Sex and Relationship Education
Debate between Jim Shannon and Maria Miller(7 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I congratulate the right hon. Lady on raising this matter. Further to the point made by the hon. Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce), it is crucial, as I have said previously, that parents have control and oversight of what happens to their children, especially when that pertains to outside influences. Does the right hon. Lady agree that parents first, as well as the Government, must consider that when thinking about any changes in sex education?
Mrs Miller
The hon. Gentleman is right that parents have a pivotal role, but so do schools, and I was about to come on to that.
Online Abuse
Debate between Jim Shannon and Maria Miller
Mrs Maria Miller (Basingstoke) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House notes the increasing number of cases where the internet, social media and mobile phone technology are used to bully, harass, intimidate and humiliate individuals including children and vulnerable adults; calls on the Government to ensure that clear legislation is in place that recognises the true impact and nature of online abuse, as distinct to offline abuse; and further calls on the Government to put in place appropriate legal and criminal sanctions, police training, guidance to the CPS and education for young people relating to such abuse.
Without digital connectivity and an online world, our lives would be poorer. The reason for this debate today is that our responsibility as elected representatives is clear: the internet needs to be a force for good, not for ill. I believe we all have a clear duty to come together and demand of the Government that they do more to address the problems of online abuse in all its forms. More than three quarters of our constituents use the internet almost every day, and more than half use their mobile phones to access it. Half of all crimes committed in this country have a digital component, and the police are overwhelmed by its scale and diversity, particularly the nature and impact of online abuse.
Rightly, the focus of the Government in the past has primarily been on online abuse that involves child abuse images, and I applaud the Prime Minister for his clear and personal resolve to outlaw that abhorrent crime. However, online abuse is much more than that, for both children and adults, and includes homophobic, transphobic, anti-Muslim and anti-Semitic hate crime, and image-based sexual abuse, to name but a few. Too often, those forms of online abuse and others continue to go unchallenged, because reporting mechanisms are unreliable or obscure, because the law was designed for an analogue age, and because the police are not properly trained to identify online abuse and then collect the evidence to make a case stick. We have to reject all forms of online abuse and show zero-tolerance through our legal systems, our police force and the things that we teach our children in schools.
It is for us to determine what sort of society we live in, not faceless corporate organisations, often many thousands of miles away. We cannot sit by and simply allow online abuse, in all its forms, to become an accepted norm in our society. With the blurring of the online and offline worlds, it is very easy to see how that might end. What is allowed to become an accepted form of online abuse could simply spill over into face-to-face life.
Like every other Member of this House, I believe in freedom of speech, but that freedom of speech has never been an unqualified right. Freedom of speech comes with responsibilities. At present, we are not ensuring that people who are expressing themselves online understand that fact.
The facts show the direction of travel. Today, one in four young people say they have been targeted with online hate because of their gender, sexual orientation, race, religion, disability or transgender identity. Three quarters say that that has had a chilling effect on how they then used the internet in the future for their free exchange of ideas. Teachers have reported a 40% increase in cybercrime in the past five years, with the perpetrators openly finding new ways to abuse their victims by skirting around the law. Parents have found it almost impossible to get rid of “baiting out” footage on YouTube, making the lives of many teenagers unbearable.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the right hon. Lady for bringing this vital issue to the House for consideration. There will not be one MP who has not had a constituent—especially young people—approach them about this very issue. I commend the right hon. Lady for making the point about young people being trolled in the digital world. It impacts not just upon that young person’s personality and how they respond, but in some cases in Northern Ireland and across the United Kingdom it has led to suicide. Is it not time for legislation that responds to this, so that we can put those trolls behind bars, where they should be?
Mrs Miller
I know from our conversations that the hon. Gentleman has a long-standing interest in the matter. He is right to say that the law is not protecting many young people who feel vulnerable, and that has led them, in some tragic cases, to take their own lives. We have to take this issue far more seriously and make sure that our laws are robust.
We have to deal with some very unpleasant truths, particularly the growth of peer-to-peer trading of sexual images. That is going unchecked in many cases, for fear of criminalising teenagers, but we know that about one in 10 of those cases could well involve an adult. That leaves young people at real risk of sexual exploitation, while the police find it difficult to know how to cope.
Maternity Discrimination
Debate between Jim Shannon and Maria Miller(9 years ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is a pleasure to speak in this debate, Mr Bailey. I commend the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Stuart C. McDonald) on bringing this matter to Westminster Hall. I firmly support him, and I think it is important that I do that.
It is a sad reflection on our society that in 2015 we are still discussing matters of gender equality, but any opportunity to improve maternity leave for women is most welcome. I hope that we can have a fruitful debate today about how we can best do that and that the shadow Minister and the Minister will add to our discussion. There have been many welcome advances in recent times and the national consensus is now firmly in favour of viewing maternity discrimination as wholly unacceptable, as the hon. Gentleman said. However, it is imperative that we do not take our eye off the ball and that is the purpose of this debate.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the recent findings of a survey by the Equality and Human Rights Commission, which clearly underline that. Of those surveyed, 11% reported having been dismissed. That figure multiplied across the United Kingdom means that some 54,000 women have lost their job. The problem is not just women losing their job, but the impact on their children and families. Those figures must be taken into consideration and must not be ignored.
The fact that so many mothers have said they were harassed or heard negative comments from their colleagues, bosses, friends or work mates when they were pregnant or returning from maternity leave underlines the issues. One third thought that their employer did not support them willingly during their pregnancy or when they returned to work. Those issues cannot be ignored, but here we are in 2015 addressing them. I am sure that we have moved on greatly, but we need to move just a bit more to ensure that a final conclusion is reached.
Mrs Miller
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is curious that the Equality and Human Rights Commission report says that many businesses find it
“reasonable and easy to implement”
pregnancy and maternity regulations, yet so many women are dissatisfied with the way that works out in practice?
Jim Shannon
I suppose that that is why we are having this debate today. It seems that not everyone is totally convinced that the changes to the legislation are making a difference. The right hon. Lady is right: the legislation is there and people understand it, but there has been a move away from putting that understanding into practice. That is the issue and perhaps that is also what this debate is about.
It is clear that although we have made great progress and have some fantastic champions of gender equality throughout the House and society, a lot more needs to be done. The right hon. Lady highlighted that. I hope that the statistics mentioned by the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East are noted by hon. Members and that we have renewed vigour in tackling maternity discrimination. It is apparent that we have taken our eye off the ball. I hope that we can use today as an opportunity to put on the record the need to come together once again to address the issue. That is the reason for this debate.
Although the study found high rates of discrimination against pregnant women, 84% of employers said they believed that supporting pregnant women and women on maternity leave was in their best interests. It is interesting to hear those figures and the information that the right hon. Lady referred to. There seems to be a clear difference. Either the statistics are wrong or there is an undercurrent that we need to address. In addition, 80% of employers agreed that pregnant women and those returning from maternity leave were just as committed to their work as their colleagues. Again, it seems that four fifths of employers understand that when the lady returns to work, she is as eager, keen and enthusiastic as before her baby was born.
A member of my staff is on maternity leave at the moment. I certainly did not view her as being of less value than other staff due to her pregnancy. She is hard-working and has worked for me for some 12 years. This is her second baby in just over two years. She gave birth about three weeks ago and has another few months of maternity leave. I want her back, but at the same time I understand that she has a wee child to look after. For the record, the baby’s name is Esther and she was born at Ulster hospital just a few weeks ago, weighing 8 lb 4 oz. She has a wee sister. Their mother has had two girls in the last two years, so it has been a busy two years for her and for everyone else.
There are no problems in my office when it comes to maternity leave. The law says what we must do and we do it, but we must do it right. In this House, MPs can have a substitute to help and we are lucky to have that opportunity.
New Build Housing (Approved Inspectors)
Debate between Jim Shannon and Maria Miller
Mrs Miller
My hon. Friend and I have had conversations about that, and I shall welcome the opportunity of carrying out a more detailed analysis.
The inspection regime remains opaque. Inspectors are required to compile and keep extensive reports on all new homes as they are built, but those records are then kept secret from new homeowners. Why? If the inspection regime is really to work in favour of the housebuyer, we need transparency about the work of approved inspectors. We also need more accountability, and we need to know that they are scrupulously independent and that there are no conflicts of interest such as the one my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre Forest (Mark Garnier) mentioned.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
In Northern Ireland, there are many examples of what the right hon. Lady has described. One way of addressing the problems—perhaps it is the same here on the mainland—is through the National House Building Council, which many builders and construction companies in my constituency have signed up to. That gives the housebuyer a level of confidence. It also ensures that the house they are buying is covered by insurance. Is there a possibility of using that mechanism here?
Mrs Miller
The hon. Gentleman is right, and there are 10-year guarantees for new houses. The trouble is that in the first two years after construction, any problems are required to be rectified by the person who built the house. In those circumstances, I believe that the approved inspector should support new homeowners more thoroughly.
Is there any reason why the detailed records I have talked about that the approved inspector keeps for each house could not be made available to purchasers? I know they might be technical and perhaps a bit difficult to understand for the layperson, but most homebuyers will be interested in seeing them. Why are they secret? Would it not be better to demonstrate that the property concerned has been inspected? Why is there so much secrecy around these records? It would be extremely useful to make them more public.
I have had a constructive discussion with the Association of Consultant Approved Inspectors, and I know that it shares my aim of ensuring that high professional standards are maintained and that a robust process is in place for dealing with inspectors who fail to meet these high standards, but at the moment some still fall short. The completion certificate is part of the information pack that purchasers of a new home receive, so why not include the approved inspectors’ records in there too? Could an amendment be made to the Building (Approved Inspectors etc.) Regulations 2010 to introduce this important new measure?
Knowing that the inspection records will be made available could also help with demonstrating the approved inspectors’ independence and prove that there is no conflict of interest, as was referred to earlier. It strikes some of us as odd, even questionable, that some companies, such as NHBC and Premier Guarantee, not only provide home warranties, but are registered as approved inspectors and sign properties off. Is there not a potential conflict of interest there? How do we know that all approved inspectors are doing their jobs to the highest professional standards? Exactly how independent are they? In the 30 years that approved inspectors have been in existence, how many have been struck off for poor performance or over questions of independence? I think we will find that the answer is absolutely none.
Urgent action is needed. I do not believe that homebuilders are covering themselves in glory when it comes to dealing with customers’ problems on a great many levels. The industry needs to tackle this and tackle it quickly, particularly if we are to build far more houses in this country, but the Government can make a contribution by ensuring that approved inspectors are more effective in what they do. That is in the Government’s gift and will make a huge difference. The great majority of approved inspectors do a highly professional job, but there is clearly room for improvement. We need greater transparency and accountability to ensure that all buyers have the confidence and reassurance they need, and I hope the Minister will agree to look at this again and use the housing Bill before us in the autumn specifically to address this issue and thereby help ensure that the new houses that I know the Government want to see built up and down the country are fit for purpose and safe for the people who purchase them.