go back and say, “But if my client can’t say anything about the circumstances concerning the termination of their employment, what are they supposed to say to their new employer when they try to get a new job?” Some employers would agree to negotiate some sort of vague wording such as “left by mutual agreement”, so the person could at least say that, but some of them would just say flat out, “There’s money on the table. Your client can take it or leave it.” But the client faces significant legal bills, and although the employment tribunals were hypothetically designed to enable them to represent themselves, the reality is that if it is a complex discrimination claim and they have a mental health problem—either because their claim related to it in the first place or because they developed one after they were treated so badly in their employment—they may not be able to face the prospect of an unrepresented employment tribunal claim. It is all well and good that the Solicitors Regulation Authority has said that people should not put forward NDA clauses, but they are still in extremely widespread circulation. The flipside is that in order for someone to be persuaded to sign a settlement agreement, there is a requirement that the employer pays for them to have some legal advice. The standard legal advice offer is somewhere between £250 and £500, and for low-paid people the standard is still £250. The reality of the legal market is that no specialist employment lawyer will explain a potentially 20-page legal document to the person, send them follow-up written advice and renegotiate the terms for £250. People on low pay can go to a lawyer who for £250 will perhaps take them through the terms of the agreement and explain what they mean, but then they have run out money, so that is the end of it. The terms are not renegotiated and the person just signs what is put in front of them. Senior execs can often afford the advice, which means they get it fully explained and totally renegotiated, so it is compliant at the end. A solicitor like me working against a solicitor on the other side who has put forward something that does not meet the SRA guidelines will say, “We’re not signing that—you know it’s not compliant. You’re in breach of your professional obligations, now get this off the table.” And they do—swiftly. If a person has £250 and earns £20,000 a year, there is no way that they will pay for that level of top-up legal advice. That is not happening for them at all. Most good solicitors will explain that they cannot do it for the money and tell them how much it will cost to have it done properly. The person will not be able to afford it and, at best, they end up with some really shoddy solicitor who is not necessarily a specialist employment lawyer and is prepared to sign off pretty much anything and, bluntly, leaves them completely stuck. This payment structure is enriching for non-compliant solicitors at best. There is, in theory, legal aid for people who are on very low wages or in receipt of certain benefits and who have equality claims, but that has been paid at such a low rate for such a long time that there are almost no providers whatsoever. Unless we significantly increase the hourly rate that we pay to providers, they will simply continue to hand back their contracts, which is what has happened in the majority of places. It is extremely difficult to access advice unless someone is a trade union member. There are still lots of employers who regard all this stuff as just priced in. I have had clients come to me and say, “He’s absolutely notorious—the chief exec is a complete perv.” Everyone in the organisation knows it, but the board does not care. The board can give the women 20 grand to go away, they sign an NDA and that is the end of that. We have watched the chief exec do that time after time—it is just the cost of doing business. He is regarded as the superstar who brings home the bacon, so no one cares. Those are the fundamentals for many UK employers. At UKFast, for example, the chief exec got done for raping his staff. It had been going on for years: he did not just wake up one morning and do that to one woman. He was notorious in Manchester and lots of people knew what was going on. It happens across different organisations; there is no one specific sector.

• 25 Mar 2025 · Construction Standards: New Build Homes · Hansard source

  More

  I want to talk about some of the new build housing in my constituency. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid Cheshire (Andrew Cooper)—a very able colleague—and I have had difficulties with the same set of developers, so I will hand over to him to talk about the difficulties we have had with the housing in Spen View and Astbury Park, which were dealt with by Stewart Milne Homes. I will also not be giving an honourable mention to the job that Vistry has done in Loachbrook Meadow in Congleton. It is trying to persuade my residents to take on a management company and take over management of the estate, despite the fact that it has not built the sewers or roads to adoptable standards. I can see nods around the room; it is clear to me that I am not the only one suffering with these difficulties. Currently, however, the leading problem developer in my constituency is Zenith House Developments, which produced Scholars Place in Sandbach. Scholars Place, a mixed development of detached homes and social housing, looks absolutely beautiful. Unfortunately, it was not finished with any sort of sewage pumping station, and that is as bad as one might imagine. At the moment, sewage from these homes simply goes into a well, which has a semi-piece of plasterboard covering it and is inadequately fenced, so it is totally accessible and a massive drowning hazard of excrement. It is incredibly dangerous, and it is about 200 metres, at most, from a local primary school. It is absolutely horrific. There are some real questions about whether we have sufficient legal powers in this country, given that that was ever allowed to happen. It is a public health hazard, causing sewage to back up into people’s homes and on to the streets. The road literally runs with poo. The problems associated with this development and the Spen View development have an impact on social housing providers. In both cases, there were section 106 agreements and social housing was provided. When these enormous and expensive problems occur for residents, the social housing providers that part own the shared ownership homes on such sites become financially entangled in trying to deal with the matter. Because they part own the homes, it is of course appropriate that they should help their residents. However—I suspect this is a national problem—social housing providers, which need to provide social homes, effectively have to cross-subsidise the failings of the private sector in producing these houses. It is an absolutely shocking situation. It is important to me that we implement section 42 of the Flood and Water Management Act 2010, which would improve the situation around sewer adoption, and that we have an equivalent for highways adoption. The problem across every one of the developments that I have mentioned is that the sewers and roads have not been dealt with properly. People have bought their dream homes—they are so excited—and then they find they have an enormous financial liability. It is a widespread problem in my constituency, and it is destroying people’s lives. It is destroying their mental health; the level of distress among my constituents cannot be overstated. While we are on the topic of new build homes, I will briefly touch on disability and accessibility in relation to construction standards. In London, category 4 disability access as a planning requirement has been the norm since 2004, but in the rest of the country that is not the case. Baseline category 1 only enables a household to be hypothetically visitable by a disabled person, and it does not guarantee ease of access for someone in a wheelchair. It seems to me to be a very basic minimum that homes that we are building now should be visitable by people who use wheelchairs. We have an ageing population and lots of people who are waiting for accessible housing. As a Government, we are doing a large amount of affordable housing development, which I welcome. However, I want us to ensure as a minimum that that housing is accessible and adaptable, that a significant proportion of it is fully wheelchair adaptable and that more of it is fully wheelchair accessible. I suggest we look at the planning frameworks from 2018, because they require local authorities to consider the impact of requiring accessible housing on the viability of their local plan. It is almost a requirement that housing should not be accessible if that will make it difficult to deliver the required number of homes. With the developers I have just described, of course the first thing that they say is that they cannot afford to provide accessible homes —but, of course, they can. They need to be producing good quality homes that everybody can access, in estates surrounded by safe and secure environments in which the roads and sewers are usable. That does not seem too much to ask in an advanced industrial society.

• 12 Mar 2025 · Employment Rights Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Is the hon. Gentleman not ashamed that, under his Government, hard-working ambulance drivers felt they had to go on strike?

• 12 Mar 2025 · Employment Rights Bill · Hansard source

  More

  This afternoon I want to talk about a point that I think many of us across the House would agree on: employment rights are quite useless without any sort of enforcement mechanism. I should first mention that I am a member of the Community union and the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers, and I refer everyone to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. On enforcement, I am very pleased with clause 122 increasing the time for bringing employment tribunal claims from three to six months. It is a result of extensive campaigning by Pregnant Then Screwed and other organisations including the National AIDS Trust. They were very aware on behalf of their members of something I used to see regularly as a solicitor: a lot of people who have been very badly treated in their employment are so traumatised that they cannot come forward and make their claims within the three-month time limit. In addition, that reduces the potential time available for negotiation between former employees and their former employers, which is not in the best interests of either employees or employers. It is therefore really good news for both parties that we will have this increase in the amount of time available to bring those claims. The other measure that I am particularly delighted about in the Bill is the creation of the Fair Work Agency. We absolutely need there to be accountability for employers that are not paying the national minimum wage. They are few and far between, and those that are not doing paying it need to be properly monitored and subject to enforcement, in order to create a fair playing field for all companies. I am sure that Opposition Members would completely agree that the national minimum wage is a fundamental part of our society and that everyone should be paying it. The other matter I want to draw attention to is the Adult Social Care Negotiating Body. In my constituency, significant numbers of people need adult social care, and having a stable workforce is important in delivering that.

• 11 Mar 2025 · Employment Rights Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I need to highlight to the House that I am a member of the Community and USDAW trade unions, and I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I would like to speak to various bits of this legislation today. There is so much in it, and I know that so many of us on the Government Back Benches are really pleased with what we are bringing forward. The first part of the legislation that I want to address is clause 22, which will bring forward in future legislation more protections for women who are pregnant, on maternity leave and in the period immediately following their maternity leave. I have spent the past 13 years representing large numbers of women who were either made redundant while pregnant, on maternity leave or trying to come back from maternity leave, or whose employer suddenly woke up one morning and decided that they were underperforming, often within 24 hours of their announcing their pregnancy. I had a client who had been headhunted and brought into the company, was totally stellar, doing incredibly well and got promoted, but then announced her pregnancy and within a week she was on a performance plan. HR explained to her that because they were, you know, kind and did not want to do that to her while she was pregnant, they were very generously offering her a settlement agreement so that she did not have to go through that. Lots of perfectly decent people do not understand why they are losing their jobs, and it is because they are pregnant. Pregnant Then Screwed found that 12.3% of women who have had a baby have either been sacked, constructively dismissed or made redundant while pregnant, on maternity leave or within a year of their maternity leave ending. It is a widespread problem, so it is fantastic that the Bill contains clause 22, which will allow the Minister to bring forward steps to expand the available protections. I would like to know how quickly we can do that, because pregnant women out there need that protection literally today.

• 11 Mar 2025 · Employment Rights Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I completely and utterly agree with the hon. Member. Actually, a lot of what is coming from Conservative Members is scaremongering. A lot of those discussing this behave as if employees with unfair dismissal rights were unexploded bombs. All the people I represented did not want to bring tribunal claims; they just wanted to have been treated fairly and reasonably in the first place. They were typically extremely destressed by their experiences, and for quite a lot of them, their mental health had deteriorated substantially in the course of what they had gone through. I do not think that when people have unfair dismissal rights a little bit sooner, they will all be rushing to employment tribunals the moment that something goes slightly wrong in their workplace. What most people want to do every morning is get up, go to work, do a decent job, get paid for it and go home. That is what we will continue to see after this legislation passes: that most employers want to look after their employees perfectly reasonably, and most employees want to do a perfectly decent job.

• 6 Feb 2025 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  My constituent Alison Parr has had the most appalling time trying to obtain free prescriptions on the NHS, to which her profoundly disabled daughter, Ruby, is perfectly entitled. Please may we have a debate in Government time on how the NHS and all public services can be made fully responsive to the needs to disabled people?

• 5 Feb 2025 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  Q14. Some 54,000 women a year lose their jobs when they are pregnant or on maternity leave, and one in 10 human resources managers say that they would be reluctant to hire a woman who they even thought might start a family. The law has not solved this, so will the Prime Minister please meet me, The Dad Shift and Pregnant Then Screwed to discuss the ringfenced paid paternity leave that is needed to bring about change?

• 13 Jan 2025 · Hospice and Palliative Care · Hansard source

  More

  Let me begin by paying tribute, as others have done, to some local hospices. Both St Luke’s and East Cheshire do a spectacular job, and are very well loved local institutions. I want to say a particular thank you to the staff, of course, but also to the volunteers, and the donors who are literally keeping the lights on. I greatly welcome the £100 million of capital that the Government are providing for hospices, and I ask the Minister to meet me, along with my hon. Friends the Members for Crewe and Nantwich (Connor Naismith), for Mid Cheshire (Andrew Cooper), and for Macclesfield (Tim Roca), to discuss a potential local project. On revenue funding, it would be remiss of me not to mention that St Luke’s and East Cheshire hospices receive 15% and 16% respectively of their funding from the NHS. May I ask the Minister to review that, and commit himself to a funding floor that is transparent, fair and consistent across the country? The quality of the experience that my constituents and their families have at the end of life should not depend on the generosity of individuals.

• 12 Dec 2024 · SEND Provision: Autism and ADHD · Hansard source

  More

  In respect of early diagnosis and onward support, in my constituency of Congleton we have two specific problems. First, although some children receive a diagnosis under the right to choose pathway on the NHS, others, often from more deprived backgrounds, face considerably longer waits than they would under that pathway. The impact of that on those children concerns me very much. Secondly, Cheshire East council sometimes goes for periods of time when it closes the education, health and care plan application pathway to new entrants because it is so overwhelmed by the number of applications it already has. Both those are serious issues for children in my constituency, and I thank the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire for securing this debate and giving me the opportunity to air them. Does she agree that it is a huge improvement to have a Government who are integrating SEND support and that there is so much more that we are all looking to do?

• 18 Nov 2024 · Indefinite Leave to Remain: Healthcare Workers · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Tony Vaughan) for securing this debate. There is a significant and ageing population in my constituency. There has been a 25% increase in the number over-65s since 2011 and, accordingly, a huge increase in the need for care. Prior to coming here, I was a solicitor specialising in employment rights. I worked in a law centre and saw at first hand how the issue plays out when it goes wrong—and it does go wrong. Typically, we would be approached by a care worker who was very concerned that they were being treated horrifically at work, in ways that were clearly unlawful. Unfortunately, once we gave them advice, they would not go forward with any form of complaint. They were too frightened that they would lose their visa status and their employer would create untrue allegations about them in order to have them thrown out of the country, rather than dealing with the underlying problems in the care sector. The Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority reports that 61% of all reports made to it in the first quarter of 2024 concerned labour abuse in the care sector. Many, many people work in the care sector in my constituency and many, many more spend their life savings on care. They would all be rightly horrified to experience or receive care from people who work in the circumstances that I saw at first hand in practice. The Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority website lists common signs that indicate the exploitation of care workers. It asks that if someone is visiting a loved one or a loved one is receiving care at home and they spot the signs, they contact the authority. The common signs listed are scavenging for food or eating leftovers, working excessively long hours, not being dressed adequately for the role—having insufficiently warm clothing or not having personal protective equipment—being in fear of the authorities, showing signs that their movements are being controlled, or having injuries. That is the reality of working in care in this country. That is what we all accept day to day in order to have our older people or people with disabilities looked after. Any of us would find that idea completely abhorrent. While we continue to do nothing, that is what we perpetuate in our society and all around us. There are two things that we could do. Irrespective of the subject of today’s petition—even if there was a two-year wait for rights—we need to look at the relationship between employment rights and visa status in the intervening period, because people in those first two years would still be subject to widespread abuse. The other thing that we could look at is the Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority licensing scheme, which does not currently extend to the care sector. That is a significant omission that we could review. I thank Members for listening to me today. Finally, I want to pick up on the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton Test (Satvir Kaur) about hate crime against NHS workers. When I visited Congleton War Memorial hospital recently, the chief executive made the point to me that his staff are habitually and regularly subjected to racial hatred. In raising that issue again with the House, I echo my hon. Friend, and I thank all NHS workers and all our care staff—it is appalling and we need to do something about it.

• 5 Nov 2024 · NHS Dentistry: Rural Areas · Hansard source

  More

  In my constituency, there has been an 11% decline in the number of adults who have seen an NHS dentist in just the last few years—it has been precipitous. There is a specific problem, however, with adults in care homes. I spoke to a local dentist, and she explained that the standard insurance for dentists no longer covers them visiting and performing services in care homes in the community. Can the Minister look into that, and does he agree that it is a huge problem that when vulnerable people cannot come to a dental practice, dentists cannot go to them?

• 31 Oct 2024 · Income tax (charge) · Hansard source

  More

  Does the right hon. Member accept that the Conservative Government’s decisions to reduce gas storage and to fail to invest in the NHS over long periods made dealing with those crises considerably worse?

• 23 Oct 2024 · Paternity Leave and Pay · Hansard source

  More

  I have spent the last 13 years advising women, in particular, in employment tribunals, and I have advised a lot of women who have suffered maternity discrimination. That was an absolute mainstay of my practice. My comments will be completely heteronormative; that is not to disparage any other family structures. During the pandemic, for the first time large numbers of women and men were able to work from home. I say that because prior to the pandemic I spent a lot of time advising women on flexible working requests. If they asked to work from home for one or perhaps two days a week, that was habitually turned down. They were told that it was completely impossible; employers would not hear of it. Once men did it, it became absolutely acceptable, and it is now absolutely fine in most organisations for parents of either gender to work from home for one or two days a week. If women continue to take the overwhelming majority of parental leave, they will continue to take the entire career burden and will be systematically discriminated against for it. This is a widespread issue: 54,000 women a year lose their jobs when they are pregnant or on maternity leave.

• 23 Oct 2024 · Paternity Leave and Pay · Hansard source

  More

  I completely recognise what my hon. Friend says. The risk zone for women’s careers starts when they are approximately 25 and carries on until they are at least 45. I have been advised not to wear my wedding ring to interviews because I was likely to be viewed as a pregnancy risk. Until we deal with that—until men take significant amounts of leave and are paid properly to do it—we will continue to face this issue, and women will be systematically discriminated against, as she says, whether they have children or not. Approximately 12% of employers disclosed in a YouGov poll that they were reluctant to hire a woman simply because she might become pregnant. This is a widespread issue, whether women have children or not. We need non-transferable, “use it or lose it” parental leave for the second parent and we must ensure that that is paid at a rate such that people are actually able to take the leave. Once we have that and it becomes the default minimum—some fathers will choose to take significantly longer—everyone will be a risk, and everyone will be able to have career development. That will change the entire attitude towards maternity leave in our society. As I said, 54,000 women a year lose their jobs when pregnant or on maternity leave. All the women I advised thought they were just individually unlucky but given the volume of them I can say that they were not unlucky—it was systematic.

• 22 Oct 2024 · Whistleblowing Protections · Hansard source

  More

  I thank all those who have spoken before me in such an informative manner and to my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell) for securing the debate. I have advised numerous whistleblowers throughout my career. Some themes emerge from the experience that speak directly to the points raised by a couple of previous speakers about the impact on whistleblowers when they realise there is something seriously wrong in their organisation and they speak up about it. I have found, particularly in the NHS, that there is an institutional reluctance—and I think I can understand it. I think it is psychologically extremely difficult for people to accept that their department might be systematically failing or sometimes actively damaging patients, and the result is that they tend to turn on the person blowing the whistle and to ostracise them. What follows is an investigation into that person’s behaviour or conduct as relationships deteriorate, and often then a dismissal under the term “some other substantial reason”. There are five potentially lawful reasons for dismissal, including misconduct, incapability and so forth. One is “some other substantial reason” for dismissal. That phrase is really a catchall for, “There is some sort of decent reason for sacking this person”, but the case law has developed in such a way that “some other substantial reason” for dismissal can just be an absolute breakdown of relationships between people who work together—and that is almost always the case where there is a whistleblower. The result is that we have a massive gap in our law, whereby people who have blown the whistle are systematically being dismissed for “some other substantial reason”. One of the most effective things we could do within the scope of the current system would be to outlaw the use of “some other substantial reason” dismissals in a whistleblowing framework, so that if someone has blown the whistle, there cannot be a “some other substantial reason” dismissal. There would still be the ability to dismiss for misconduct if there has genuinely been misconduct, but in the situations I have seen, that has usually not been the case; it is just that people have fallen out. I think there is scope to improve whistleblowing protections in the current system. We could do it through amendments to the Employment Rights Bill, which is making its way through the House. In the longer term—I appreciate that this is not currently fiscally viable—but we could look at extending legal aid to whistleblowers. We could extend to whistleblowers the legal aid protection available to people on low incomes for discrimination claims; that would be in the public interest and would nicely back up the duty of candour that we have been talking about introducing. We could also look at whether the suggestions being made by my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central could be linked to the fair work agency, and whether we could in due course extend the powers of that agency to examine this issue. It is a terrible thing to advise whistleblowers, because they are so distressed—certainly one of the most distressed client groups I have ever come across. Whistleblowing is typically completely career-ending for them, and the results for many are terrible. We should look at whether our unfair dismissal legislation is well placed to handle such matters. I again thank my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central for raising this topic for debate.

• 21 Oct 2024 · Employment Rights Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and my membership of the Employment Lawyers Association, the Industrial Law Society, Unite the Union, Community and the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers. The treatment of women in Harvey Weinstein’s companies, UKFast, and plenty of other organisations across the UK is notoriously horrific. A significant number of women work in workplaces that are basically run like medieval fiefdoms. Corporate governance in the UK appears to largely serve to cover up sexual harassment, and to do very little to prevent it. As someone who has negotiated settlement agreements for a lot of women who have suffered sexual harassment or maternity discrimination, I do not recognise the descriptions of UK employees that I hear from Conservative Members. They appear to regard employees as desperate to bring employment tribunals at any possible opportunity, but my experience of representing women in those situations is that they are desperate to avoid bringing employment tribunal claims. They think that if they talk about what has happened to them, it will cause them significant reputational damage—that they will be blamed for their experiences, and that they will never work again. As such, they sign settlement agreements meaning that they cannot talk about what has happened to them. They do so knowingly, and often for really quite small sums of money, because they are terrified of the amount it will cost them in legal fees if they try to pursue a claim to tribunal. That is one of the reasons why I am proud to be a member of trade unions and to have given advice to trade union members, because that enables those women to get the support they need to assert their basic workplace rights. A 2016 TUC report talked about the fact that young women in particular, as well as women on zero-hours contracts, seem to be reporting higher levels of sexual harassment at work than other, older women. In short, those of us who get to a certain age like to hope that things have got better because we stop personally experiencing sexual harassment at work. Unfortunately, the reality is that younger workers, who have less access to advice and support and are more economically vulnerable, continue to receive that harassment year after year. Things are not getting better. Employment rights are fantastic, and it is great that we are improving access to them through this Bill, but when Conservative Members oppose our moves to restrict the use of zero-hours contracts, they do not understand—so far as I can tell—that those contracts, which keep women in precarious employment, are one of the mechanisms by which sexual harassment occurs. As such, I commend the Bill to the House.

• 17 Oct 2024 · International Investment Summit · Hansard source

  More

  Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to make my maiden speech. When I drive around my Congleton constituency, I thank my lucky stars that I have the privilege of both living in and representing somewhere so very beautiful. It is made up of gorgeous rolling countryside, farmland, hedgerows and oak trees. The farmers work all hours to produce the food that we need. It has views of the giant radio telescope at Jodrell Bank and the natural beauty spot Bosley Cloud. It is Arcadia within commuting distance of Manchester, Crewe and Stoke, and I cannot tell the House how much I truly love it. The constituency is a growing place, with around 5,000 extra houses in the last few years. The population is divided between the Cheshire market towns of Alsager, Sandbach and Congleton, alongside the larger village of Holmes Chapel, and many beautiful smaller villages, such as Rode Heath, Church Lawton and Goostrey. There can be few more idyllic spots in the country than sitting outside the Swettenham Arms next to the Lovell arboretum, overlooking St Peter’s, the archetypal village church. Though each town and village has its own unique character and history, the joys and challenges experienced by the families who live there are often remarkably similar. They include families whose children have special educational needs and disabilities, who often face extensive challenges getting the diagnoses and support that they need. Those families need our help, and I will do everything that I can to assist them. I have been pleased to hear the Prime Minister referring repeatedly in this Chamber to those difficulties, and I am confident that he will help us too. Families will also benefit from Labour’s review of shared parental leave. Some 54,000 women a year lose their job when they are pregnant or on maternity leave. Women actually out-earn men in their 20s. The gender pay gap is in many respects actually a motherhood penalty. Men taking longer periods of paternity leave is a way that we could normalise parental leave and potentially reduce those problems. I thank the Government for starting the consultation on this matter imminently. I pay tribute to campaign groups such as Pregnant Then Screwed, Rights of Women, the Dad Shift, Parenting Out Loud, and the TUC and trade unions, which are all doing incredible things in this field. Many homeowners in my constituency have been affected by leasehold and fleecehold problems, and will welcome our planned reforms on these issues, to which I intend to contribute. They include older people, often the backbone of our communities, who provide childcare for grandchildren, and often volunteer as well. Sometimes, however, they do so in avoidable pain while on NHS waiting lists that are too long. Those are just a few of the issues that I intend to apply myself to as MP for Congleton. Let me take the House back to Congleton’s history. Congleton is known as Beartown, owing to a local story that in the 1600s the town saved up to buy a new Bible. Shortly before the summer fête, the village bear died, so the townsfolk agreed that rather than buy their Bible they would postpone the purchase and get a new bear with the money instead. Congleton is very entrepreneurial across the whole constituency, and many of our small businesses feature references to the bear. It is also in our local iconography everywhere. We have the Beartown Tap and Beartown beer. The bear features pretty much everywhere, as does our fantastic statue of Elizabeth Wolstenholme-Elmy, which was lobbied and fundraised for by local feminists. Elizabeth, who based herself in Congleton from 1874 until her death in 1918, played a significant role in the women’s suffrage movement, founding the Women’s Social and Political Union and campaigning for women’s education and voting rights. I hope that I shall think of her often in this place. Another of our most famous local figures, although quite different, is Harry Styles, whose hometown of Holmes Chapel is now a point of pilgrimage for his fans. I am sure that everyone is sorry to hear today of the death of his former bandmate Liam Payne—we all extend our condolences to his friends and family. Local people have set up a walking trail associated with Harry Styles. If anyone fancies it, I would strongly recommend following it, with a stop in any of our local independent businesses on Holmes Chapel high street. I would probably include a drink at the George and Dragon or the Bottle Bank, or both. I know that both publicans do a lot of voluntary work within our community. People volunteering is common in my constituency, as I know it is in the constituencies of many other Members. Whether they are coaching football at Vale Juniors or any of the other community sports clubs—there are too many for me to list—planting trees and conserving and maintaining our woodland and footpaths, as the Sandbach Woodland and Wildlife Group does, and as a similar group does in Congleton; helping young people through uniformed groups such as scouts, guides and the various air cadets, some of which I have visited; running schemes to support men’s mental health, such as the Goostrey Community Shed, Holmes Chapel Men in Sheds, or the new Sandbach men walking and talking group; or even running a community energy power plant in Congleton Hydro, we have the most amazing set of citizens. I am so grateful for the fantastic contribution that they make to help others, support those who need it, and truly make my constituency the fantastic place that it is. On the topic of contribution, I pay tribute to my predecessor, Fiona Bruce. Congleton has had three MPs in its history, all of them women: Ann Winterton, Fiona Bruce and now me. I know that many Christians in the constituency and beyond appreciated Fiona Bruce’s advocacy on behalf of the religious community, both in the UK and internationally, in her role as envoy for religious freedom. We have many active local church groups in our community, and they contribute a great deal of very varied support. Churches and secular volunteers and organisations, including food banks, food pantries and the Old Saw Mill, are all quietly providing much-needed food support within the community. They do this for a far larger number of adults and children than the apparent affluence of the area would superficially lead one to expect. As a discrimination lawyer, and someone who went into politics because of the value that I place on equality and inclusion, I will continue to advocate for the rights and freedoms of all my constituents, and celebrate the diversity within our community. I recently attended the One World festival in Alsager, which was first established by Margaret Keeling 30 years ago. It celebrates the diversity of nationalities living within the Alsager community, with food, activities and lots of performances from local schoolchildren. It really is a delight—thank you, Margaret. Another of the many achievements of the fantastic volunteers in my constituency is that we have regular Pride events. Congleton held its first Pride about five years ago. I pay tribute to Richard Walton, Ronan Clayton and all those who were involved in setting it up. It is now ably chaired by Malcolm Pope, who is taking it from strength to strength. The excellent curator Anna Maluk put on a Pride exhibition in Congleton Museum, hosting photos from those early events and featuring art from the local LGBTQIA+ community. Since then, more Pride events have grown in Sandbach, Alsager and, for the first time this summer, Holmes Chapel. At one of these events, it was suggested to me that these are really just a family fun day—a village fête, if you will. It is true that the events are fun, fabulous and family-friendly, but beyond the live music and bright clothing there remains a serious message. The hard-working volunteers who make these Pride events happen do so in the face of repeated homophobic hate crimes. Similarly, there is still a backdrop of fear attendant in many women’s daily lives. Women in my constituency have written or spoken to me about their experiences of sexual violence. I say to the young women who have talked to me—you know who you are—that I will fight for you, and all young people, in this place every day. That will include ensuring that, when embracing new technology and innovation, as we have done this week at the international investment summit, we find ways of protecting people from new threats—whether that be people looking at tractors on their smartphones in this workplace, or artificial intelligence baking in discriminatory decision making. Unfortunately, new technologies also bring the potential for harassment, discrimination and abuse, and we must not be caught off guard—we must get on the front foot on that. My constituency has a long history of developing new technologies. The constituency boundary bisects the site of Jodrell Bank, the amazing radio telescope. Sandbach was the proud home of ERF and Foden trucks. The first Foden traction engine was built in Sandbach in 1881, and that was followed by the production of heavy goods vehicles for 150 years. The history and heritage of Foden still runs through the blood of the town, with the annual transport festival and its incredible parade of vintage trucks, wagons, classic cars and even the odd plane on the common. My constituency is also home to one of the world’s leading brass bands, Foden’s Band, which was born out of the works in 1902 and has twice won, and twice been runner-up, in the national brass band championships of Great Britain. I will work across this House to stand up for the incredible, entrepreneurial and community-minded people and businesses of the beautiful place that is the Congleton constituency. Lastly, I want to say some thank yous. I thank the volunteers who helped me to get here and continue to support me, to whom I am very grateful. That includes those from the Labour party, and I make special mention of the Fabian Women’s Network mentoring scheme. I thank my adored family, who are in the Public Gallery today. When I am in Westminster, I miss you so much. I hope I do all of you proud.