This page will continue to be off-line for a couple more weeks to attend to a family issue.

Our Facebook page and Twitter feed are now being tended. Feel free to like and share!

Gingerbread, the charity for single parent families, Mumsnet and the Good Law Project (GLP) are supporting four women who have sent a Letter Before Claim to notify the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) of their intention to seek a Judicial Review because of:

“…the persistent failure by the Child Maintenance Service to collect child maintenance payments from absent parents, leaving the parent with primary care of the children in financial difficulty and in some cases in poverty.”

Child maintenance is the money a non-resident parent should pay to support their child’s upbringing.

There are many ways in which separated parents can agree child maintenance payments.

Many go through the Child Maintenance Service (CMS) and use either the Direct Pay or Collect and Pay service. Over 700,000 children are covered by these arrangements.

However, the failings of the Child Maintenance Service mean that there is currently £354million in arrears owed to children.

This is not a new problem.

The Child Support Agency (CSA), which was replaced by the Child Maintenance Service in 2012, also failed to ensure maintenance was paid and between the CSA and CMS over £4billion of maintenance payments have gone unpaid.

The Letter Before Claim lays bare the systemic failures within the CMS:

Around a third (43 per cent) of children covered by Collect and Pay arrangements are not receiving a penny of the maintenance they are legally entitled to;

There are £354million in arrears, yet just £31million has been collected through CMS enforcement actions – less than 10 per cent of the figure that is owed; and

Despite over 100,000 non-compliant parents and the enforcement powers the CMS has, just three passports were confiscated in 2019.

This non-payment means many single parent families are living in poverty.

Research has shown that being paid the child maintenance they are due would lift around 60 per cent of those who are owed maintenance and are living in poverty out of the poverty trap.

Gingerbread and the claimants are calling for:

1 – The systemic review of the Child Maintenance Service to enable it to start working for the children and parents it was set up to serve.

2 – Effective enforcement where non-resident parents refuse to pay the money they owe to their children.

Victoria Benson, Chief Executive of Gingerbread, said: “It is a child’s legal right to be supported by both parents, and yet the service designed to protect this right is failing them.

“Even before COVID-19, there was £335 million in unpaid arrears and over 100,000 children across the country were not receiving a penny in maintenance.

“COVID-19 has exacerbated these problems and even more single parent families have lost out on maintenance payments which can make the difference between having food on the table or not.

“Despite a vast array of enforcement powers, the CMS has shown extreme negligence in actually using them and it has collected less than 10 per cent of what is actually owed.

“It simply cannot be right that a government service is responsible for leaving children of single parents in poverty.”

Justine Roberts, Mumsnet Founder and Chief Executive, said: “Contributing towards the food on your child’s table and the roof over their head is surely the minimum basic standard for being a decent parent, which makes the low priority accorded to enforcing child maintenance payments close to inexplicable.

“As countless single parents on Mumsnet will attest, the effects on children’s physical and emotional wellbeing are profound.

“It’s long past time for the Child Maintenance Service to do its job.”

And Jolyon Maugham, Founder and Director of Good Law Project and a former Chair of Gingerbread said: “Being a single parent is just about the toughest job in the country. What single parents really need is help from Government. But what they’ve had is laws which remove their right to sue absent parents for financial support and an agency that fails to collect that money.

“The Child Maintenance Service – along with its predecessors – has failed single parents, usually mothers, for years. It is high time it was made fit for purpose.”

How can you support the campaign to #FixTheCMS?

Help raise awareness about the campaign and make sure single parent voices are heard.

Write to your MP and urge them to support the call to #FixTheCMS.

Follow the campaign on Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, LinkedIn and share your support for the campaign across your social media networks.

Thanks.

Urgent and accelerated action is needed to end female genital mutilation, child marriage, and other “harmful practices” and abuses carried out against women and girls, the UN sexual and reproductive health agency (UNFPA) has said, in its latest major report on the state of the world’s population.

And every year, millions of girls are subjected to practices that routinely harm them, both physically and emotionally, with the full knowledge and consent of their families, friends and communities, the report says.

The State of World Population 2020: Against my will, defying the practices that harm women and girls and undermine equality, highlights at least 19 such rites which are considered human rights violations:

Accusations of witchcraft;

Binding, branding, scarring or infliction of tribal marks;

Body modifications, such as lip discs, neck elongation;

Breast ironing;

Bride price and dowry-related violence;

Child marriage;

Corporal punishment;

Crimes committed in the name of so-called honour;

Female genital mutilation;

Gender-biased sex selection;

Incest;

Infanticide;

Nutritional taboos and traditional birth practices;

Providing too little or too much food to girls;

Stoning;

Taboos or practices that prevent women from controlling their own fertility;

Violent initiation rites;

Virginity testing; and

Widowhood practices.

The report focuses on the three most prevalent abuses: female genital mutilation, child marriage, and extreme bias against daughters in favour of sons.

An estimated 4.1 million girls will be subjected to female genital mutilation this year alone, and on any one day this week, 33,000 girls under age 18 will be forced into marriage, usually to much older men.

And an extreme and continuing preference for sons over daughters in some countries has fuelled gender-biased sex selection, or extreme neglect, that leads to girls’ death as children, and resulting in what amounts to around 140 million “missing females”, the report continues.

According to the report, some practices are waning in countries where they have been most prevalent. But because of population growth, the number of girls subjected to them will actually rise in the coming decades, if urgent action is not taken.

According to the UNFPA, ending child marriage and female genital mutilation worldwide is possible within 10 years, by scaling up efforts to keep girls in school longer and teach them life skills and to engage men and boys in social change.

But while progress has been made in ending some harmful practices worldwide, the COVID-19 pandemic is threatening to reverse gains.

A recent analysis revealed that if services and programmes remain shuttered for six months, an additional 13 million girls might well be forced into marriage and 2 million more girls subjected to female genital mutilation between now and 2030.

Countries that have ratified international treaties such as the Convention on the Rights of the Child, have a duty to end the harm, whether it’s inflicted on girls by family members, religious communities, health-care providers, commercial enterprises or State institutions themselves.

Many have responded with laws, but laws alone are not enough. Decades of experience and research show that bottom-up, grassroots approaches, are better at bringing change, UNFPA said.

Monica Ferro, UNFPA’s Geneva Director, pointed out that all these harmful practices are based on the “assumption that the rights and the well-being of women and girls are less of those of men and boys”, resulting in “fewer choices and “putting them under the sexual, economic and legal control of men, which is also a violation of their human rights.”

The new data gathered in the report, she continued, could be summarised in three words: respect, protect and fulfil:

“We must foster respect for women and girls, by changing attitudes and practices,” that commoditise them.

“We must protect women and girls by enforcing laws against practices like child marriage and female mutilation, but also by changing attitudes and norms.

“And governments must fulfil their obligations under human rights treaties,” that require elimination of these practices and rituals, she explained.

In order to get to zero, she added, action is needed to be taken much faster: “We can’t stop until we get to zero, and we can’t let the COVID-19 pandemic get in our way.”

UNFPA’s Executive Director, Dr Natalia Kanem, said: “We must tackle the problem by tackling the root causes, especially gender-biased norms.

“We must do a better job of supporting communities’ own efforts understand the toll these practices are taking on girls and the benefits that accrue to the whole of society by stopping them.

“The pandemic both makes our job harder and more urgent as so many more girls are now at risk,” Dr Kanem concluded: “We will not stop until the rights, choices and bodies of all girls are fully their own.”

To read the full report, click here.

The Domestic Abuse Bill currently making its way through Parliament has been described as a ‘once-in-a-generation’ opportunity to provide safety and protection to survivors of domestic abuse.

However, as it stands, it does not include protection for migrant women suffering domestic abuse, some of whom find themselves trapped in dangerous and abusive circumstances because their immigration status says ‘No Recourse to Public Funds’.

These women are not allowed any protection by the state and so are effectively denied access to routes to safety that are available to other victims of abuse.

On Monday, 6 July 2020, this Bill will reach a critical stage – the Report Stage – of the Domestic Abuse Bill that will see amendments being tabled before all MPs for a vote.

This is a vital opportunity, as MPs will vote for the three amendments outlined below, which, if passed, can strengthen existing provisions for the protection and support of migrant survivors of abuse.

Please can you write to your MP and ask them to vote for these three amendments at the Report Stage:

New Clause 22: Recourse to public funds for domestic abuse survivors.

This seeks to ensure that certain provisions under the Immigration Acts – including exclusion from public funds, certain types of support and assistance and the right to rent – do not apply to survivors of domestic abuse. There will be a review into the operation of this provision after 12 months of the Act being passed.

New Clause 26: To enable domestic abuse survivors to apply for indefinite leave to remain.

This clause would make provision in the immigration rules for the granting of indefinite leave to remain to migrant survivors of domestic abuse and limited leave to remain to a survivor who is eligible to make an application for indefinite leave to remain.

New Clause 27: To protect domestic abuse survivors from data-sharing agreements without consent.

This clause would require the Secretary of State to make arrangements to ensure that the personal data of migrant survivors of domestic abuse that is given or used for the purpose of their seeking or receiving support and assistance is not used for immigration control purposes.

To find your local MP, please click here and enter your postcode.

The two women’s rights groups working on this particular campaign, Southall Black Sisters and the Step Up Migrant Women coalition, have provided a template email for you to send, which you can see here.

For further information about the Domestic Abuse Bill and the issues of concern to Southall Black Sisters and the Step Up Migrant Women coalition, please see their briefing papers here and here.

You can also read about why the £1.5million pilot project announced by the government is a wholly unsatisfactory and discriminatory proposal by clicking here.

You could also donate to the fundraiser set up to raise £10,000 to support women and children fleeing domestic violence and abuse but have no recourse to public funds during Covid-19.

Thanks.

If the Prime Minister is serious about post-pandemic growth then, rather than ‘build, build, build’, he should invest in care to create jobs, the Women’s Budget Group said today.

Responding to the Prime Minister’s speech outlining how the government intends to ‘fuel’ the post-Covid economy, the Women’s Budget Group presented new research that shows that a net investment of around 2.5 per cent of GDP in child care and social care would:

Create over 2 million well-paid jobs;

Increase overall employment by over 5 percentage points; and

Decrease the gender employment gap by 4 percentage points.

Research by Dr Jerome De Henau, a socio-economist, with research interests in economics of gender, labour and household economics, fiscal and social policy, and Professor Susan Himmelweit for Women’s Budget Group found that investment in care has the potential to mitigate the worst employment effects of the coronavirus pandemic recession.

Investing in care would create 2.7 times as many jobs as the same investment in construction: 6.3 as many for women and 10 per cent more for men.

Increasing the numbers working in care to 10 per cent of the employed population, as in Sweden and Denmark, and giving all care workers a pay rise to the real living wage would create 2 million jobs, increasing overall employment rates by 5 percentage points and decreasing the gender employment gap by 4 percentage points.

It would mean that 50 per cent more could be recouped by the Treasury in direct and indirect tax revenue from investment in care than in construction.

And since investment in care is greener than in construction, it would produce 30 per cent less greenhouse gas emissions.

A care-led recovery would, basically, be a green-led recovery.

The Covid-19 pandemic has both exposed and exacerbated the UK’s crisis in care that left care homes fatally unprotected and unprepared.

At least 1.4 million older people have unmet care needs.

And even before the pandemic there were over 100,000 staff vacancies in social care and recent data shows 1 in 4 care workers were considering leaving their jobs due to poor working conditions.

And, currently, UK parents pay the highest childcare costs in Europe and the second highest in the world.

Investment in care is needed to stop the collapse of both the child and adult care sectors.

This research shows that such investment would also provide a far better economic stimulus than investment in construction.

It would also also promote gender equality, which the pandemic risks widening.

“In Scandinavian countries about 10 per cent of the employed population works in care,” Dr Jerome De Henau said.

“Using this as our model, we found that it would be possible to give all carers a well-deserved pay rise and still recoup 50 per cent more of the initial investment from direct and indirect tax revenue.

“Investment in child and adult social care creates more than double the number of jobs as the same investment in construction, giving it a greater impact on the overall employment rate.

“It also helps reduce the gender employment gap, which is at risk of widening due to Coronavirus.

“The Prime Ministers announcement today has responded to the public calls for spending on infrastructure to stimulate the economy, but this must include social infrastructure. And our research finds this would be more effective at generating employment.”

Professor Susan Himmelweit said: “The Prime Minister’s announcement today focussed on construction in order to stimulate the economy, and there is a no doubt that we need greener energy and transport as well as more social housing.

“However, our research finds that it is actually investment in social infrastructure, including in a reformed social care system, that is most effective at creating employment.

“Training, pay and working conditions in the care sector would need to be improved to attract new staff and transform our broken social care system.

“Investment in care under such conditions is an excellent way to stimulate employment, reduce the gender employment gap and counter the inevitable economic recession as the UK comes out of lockdown.”

And Dr Mary-Ann Stephenson, Director of the Women’s Budget Group, said: “Boris Johnson’s answer to the economic crisis caused by the coronavirus pandemic is to ‘build, build, build’. But this analysis shows that our focus needs to be on ‘care, care, care’.

“The care sector has been hardest hit by the tragic consequences of coronavirus.

“Many care homes and nurseries say that they are struggling to make ends meet and could close within the year.

“Since women do most unpaid care work, shortages in care provision will make it harder for them to return to work.

“Unlike in previous recessions, women, who are more likely to work in sectors like retail and hospitality, where redundancies seem inevitable due to social distancing requirements, may be the first to lose their jobs,” Dr Stephenson continued. “Yet, with the right training, many women have skills that are transferrable to care, where staff are badly needed.

“Employing workers in care has the added benefit of being better for the future of the planet than work in more environmentally unfriendly sectors.

“Investment in care is economically and  environmentally sound and would increase equality.”

To read the full report, A Care-Led Recovery from Coronavirus, click here.

The Women and Work All Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) has launched an open call for evidence on the impact of the COVID-19 crisis on women in the workplace. The deadline is 6 July 2020.

The APPG welcomes submissions from any interested stakeholder on the impact of lockdown and recovery efforts on women’s work.

This evidence will be used to inform recommendations the APPG makes to the government; it therefore would like to receive concise responses that focus on policy recommendations, as well as key facts and figures.

The key themes it seeks evidence on are:

The impact of COVID-19 on the labour market and how this affects women;

The support the government has put in place and whether this may have a gendered impact;

How different sectors have been re-opened (and how they might be opened in the future) and the impact that has on women;

The burden of childcare/housework responsibilities and the potential impact on women’s careers (including on their wellbeing);

What the government can do to ensure women are not financially disadvantaged during lockdown and recovery;

How COVID-19 has changed the way we work and how we can embed flexible working moving forward.

Please limit your submission to one side of A4 and send with the subject line: ‘Women and Work APPG – COVID-19 Call for evidence’, to womenandworkappg@connectpa.co.uk.

For more information about the Women and Work APPG, click here.

Women’ rights oganisations, Human Rights Watch and global workers’ rights organisations are calling on governments to prioritise ratification of the International Labour Organization (ILO) Violence and Harassment Convention.

The ground-breaking treaty was adopted 21 June 2019 by government, employer, and worker members of the ILO, and sets international legal standards for preventing and responding to violence and harassment at work.

The treaty addresses gender-based violence specifically, including the intersection of domestic violence and work, and the steps governments should take, including protections so that domestic violence survivors can seek help without losing their jobs.

Several global workers’ and women’s rights organisations are campaigning to promote these standards and urging governments to ratify the treaty quickly.

These include global trade unions such as the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC), the International Domestic Workers’ Federation, and several other global unions as well as the 16 Days of Activism against Gender-Based Violence Campaign and Women in Informal Employment: Globalizing and Organizing.

On 12 June 2020, Uruguay became the first country to ratify the convention; and on 12 June 2020 Fiji became the second country to do so. This second ratification means the Convention will enter into force on 25 June 2021.

Countries that ratify it agree to align their national laws to the treaty’s standards and will be periodically reviewed for compliance by the ILO.

The #MeToo movement and attacks on health workers in the context of the coronavirus pandemic have highlighted the urgent need for strong measures to prevent work-related violence and harassment and to ensure that survivors of such behaviour have access to services and remedies.

Human Rights Watch has documented violence and harassment at work around the world, including in agriculture, domestic work, education, fishing, the garment industry, health, journalism, mining, public office, and the military.

The ILO has found that many existing laws exclude the workers most exposed to violence, for example domestic workers, farmworkers, and those in precarious employment.

And a report published in 2018 by the World Bank found that 59 out of 189 economies had no specific legal provisions covering sexual harassment at work.

The ILO’s treaty sets out minimum obligations for governments, including ensuring comprehensive national laws against harassment and violence at work and prevention measures such as information campaigns and identifying high-risk sectors.

It also requires enforcement – such as inspections and investigations – and access to remedies for victims, including complaint systems, protection for whistleblowers, and compensation.

The treaty covers employed workers, trainees, workers whose employment has been terminated, job seekers, and job applicants, among others, and applies to both the formal and informal sectors, public and private.

It also includes a requirement to address violence and harassment involving third parties, such as clients, customers, or service providers.

And it recognises that violence and harassment go beyond the physical workplace and includes other activities related to work, such as commutes and offsite work events.

It also obliges governments to ensure employers have workplace policies and prevention measures addressing violence and harassment.

On 21 June 2020 Human Rights Watch released a 31-page report, “Dignity and Safety at Work: A Guide to the 2019 ILO Violence and Harassment Convention,” which highlights the main obligations for governments set out in the treaty and the elements of national laws and policies that reflect promising practices.

Promising steps highlighted in the report include:

In Zambia, the definition of the workplace extends beyond formal worksites and includes “any place where the employees work or are likely to work, or which they frequent or are likely to frequent in the course of their employment or incidental to it.”;

India’s law governing sexual harassment extends workplace protection to students, third parties visiting a workplace, such as customers or clients, and those directly or indirectly employed, including trainees, apprentices, and volunteers. The law applies both to the organised and unorganised sectors;

In the USA the state of New York requires public employers to develop and implement programs to prevent and minimise workplace violence, including through written policy statements, conducting risk evaluations, creating a prevention program, providing training for employees, documenting incidents, and reviewing all cases annually;

In Finland, the 2002 Occupational Safety and Health Act requires work to be arranged so that, “the threat of violence and incidents of violence are prevented as far as possible.” This includes providing appropriate safety equipment and arrangements, ensuring that employees have ways to summon help, and avoiding hazards or risks when employees are working alone;

Puerto Rico allows an employer to request a protection order for an employee against visitors if the employee has been a victim of domestic violence in the workplace;

The Philippines and New Zealand provide for 10 days of paid leave for domestic violence survivors to enable them to pursue legal proceedings, leave their partners, and protect themselves and their children;

Spain provides women workers who are victims of sex-based violence the right to a reduction and reorganisation of working time, to move their location, and to suspend their employment contract.

Colombia and Costa Rica have laws and directives addressing workplace violence that instruct labour inspectors on how to handle victim complaints in cases of workplace harassment; and

German law permits employees to refuse to work without losing pay if the employer does not take appropriate steps to stop harassment in the workplace.

“No one should have to tolerate violence and harassment, but for many workers – especially women – it is often an inevitable part of getting or keeping a job,” Nisha Varia, women’s rights advocacy director at Human Rights Watch, said.

“The ILO Violence and Harassment Convention provides critical guidance to governments on how to prevent this violence and how to protect workers from stigma and retaliation so they can speak up and get the justice they deserve.

“Workers who are marginalised – because of their sex, race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, gender identity, disability, or migration status, among other characteristics – are often at greatest risk of violence and have the least access to any help,” Varia said.

“Ratifying the convention and carrying it out is a major opportunity for countries to end these abuses and promote safety and dignity at work.”

To read Human Rights Watch’s report, click here.

The government has announced an overhaul of the way the family courts in England and Wales will deal with domestic abuse.

The reforms that have been announced come after an expert-led review into how the family courts currently handle domestic abuse and other serious offences raised concerns that victims and children were being put at unnecessary risk.

The expert panel was made up of representatives from charities, the judiciary, family law practitioners and academia, and looked at the views of more than 1,200 individuals and organisations.

Their inquiry resulted in a 200-page report, Assessing Risk of Harm to Children and Parents in Private Law Children Cases.

Ministers will also launch a review into the presumption of ‘parental involvement’ that often encourages a child to continue a relationship with both parents, unless the involvement of that parent would put the child at risk.

That review will examine whether the right balance is being struck between the risk of harm to children and victims, and the right of the child to have a relationship with both parents. Further details about that review will be announced in due course.

An Implementation Plan published this week sets out immediate and longer-term steps to provide better protection for victims in the family courts.

These include:

Trialling an investigative, problem-solving approach in private family law proceedings as part of an upcoming pilot of Integrated Domestic Abuse Courts. This could see judges decide what evidence to investigate, rather than both parties presenting their cases against each other;

Giving automatic entitlement for special measures in the courtroom for victims of domestic abuse going through the family courts – such as separate waiting rooms, entrances and screens – via a further amendment to the Domestic Abuse Bill;

Reviewing the presumption of ‘parental involvement’ and whether the right balance is struck between the risk of harm to children and victims, with the right of the child to have a relationship with both parents;

A commitment to change the provision on ‘barring orders’, which prevent abusers repeatedly dragging ex-partners back to court over child arrangements. Ministers will review whether this is best done through legislative or non-legislative means; and

Inviting the Domestic Abuse Commissioner and the Victims’ Commissioner to monitor and report on private family law proceedings involving victims of domestic abuse.

These changes build on the Domestic Abuse Bill currently before Parliament, which aims to transform the response to dealing with perpetrators of domestic abuse and protecting their victims.

Measures in the Domestic Abuse Bill include:

creating a statutory definition of domestic abuse, emphasising that domestic abuse is not just physical violence, but can also be emotional, coercive or controlling, and economic abuse;

establishing a Domestic Abuse Commissioner, to drive the response to domestic abuse;

introduce new Domestic Abuse Protection Notices and Domestic Abuse Protection Orders to further protect victims and place restrictions on the actions of offenders;

place a duty on local authorities in England to provide support to victims of domestic abuse and their children in refuges and other safe accommodation;

prohibit perpetrators of abuse from cross-examining their victims in person in the family courts in England and Wales;

enable domestic abuse offenders to be subject to polygraph testing as a condition of their licence following their release from custody; and

place the guidance supporting the Domestic Violence Disclosure Scheme (‘Clare’s law’) on a statutory footing.

Nicki Norman, Acting CEO at Women’s Aid, said: “This report marks a major step forward in exposing what women and children experiencing domestic abuse have been telling us for decades.

“The culture of disbelief identified by the panel is a barrier to courts making safe child contact arrangements in cases of domestic abuse. The result is that, all too often, survivors and their children experience the family courts as failing to effectively protect them.

“This welcome report must now deliver change. Guaranteeing special measures in the family courts is a critical protection which survivors have long called for.”

To read the full report, click here.

On 8 June the Home Office announced a shameful increase of just £1.85 a week to the financial support people seeking asylum in the UK rely on.

That is a meagre 26p a day; and leaves people still forced to live off little more than £5 a day.

That is impossible in normal circumstances, never mind during a global pandemic.

That is why over 220 other organisations have signed a letter to the Home Secretary, Priti Patel, and called on her to urgently reconsider her decision, and ensure that people seeking safety in the UK are able to meet their essential needs and stay safe, during the pandemic and afterwards.

The letter runs:

Dear Secretary of State,

Covid-19 pandemic: asylum support rates

As over 200 organisations working with and alongside people seeking asylum in the UK, we believe your decision announced to parliament yesterday to grant an increase of just £1.85 in the weekly rate of asylum support is wholly unacceptable.

It would not allow people to meet their essential living needs in normal times; and it completely fails to take account of the additional needs and severe pressures placed on individuals and families during a public health emergency. We urge you to immediately reconsider this decision.

The Covid-19 pandemic has affected us all, but it is not affecting us all equally. The challenges for those left to live on little more than £5 a day have been further exacerbated in the current crisis.

We know that people seeking asylum have serious problems being able to afford enough food to feed their families, and are making impossible choices between food, cleaning materials, nappies and over the counter medication.

We know families are struggling with the realities of home-schooling without internet access or sufficient educational resources to support their children’s development.

We know people worry about their ability to self-isolate as they cannot afford to stock up on provisions.

Following Public Health England’s recent analysis, we know that people from BAME backgrounds, which includes the vast majority of people seeking asylum in the UK, are disproportionately impacted by COVID-19.

Following government guidance to ‘stay alert’ or ‘stay at home’ is profoundly more difficult when you are living in poverty.

Welcome measures taken by the UK Government to “strengthen the safety net” for those in receipt of mainstream benefits during the Covid-19 pandemic have resulted in increases to Universal Credit and Working Tax Credit by approximately £20 per week.

The speed with which these decisions were taken is in marked contrast to the length of time taken to reach a decision on asylum support rates. Before the Covid-19 pandemic, asylum support rates were already significantly less than mainstream benefits; following the uplift, it is now barely 40 per cent of the allowance people over 25 receive on Universal Credit.

People seeking asylum are effectively banned from working, leaving them entirely reliant upon asylum support to avoid destitution. It is imperative that the safety net for people in the asylum system is equally and immediately strengthened, enabling people to keep themselves and their families safe.

We are united in calling on the UK Government to reconsider its decision; and increase the rate of asylum support to allow people seeking asylum to meet their essential living needs during the Covid-19 pandemic and beyond.

Due to the urgency of the current situation, we are calling on the Home Office to immediately ensure that asylum support rates receive the same £20 Covid-related uplift as Universal Credit.

In addition, we call for the link with mainstream benefits to be reinstated by setting asylum support at 70 per cent of Universal Credit to ensure people seeking asylum are able to meet their needs both during, and outside of, a public health pandemic.

Every week, organisations have provided the Home Office with evidence on how people seeking asylum are struggling to meet their essential living needs in these emergency circumstances. We believe it is both a moral and a public health imperative that asylum support rates are increased immediately.

In recent months the Prime Minister has confirmed to parliament on two separate occasions that the Government will address the wellbeing of people seeking asylum during the Covid-19 pandemic.

On 25 March he told MPs that vulnerable groups including asylum seekers “will certainly receive the Home Office funding that they need and deserve” during the pandemic.

On 13 May he stated: “We will make sure that nobody in this country, let alone asylum seekers, is ill-treated”.

It is clear that this decision does not meet those commitments. We urge you to reconsider your decision as a matter of urgency.

We look forward to hearing from you soon and to working with your ministers and officials to address these matters in the very near future.

Yours sincerely,

Asylum Matters; Safe Passage; Women for Refugee Women – Natasha Walter, Director; Worthing for Refugees – Gay Jacklin, Church and Community worker; Women Centre Kirklees – Sobiya Din, Senior Mental Health Facilitator and Volunteer Coordinator; Yarls Wood Befrienders – Nicky Woods, Chief Executive; and over 220 others.

If you would like to add your name to this letter, click here.

Business Minister Paul Scully has launched a review of employment rights for survivors of domestic abuse and is calling for submissions from organisations and individuals.

The review will look at how employers and government could provide better support for domestic abuse survivors at work and will examine the availability of flexible working, unplanned leave and other employment needs.

It will also look at ways to improve the workplace for survivors, including how employers can help tackle economic abuse, such as by paying wages to a different bank account or making emergency salary payments available for those in real financial hardship.

It aims to ensure survivors are given the support they deserve within the workplace, whether that is an outlet for reporting abuse, financial assistance or as a source of emotional support.

The review comes as the government’s Domestic Abuse Bill, which will bring into law a statutory definition of domestic abuse that includes, coercive or controlling behaviour, as well as emotional and economic abuse, continues through Parliament.

The review will begin with a call for written evidence from stakeholders, on the specific employment needs of domestic abuse survivors, and how they are met by current employment rights and practices.

As part of the process, the government will explore examples of best practice from employers within the UK and evidence from other countries and how they approach domestic abuse, to see how the UK’s current employment framework could be enhanced.

Written submissions will be accepted until 9 September and should be sent to domesticabuse.employmentreview@beis.gov.uk, answering one of these open questions:

What practical circumstances arise in relation to domestic abuse and work?

What support can be offered in the workplace for victims of domestic abuse?

What is possible with the existing framework?

What does current best practice look like?

What is the potential to do more?

There will also be a series of roundtables, run by the Department of Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) and the Home Office, with organisations and individuals who wish to share their views directly.

Dame Vera Baird QC, the Victims’ Commissioner for England and Wales, welcomed the review, and said: “It is vitally important we do all we can to raise awareness of domestic abuse across society.

“Everyone should be alert to the possibility that friends, family members and colleagues could be at risk.

“Having a job and spending time away from their abusers can provide a degree of independence which can be crucially important for those suffering abuse.

“Employers should be encouraged to do all they can to ensure that they are aware of the issues, trained to recognise when people may be at risk, and to put measures in place to help and support their employees who may be experiencing domestic abuse in a sensitive and practical way.”

In a scheme in Northumbria, she continued, “around 400 public and private employers agreed to have nominated employees champions in their staff who other employees could easily go to, which is important as some people are uncomfortable reporting directly to their manager or employer.

“I would like to like to see excellent examples such as this become the norm. And I would encourage anyone who can to contribute to this review – which will hopefully lead to positive change is work places everywhere – to do so.”

Business Minister Paul Scully said: “Domestic abuse may occur in the home, but its impact stretches into every aspect of survivors’ lives.

“This review aims to give employers the confidence and knowledge to support workers affected by domestic abuse.

“It will build the evidence base for possible future action by government and employers, to ensure that survivors are properly supported at work.”

In a briefing paper published recently the Resolution Foundation sets out a significant yet achievable programme of change across five areas that, taken together with a higher minimum wage, would amount to a new settlement for Britain’s low-paid workers.

At its core is the idea that improving the circumstances of low-paid labour is not just about a higher price tag for that labour, but about showing respect to and providing dignity for the people doing it.

Who has control of decisions, or whether low-paid workers are treated in a similar way to higher-paid ones, are central questions that we should pay attention to.

Overall, there were 4.2 million people on low pay – below two-thirds of median hourly earnings – in 2019, of whom almost 2 million were paid near or below the National Living Wage (NLW).

Women were more likely to be in low pay: 19 per cent of women were being paid below two-thirds of the median compared to 12 per cent of men.

This is partly, though not entirely, linked to women being more likely to work part time – although some 36 per cent of part-time men are low paid.

And women are twice as likely as men to be – often low-paid – key workers, facing the biggest health risks in this crisis.

There are significant concentrations of low pay in specific sectors.

Some of the sectors with the highest rates of low pay – hotels and restaurants (where 52 per cent of the workforce is low-paid) and wholesale and retail (28 per cent) – are those that have suffered the most from social distancing measures (with the exception of food retail).

A new settlement for the low paid should include:

Higher wages:

Post-crisis, further increases in the minimum wage should continue, subject to the advice of the Low Pay Commission, with the aim of abolishing low pay by the middle of this decade by raising the National Living Wage to two-thirds of typical hourly pay.

Control of working hours:

Workers should have a right to a contract that reflects the actual hours they work; two weeks’ advance notice of work schedules; and compensation where shifts are cancelled or changed without reasonable notice. And part-time workers should have a right to request a contract with longer hours.

Control of when you are paid:

Workers in large firms should have the right to choose how regularly they are paid, and workers should be involved in decisions about payroll regularity even in smaller employers.

The rights at work that higher earners take for granted:

Sick pay should be extended to lower earners; and workers should qualify for protection against unfair dismissal after one year in post.

Labour market rules actually enforced:

The forthcoming Single Enforcement Body should be introduced and properly resourced, with powers to pro-actively protect workers.

Fines for underpayment of the minimum wage should be increased.

Particularly during this pandemic, local authorities should be resourced to carry out health and safety spot-checks to protect lower-paid workers bearing most health risk.

Institutional innovation to drive up standards:

Unions should be given the right to enter workplaces to raise awareness among workers.

21st century Wage Boards should be established in a small number of industries in clear need of improved standards, starting with social care.

Social care workers, who have been on the front line of this crisis, are particularly likely to be paid below the real Living Wage. In this case, the public sector has a direct role to play.

Although only a minority of care workers are employed in the public sector, social care is heavily reliant on public funding, and it is the failure to provide sufficient funding that has led to close to three-in-five care workers being paid below the real Living Wage.

This paper also sets out a significant yet achievable programme of change across five additional areas, that, together with a higher minimum wage, would amount to a new settlement for Britain’s low-paid workers.

At its core is the idea that improving the circumstances of low-paid labour is not just about a higher price tag for that labour, but about showing respect to and providing dignity for the people doing it.

Who has control over matters such as hours worked or the nature of employment contracts, or whether low-paid workers are treated in a similar way to higher-paid ones, are central questions that we should all pay attention to.

To read the full report, click here.

Leaders of over 150 businesses, civil society organisations and from public life have called on the Prime Minister, Boris Johnson, to use the UN’s 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) to create a socially just and green recovery from the Covid-19 pandemic.

In a letter coordinated by UK Stakeholders for Sustainable Development (UKSSD) and UN Global Compact Network UK they recommend the SDGs are used to:

1 – Prioritise the most vulnerable in our society and level-up regional and societal inequalities;

2 – Build coherent policies for a healthy planet and to aid the transition to net zero; and

3 – Unite all sectors behind a plan to build a stronger and more resilient economy

The letter is a response to a recent speech made by the Prime Minister where he said we must ‘work together to get shared goals back on track including […] the Sustainable Development Goals’.

The letter supports this, saying ‘we do not need to reinvent frameworks or agreements, we can instead use the global goals as the basis for a socially just and green recovery in the UK and abroad’.

It runs:

Dear Prime Minister,

Building a better future through the COVID-19 recovery programmes

As the Government plans for the UK’s recovery from the COVID-19 pandemic, the signatories of this letter write to ask that the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) are used to consolidate and future-proof these plans.

We recognise that we must work together to recover from the pandemic and build a better future where all people in the country have a good life on a healthy planet.

The SDGs can help us to do this and there is already widespread support across UK society, including the business community, for the future the global goals define.

We welcome your recent statement that we need a ‘fairer, greener and more resilient global economy’ and to ‘build back better’ after the coronavirus crisis.

We acknowledge the letters you have already received that ask for this.

However, we also support the statement you made on the 28th May that ‘there is a need for us to work together to get our shared goals back on track including […] the Sustainable Development Goals’.

As you said, we do not need to reinvent frameworks or agreements, we can instead use the global goals as the basis for a socially just and green recovery in the UK and abroad.

Together the 17 Goals provide us with an internationally agreed framework, which also works at national, regional, and local levels, alongside and reinforcing existing plans and commitments.

They enable Government to work cross-departmentally and with stakeholders to create programmes and policies that are coherent with the needs of our economy, society, and environment both domestically and internationally.

We therefore recommend that the Government:

1 – Use the SDGs to unite all sectors behind a plan to build a stronger and more resilient economy.

It is clear that many aspects of our lives will never be the same again. Some industries may never recover from this crisis.

We must use this challenging situation as an opportunity to work together with our global and national partners alike, to build a stronger and more resilient economy with the SDGs at its heart.

2 – Use the SDGs to prioritise the most vulnerable in our society and level-up regional and societal inequalities.

COVID-19 has exposed the depth of inequalities and risks exposing more families to income deprivation and its consequences.

We welcome the Government’s commitment to levelling up prosperity across the UK and urge a similar focus to overcome wider societal inequalities.

The SDGs provide us with a framework which can help us prioritise health and wellbeing, alongside prosperity and GDP, as a measure of the nation’s success. We need to ensure that our recovery from the pandemic leaves no one behind and puts the health and wellbeing of current and future generations first.

3 – Use the SDGs to build coherent policies for a healthy planet and to aid the transition to net zero COVID-19 has highlighted the risks our society faces because of biodiversity and habitat loss, and climate change.

We must balance social and economic needs with the needs of our planet, protecting and managing nature and reducing our greenhouse gas emissions.

These goals do not have to be in conflict. The SDGs provide a way to create co-benefits through the Government’s commitment to net zero by 2050 and coherent policy design.

We recognise that the scale of recovery will pose many challenges for the Government. But the COVID-19 crisis has shown that businesses, government, and civil society can and will work together to create lasting and positive change.

We believe the SDGs should be used to establish the level of ambition for the UK’s pandemic-recovery and a future that ensures all people in our country live a good life, prospering on a healthy planet.

We want to build the future we want with the Government and are ready to support you in this endeavour.

To see the list of signatories, click here.

Commenting on the Black Lives Matter protests taking place in cities and countries around the world, Dr Mary Bousted, joint general secretary of the National Education Union (NEU), said: “This is not the time for patience but for action against racism.

“These protests, giving voice to deep inequalities, raise urgent questions.

“The demand is for safety, for equal respect and dignity, for equal representation and participation and freedom from racist violence.

“This is a demand for human rights.

“Urgent action is needed to address widespread stereotyping, discrimination and the fear and violence caused by racism. In education, we must lead the way in breaking down the barriers caused by racism.

“We must improve the curriculum so that students learn about how Britain was founded on global histories.

“Students should learn about the achievements and roles of Black Britons in every field of human endeavour. And they should learn about the campaigns by Black workers for equal treatment and the stand against injustice.

“Racism will not be addressed without positive action and we need to talk openly and candidly about racism and the social division and harmful stereotyping it creates for Black workers and for young Black people.

“There are many steps that must be taken – and taken now – to build a better approach to the national curriculum after Covid-19 and adopt a wider vision of education than a system that is all about exam results.”

The NEU, she continued, is calling on the government to:

Review the curriculum to ensure it embraces the fact that Britain is rooted in Black and global history, achievement and culture and includes the achievements of Black Britons; as recommended by the Stephen Lawrence Inquiry;

Commit to review Initial Teacher Training to equip all trainee teachers with anti-racist strategies and tools, for the benefit of all students;

Adopt a strategy to make the pipeline of new entrants to the teaching profession significantly more diverse over the next four years;

Learn from the Windrush Review and develop a Department for Education plan to teach about the history of the UK and its relationship to the rest of the world – including Britain’s colonial history and the history of migration; and

Provide immediate advice to employers in the education sector about the racial disparities in the pandemic in order to minimise risks to the wellbeing and safety of Black workers and the communities in which they live, work and travel.

“This term,” she added, “the NEU will launch an anti-racist framework to respond to the experiences of Black children and Black staff and to help education staff develop anti-racist approaches.

“We support the initiatives from NGOs such as the Runnymede Trust and youth movements such as The Black Curriculum to highlight the importance of challenging the education system to be more inclusive and making the curriculum representative and relevant.”

The Black Curriculum’s report, ‘Black British history in the National Curriculum’, explores how the current History National Curriculum systematically omits the contribution of Black British history in favour of a dominant White, Eurocentric curriculum that fails to reflect this country’s multi-ethnic and broadly diverse society.

In its current guise the History National Curriculum continues to disassociate Britain from a legacy that has oppressed Black people historically in favour of a more romanticised, filtered legacy that positions Britannia as all-conquering and eternally embracive of ethnic and cultural difference.

But both the report of the Stephen Lawrence Inquiry, released in 1999, and the recent Windrush Lessons Learned Review of 2020 have called for greater understanding of British histories of empire, colonialism and migration to combat racism in our institutions.

The Windrush Lessons Learned Review said: ‘The Windrush scandal was in part able to happen because of the public’s and officials’ poor understanding of Britain’s colonial history, the history of inward and outward migration, and the history of black Britons.’

If you want to find out more about the reforms needed to this country’s history teaching and education, three  short reports by the Runnymede Trust provide  useful summaries: ‘Teaching Migration, Belonging and Migration in Secondary Schools’ (2019), ‘The teaching of migration in the history curriculum’ (2019) and History Lessons: Teaching Diversity In and Through the History National Curriculum (2015).

If you want help reform the history curriculum, click here and here.

On 8 June eight years ago the UK signed the Istanbul Convention – the gold standard approach to tackling violence against women at a national level.

Violence against women and girls is widespread in the UK and takes many forms. At the moment, there is no legislation to hold the government to account for failing to take the action necessary to address this issue.

That is what the Istanbul Convention would provide.

The Istanbul Convention (IC) is a strong and comprehensive legal framework that exists to tackle violence against women and girls, and a life-saving piece of legislation for protecting women and girls against all forms of violence; it sets out minimum standards for how the government should prevent violence, protect women and girls experiencing it, and prosecute those responsible.

The UK government has signed but not yet ratified the Istanbul Convention – and until it does, the Convention is not legally binding. This is stopping important steps being taken to tackle violence against women.

IC Change and 30 other women’s organisations have signed this letter to the Prime Minister, Boris Johnson, calling for the government to ratify the #IstanbulConvention within the year:

Dear Prime Minister,

We are urging the Government to ratify the Istanbul Convention on preventing and combating violence against women and domestic violence; and we urge you to ensure that this happens within the year.

On 8 June 2020, it will be eight years since the UK signed the Istanbul Convention. Much progress has been made in that time, especially to guarantee that the UK is more compliant with the Convention. We thank you for your role in securing key reforms, including the current Domestic Abuse Bill. However, eight years on, we remain anxious to see ratification at last.

The 2019 Report on Progress towards ratifying the Istanbul Convention, alongside additional ministerial statements, indicate that the final hurdles to ratification should be cleared when the Domestic Abuse and Family Proceedings Bill in Northern Ireland, and the Domestic Abuse Bill in Westminster are passed. These would extend extra-territorial jurisdiction (ETJ) over certain crimes, including rape and so-called ‘honour’ based killings, and bring legislation in Northern Ireland in line with the rest of the UK. We welcome these crucial developments but urge you to ensure that the Domestic Abuse Bill delivers protection for all women, regardless of their migrant, refugee or immigration status, as per Article 4(3) of the Convention. We are particularly concerned about the lack of access to financial and housing support for migrant survivors who do not have secure immigration status.

Assuming the success of these Bills, we would like to ask you to publish the timetable for ratification as required in the Preventing and Combating Violence Against Women and Domestic Violence (Ratification of Convention) Act 2017, and to commit to ratifying the Convention within the year.

While we appreciate the additional pressures that the COVID-19 pandemic puts on legislation, we are particularly concerned by the impact of lockdown measures on women and children experiencing domestic abuse and survivors of sexual violence and abuse at this time. The comprehensive protections for survivors offered by the Convention are more important than ever. This Government can be the one to ratify this essential and comprehensive roadmap to ending violence against women – and it can do so this year.

We look forward to a reply that provides both a commitment to ratification within the year and a clear timetable for this process.

If we can be of any help, or should you like to discuss this further, we would be happy to meet with you.

Yours faithfully,

R. Boosey, K. Dingle and N. Wharton, Co-directors – IC Change; Ann-Marie Wilson, Executive Director – 28 Too Many; Anthea Sully, Chief Executive Officer – White Ribbon UK; Baljit Banga, Director – Imkaan; Bev Jullien, Chief Executive Officer – Mothers’ Union; Claire Barnett, Executive Director – UN Women UK; Caroline Pinder, Chair, Board of Trustees – Oxford Against Cutting; Dr C Quinn, Chief Executive Officer – Rape Crisis England & Wales; Diana Nammi, Executive Director – IKWRO; Eleanor Lisney, Co-ordinator – Sisters of Frida; Emma Ritch, Executive Director – Engender; Estelle du Boulay, Director – Rights of Women; Faeeza Vaid MBE, Executive Director and Nazmin Akthar, Co-Chair – Muslim Women’s Network UK; Fiona Dwyer, Chief Executive Officer – Solace Women’s Aid; Harriet Wistrich, Director – Centre for Women’s Justice; Human Rights Watch; Jackie Jones, Former Member – European Parliament; Jo Todd, Chief Executive Officer – RESPECT; Juliet Colman, Director – SecurityWomen; Lisa Gormley, Policy Fellow – Centre for Women, Peace and Security, London School of Economics and Political Science; Liz Dominey, Chair – UK Programme Action Committee, Soroptimist International Great Britain, and Ireland; Dr Marsha Scott, Chief Executive Officer – Scottish Women’s Aid; Melissa Green, General Secretary – The Women’s Institute; Naana Otoo-Oyortey, Executive Director – FORWARD; Nicki Norman, Acting Chief Executive Officer – Women’s Aid Federation of England; Dr Nicola Sharp-Jeffs, Chief Executive Officer – Surviving Economic Abuse; Pragna Patel, Director – Southall Black Sisters; Sandra Horley CBE, Chief Executive Officer – Refuge; Sarah Green, Director – Ending violence against women coalition; Sara Kirkpatrick, Chief Executive Officer – Welsh Women’s Aid; Sarah Mason, Chief Executive Officer – Women’s Aid Federation Northern Ireland; Suzanne Jacob, Chief Executive Officer – Safe Lives; and Wales Assembly of Women.

For more information about this campaign, click here.

Leading women’s organisations have called for a radical rethink of how Scotland’s economy can recover from the downturn caused by Covid-19.

A paper outlining nine principles for economic recovery, produced by Engender and Close the Gap and endorsed by national women’s and parenting organisations, call for a shift in the way that Scotland’s pursues inclusive growth.

Ranging from investment in social care as infrastructure to the use of gendered economic indicators in place of GDP, the paper, Gender and Economic Recovery, argues that unless it works for everyone, the economy does not work.

The nine principles, which were endorsed by Scottish Women’s Aid; One Parent Families Scotland; Equate Scotland; Zero Tolerance; The Young Women’s Movement; The Scottish Women’s Convention; Women’s Enterprise Scotland; and The Scottish Women’s Budget Group, have been submitted to the Scottish Government Advisory Group on Economic Recovery.

These nine principles are:

1 – Equality is good for growth. The converse isn’t necessarily true. As women and men had different levels of economic wellbeing before Covid-19 that have been deepened by the crisis, the principle of equality and non-discrimination must be core to the economic recovery. Inclusive growth means including all men and women in the process of growth and ensuring that the outcomes of growth are used to meet the needs of Black and minority ethnic, disabled, LGB & T, and older and younger women.

2 – Gender-sensitive inclusive growth is about the pattern of growth and not its rate. Repatterning growth means seeing the poorest women’s income rise both along with the poorest men’s and also relative to men’s as a group.

3 – Creating aggregate demand should mean cash transfers to women and their dependent children, so that women have money in their pockets to spend on goods and services in their local economies.

4 – Inclusive growth means investing in a care economy. Care is as essential to our economy as bricks, steel, and fibre optic cable. Investment in childcare and care for disabled people and older people should be considered as necessary infrastructure for a sustainable wellbeing economy and a good society.

5 – Unpaid domestic and care work needs to be recognised, reduced, and redistributed from the household to the state by an increase of accessible, good quality childcare and social care. Within households, men and women should be enabled to do a 50/50 share of paid work and unpaid work.

6 – Women’s work in care, cleaning, catering, retail, and clerical roles has for too long been undervalued, underpaid, and underprotected. State and public body wage-setting powers should be used to increase pay in these sectors and improve their conditions of work.

7 – Economic success shouldn’t only be measured by GVA or GDP but by an increase in wellbeing of the people of Scotland. Gendered wellbeing indicators should take a human rights approach, and measure the extent to which all groups of women and men have an adequate standard of living, including access to housing, social protections, and health.

8 – Public spending and revenue-raising decisions shaping Scotland’s economic recovery and the re-set of the economy must integrate gender analysis across budgetary processes. This includes allocation of resources, scrutiny of spending, and outcomes from public finance decisions.

9 – Scotland’s economy should be governed by gender-balanced, gender-competent leaders, making decisions based on intersectional gender-sensitive sex-disaggregated data. A healthy economy is one that provides equality for all, including between all groups of women and men. Black and minority ethnic, disabled, LGB & T, and older and younger women must have power to participate in decision-making about their economy.

Engender’s Executive Director, Emma Ritch, said: “As Scotland enters Phase 1 of lockdown measures easing, economic recovery is a long way off. But in order for that recovery to work for women as well as men, we can’t rely on the traditional stimulus measures that create ‘jobs for the boys’.

“Covid-19 has been a wake-up call for many about how much we separate the unpaid care our society relies on from our understanding of what the economy is. In fact, care is an economic issue.

“The recovery gives us an opportunity to think about what truly matters to people – wellbeing, community, and solidarity.

“We need to create the demand for goods and services that will sustain our local economies by investing in public services and putting money directly in women’s pockets.

“Decision-makers must recognise that the economy and women’s equality go hand in hand.”

And Anna Ritchie Allan, Executive Director of Close the Gap, said: “Women’s work is systematically undervalued in the economy, including work that is critical to the Covid-19 response such as health and social care, retail and cleaning. Public investment is central to increasing pay in these sectors.

“Fifty years on from the Equal Pay Act, pay equality remains elusive for many women. Scotland has a plan to close the gender pay gap, but we need bold action on what Covid-19 has exposed, that women’s work is undervalued, underprotected, and underpaid.

The Scottish Government, she continued, “is committed to inclusive economic growth, but there’s a lack of detail about what that means for women. These principles provide a foundation for a model of inclusive growth which will ensure women aren’t left behind.”

To read the whole paper, click here.

Women’s Link Worldwide has asked the United Nations to investigate human rights violations against migrant women carrying out seasonal farm work in Spain’s strawberry industry.

The international organisation Women’s Link Worldwide, with the support of 7 other organisations, has sent an urgent communication to several United Nations (UN) bodies detailing human rights violations committed against Moroccan women and other migrants carrying out seasonal work in the strawberry and other berry fields in Huelva, in the south of Spain.

Women’s Link and the other organisations also warn of additional risks posed by the COVID-19 pandemic to the rights of these Moroccan women and the rest of the migrant worker population, who were already in a situation of heightened vulnerability because of labour exploitation and the numerous forms of violence they have faced for years.

And these workers may now be exposed to new forms of exploitation resulting from the labour shortage caused by the borders closing, as well as an increase in impunity in cases of violence, particularly sexual violence, due to greater difficulties they now face in accessing healthcare and the justice system.

In addition, workplace conditions – no physical distancing, gloves, or masks – and housing conditions  – shipping containers lacking ventilation, potable water, and onsite toilets – at some farms mean they are at great risk of COVID-19 infection.

Migrants living in informal settlements in the province are also at risk of infection as they also lack access to basic services such as water and sewage, according to local organisations.

Women’s Link has asked the UN bodies to issue a joint statement to the competent authorities of Spain and Morocco and the businesses involved demanding protection for the health and rights of migrant workers in Huelva.

These measures, they said, should include a gender perspective, since strawberry-picking is a highly feminised industry.

They should also be sustainable over the long term, not just during the COVID-19 crisis, for the area has a history of rights violations.

Along with the communication, the organisation submitted a report prepared by Andaira, Taraceas Cooperativa, and other experts detailing the most frequent human rights violations committed against seasonal workers in the 2019 season.

The report describes rights violations documented during the worker selection process in Morocco and during the performance of work, as well as specific violations related to housing conditions, sexual violence, access to justice, access to healthcare, and sexual and reproductive rights.

Based on this report and the accounts of ally organisations working in Huelva, Women’s Link maintains that the situation has not improved substantially since 2018, when measures were announced as a response to numerous reports of labour exploitation and sexual violence against migrant workers.

Most of these measures still place the onus of reporting abuses on the workers, who are often unaware of their rights or may fear losing their jobs.

And Spain has yet to take steps to ensure that businesses respect workers’ rights, opting instead to delegate oversight duties to strawberry industry managers and owners, rather than having government agencies monitor their compliance.

“The COVID-19 pandemic, like all crises, has a specific impact on women, exacerbating existing gender inequalities,” Women’s Link Worldwide’s attorney Aintzane Márquez explained.

“This impact is particularly serious for women in situations of vulnerability, such as migrant workers in the strawberry industry, whose families rely on their income, and who face discriminatory and abusive work conditions.

“The COVID-19 crisis offers an opportunity to overhaul the in-country hiring system. Returning to ‘normal’ must also mean shifting to a production model where migrant workers’ rights, rather than financial interests, are front and centre,” Márquez added.

To read the report, click here.

By Diane Abbott.

America is currently engulfed in the worst civil unrest since the assassination of Martin Luther King in 1968. A Brooklyn resident called Fatima, who came out to demonstrate in New York with her husband and toddler, on Sunday said: “I’m tired of posting social media – I got a black husband, a black son. I’m tired of them killing us. This is the civil rights movement and it’s 2020.”

As always, what has triggered these scenes has been a backdrop of institutional racism and then a particular act of violence by the state against a black man. In this case, he was called George Floyd. And the images in our media are tragic but fundamentally familiar. Just 30 years ago, Los Angeles erupted in riots because of the savage beating of a black man called Rodney King which was captured on camera. Some time afterwards, Rodney King asked sadly: “Can’t we all just get along?”.

A lot has happened since then, including the election of America’s first black President, Barack Obama. White America seemed to delude itself that putting a black man in the White House would somehow transform race relations in America. But the roots of racism in America are far too deep. So periodically black men in America continue to die at the hands of the state and periodically anguished communities take to the street in protest.

In recent years, we have seen: the death of the black boy Trayvon Martin at the hands of George Zimmerman in 2012; Michael Brown killed by the police in Ferguson Missouri in 2013; Eric Garner killed by the police in New York in 2013 whose last words were almost the same as George Floyd’s “I can’t breathe”; and most recently a young black jogger Ahmaud Arbery was killed in cold blood by two white vigilantes. The ‘Black Lives Matter’ campaign has done its best. But it seems that for some people in America black lives continue not to matter.

The media often comments on people taking to the streets, in protest at these deaths, as if the protests are just random disorder and the murderous policemen are “bad apples in the barrel”. But the deaths of black people in America at the hands of the police and the protests that follow represent some fundamental realities of the relationship of the American state to black people.

When Obama became President, his wife Michelle remarked that slaves originally built the White House. In the same way, the legacy of slavery has shaped race relations in the America up until to the present day. And in some ways in 2020 race relations are as toxic as they have ever been and institutional racism just as bad. For one thing, this is all taking place against the backdrop of the coronavirus pandemic, which has taken the lives of black Americans in a wholly disproportionate way. But there is also Donald Trump installed as President of the United States.

Sadly, the election of Trump was in many ways a backlash against the progress that America appeared to have made by electing Obama. Trump’s slogan “Make America Great Again” was a transparent reference to the days when a black person could not hope to be elected President. And Trump in office has been relentless in appealing to white nationalists.

Faced with the current civil unrest, Trump has made no effort to understand what has motivated people to come out and demonstrate. Instead, he calls the protestors anarchists, claims the protests have been orchestrated and makes threats of violent retaliation. Trump’s attitude is remarkable. Any other American President, Democrat or Republican, would have made promises – however tokenistic – to listen and would have called for peace. Trump just seems to want to inflame things further.

The British political class need not think that it could not happen here. All the elements that have generated a wave of civil unrest in America are present in the UK: the terrible coronavirus death toll amongst black people; a history of a disproportionate use of force against black people by the state; institutional racism generally; and a national leader who shows no understanding or empathy about issues of race.

We should remember that it was the death of Cynthia Jarrett, in the aftermath of a police raid on her house, that triggered the 1985 Tottenham riots.

Faced with the threat of the coronavirus pandemic, British politicians did not content themselves with wringing their hands and making token protestations of concern. They had to act firmly and decisively. Fighting institutional racism seriously will require similar levels of seriousness from British politicians of all political parties.

A version of this post appeared on the LabourList website on 2 June 2020.

It is estimated that as a result of the coronavirus crisis a significant proportion of childcare providers will go to the wall, with a loss of 10,000 businesses or 150,000 childcare places.

And because of the continuing unequal impact of caring roles, this catastrophic loss of childcare provision will result in fewer mothers being able to return to work.

On 27 May the Prime Minister acknowledged to the Liaison Committee that female workers have been harder hit by the economic impact of the coronavirus crisis.

And, with reference to additional assistance to the childcare sector, Johnson said he would do “whatever it takes to help get women back into work” and that “childcare is absolutely critical for the success of our economy”.

Research by The Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) found that the mothers in hetersexual couple families are one and half times more likely than the fathers to have lost or quit their jobs since the coronavirus crisis began.

They are also more likely to have been furloughed, and are now 9 percentage points less likely to be working for pay.

Mothers are also taking on a significantly larger share of unpaid work in the home, even when they are also trying to juggle this with paid work.

The picture will be worse for single parents.

A group of women’s sector organisations has now sent a letter to the Prime Minister, Boris Johnson, calling for funding for childcare infrastructure to be prioritised as lockdown is eased, and for substantial long-term investment in the sector.

The letter runs:

Dear Prime Minister

We were encouraged by your remarks at the Liaison Committee on May 27th where you acknowledged that female workers have been harder hit by the economic impact of the coronavirus crisis.

In particular, with reference to additional assistance to the childcare sector you said you would do “whatever it takes to help get women back into work” and that “childcare is absolutely critical for the success of our economy”.

You are absolutely right to recognise the severe impact this crisis has already had on female employment.

The Institute for Fiscal Studies has found that mothers in couple families are one and half times more likely than fathers to have lost or quit their jobs since the crisis began.

They are also more likely to have been furloughed and are now 9 percentage points less likely to be working for pay.

Mothers are also taking on a significantly larger share of unpaid work in the home, even when they are also trying to juggle this with paid work.

The picture will be worse for single parents.

It is estimated that a significant proportion of childcare providers will go to the wall with a loss of 10,000 businesses or 150,000 childcare places.

Over 90 per cent of staff working in the childcare sector are women.

Because of the unequal impact of caring roles, this catastrophic loss of childcare provision will result in fewer mothers being able to return to work.

One of the successes of recent years has been the fact that at 75 per cent, rates of maternal employment were higher than they have ever been before, up from 66 per cent in 2000.

But this progress has now been reversed and it is our view that maternal employment will not recover to pre-crisis levels without a significant and strategic investment in our childcare infrastructure.

The economic recovery of the whole country relies on getting women and men back to work, but without childcare mothers will be left behind, the economic recovery will falter and may fail altogether.

Just as we need investment in roads and rail, we also need investment in childcare.

We urge you to prioritise funding for childcare in both the short and medium-term by providing a substantial injection of funding at local level now, as the lockdown is easing, so that childcare providers can safely play their part in supporting the economic recovery.

But more significantly, we urge you to make investment in our childcare infrastructure integral to your programme for renewal going forward.

Evidence shows that by investing in a care economy we can grow our way out of this recession because there is an economic return on that investment.  It pays for itself.

We urge you to make childcare part of the solution and we would be delighted to work with you and with your advisers to make this happen.

The letter was signed by:

Sam Smethers, Chief Executive, Fawcett Society;

Mary-Ann Stephenson, Director, Women’s Budget Group;

Rosalind Bragg, Director, Maternity Action;

Joeli Brearley, Founder and Director, Pregnant Then Screwed;

Victoria Benson, CEO, Gingerbread;

Mark Gale, Policy and Campaigns Manager, Young Women’s Trust;

Thomas Lawson, Chief Executive, Turn2us;

Jane van Zyl, Chief Executive, Working Families;

Justine Roberts, founder and CEO, Mumsnet; and

Jessica Figueras, Chair of Trustees, the National Childbirth Trust.

The long-term rise in self-harm in young women is about more than social media.

Young women in England who face poverty and disadvantage are more likely to self-harm than young women in affluent households, new evidence published by Agenda and the National Centre of Social Research has revealed.

This research, undertaken by analysts at the National Centre of Social Research (NatCen), is one of the first to focus on connections between poverty and non-suicidal self-harm in young women across England.

Based on new analysis of data from more than 20,000 people, it shows that young women – aged 16 to 34 – living in the most deprived households are five times more likely to self-harm, compared with those in the least deprived households.

Young women struggling with money problems and debt are at particular risk.

One in five young women with ‘severe’ money problems has self-harmed in the past year, and those seriously behind with payments or who have had utilities disconnected were three times more likely to have self-harmed in the past year than other women.

Where young women live may also play a role.

Self-harm was four times more common among those who said they did not feel safe in their neighbourhood in the day.

While most people who self-harm will not attempt suicide, those who die by suicide are more likely to have previously self-harmed.

And although young men remain more likely to take their own lives than young women, suicide rates for girls and young women aged 10 to 24 have increased and in 2018 were the highest on record.

Other key points from the briefing include:

Young women seriously behind with payments or who have had utilities disconnected were three times more likely to have self-harmed in the past year than other women (13 per cent compared to 4 per cent).

The findings come at a time when other evidence points to a deterioration in mental health among young women and girls. The proportion of people aged 16-74 saying that they self-harmed tripled between 2000 and 2014 – with the greatest percentage point increase being for 16 to 24 year-old women (5.8 per cent to 17.7 per cent)

One in seven have signs of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).

The findings come at a time when the coronavirus outbreak is likely to cause more economic hardship and push people further into poverty, with women hit the hardest.

Agenda is calling for an understanding of the impact poverty and disadvantage has on young women’s emotional wellbeing and mental health and for that consideration to be a core part of the response to the coronavirus outbreak.

The findings come the year the Marmot report ‘Health Equity in England Ten Years On‘ revealed that women living in the poorest areas are facing the greatest health inequalities, and their life expectancy has declined by ten per cent in the last decade.

And recent research warns that existing inequalities mean that women are set to be disproportionately impacted by the economic and health impacts of Covid-19.

Agenda is calling for:

A cross-government strategy to improve the outcomes of women and girls facing poverty and disadvantage in order to tackle the major risk factors linked with self-harm.

This should come with a central government funding pot to support relevant and joined-up responses to tackling these disadvantage, and support the provision of gender and trauma-informed services that respond to the wide range of challenges women and girls may face.

This is especially important when considering the economic and health response to COVID-19;

National and local suicide prevention strategies and action plans to acknowledge and respond to self-harm among young women and girls, with poverty and considered as a central factor;

Policy initiatives to tackle women and girls’ risk of poverty and disadvantage must be developed and delivered.

This is especially true in light of the coronavirus outbreak.

Research shows that women are more likely to be living in poverty, struggling with debts and bills and working insecure jobs. This should include removing the 5-week wait and covering the cost of average rents under Universal Credit, increasing sick pay and carer’s allowance, tacking action to address the gender pay gap, and ensuring job losses and redundancies do not hit young women and women in insecure low-paid work hardest;

Professionals working with those living in poverty to be aware of the increased rate of self-harm among girls and young women on low incomes;

Population-wide survey data collected in both England and Wales to understand the factors that drive inequalities in health, including in gender, age and ethnicity; and

Policy makers must be aware of the wider impact and harms caused by the social and economic impacts of the coronavirus outbreak. We need to plan for increased need among young women and girls.

Kate, 29, who experiences anxiety, depression and complex PTSD, said: “I started self-harming when I was about 12.

“I was in my teen years, being permanently skint, not having my rent together, led to chronic insecurity and fear. I let people I shouldn’t have into my home if they could chip into the rent. This always ended badly and put me in physical danger which only compounded my sense of worthlessness and being a complete failure, not able to pull myself together and function properly, which I’d take out on myself through self-harm.

“I often didn’t have money to travel and was ashamed of my situation which isolated me from people that could have offered support.”

Jemima Olchawski, Chief Executive of Agenda, said: “The increase in self-harm among young women is deeply worrying. Yet the discussion around this issue and women and girls’ mental health is often very narrow, focussing on issues like social media rather than reflecting on wider causes.

“This research highlights the important relationship between self-harm and poverty – that’s especially concerning as we move into an economic downturn as a result of the coronavirus outbreak.

“This evidence should encourage policy makers to take a more holistic approach to tackling self-harm.

“We know that poverty, discrimination and abuse are prevalent and have a serious impact on mental health and emotional wellbeing. Yet these issues are often ignored in favour of simplistic solutions.”

To read the full report, Often Overlooked: Young women, poverty and self-harm, click here.

If you or someone you know wants help or someone to talk to, call the Samaritans – free on any phone, anytime, on 116 123, or email: jo@samaritans.org  or visit www.samaritans.org

Eighteen domestic abuse and women’s rights organisations, including the Women’s Aid Federation of England, Latin American Women’s Rights Service and Southall Black Sisters, have written to the Leader of the House of Commons, Jacob Rees-Mogg MP, asking the government to reconsider the requirement that survivors giving evidence next week to the Domestic Abuse Public Bill Committee must only do so in person – despite Covid-19 and current government guidelines.

MPs return to parliament next week as the ‘hybrid parliament’ arrangements, where individuals could provide evidence to scrutiny committees via videolink, are set to end.

The letter highlights that the requirement for women who have experienced domestic abuse to attend parliament in person is booth discriminatory and unsafe.

It puts the health of witnesses and those supporting them, particularly from Black and minority ethnic (BME) communities, at risk.

It also contravenes government guidance.

Witnesses some of our organisations are supporting to give evidence, the letter said, ‘include women with childcare responsibilities, who are not able to secure alternative childcare arrangements whilst adhering to current social distancing guidelines.

‘Another witness has disability and accessibility requirements and would therefore need someone to break social distancing guidelines to support them in navigating Westminster.

‘Witnesses would also be required to use public transport to make journeys which are not essential, given that remote evidence is a clear option.

‘The insistence on giving evidence in person also excludes any survivor or organisation in Wales from engaging in legislation which will impact upon them, as leaving home and travel restrictions within Wales are currently more stringent.’

And Pragna Patel, Director, Southall Black Sisters, said: ‘Southall Black Sisters is supporting a user to give evidence to the Public Bill Committee to highlight the growing gap in protection from abuse for migrant women with No Recourse to Public Funds.

“However, this important opportunity to give evidence should made not be made conditional upon her attendance in Parliament in person to do so.

“This unacceptable condition of attendance only serves to jeopardise the safety of survivors and their key workers, as well as flout the rule on non-essential travel.

“In a context where facilities exist for participants to give evidence remotely, there is no justification for the requirement.

“Given that BME groups are amongst those disproportionately affected by Covid-19, BME survivors and the staff who support them will be placed at unnecessary risk. We urge the Government to reconsider.”

To read the full letter, click here.

It has been signed by Nicki Norman, Acting Chief Executive, Women’s Aid Federation of England; Sarah Green, Director, End Violence Against Women Coalition; Donna Covey, Director, Against Violence and Abuse; Gudrun Burnet, CEO, Standing Together Against Domestic Violence; Gisela Valle, Director, Latin American Women Rights Service; Pragna Patel, Director, Southall Black Sisters; Medina Johnson, Chief Executive, IRISi; Kate Allen, Director, Amnesty International UK; Jo Todd, CEO, Respect; Estelle du Boulay, Director, Rights of Women; Suzanne Jacob, CEO, SafeLives; Refuge; Jemima Olchawski, CEO, Agenda: the alliance for women and girls at risk; Sheila Coates MBE, External Relations, Rape Crisis England & Wales; Nicola Sharp-Jeffs, Director, Surviving Economic Abuse; Frank Mullane MBE, CEO, Advocacy After Fatal Domestic Abuse; Nik Noone, CEO, Galop; and Sara Kirkpatrick, Chief Executive Officer, Welsh Women’s Aid.

The Trades Union Congress (TUC) has called on government to introduce tough new measures to ensure that before lockdown restrictions are eased all employers assess the risks to their staff of returning to work outside the home.

And in a report, the TUC outlined what the government and employers need to do to keep workers safe at work after lockdown is eased, and to give staff the confidence they need, and is calling for every employer in the UK to be required to carry out a specific COVID-19 risk assessment, which should be developed in consultation with unions and workers.

The assessment must:

Identify what risks exist in the workplace, and set out specific steps to mitigate them – including through social distancing;

Be agreed with the staff trade union, where there is one;

Be signed off by one of the UK’s 100,000 trade union health and safety representatives, or by a Health and Safety Executive (HSE) inspector, to make sure that it is robust; and

Be completed and communicated to workers before they are expected to return to their normal place of work, which means that employers should start work on their assessments now.

Employers who fail to complete their risk assessments or put the appropriate safety measures in place should face serious penalties, including prosecution.

These are demanding measures, which would represent a step-change in the UK’s approach to health and safety at work, the union body said.

The report sets out what the TUC believes the government must do now to ensure a safe transition from lockdown, looking at how to safely return to work outside the home, the enforcement measures needed to protect workers, and how best to protect workers’ livelihoods.

The government, it says, must ensure that workers’ mental health and wellbeing is prioritised alongside physical safety; and:

The government must run a public information campaign to ensure working people can be confident that health and safety at work is a priority as they return to work;

Every employer must carry out a specific Covid-19 risk assessment;

Personal protective equipment (PPE) must be provided where necessary, and no-one should be asked to re-use PPE inappropriately;

The government must provide specific advice and protection for those groups most at risk;

The EHRC must ensure that the return to work strategy seeks to prevent this disproportionate impact and complies with the public sector equality duty;

Unions should be consulted when the government prepares sector-specific guidance, and when employers seek to implement it;

The Health and Safety Executive must act quickly to sanction employers that do not risk-assess for Covid-19 or fail to provide safe working arrangements;

The HSE must run a public information campaign to ensure workers know their rights;

No worker should face a sanction for refusing to work in an unsafe workplace;

The government must ensure the job retention scheme continues to protect jobs;

Those who lose their jobs must be protected by a strengthened safety net;

The government must ban zero-hours contracts, tackle false self-employment, and guarantee all workers day-one employment rights; and

We need decent sick pay for all.

But the TUC believes that too many workers have already been put at unnecessary risk during the pandemic, through lack of personal protective equipment (PPE) and inadequate social distancing procedures, and so is concerned for the future.

New TUC polling, published on 27 April, showed that 2 in 5 (40 per cent) workers surveyed, along with those who have recently become unemployed, are worried about returning to the normal place of work, including half (49 per cent) of women.

Asked about their specific concerns:

2 in 5 (39 per cent) were concerned about not being able to socially distance from colleagues when back at work;

Over a quarter (28 per cent) were concerned about not being able to socially distance from customers or clients;

Over a third (34 per cent) are concerned about exposing others in their household to greater risk; and

Nearly 1 in 6 (17 per cent) workers across the economy are concerned about not having access to appropriate personal protective equipment (PPE) at work.

The NHS Confederation and NHS Providers have already publicly criticised the government for announcing personal protective equipment deliveries that failed to materialise.

Their concerns have been echoed by bodies including the Royal College of Nurses who warned that inadequate supplies of personal protective equipment could force staff to stop treating patients.

The TUC has also called for government to set up a public inquiry into the “grotesque failure” to provide frontline workers with PPE.

The TUC’s General Secretary, Frances O’Grady, said: “Many employers have struck sensible deals with unions to protect workers’ health, safety and wellbeing. But too often decent employers are let down by those who play fast and loose with safety.

“We need tough new measures from government to reassure working people that their health and safety is a priority.

“Too many workers have already been forced to put their health on the line during this pandemic.

“We all want everyone to get back to work and start rebuilding Britain. But workers need confidence that they won’t have to put themselves or their families at unnecessary risk.

“[The] Government must ensure that every employer performs a comprehensive risk assessment before asking staff to return to work. And bosses who don’t take steps to protect workers should be prosecuted.

“If workers are asked to work in conditions they think are unsafe, they can refuse. And they should know that their unions will have their back.”

To read the TUC’s full report ‘Preparing for the return to work outside the home’, click here.

To read a more detailed overview of the processes required to ensure that comprehensive risk assessments and safe working practices are put in place over the period ahead, click here.

More than 600 people have signed an open letter to senior police officers calling for an end to political campaigning being categorised as “domestic extremism”.

At least 45 environmental activists had been referred to the Home Office’s anti-extremism programme, Prevent, from April 2016-March 2019, according to a recent investigation by The Times.

The Prevent strategy was introduced as a counter terrorism measure. It was never intended, as the government has itself confirmed, to be used against people exercising their democratic and legal right to protest.

While some may disagree with the disruption a protest has caused, or disagree with the tactics employed, or even the cause, the protests that have taken place in the UK recently could never be deemed terrorism.

That is the issue. To treat environmental protestors as terrorists under Prevent is an abuse of power and a misuse of the strategy.

The signatories include the Green Party baroness Jenny Jones, who discovered that there was a file on her on the national domestic extremism database.

It has also been signed by academics, lawyers, councillors, journalists and members of anti-fracking and other campaign groups.

The letter, coordinated by the police monitoring group, Netpol, urges the National Police Chiefs Council to take action before the end of the coronavirus crisis.

The letter said:

To: The National Police Chiefs Council.

Policing in Britain is starting to talk about preparations for a “more volatile and agitated society” after the end of the coronavirus lockdown – and we know it is extremely unlikely that surveillance on campaigners has ended because of the current crisis.

The Times reported only recently that 45 environmental campaigners were referred to the government’s Prevent “counter-extremism” programme between April 2016 and March 2019. It seems likely a large proportion were involved in anti-fracking groups, even though as far back as December 2016, the Home Office insisted opposition to fracking is not an “indicator of vulnerability to radicalisation”.

This is yet another reminder why such government reassurances have proven meaningless as long as the police remain able to subjectively categorise groups as “extremist”, even though this label has no legal definition.

The coronavirus crisis has demonstrated just how dramatically and how quickly political and economic orthodoxies can crumble.

It is now clear society is capable of organising to meet human need rather than simply to generate profit – and not just in a crisis. The government may want everything to return to the way it was before but most likely, as in the aftermath of the 2008 financial crisis, only for the benefit of the few.

However, when we finally emerge from lockdown, it is inevitable campaigners will demand real changes to the way many of society’s problems are prioritised, from the NHS, housing and the climate emergency to military and security spending, social care and workers’ rights, that have been laid bare by the pandemic.

Our fear is that campaigners will likely find themselves, once again, labelled as ‘extremists’ and become the renewed target for intensive surveillance by Britain’s political policing units.

That is why we call on the National Police Chiefs Council to confirm, before the current crisis is over, that it will abandon completely the meaningless categorisation of legitimate political campaigning activities as “domestic extremism”.

Among those who have signed this letter are:

Network for Police Monitoring (Netpol); Baroness Jenny Jones of Moulescoomb, Green Party peer; Dr Eveline Lubbers and Dr Donal O’Driscoll, Undercover Research Group; Reclaim the Power; CAGE UK; Clare Collier, Advocacy Director, Liberty; Deborah Coles, Director, INQUEST; Emily Apple, activist and journalist; Police Spies Out of Lives; Liz Khan, Women in Black London; Pat Bryden, Women in Black Edinburgh; Beryl Maclachlan, Women in Black Edinburgh; Sue Easterbrook, Women in Black Bradford; Sarah Lasenby, Trident Ploughshares and Women in Black Oxford; Jane Tallents, Trident Ploughshares; Rebecca Johnson, Founding President, International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN); Sally Reynolds, Secretary, Movement for the Abolition of War; Dr Gail Bradbrook, co-founder, Extinction Rebellion; Barbara Richardson, Chair, Roseacre Awareness Group (RAG); Susan Gough, Frack Free Kirby Misperton; Ellen Lebethe, Chairman, Lambeth Pensioners Action Group; Lorraine Inglis, Weald Action Group; Vicki Elcoate, Weald Action Group / Horse Hill Protection GroupClaire Stephenson, Frack Free Lancashire; Julie Daniels, Frack Free Lancashire; Adela Pickles, Frack Free Ryedale; Sylvia May MBE, Frack Free Isle Of Wight; Ellie Wyatt, Frack Free Sussex; Anna Somerset, The Gorilla Organization; Angie Zelter, Founder, XR Peace; Fatima Jichi, Tom Wainwright and Owen Greenhall, Barristers, Garden Court Chambers; Lydia Dagostino, Kellys Solicitors; Yvonne Kestler, Leigh Day Solicitors; Ellie Cornish, Hickman Rose Solicitors; Pippa King, Biometrics in Schools; Professor Jane McCarthy, Visiting Professor, University of Reading; Dr Jennifer Hirst, Senior Researcher, University of Oxford; Nina Tailor, Gathering Place Films; Dr Zoë Ellery, Associate Lecturer, The Open University; Caroline Haywood, Frack Free Selby; Jennee Dixon, Frack Free East Yorkshire; Andria Efthimiou-Mordaunt, ACT.UP London; Janet Fenton, Words & Actions; Juliet McBride, Nukewatch / XR Peace; Ruth Jenkins, Finance Director, Age UK East London; Cllr Sharon Galliford, Surrey Heath Borough Council; Fiona Parker, Cornerhouse; Frances Lobel, Fuel Poverty Action; Ruth London, Fuel Poverty Action; Cllr Sarah Sharp, Chichester District Council; Ellie Wyatt, Eco Action Families; Laura Swaffield, Chair, The Library Campaign; Rashné Limki, Lecturer, University of Edinburgh Business School; Rosalind Readhead, Independent London Mayoral candidate 2021; Emily Mott, co-founder, Markwells Wood Watch; Alison Williams, Merton Branch Secretary, United Nations Association; Ana Mizm, Drums Of Dissent; and Camilla Saunders, Footloose Community Arts.

To see the full list of signatories, click here.

To add your name, click here.

The United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) has announced that it is stepping up its work on mapping zoonotic threat and protecting the environment to reduce the risk of future pandemics, such as the COVID-19 crisis currently sweeping the globe.

In a 5-page briefing, Working With the Environment to Protect People, released last week, UNEP outlined how it is adjusting its work in response to COVID-19 through supporting nations and partners to “build back better” – through stronger science, policies that back a healthier planet and more green investments.

UNEP’s response covers four areas: helping nations manage COVID-19 waste, delivering a transformational change for nature and people, working to ensure economic recovery packages create resilience to future crises, and modernising global environmental governance.

To support nations in their efforts to address the socio-economic and environmental impacts of COVID-19, UNEP will be coordinating its work with the rest of the United Nations system.

Examples of interventions include:

Supporting decision makers to deal with the spike in hazardous waste – such as personal protective equipment, electronics and pharmaceuticals – in a way that does not further damage human health or the environment;

A zoonotic risk and response programme to improve countries’ ability to reduce threats through nature-positive approaches – including a new global mapping of risks from the unregulated wildlife trade, habitat fragmentation and biodiversity loss;

Promoting expanded opportunities for investing in nature and sustainability as part of the response to the COVID-19 crisis – including through existing funds UNEP manages and economic stimulus packages that countries are planning;

Reaching real economy actors to rebuild, scale up and accelerate sustainable consumption and production, and create new green jobs – including reaching businesses through partnerships with UN agencies, finance, government and private sector institutions, and revitalising markets and supply chains for green and sustainable products; and

Reviewing the implications of moving environmental governance and multilateralism towards virtual, and thus lower environmental footprint, meeting platforms.

“In COVID-19, the planet has delivered its strongest warning to date that humanity must change,” UNEP’s Executive Director, Inger Andersen, said.

“Shutting down economies is a short-term response to this warning. It cannot endure. Economies that work with nature are critical to ensure that the world’s nations thrive.

“The idea that a thriving natural world is essential to human health, societies and economies has always been central to UNEP’s work,” Andersen continued.

“But now UNEP must provide even more support to countries as they reduce the risks of future pandemics by restoring lost ecosystems and biodiversity, fighting climate change and reducing pollution.”

To read the briefing, click here.

Mixed-sex civil partnerships were first allowed to take place in England and Wales on 31 December 2019.

This was just over five years since Rebecca Steinfeld and Charles Keidan tried to form a civil partnership at their local register office, were told they could not because they were not of the same sex and started campaigning for a change to the law.

Couples were finally allowed to protect their family legally and financially by forming the relationship that they wanted – but this right was taken away from them abruptly on 21 March when lock-down was announced.

All civil partnerships and weddings were cancelled with immediate effect as registrars’ offices were closed – except to register deaths.

The need to protect register office staff cannot be argued with, but it does leave couples without protection should the worst happen to them.

Many are key-workers, including those in healthcare, risking their lives to protect others and to keep Britain functioning.

Not being in a legally recognised relationship means that if one of the couple should die during the lockdown period, their partner will not receive widowed parent’s allowance or inheritance tax credit – meaning that the family home might need to be sold to cover payments – or pension transference.

These problems affect all couples – mixed and same-sex – who were planning a civil partnership or a marriage during this period.

By entering into a legal relationship – whether mixed or same-sex, civil partnership or marriage – couples automatically qualify to receive a range of benefits, many of which do not become apparent unless the relationship ends, either through death or dissolution.

These benefits include the right to bereavement support payments, inheritance tax relief, capital gains tax relief, the automatic right to be next of kin, the ability to inherit your partner’s pension, and the right to death in duty benefits – depending on the provider.

Many people think that there is a thing called a common-law marriage which will offer all these benefits.

There isn’t.

And if you are not in a legally recognised relationship and haven’t made a will, things will be even worse – their property (the estate) must be shared out according to certain rules. These are called the rules of intestacy.

Only married or civil partners and some other close relatives can inherit under the rules of intestacy.

And if there are no surviving relatives who can inherit under the rules of intestacy, the estate passes to the Crown.

The Equal Civil Partnerships Campaign is now petitioning the Home Secretary, Priti Patel MP, and Myrtle Lloyd, the Registrar General, to allow digital registrations for civil partnerships and marriages during lockdown.

Please sign and share this petition.

And forward it to your MP and ask for their support.

New research published last week revealed the stark reality of the coronavirus pandemic for parents and keyworkers.

The research, carried out by the Fawcett Society, the Women’s Budget Group, and academic experts from the Mile End Institute at Queen Mary University of London and the London School of Economics (LSE) found that women who are working outside the home are more likely to be keyworkers.

Six in ten women (61 per cent) compared with four in ten men (43 per cent) men said their work has been considered essential at this time.

In addition, women who are still going outside their homes to work were:

More likely to say they are working harder than before;

More likely to say they have to continue going out to work because they cannot afford to stay at home; and

Twice as likely as men to say they feel under pressure from their employer to continue going out to work.

They also reported some of the greatest levels of anxiety; 56 per cent of women who said their work was essential report high anxiety levels, compared with 30 per cent of men in that group.

To alleviate this we need to:

Increase child benefit by an additional £50 per week per child and extend it to all children;

Pay all key workers at Real Living Wage levels;

Increase the Local Housing Allowance to average rents (the 50th percentile) to properly support housing costs for people who need government support; and

Lift the benefit cap and the two-child limit to ensure parents have sufficient income during the crisis.

Professor Sophie Harman, global health politics expert at Queen Mary University of London, said: “We know health emergencies have harder immediate and long-term impacts on women than men and that such emergencies exacerbate inequalities within society. COVID-19 is no different.

“The needs of women and their economic and social well-being must be a key factor in every level of decision-making around COVID-19.

“The government needs far greater inclusion of women and gender experts in key advisory groups to assess and address the differential impacts of their decision-making on COVID-19 on women.”

And speaking in response to the Prime Minister’s statement made on 10 May about easing the lockdown, the Women’s Budget Group’s Director, Dr Mary-Ann Stephenson, said: “The Prime Minister’s statement raised as many questions as it answered and will have left people confused and worried.”

How, she wanted to know, were working parents supposed to return to work with little more than 12 hours’ notice when schools and nurseries were still closed and grandparents unable to provide care?

“Schools may be able to open gradually from June, but with classes of 30+ how will they maintain social distancing?” she asked. “What will happen from mid-July when school holidays start?

“How are people who have to rely on public transport expected to get to work and remain safe?

“How can workers be sure that they will be safe at work tomorrow morning when the government still hasn’t published guidance for employers?

“We are now advised to remain 2 metres apart ‘where possible’. What about where this is not possible?

“Will companies be competing with the NHS and social care for PPE, which we know is already in short supply?

“What support will be available for those who cannot return to work when many are facing a struggle to pay rent or mortgages and essential bills?

“What does ‘encouraged to return to work’ mean? Does this suggest an ending of the furlough scheme or reduction in the level of support offered?”