Our high streets, pubs and local businesses are what give London its character. But from rising rents to Brexit uncertainty, it’s an incredibly difficult time for people who work hard running small businesses, and many have contacted me worried about their future in south London.

Instead of giving firms the helping hand they need, the Tories are planning the biggest business rates increases for seven years this April. And it is small firms in London who will be the biggest losers - businesses will pay based on how much their property is worth, rather than how much money they make, so inner London areas such as Southwark and Lambeth, where property values have increased dramatically, will be particularly badly hit.

At the last revaluation in 2010 no businesses faced an increase of more than 12.5% in the first year, but under this Government’s plan many in south London are facing cliff-edge rises - firms in Southwark will have on average 29.6% added to their bills.

The Federation of Small Business warns that micro businesses employing fewer than 10 people will have to find £17,000 a year on average to cover business rates from April. One constituent who runs a photography business in Peckham tells me he just does not know what to do to cover the shortfall, and it is likely he will close his business after four years, potentially declaring himself bankrupt in the process.

For independent cafes and pubs that just get by each month, these increases are simply unaffordable. It is not right that internet giants such as Asos and Amazon who have large warehouses outside of city centres get a cut in their business rates, at the same time as some south London pubs could be hit by a 40% rise.

Public service providers, such as Southwark Council will also be hit – having to pay an extra £1.25m to the Government for their own offices at a time when the Council is struggling to fund social care and emergency housing.

The Government say they plan to reform business rates so that local councils keep 100% of the revenue, but this will be in exchange for other government funding. Currently 70% of the growth in business-rate revenues will be kept by central government.

I along with my Labour colleagues Neil Coyle MP, Helen Hayes MP and Southwark Council will be writing to the Chancellor to urge him to listen to London businesses’ concerns. Business properties with a rateable value of less than £15,000 will receive 100% relief, but this urgently needs to be raised to a more realistic level to reflect London’s inflated property market. 

In the longer term, this outdated system must be reformed to reflect today’s economy, ease the burden on high streets and ensure online businesses pay their fair share. From Brexit to business rates, many of businesses’ most pressing concerns are currently going unanswered. Labour will continue to hold the Government to account, call for an emergency transitional relief fund and stand up for local traders.

Harriet Harman: Government must protect the rights of EU nationals to remain in the UK

Everyone in Southwark will probably know someone who's an EU citizen and whose life has been thrown into disarray by the EU referendum decision last June. As part of our EU membership, EU citizens have been allowed to come and live here.  Some, such as those from France and Spain, have been here for decades. They have children and grandchildren living here. They work in and are part of the local community. It is unthinkable that they would be deported and their families split up because the UK has decided to leave the EU.

Worry amongst EU citizens here is palpable. All MPs have seen it in our advice surgeries. One of my constituents, an Italian woman, has been here for 30 years. She cannot work anymore because she is unwell, and her residency rights are now at risk. Another constituent from France told me she felt like ‘a second class citizen’, and for the first time in 25 years she felt unsure of her future and unwanted in the UK. 

It is not just EU nationals and their families who are worried for their futures, so are the employers for whom they work. How will our NHS find the nurses we need if they seek work elsewhere through fear they will not be allowed to stay? It is not as if we are training nurses and midwives ourselves. With the Tory cuts to nursing bursaries, the number of student nurse applications has fallen by 23% this year.

People from countries which have more recently joined the EU, such as Poland, Romania and Bulgaria, are working in sectors that could not manage without them—in our care homes, agriculture and our tourism industry. Employers in food production are already reporting more difficulty in getting the workers they need.

The Prime Minister has been sending out mixed messages.  On the one hand, she says that anyone who is lawfully here has nothing to worry about. On the other hand, she says she cannot commit to giving them residency rights because their future must be part of the Brexit negotiations.

It is wrong to use the lives of 3 million people and their families as a bargaining chip. They cannot be used as a human shield as the Government battles it ​out in Europe on behalf of our UK citizens in other countries. It is because of the Brexit decision, not the fault of EU citizens here, that UK citizens will lose their residency rights in other EU countries.   We must decide what is fair and right for EU citizens here, and do it. 

That’s why as chair of the Joint Committee on Human Rights (JCHR) I tabled an amendment to the Article 50 Bill to protect the rights of EU citizens who were lawfully living in the UK at the time of the referendum in June, of which there are many in Southwark. Disappointingly the Government voted this down in the Commons, despite support from MPs across all parties.

Labour Peers and Lords members of the JCHR will now work together to press for an EU residence rights amendment throughout the Lords’ debate on Article 50 this week. I will continue to monitor the amendment’s progress and do all I can to secure EU citizens’ rights before Brexit negotiations begin.

** Since this article was written the Government was defeated by 102 votes (358 to 256) in the House of Lords on the amendment to protect the rights of EU citizens in the UK post-Brexit:

Harriet said:

“I welcome the House of Lords decision last night to protect the rights of EU citizens. This implements a recommendation made by JCHR in its recent report on Brexit and human rights. I urge the PM not to seek to overturn this amendment and thereby prolong the distressing uncertainty for the 3 million EU citizens who make such an important contribution to our country, including the NHS, agriculture, universities and many other sectors.”

Today Southwark Council were prosecuted at Southwark Crown Court for their failure to maintain fire safety standards in Lakanal House. I attended the court hearing, along with Dave Lewis of the Sceaux Gardens Tenants and Residents Association.

3 women and 3 young children tragically lost their lives in the Lakanal House fire in Camberwell on 3 July 2009.

They were Dayana Francisquini aged 26, her daughter Thais, aged six, and son Felipe, aged three; 31-year-old Catherine Hickman; and Helen Udoaka, 34, and her 20-day-old daughter Michelle.

The fire was caused by an electrical fault in a television in a 9^th floor bedroom. It spread unexpectedly through the block, in large part due to unsafe renovation work by the council, who own the building, and their failure to carry out a fire risk assessment following this work.

From 2006 Southwark were legally responsible for fire safety checks at its flats, but by July 2009 the council had carried out no such checks at Lakanal. A proper inspection would have spotted that vital fire-stopping material between flats and communal corridors had been removed.

Investment to improve Lakanal House for the tenants living in it instead turned it into a deadly fire trap. The council failed in their responsibilities and they have pleaded guilty.  No-one would have died if the work was checked and if they had re-assessed the fire safety of the block after the work was done.

No-one would have died if the Fire Brigade had instructed people to leave their flats. It was clear to me when I rushed down there on the night of the fire that compartmentalisation in the building had failed, and the fire was spreading.

The Fire Brigade, too, were responsible because as the fire spread and the safety measures failed, they failed to change their instructions to residents.

Those who ignored the Fire Brigade’s instructions to stay put escaped with their lives. Those who accepted the instructions to stay in their flat died.  The Fire Brigade say they too have learned lessons.

This prosecution sends a strong message not just to the London Borough of Southwark but to all landlords, public and private, that their tenants’ safety must be an absolute priority.

Nothing will bring back the 3 women and 3 young children who died in this tragedy, or undo the pain that has been caused to their families and friends. But there are lessons to learn and improvements that can and must be made.

In court today we heard that since 2009 Southwark has reviewed its approach to fire risk assessment across every block in the borough. They have spent £62m on their fire risk programme for social housing and now have a skilled and experienced in-house fire safety team. The Council and fire brigade said they are meeting regularly to discuss operations and safety, and the fire brigade assists Southwark in advising residents on fitting smoke alarms.

For more information contact Rachel Smethers – [email protected]
020 7219 2057

My cross-party letter with 47 Peers in today's Financial Times, on why the Government must guarantee EU citizens' residence rights:

On 27 February the House of Lords will debate the EU (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill. This provides an opportunity to guarantee the residence rights of the 3 million EU nationals who were lawfully resident in the United Kingdom at the time of the referendum. It is unthinkable that these individuals would be deported, or families divided, as a result of the vote.

Having taken evidence, Parliament's Joint Committee on Human Rights (JCHR) concluded that providing them with a unilateral guarantee was both morally and legally the right thing to do. These people need certainty. They work here and are part of our community. They are critical to every part of our private and public sector, including the NHS, our universities, agriculture, creative industries and finance.

If the Government tried to negotiate over their residence rights, many would be able to go to our courts and seek to establish their rights to remain under the European Convention on Human Rights (the right to family life). If even 10 per cent did that, there would be 300,000 cases. There is no way that our court system could cope with such a challenge.

We call on the Government to end the uncertainty and accept the new clause on the residence rights of EU nationals, proposed by members of the JCHR, cross bench Peers, and others, on a cross party basis. Clearly, this will not be Parliament's final word on the matter and further issues will require resolution (for example, health insurance and rights of residence for those who arrived following the referendum).This does not prevent Parliament providing reassurance by preserving existing rights under EU law. This is the right thing to do and would ensure that negotiations with the remaining 27 EU Member States were commenced in good faith and on a positive note. It would be entirely wrong for the UK Government to seek to use these individuals as a bargaining chip.

Rt Hon Harriet Harman MP QC (Chair, Joint Committee on Human Rights)

Rt Hon Lord Woolf CH

The Baroness Hamwee

The Baroness Prosser OBE

Rt Hon Baroness Royall of Blaisdon

The Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws QC

Rt Hon the Lord Ashdown of Norton-sub-Hamdon GCMG KBE CH

Rt Hon the Lord Beith

Rt Hon Baroness Blackstone

Rt Hon. the Lord Bruce of Bennachie

Rt Hon. the Baroness Featherstone

Rt Hon. the Lord Foster of Bath

Rt Hon. the Baroness Kramer

Rt Hon. the Baroness Northover

Rt Hon. the Lord Stunell OBE

Rt Hon. the Lord Wallace of Saltaire

The Lord Alliance CBE

The Baroness Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury

The Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted

The Baroness Doocey OBE

The Baroness Falkner of Margravine

The Lord Fox

The Lord Goddard of Stockport

The Lord Greaves

The Baroness Harris of Richmond DL

The Baroness Jolly

The Lord Jones of Cheltenham

The Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb

The Lord Lee of Trafford DL

The Lord Lester of Herne Hill QC

The Lord Liddle

The Baroness Maddock

The Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames QC

The Lord Oates

The Baroness Pinnock

The Lord Razzall CBE

The Lord Rennard MBE

The Baroness Scott of Needham Market

The Baroness Sheehan

The Lord Shipley OBE

The Lord Smith of Clifton

The Lord Strasburger

The Lord Taverne QC

The Lord Teverson

The Baroness Thornton

The Lord Tope CBE

The Baroness WALMSLEY

*** Check against delivery ***

This is about 3m people and their families - EU citizens whose future here has been thrown in to doubt by the decision in June that the UK should leave the EU.

There's nothing about the cloud of uncertainty that they now live under which is their own fault and we can if we agree this new clause, put their minds at rest and let them look to the future.

Hon members on all sides of the House will know the people whose lives we are talking about here.  Some, like those from France and Spain have been here for decades.  They have children and grandchildren living here.   They work and are part of their local community.  It is unthinkable that they would be deported, families divided, because we've decided to leave the EU.  So let’s put their minds at rest and assure them, and their families, that our decision to leave the EU won't change their right to be here.  Their anxiety is palpable, like the Italian woman, my constituent who came to see me

Some, like those from the countries that came more recently into the EU like Poland, Romania and Bulgaria are working in sectors that couldn't manage without them, in agriculture, in care homes and in our tourist industry.

This ongoing uncertainly around the status of EU workers is already causing greater exploitation of vulnerable EU workers.  Last week, in appearing before the Joint Committee on Human Rights, Margaret Beels, Chair of the Gangmaster's Licensing Authority said that evidence is coming in to them that gangmasters are telling fearful EU workers that they can't complain about not being paid or being subjected to unsafe conditions because if they do they'll be deported as they no longer have the right to be here. 

It’s no good the government issuing warm words.  They need certainty.   They work in every part of our private sector, they contribute to our creative industries, they are artists and musicians.  They work in our public services.  If you've been in hospital recently you will very likely woken to find a Spanish or a Portuguese nurse at your bedside.  If you've got an older relative in a care home you'll very likely seen them being cared for by someone from Eastern Europe.

It’s not just they and their families that are worried about the uncertainty that is hanging over them.  So are employers for whom they are working.  How will our NHS find the nurses we need if they are not allowed to stay.  It’s not as if we're training them ourselves.  This year, with the cuts in bursaries, nursing student numbers have fallen by 23%.

This new clause is quite simple.  It says that if you were a lawful resident here before the referendum decision on June 23rd, then your rights of residence will remain unchanged.

We need this clause in the Bill because the government has been sending out mixed messages.  On the one hand they say no-one who's lawfully here has anything to worry about.  On the other hand they say that they can't commit to giving them residency rights because their future must be part of the negotiations.    I just cannot feel that it is any way right to use the lives of 3m people and their families as a negotiating chip.  They and their families are not pawns in a game of poker with the EU.  They cannot be used as a human shield as we battle it out in Europe. We must decide what is fair and right for them and then do it.  If the government rejects this new clause then EU citizens will be right to draw the conclusion that their right to continue to live here will be snatched away if our government doesn't get what we want for our UK citizens living in each of the other countries of Europe.  

This new clause is not only the right thing to do as a matter of principle, its legally necessary.  The government cannot bargain away people's human rights. The right to family life is guaranteed by Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.   If the government tried to bargain them away, EU citizens living here would be able to go to our courts and seek to establish their rights to remain under Article 8.  If even 10% of those here did that, that would be 300,000 court challenges.  There is no way our court system could begin to cope with that.

This new clause arises out of the inquiry of the Joint Committee on Human Rights.  I hope that the government will accept it.  But if not I urge members of all parties to support it

My amendment to the Government's Article 50 Bill with the Fawcett Society regarding rights of women has been picked for debate on Wednesday 8 February 2017. Thanks to all the MPs who backed it.

Text of the amendment:

Before issuing any notification under Article 50(2) of the Treaty on European Union the Prime Minister shall give an undertaking to have regard to the public interest during negotiations in:

1. Maintaining employment rights and protections derived from EU legislation,

2. Ensuring EU co-operation to end violence against women and girls, tackle female genital mutilation and end human trafficking will continue unaffected,

3. The desirability of continuing to recognise restraining orders placed on abusive partners in EU Member States in the UK and restraining orders placed on abusive partners in the UK across the EU.

4. establishing a cross-departmental working group to assess and make recommendations for developing legislation on equality and access to justice. 

This is an amendment designed to secured additional assurances from Government on a number of important issues for women and for women’s rights. 

Fawcett Society Briefing on Article 50 Bill Amendment

The Fawcett Society is the leading UK charity campaigning for Gender equality and women’s rights.  In 2016 we launched the #FaceHerFuture campaign to defend women’s rights and set out a progressive agenda post-Brexit.  The campaign is supported by over 20 women’s and equalities organisations.

Employment Rights

We welcome the fact the Government has already committed to maintaining employment rights from the debates on worker’s rights in the EU on the 7^th of November when the Secretary of State for Business, Energy, and Industrial Strategy Greg Clark MP stated:

“This Government place a great deal of importance on the fundamental protections that workers in the UK have. Whether protection from discrimination or unfair dismissal, equal treatment—working full time or part time— or the right to a minimum wage or to paid holiday, the Government are committed to safeguarding those rights…

“No one listening to this debate should think that we have any intention of eroding the rights that we enjoy in this country through our process of leaving the European Union. In fact, the opposite is true. We will be using the legislation before this House to entrench all existing workers’ rights in British law, whatever future relationship the UK has with the EU…

“The intention is that all workers’ rights that derive from the EU will be brought into British law”

And David Davis MP, Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union stated:

“The Prime Minister has made it clear that the Government will not, as a consequence of our withdrawal, allow any erosion of rights in the workplace, whether those rights derive from EU or UK law. She has further made it clear that the Government are determined to deliver an economy that works for everyone, and fundamental to that is the preservation of existing workers’ rights.”

In her speech on 17^th January 2017 the Prime Minister herself said:

“under my leadership, not only will the Government protect the rights of workers set out in European Legislation, we will build on them.”

However, concern remains that these commitment will become difficult to honour through the Brexit negotiation process and beyond.  This is because there will be political pressure on the Government to use the opportunity to deregulate the economy, pressure which may be hard to resist. The Prime Minister has also indicated she would if necessary make Britain a low tax low regulation economy.  We do not believe that this is compatible with safeguarding women’s rights.

While it is possible for any legislation to be repealed at a future date, we are concerned about the use of ‘Henry the VIII clauses’ in the Great Repeal Bill which will give powers to the Secretary of State to repeal legislation at a future date without further debate. 

We are seeking early assurances that Henry VIII clauses will not be used for any equality and employment rights legislation.  Can the minister give that assurance?

What are the particular rights that we are concerned about?

Part-time workers’ rights – will part-time workers’ rights remain unaffected by Brexit. In particular access to pay and leave entitlements, pensions.

Pregnant workers’ rights – 54,000 mothers at work each year are made redundant or feel they have to leave their jobs as a result of pregnancy discrimination. We welcome the Government’s recent response to the Women and Equalities Select Committee inquiry in to pregnancy discrimination where a commitment was given to introduce additional protections from redundancy, but we also need assurances that comprehensive protection for pregnant women at work will continue unaffected by Brexit.

Health and safety at work, time off for ante-natal appointments, maternity leave and pay are all important entitlements for pregnant women at work.

Will the minister guarantee that no protections for pregnant or part-time workers will be repealed, and in particular will not be repealed using using Henry VIII clauses when they bring the Great Repeal Bill to the House.

Equal pay for work of equal value– this is an important aspect of our equal pay legislation that derives from European law.  It enables women, often on low incomes, to challenge pay inequality where they can identify a male comparator in a role which they can argue is of equal value to theirs. Two important live equal value cases at the moment:

Reading Council – women cooks and care workers challenging unequal pay.

https://www.unison.org.uk/news/press-release/2016/10/women-drag-last-equal-pay-claim-council-to-court-says-unison/

ASDA – Leigh Day case representing women shop floor workers vs male warehouse staff

https://www.leighday.co.uk/News/News-2016/October-2016/Major-victory-in-battle-over-ASDA-equal-pay

Will the Minister guarantee that equal value will remain an intrinsic part of our equal pay legislation going forward? 

EU co-operation to end VAWG 

Policing and justice       

The EU leads cooperation between Member States in the area of freedom, security and justice (AFSJ) – what is termed ‘law and order’ in the UK. The Treaty of Lisbon incorporated 135 police and criminal justice cooperation measures – previously agreed between 1995-2009 – into the main body of EU law. The Lisbon Treaty has introduced shared criminal law provisions and aims to harmonise and improve the effectiveness of AFSJ measures in the EU.

In 2013 the UK Government chose to ‘opt-out’ of these measures – including the European Arrest Warrant, an arrest warrant valid in all member states – and subsequently ‘opted-back in’ to a number of measures, mainly to enable cross-border police cooperation and data sharing. The UK may remain able to cooperate in these measures after Brexit, and it will be vital to ensure that victims’ rights and needs are put first during any negotiations on the future of the UK’s involvement in the AFSJ with the EU.

• Following the UK’s exist from the EU we would want to ensure the UK maintains strong police cooperation, data sharing in tackling crime – including VAWG. 

Victims

The EU sets policy priorities for AFSJ through multi-annual programmes. Most recently, the Stockholm Programme 2010-2014 included requirements to develop criminal legislation and measures that support victims and has resulted in the following:

• The EU Victims’ Directive (2012/29/EU) establishes minimum standards for the rights, support, and protections for victims of crime in the EU, which were expected to be implemented into national laws by November 2015. The Directive establishes clear rights for victims and obligations for Member States – including specifically for victims of violence. It includes new and strengthened measures for:

  • Victim support: including referrals to victim support organisations.

  • Specialist support services: such as minimum provision of shelters, and targeted and integrated support for victims with specific needs – including victims of domestic violence.

  • Individual assessments for victims: to identify vulnerability and special protection measures required by women and children.

  • Protection of victims: contact with offenders must be avoided (e.g. all new court buildings must have separate waiting areas). 

• Obviously the Great Repeal Bill will mean all existing victims’ legislation will be replaced – but we will want to ensure that this is fully safeguarded in domestic, primary legislation. 

   

Protection Orders

• The EU Protection Order (2011/99/EU):

  The EPO protects victims against perpetrators by enabling a person who is protected against a perpetrator in one EU country – such as with a Domestic Violence Protection Order (DVPO) in England and Wales – to retain that protection when they travel or move to another Member State.

  The EPO means that restraining, protection and barring orders issued in one Member State are quickly and easily recognisable across the EU through simple certification, and guarantees the rights of the victims of violence outside their own country too, wherever they are in Europe. Previously, survivors would have to go through complex procedures to get their protection recognised in other EU Member States – and enter a different procedure for certification in each country. The EPO means that survivors are able to travel, or live, in other EU member states more safely.

• The EPO ensures that women who have suffered domestic violence are protected from the perpetrators if they travel or move anywhere in the EU. Predictions about the consequences of Brexit for policing measures are speculative and will depend on the outcome of negotiations.

• It is generally accepted that the UK will want to continue with certain parts of EU policing and justice cooperation – and we would argue that it is essential that the UK continues to opt-in to the EPO agreement following Brexit. 

  After we have left the European Union, will the Minister be able to confirm that the EU protection order states will be in effect in the UK to protect British citizens and European migrants from abusers, and vice versa, that British courts will be able to issue restraining orders that can protect British citizens and legal residents when they travel to the European Union?

   

Gaps in equality legislation and access to justice

Concerns remain that eg Section 14 (dual discrimination) and Section 106 (information about diversity in range of candidates) of the Equality Act 2010 have not been commenced. 

In the absence of section 14 a disabled woman, an older woman or a Muslim women cannot bring a discrimination claim based on their actual identity, only one aspect of their identity. Our legislation does not provide appropriate protection.

Additionally, many people who experience discrimination are also prevented from having access to justice by time limits and employment tribunal fees of £1200.  When ET fees were introduced discrimination claims initially fell by 80%.  Recent data shows ET applications are 43% down since the introduction of fees. The number of successful sex discrimination claims is also down.

https://www.harpermacleod.co.uk/hm-insights/2016/october/employment-tribunal-statistics-update-what-do-the-new-figures-tell-employers-about-claims-and-awards/

The Fawcett Society has launched a review of our Sex Discrimination legislation.  Will the minister give an assurance that they will establish a cross-departmental working group to work with the Fawcett Society and others to ensure that gaps in our existing legislation are addressed and women’s rights are safeguarded going forward in order to seize the opportunity to make the UK the best place to be a woman.