SEND Provision

Caroline Dinenage Excerpts

Thursday 5th September 2024 Westminster Hall

[Dame Caroline Dinenage (Gosport) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your stewardship, Mr Betts, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Leeds East (Richard Burgon) on securing the debate. I suppose that the best place to start, in the time permitted to me, is the beginning. For a child who needs targeted, tailored support, early identification can make a world of difference, because the impact of failing to spot a child with additional needs can be severe and far-reaching. Early intervention means life-altering adaptations in the way teachers interact and communicate with them and in the way they are supported, reducing the need for EHCPs and one-to-one support and improving academic outcomes, life chances, wellbeing and happiness, which are obviously crucial.

Spotting children with SEND—particularly autistic children and especially autistic girls—can be difficult, and there is insufficient training at the moment to enable teachers to do that. There are around 200,000 autistic children in England. The majority are in mainstream education, but the National Autistic Society reports that, staggeringly, only a quarter feel happy at school. That is why some parents take the drastic step of paying for private education that they can ill afford, because they need education that addresses their child’s needs.

The effect on a neurodivergent child of being in the wrong education setting can be devastating. In March, The Guardian reported that nearly 20,000 autistic children are persistently absent from school, with Ambitious about Autism reporting that four in five of them experience mental health issues.

I have a suggestion for the Minister. According to the National Autistic Society, three quarters of parents said that their child’s school place did not meet their needs. Teachers do a remarkable job, but they need to be equipped with the very best tools and advice to give their pupils the very best possible chance of learning in a happy, safe, well cared-for environment. Currently, only one in seven schoolteachers have received any form of autism training, and 70% of children say school would be better if teachers understood them.

There are not enough SEND school places, but as a Health and Social Care Minister I started work on introducing the Oliver McGowan mandatory training for health and care staff, which the Minister knows about. It equips health and care professionals with the skills, knowledge and understanding of autistic people and those with learning disabilities. It is delivered by autistic people and people with learning disabilities—experts by experience who get paid to do it. It is really effective, with 84% of participants saying they feel more confident in their work. Today, it was shortlisted for an NHS parliamentary award. Will the Minister meet Paula McGowan and look at whether this could assist teachers? Using that training in an educational setting would improve the way in which teaching professionals can support autistic children and those with learning disabilities.

Digital Skills and Careers

Caroline Dinenage Excerpts

Tuesday 16th April 2024 Westminster Hall

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Dame Caroline Dinenage (in the Chair)]

Order. Two Members have indicated that they want to speak. I intend to call the Front-Bench speakers at about 5.13 pm, so please conduct yourselves appropriately.

Autism and Learning Disability Training

Caroline Dinenage Excerpts

Tuesday 21st November 2023 Westminster Hall

[Dame Caroline Dinenage (Gosport) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered autism and learning disability training for education staff.

It is a great pleasure to speak under your chairmanship, Mr Vickers. I am grateful to have been allocated parliamentary time to discuss the very important issue of autism and learning disability training for education staff. The debate arises in response to three e-petitions: petition 639050, which calls for education staff to be required to have trained in learning disability and autism and which has received over 69,000 signatories; petition 638530, which calls for mandatory training for teachers in attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and autism and which has 1,500 signatories; and petition 634354, which calls for training on neurodiversity for university staff and which has over 16,000 signatories.

I thank everyone who took time to sign the petitions, which clearly relate to issues that are of huge concern to people across the country. I also thank the nearly 3,000 people who contributed to the Commons engagement team survey and gave their views on more education staff training. Some of the stories which they have shared with us have been exceptionally troubling. I am grateful for the time and effort that has gone into communicating those stories, which in some cases involved sharing very painful experiences.

There are around 200,000 autistic pupils in England and nearly 75% of them are in mainstream schools. According to research by the National Autistic Society, only a tiny proportion—just 26%—of autistic pupils feel happy at school. Three in four parents or carers—74%—said that their child’s school place did not fully meet their needs, and more than one in four parents, or 26%, waited over three years to receive support for their child.

Autistic children often speak of feeling misunderstood and of school being a place where there is bullying and loneliness. Such experiences lead to issues with mental wellbeing, sometimes to self-harm, and to a lack of self-esteem and self-confidence. The responses to the engagement survey starkly support the claim that autistic children do not always have a positive experience at school. In fact, in cases in which things go badly wrong, autistic children not only miss out on their education, but have experiences that can haunt them throughout their lives—stealing their future prospects, leaving them struggling to get into or stay in the workplace, and driving very distressing health impacts. Those detrimental effects can continue well into adulthood.

Deborah, the mother of one autistic child, said:

“After nine years of experiencing the school system…she removed her son completely and started home education so that they could mend his mental health and school-caused trauma.”

One mother told us of the

“Huge emotional impact”

that had

“led to serious mental health issues and withdrawal from education and society as a whole.”

She stated that her child’s experience had

“led to isolation, complete withdrawal from any form of education and reluctance to interact across all levels of society.”

The National Autistic Society’s education rights helpline has seen a huge spike in calls related to college and university education.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Lady for bringing forward the debate. All of us have an interest in autism, and I know that others have a personal interest in it, but we are here to support the hon. Lady. Back in 2020, the former Education Minister in Northern Ireland—now Lord Weir in the other place—published an enhanced autism training programme. The hon. Lady referred to universities, and it is important to note that it is not only children who are affected by autism. Does she agree that the same considerations from that report must apply to colleges and universities across the UK, so that older students who suffer from autism have the same support as those in schools? I think the hon. Lady’s answer will be yes, but I am curious about her response.

[Dame Caroline Dinenage]

The hon. Gentleman anticipates correctly and, as ever, makes an important contribution to the debate. That is why we are discussing a petition, which over 16,000 people signed and which calls for university students to be included and for the education to go up as far as university lecturers and other university staff.

Before I go any further, I want to say that this is not a problem with teachers per se. This debate is not about attacking the teaching profession nor is it meant in any way to undermine or criticise teachers and other education professionals. We know that teachers up and down the country do a remarkable and very important job, in many cases in increasingly challenging circumstances. Teachers are passionate about supporting their pupils. They want to give them the very best possible educational experience and the best life chances, but they need the right support to do that. This debate is about ensuring that teachers are given the best tools and advice they need to give autistic and neurodivergent children, children with a learning disability and, in fact, all the students they care for the best possible support and the best possible chance to have a happy, healthy and safe learning environment.

[Sir Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con)]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for bringing this debate to Westminster Hall and bringing together these petitions. Does she agree that we already have a precedent in the Health and Care Act 2022, which finally mandated training for health and social care professionals using the Oliver McGowan training programme? With the Autism Education Trust, we have a potential model that could be strategically rolled out to replicate the approach we are taking in health and social care in all fields of education.

[Dame Caroline Dinenage]

It is almost as if my right hon. and learned Friend read my mind. I will come on in a bit to talk about the Oliver McGowan training, which I am glad he endorses. As the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on autism, he speaks with enormous experience and passion on this subject, and I am grateful for his endorsement.

As we have heard, there is already training in this area, which I am sure the Minister will reiterate. However, a report by the National Autistic Society showed that just one in seven—14%—of schoolteachers have received any form of autism training. Rachel, a SEND learning support assistant, said, in her words, that she had

“not really received much training”,

and that when she started, she

“was thrown into the deep end.”

Everything Rachel knows is mainly based on her experience of working with SEN children, not her training, yet the survey responses show that where teaching and support are right, they can have a game-changing and enduring impact on the education and life chances of neurodivergent pupils, in some cases supporting them all the way through university and building them up for their adult lives and careers ahead.

What concerns me deeply, however, is the fact that further research from the National Autistic Society showed that while 87% of teachers surveyed said that they felt confident or very confident supporting autistic pupils in the classroom, findings from a 2021 report showed that seven in 10 autistic children and young people said that school would be better if more teachers understood autism, while 54% of autistic students said that having teachers who did not understand them was the worst thing about school. That is a problem. There is a clear and sizeable gap between how teachers think it is going and how autistic children and children with a learning disability actually feel. It is vital that we bridge that gap. It is simply not fair on either party if we do not. All children deserve to have the very best possible experience in the classroom and the best opportunities to learn and fulfil their potential.

[Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)]

The hon. Lady is making excellent points to which I give my very strong support. Does she recognise the experience of many of my constituents, with young people waiting perhaps two years for an education, health and care plan and a diagnosis? Something that has become obvious to me only recently is that 50% of the young people on the books of child and adolescent mental health services in my part of Cumbria have autism and ADHD. It turns out that through the NHS, via the local integrated care board, there is literally zero funding for that service to support any of those young people, which delays their getting the care and support that they need in the classroom, but also affects all young people—some with neurological issues and some without—who need support for eating disorders, anxiety and so on. Is it not time that the NHS funded CAMHS sufficiently so that young people with neurological issues can get the treatment and diagnosis that they need?

[Dame Caroline Dinenage]

The hon. Gentleman makes an excellent point. There will not be a single Member of Parliament who has not had some issues with local CAMHS, sadly. Of course, early intervention and recognition is key to this and can stave off many problems that come further down the line. I would not be doing teachers or pupils justice if I did not refer to wider issues surrounding SEND provision and support for autistic children more broadly. We know that there are simply not enough specialist SEND school places or trained professionals to cope with the increased need.

Schools are required under the Equality Act 2010 to make adjustments, but there is only so much they can do with current provision. As we have heard, it takes an inordinate amount of time to secure an EHCP and then for the associated funding to filter through to the educational establishment concerned. Meanwhile, schools are left to pick up the tab and in many cases to pick up the pieces involved in offering incredibly intensive support to children with very complex needs.

[Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Lady on securing this debate, which is very fitting and certainly much needed in relation to our schools. Does she agree that this issue is not only important in primary and post-primary education but in nursery and playgroup settings, where it is absolutely vital, because ultimately children affected by these issues need support measures in place as soon as they reach primary school? Nursery and pre-school provision is where the core of this work needs to sit.

[Dame Caroline Dinenage]

The hon. Lady must be Mystic Meg. I say that because that issue is exactly what I will come on to next.

Early years settings are a crucial place to start this work; the hon. Lady has hit the nail on the head. Early diagnosis and putting in place the building blocks of support from the outset can have a lifelong impact on a child’s attitude to education settings, and on their interaction and support from those settings; in fact, it can have a lifelong impact on their wellbeing.

If all education and care staff, particularly in early years settings, successfully underwent the right training, children who require extra support and assistance would be identified sooner, which would prevent some of the issues that we have heard about from developing. We heard from a teacher called Helen, who said that during her time in teacher training, which took four years, half a day was spent covering special educational needs. Such training leaves teachers ill-equipped to support a growing percentage of pupils in their classes.

I am sure that the Minister will tell me about the training that is provided. I expect that he will also tell me that the Government have published their strategy on special educational needs and disabilities and alternative provision improvement—not that I am trying to interpret his speech for him—and about all the increased investment in SEND, which is over £10.5 billion by 2024-25, and the universal services programme, which will receive £12 million in funding, and that £1.4 million is available for the strategic priorities grant to support students at risk of discontinuing higher education studies. Those numbers have very little meaning to those caught in the cyclone of the system if they do not filter through to create meaningful improvements on the ground. I will therefore set out what I would like to know from the brilliant Minister.

What assessment has the Minister’s Department made of the full picture of both learning disability training and autism training for education professionals? What level of understanding does he have about training—not only the quantity of training, but the quality of training? What conversations has he had with some of the excellent charities in this space and with the teachers, parents and children who actually live these things and therefore are experts by experience? To what level can he confidently tell me that all education professionals have the confidence to teach neurodivergent children and children with learning disabilities, so that their needs are met and their potential is realised? To what extent is the experience of students and their carers taken into consideration?

Mr Vickers, you have already heard about what I am about to say next. During my time as Minister of State for care, in the Department of Health and Social Care, I started work on introducing the Oliver McGowan mandatory training for all health and social care staff. That became law in the Health and Care Act 2022, and it is now the Government’s preferred and recommended training for health and social care staff.

The training is named after Oliver McGowan. Oliver was a remarkable young man whose tragic and completely avoidable death, at the age of just 17, shone a light on the need for health and social care staff to have better skills, better knowledge and better understanding of the needs of autistic people. It came about because of a meeting I had with Paula McGowan, Oliver’s incredible mum, who courageously shared her family’s unimaginable experiences with me and who has been a relentless advocate for the change that needed to happen. It is an honour to have Paula here today after she travelled all the way from Australia just to attend this debate.

Since November 2022, when the initial roll-out of the Oliver McGowan training began, over 1 million people have completed the first part. The training has received significant international interest in Canada, Australia and the Republic of Ireland, and as a result it has been made available on an e-learning platform. The initial feedback is incredibly exciting and shows a significant increase in participants’ knowledge, confidence and skill, with 88% of participants saying that they felt confident they could communicate with people with a learning disability and with autistic people, and with 84% of participants saying they felt more confident in their work.

The most significant thing about the training is that it is co-delivered with trainers who are autistic or learning disabled, and they are paid for their time. They are experts by experience and are able to give health and care professionals first-hand insight into how to listen, how to act and how to get this right.

[Dr Lisa Cameron (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) (Con)]

My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech, and I thank her for highlighting the wonderful training that is being rolled out. I wanted to bring to the attention of the House, through my role as chair of the all-party parliamentary group for disability, some work that we were doing with Caudwell Children and its national children’s centre, and to highlight their hope that they can augment some of the work that is being undertaken in the UK to provide timely diagnosis and holistic assessment for children with autistic spectrum disorder. I put on record our thanks to Trudi Beswick for leading that wonderful centre and taking that work forward.

[Dame Caroline Dinenage]

First of all, I am very pleased to see my hon. Friend on this side of the House. She does a brilliant job as the chair of the APPG for disability, and I am very grateful to her for taking the time to make that commendation.

I will conclude very quickly. Following the success of the Oliver McGowan mandatory training, Paula has started a petition for all staff in educational settings to have similar mandatory training on learning disabilities and autism. As I said, that training needs to start with professionals in early years settings and go all the way through to colleges and universities: teachers, lecturers and education staff must know how to adapt to their environment, how to listen to what young people are saying, how to understand, how to manage a sensory overload and crisis and how to adapt communication to meet individual needs. George, a teacher, said:

“Training is often focused on the symptoms rather than the sensory issues and the understanding behind it. Whilst dealing with symptomatic behaviour is important it can be difficult to understand some causes.”

[Julian Smith (Skipton and Ripon) (Con)]

On the point about sensory overload, demands and anxiety, does my hon. Friend agree that, with the discrepancy between what kids see and what teachers feel they are doing, part of the challenge is in fully understanding what an autistic child or adult actually sees and has to deal with? Does she agree that that is quite difficult and that it requires significant time to fully understand the major challenges that lots of these kids go through and often succeed in pushing through, despite the challenges they face?

[Dame Caroline Dinenage]

That is an excellent point. It is worth pointing out that sometimes the behaviours that autistic children in particular can demonstrate can be very different. Autistic boys in the classroom behave very differently from autistic girls who might just sit at the back very quietly, mirroring others’ behaviour, while struggling inside and not having the support that they need. That point is really important.

Finally, has the Minister’s Department considered the brilliant Oliver McGowan model of mandatory training? What assessments has the Minister made for how that would benefit education professionals? By making the training mandatory, as it is for health and care staff, no teacher will miss out, which means that every child has an equal opportunity to gain support.

I ask the Minister to reflect on the stories that I have shared today and on those that we heard from other Members. While his Department is no doubt bolstering financial support, I ask him to consider the positive impact that mandatory training will have on the education of professionals and students. The success in health and care has been immediate and game changing, and I know that it has similar potential for children and young people’s education.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

--- Later in debate ---

[Dame Caroline Dinenage]

It is very kind of you to call me to say a few words at the end, Mr Vickers. I am grateful to the Minister for his response. It is clear that he cares passionately about this. He set out a few details that will go some way to offering an element of reassurance.

This debate was not about knocking the Government or scoring any cheap party political points, and it certainly was not about undermining our education professionals. I know the Minister cares deeply about this and that education staff up and down the country care passionately about getting this right, but they need the right support, tools and knowledge to do that.

We do not need to reinvent the wheel to provide that. The Oliver McGowan training is already there and making a difference. It trains all health and care staff. We heard earlier of the importance of ensuring that it is not just those who are high up the academic food chain who receive the training. In health and care, it is based on how likely someone is to interact with patients, not their seniority. That is the same with children and young people. I draw the Minister’s attention to that disparity between how teachers think it is going and how children and their parents think it is going.

There is so much at stake for our young people: their education, wellbeing and futures. The Oliver McGowan training was one of the most important things I was involved in when I was a Minister. I encourage the Minister to meet Paula to talk about this further because it is an outstanding model.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered autism and learning disability training for education staff.

Oral Answers to Questions

Caroline Dinenage Excerpts

Monday 27th February 2023 Commons Chamber

[Nick Gibb]

I share the hon. Gentleman’s concern about these issues. The Government are committed to supporting the most vulnerable households, with £26 billion of support announced for 2023-24. That is in addition to the £37 billion of support for households to deal with the cost of living this year. The Government are also committed to continuing the support for school breakfasts. In November last year, the national school breakfast programme was extended, and the Government are providing up to £30 million under the programme, which will support something like 2,500 schools.

[Dame Caroline Dinenage (Gosport) (Con)]

The cost of living is not the only impact on pupil attainment. Around 4,500 children every year are diagnosed with cancer, and prolonged absences from school and the ongoing impact of treatment mean that they can expect worse educational outcomes. Currently, provision of access to education, health and care plans is not universal for children with cancer, and it can be long-winded and patchy. What thought has been given to automatic entitlement to EHCPs for all children with a cancer diagnosis, and will the excellent Minister meet me to discuss the issue?

[Nick Gibb]

I will of course meet the excellent former Minister to discuss this important issue. Of course, the special educational needs and alternative provision improvement plan will be published shortly, but I do share her concern. One issue that has come out of covid is that more remote learning is now available at home for children who are unable to get to school for whatever reason, and that will of course apply to children in hospitals as well.

Fair Taxation of Schools and Education Standards Committee

Caroline Dinenage Excerpts

Wednesday 11th January 2023 Commons Chamber

[Bridget Phillipson]

I have heard enough from the hon. Gentleman, thanks.

On funding, we could do so much to drive up standards in schools for all our children. The new committee would look at the ways in which money raised from ending tax breaks for private schools could support high standards for all our schools everywhere, including through recruiting new teachers. We know that the most important factor for boosting children’s learning in school is the quality of teaching. Teachers, school leaders and support staff are doing an incredible job to support our children, but there are simply not enough of them. Under this Government, teacher vacancies have more than doubled, there are more than 2,000 temporarily filled posts a year, and teacher recruitment targets have been missed yet again. More teachers are leaving than entering our classrooms. For a decade they have been overworked, overstretched and undervalued. Our growing teacher recruitment and retention crisis was created by this Government.

Labour has said that we would use the money raised by ending private schools’ tax breaks to support our teachers. We would invest in recruiting thousands of new teaching staff, filling those vacancies and plugging skills gaps, and ensuring that teachers are not burnt out because they are covering their own job and someone else’s. Once they are in our schools, we will support every teacher with the knowledge and skills they need to thrive, and with an entitlement to ongoing training, so that instead of trying to squeeze learning for professional qualifications into evenings or weekends, or the odd session on an inset day, teachers are encouraged and supported to take on learning opportunities.

Labour would support teaching staff with the skills that they say they need to support children who have special educational needs and disabilities or who have learned English as a second language, and would help them to develop their professional expertise in the curriculum or knowledge sequencing. That training would ensure that teachers are confident in their expert knowledge and can help every child to thrive. Those steps would help the next Labour Government to ensure that every child is taught by a qualified teacher. Every child and every parent should have that guarantee.

[Dame Caroline Dinenage (Gosport) (Con)]

Of course, we all agree with the hon. Lady about all children going to excellent schools and being taught by excellent teachers. Can she set out her plans for armed forces families, who are so well supported by private schools up and down the country? My constituency has so many forces families. More than 5,000 forces family children in this country, particularly those from single-parent families, go to boarding school to allow their parents to be deployed. The continuation of the education allowance covers some of that, but so often it is backed up by the bursaries given by schools and by taxpayers’ money. Can she set out how her plans would protect children from armed forces families?

[Bridget Phillipson]

I join the hon. Lady in paying tribute to our amazing armed forces and the contribution that they make to keeping our country safe. It is right that they are properly supported and recognised. However, those numbers are starting to fall. Clearly, the Committee that we are recommending could consider all such areas. We do not anticipate that the proposals would cover specialist provision either, for example. There are ways in which they can be carefully drawn to ensure that exemptions apply where they should. I join her in paying tribute to the armed forces—she need not be concerned about what we are discussing today.

Our school staff are at the heart of our education system, but they have been let down. That is never clearer than when the Government refuse to work with them. No teacher wants to strike, no headteacher wants to close their school, and no teaching assistant or educational support worker wants to miss out on time with the children they help to succeed—they go into teaching to improve and transform lives—but this Government’s neglect means that they feel they have no choice. The Government are still failing to take seriously the urgent need to get around the table and prevent strike action.

For months, a merry-go-round of Education Secretaries and chaotic mismanagement has seen our children and our schools go neglected. We have had five Education Secretaries in one year; it is no wonder that no solutions have been found. After months of refusing to meet, to negotiate or even to acknowledge the problems around pay and conditions, an eleventh-hour meeting was little more than window dressing. The Government could still avert strike action, but they need a plan and they need to start working with teachers now.

Labour has set out our plan. Through recruiting new teachers and valuing those in the profession, we would work together to help every child to thrive.

Oral Answers to Questions

Caroline Dinenage Excerpts

Monday 4th July 2022 Commons Chamber

[Will Quince]

I thank my right hon. Friend for all his work in this area. It was a pleasure to join him at that roundtable. We want all children with SEND to get the right support in the right setting at the right time. At the heart of our reforms is early identification, early diagnosis and early support. Of course I will continue to work with him as we develop our plans as part of the review.

[Dame Caroline Dinenage (Gosport) (Con)]

6. What steps his Department is taking to support children who lose parents to suicide.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Will Quince)]

Losing a parent to suicide is a devastating loss for any child. Our covid response provided additional information to schools on supporting pupils with bereavement, drawing on specialist provision where necessary. Senior mental health lead training will help schools to include this in their pastoral support. We are also expanding specialist mental health support, backed by an extra £2.3 billion per year.

[Dame Caroline Dinenage]

I was really disturbed to learn recently that there is evidence to suggest that children who lose a parent to suicide have a much greater risk of going on to take their own life as they grow older. With that in mind, I really want to put this on to the Minister’s radar and ask whether any particular suicide bereavement training, resources or signposting is provided to the staff who work in education settings to help them to support children effectively after they lose a family member such as a parent or sibling to suicide.

[Will Quince]

I thank my hon. Friend for bringing this to my attention. It is indeed a worrying state of affairs. Senior mental health lead training, which is backed by an additional £10 million this year, supports schools to establish a whole-school approach to mental health and mental wellbeing and provide a supportive environment for children experiencing bereavement. This will also include how to identify where staff need further training to understand children’s needs and offer support. However, I understand that we probably need to go further in this area, and of course I would be happy to meet her to discuss it at greater length.

Oral Answers to Questions

Caroline Dinenage Excerpts

Monday 20th March 2017 Commons Chamber

[Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)]

T10. Action for Children is concerned that half the children from disadvantaged backgrounds arrive at school not ready to get the most out of the classroom environment. What is the Secretary of State doing to improve early years development in the home to make sure that every child is ready to learn on their first day?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Women and Equalities (Caroline Dinenage)]

I eventually get to say something! The home learning environment is fundamental to early years development. This Government are investing over £6 billion a year in early years by 2020—more than any Government have ever spent before—and we will look very closely at how to improve the home learning environment.

[Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)]

I draw the Secretary of State’s attention to recent research by the business-led Cambridge Ahead into teacher shortages in Cambridge. Given the structural problems identified, will the Secretary of State meet Cambridge Ahead and Cambridgeshire MPs to discuss this?

Visible Religious Symbols: European Court Ruling

Caroline Dinenage Excerpts

Wednesday 15th March 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Maria Miller (Basingstoke) (Con)]

(Urgent Question): To ask the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Women and Equalities if she will make a statement on the recent Court of Justice of the European Union ruling allowing employers to ban workers from wearing religious dress and symbols in the workplace.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Women and Equalities (Caroline Dinenage)]

I thank my right hon. Friend for raising this important issue and for giving the Government an opportunity to inform and, I hope, reassure the House about the two Court of Justice of the European Union judgments issued yesterday. The Government are completely opposed to discrimination, including on grounds of gender or religion, or both. It is the right of all women to choose how they dress, and we do not believe that the judgments change that. Exactly the same legal protections apply today as applied before the rulings.

In both the Achbita case and the Bougnaoui case, the judgment was that there was no direct discrimination, but that there was some discrimination. A rule is directly discriminatory if it treats someone less favourably because of their sex, race, religion or whatever. A rule is indirectly discriminatory if, on the face of it, it treats everyone the same, but some people, because of their race, religion, sex and so on, find it harder to comply than others do. Indirect discrimination may be justifiable if an employer is acting in a proportionate manner to achieve a legitimate aim.

The judgments confirm the existing long-standing position of EU and domestic law that an employer’s dress code, where it applies to and is applied in the same way to all employees, may be justifiable if the employer can show legitimate and proportionate grounds for it. Various cases show that such an employer needs to be prepared to justify those grounds in front of a court or tribunal if need be. That will remain the case and that is the case with these judgments, which will now revert to the domestic courts.

I am aware of some concern that the judgments potentially conflict with the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights, particularly in the case of Nadia Eweida, the British Airways stewardess banned from wearing a small crucifix but whose case the ECHR upheld. We do not believe that the different judgments are in conflict. Both the CJEU and the ECHR were trying to assess the balance in each case between the religious needs of the employee and the needs of the employer. In Eweida, the assessment favoured the employee; in another ECHR case, and also in the Achbita case, the assessment favoured the employer. We will still take action to ensure that the current legal position is set out. We will be working with the Equality and Human Rights Commission to update guidance for employers on dealing with religion or belief in the workplace. The guidance will be revised to take account of the CJEU judgments, too. We will make it absolutely clear to all concerned that the Equality Act 2010 and the rights of women and religious employees remain unchanged.

Like any judgment of the CJEU, for the time being, Achbita and Bougnaoui need to be taken into account by domestic courts and tribunals as they consider future cases. The law is clear and remains unchanged. However, because of our absolute commitment to ensuring that discrimination and prejudice are never encouraged or sanctioned, we will keep the issue under very close review.

[Mrs Miller]

In this country, we have a long tradition of respecting religious freedom and, frankly, many people will listen in disbelief to the Court’s ruling that a corporate multinational such as G4S risks having its corporate neutrality undermined by a receptionist in Belgium wearing a headscarf. At what point did the law decide that expressing religious belief through a cross, a turban or a headscarf is a threat to organisational neutrality? Here in the House of Commons, our staff pride themselves on their neutrality, but will such organisations be forced to consider this new ruling? If not, in what circumstances could an organisation legitimately require such neutrality from its workers? Surely there are serious potential implications for those who deliver public services.

One group is specifically affected—Muslim women, who already experience twice the unemployment rate of the general population. The Government need to monitor the situation carefully to ensure that employers do not use the ruling to effectively exclude thousands of Muslim women from the workplace.

We are leaving the EU soon, but the ruling will potentially continue to influence the way in which the Equality Act is interpreted by the courts. Parliamentarians need clarity, workers need clarity and employers need clarity, and we want to ensure that this ruling does not have damaging consequences for freedom of religious belief in our country.

[Caroline Dinenage]

My right hon. Friend is right to raise this case. As I said, the UK has some of the strongest equality legislation in the world and our laws give people robust protection from religious discrimination in the workplace. It is and remains unlawful to directly discriminate against someone because of their religion or to create spurious rules that would prevent them from wearing religious clothing or jewellery. Employers can enforce a dress code, but it must be for proportionate and legitimate reasons, and must apply equally to all employees. If an employer wants to have a neutral dress code with no religious symbols being worn, it must apply equally to all employees and all religions.

Dress codes are a matter for individual employers and will depend on the particular type of work involved, the environment and the safety considerations, above all. The CJEU has found that these cases would constitute indirect discrimination and has referred them back to the national courts to consider whether, based on the specifics, they would be unlawful. The UK’s legal position has not changed. The EHRC has already published guidance for employers on religion and belief in the workplace, and we will work with it to update that guidance to take account of these rulings and to carefully explain how they should be interpreted in UK workplaces. But I must reiterate that this Government are absolutely committed to supporting people into work whatever their background, making Britain a country that works for everyone and not just the privileged few.

[Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)]

I thank the right hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mrs Miller) for raising this important issue. The ruling is not as clearcut as press articles would have us believe, but it does raise real concerns about religious freedom in the workplace, including for Muslim women who choose to wear the hijab. When making their ruling, the judges relied on the concept of workplace policies that require neutrality. Neutrality has specific cultural significance in Belgium and other European countries, based on their particular meaning of secularism, which does not resonate in Britain. Does the Minister agree that this concept of neutrality is illogical, as a customer, patient or service user could not make a valid assumption as to the religious persuasion of a company, or perceive that a company is particularly favouring one religious group or another, by virtue of how its employees dress?

Women and men must be allowed to choose their expression of faith. Simply put, this judgment is not consistent with the British liberal and human rights tradition. Of real concern are the implications that this may now have for faith communities. Already, the far right across Europe is rallying on the judgment. I thank the Minister for making a clear statement today that people can express their faith, in a professional manner, in the workplace, but can she confirm that this Government believe that preventing women from wearing the hijab, as exampled in this case, is simply and unconditionally wrong?

What is the Government’s position on the concept of a dress code for staff that requires neutrality in the workplace? I am pleased that the Minister has confirmed that she will be working with the EHRC on updating the guidance to employers on this ruling. Will she confirm that it will reinforce the rights of employees in the UK to express their religious freedom?

G4S holds a number of Government contracts. Has the Minister reinforced with G4S, the employer in this situation, its employees’ rights to wear clothing necessary for their religious practice in the UK?

[Caroline Dinenage]

It would be helpful if I were to talk a little about the background to this, in order to aid our wider understanding. We are dealing with two cases here. The first, Achbita, was about whether a dress code banning the outward expression of personal belief was directly or indirectly discriminatory against a female Muslim who was sacked for wearing a headscarf. The second, Bougnaoui, concerned the same point, but it also raised the issue of whether a customer’s request not to be served by an employee wearing a headscarf can be a genuine occupational requirement. The ruling confirmed the current position under EU and domestic discrimination law: that a dress code that applies and is applied in the same way to all employees does not constitute direct discrimination but may constitute indirect discrimination. However, importantly, an employer’s willingness to take account of a customer’s wishes about staff wearing religious dress does not constitute a genuine occupational requirement. It is very important to point that out.

As I have stated, employers can enforce a dress code, but it must be proportionate and legitimate, and must apply equally to all employees. If an employer wants a neutral dress code with no religious or political symbols being worn, that must equally apply to all employees and religions. However, it remains unlawful to directly discriminate against someone because of their religion and to create any kind of spurious rules that will prevent the wearing of religious clothing or jewellery. The Government take this very seriously. Hate crime of any form will not be tolerated. The Government will not stand by and let that happen. We are very clear about where we stand on this. People will be protected in their workplace and, as I said, we will be reinforcing the guidance on religion and belief in the workplace which the EHRC has published. We will be making sure that employers are well aware of their responsibilities in that way.

[Sir Eric Pickles (Brentwood and Ongar) (Con)]

I am very pleased to hear that the Government are going to issue new guidelines. I hope that they will reflect British values, which demand that Muslim women should be able to wear the hijab, that Sikhs should be able to wear the turban, that Jewish people should be able to wear a kippah and that Christians can wear a cross. If we remove that basic right, the nature of British values changes. Any company that wants to be neutral and to deny its employees the ability to express their religion takes away from those employees and is fundamentally not British.

[Caroline Dinenage]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right; the Government believe, and I believe, that people need to be able to feel strong in their religious identities, and we are ensuring that the voices of people of faith can be heard up and down this country. As now, any dress code or dress ban that an employer imposes must be for legitimate and proportionate reasons, and the employer must be prepared to defend it before a court or tribunal if necessary. Ultimately, those dress codes are for individual employers to decide on, but we are clear that any form of discrimination on the grounds of religion or faith will not be tolerated and is unlawful.

[Neil Gray (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)]

This is an incredibly sensitive issue which will cause concern across these isles. It is clear that right-wing leaders across Europe have already attempted to misrepresent the ruling for their own ends, so I hope that we will see clear leadership from the UK Government to counter that rhetoric and ensure that it does not take hold here.

What the Minister has already said and what the Prime Minister said earlier is a good start. We should be absolutely clear that women and men should be free to choose what they wear, and we certainly should not be discriminatory on the basis of religion. The Court of Justice judgment ruled that uniformity is key in any workplace policy on religious or political neutrality, and that this cannot be applied on an ad hoc basis. However, there are concerns about the potential for this to be hijacked by some for the purpose of anti-Muslim or similarly intolerant sentiment. If Police Scotland can decide to include the hijab as part of its uniform, what action will the UK Government take to ensure that discrimination against individuals of any religion will not be tolerated in the workplace?

[Caroline Dinenage]

The Prime Minister was very clear that what a woman wears is her choice and no one else’s. Obviously, there is a clear difference in the following respect: it would be ridiculous to presume that, if someone wanted to wear loose clothing or dangling jewellery when working in or around machinery, it was sensible to allow them to do so in contravention of any health and safety considerations. But in normal day-to-day jobs it would seem to be very ill-advised to prevent people from wearing the items of clothing that reflect their religious faith or belief.

On what the hon. Gentleman says about the far-right response, let me say that we have one of the strongest legislative frameworks in the world to protect communities from hostility, violence and bigotry. We keep these policies under review all the time, as we want to ensure that they remain effective and appropriate in the face of any kind of new and emerging threats. He must be assured that those who perpetrate hate crimes of any kind will be punished with the full force of the law.

[Michael Fabricant (Lichfield) (Con)]

I am heartened by the Minister’s robust response to this. My experience in France has been that the attitude there towards the wearing of the hijab has exacerbated problems between different sections of the community. Just the other day, I saw a Sikh police officer wearing a turban, which just demonstrates our tolerant attitude in this country. So I commend the Minister and ask—as I must do to keep in order—that she maintains this position.

[Caroline Dinenage]

Multiculturalism and the multiplicity of different faiths and religions in this country is one of our great strengths. We should recognise that many people follow their faith and that some people follow none, but we want a society that treats people equally and with respect, whatever their faith happens to be, or if they have none.

[Rushanara Ali (Bethnal Green and Bow) (Lab)]

The Minister will appreciate how distressing the ruling is, not only for British Muslim women who choose to wear the hijab but for many other faith communities. She will be aware that G4S, the British company involved, has form. It presided over a shambolic temporary jobs arrangement during the Olympics, when the British Army had to be brought in. First, will G4S’s Government contracts be reviewed, because what it has done is unacceptable and un-British? Secondly, once the Government have worked with the EHRC to reform the guidance, will the Minister report to Parliament to reassure us that, as Members on both sides of the House have stated, British values, which are distinct from the ruling, are upheld, and that the right of women to wear what they wish to wear in the workplace, within reason and with reasonable accommodation, is upheld?

[Caroline Dinenage]

The hon. Lady is absolutely right to point out that women should be respected; indeed, all workers and their religious individuality should be respected. Employers have a right to enforce a dress code, but she is right to point out that certain employers interpret that right differently from others. We certainly take religious tolerance, and tolerance more generally, into consideration when considering Government contracts. This situation is a shame, because we are very tolerant in this country and we are making massive progress. Some 45% more Muslim women were in work in 2015 than in 2011. We know that there is much more to do to ensure that no one is left behind, but we are committed to supporting people in their workplace, whatever their background, which is why it is so important that this issue was brought to the House today.

[Mr David Burrowes (Enfield, Southgate) (Con)]

Will the Minister confirm that in this country a member of an airline’s cabin staff or a receptionist has the right to express their faith freely by wearing a cross or a headscarf, and that that cannot be supressed by any so-called neutral dress code?

[Caroline Dinenage]

Yes, my hon. Friend is absolutely right that people are entitled to express their religious thoughts or beliefs in what they wear. It becomes an issue only if there is some kind of health and safety aspect. As I have said before, companies are entitled to enforce their own dress code, but it is very clear that that dress code must apply equally to all employees, whatever their faith, religion or gender, and the Government are keen to promote that.

[Lady Hermon (North Down) (Ind)]

I am very troubled by the judgments. If the provisions of the CJEU’s judgments are held to be directly effective, they can be relied on by employers in the UK without further ado. In my estimation, that would be deplorable. Will the Minister confirm that the Government are keeping open the option of legislating—and, indeed, the option of introducing emergency legislation—to make sure that the United Kingdom’s very fine laws on discrimination, which uphold one’s right to manifest one’s views and religion, are not undermined by the CJEU? The assurance that the Government will turn to legislation, should the need arise, would be very helpful.

[Caroline Dinenage]

It is important to point out that the CJEU judgement is advice that goes back to the nations that brought forward the cases. Each country has the right to enforce the judgment in the way it sees fit. I am confident that the UK has some of the strongest equalities legislation in the world, including the Equality Act 2010, which enshrines equality in domestic law. Nevertheless, we will always keep that under review to ensure that people continue to be protected in the best possible way.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

--- Later in debate ---

[Caroline Dinenage]

Yes, that is really important, and my hon. Friend is absolutely right to point it out. The Government are working so hard to tackle the barriers faced by different black and minority ethnic groups. We are engaging Muslim communities through a number of faith and integration projects; we are developing a new English language offer that will be targeted at Muslim women but available to other groups; and we are trialling new and innovative ways for Jobcentre Plus to engage with and tailor their services to BME communities. I hate to think that all the good work we are doing to build trust and faith in communities would ever be undermined.

[Mr Chuka Umunna (Streatham) (Lab)]

I do not like this word “tolerate.” In this country, we do not tolerate people; we respect and embrace all cultures. Despite that, we know that Islamophobia is not only widespread but rampant. As a solicitor, for the best part of a decade I advised employees and employers on employment law. My worry is that those who read the reports on the CJEU decision will see it as a green light to engage in further discrimination in the workplace. What specifically will the Government do to ensure that employers do not take from the judgments the idea that they can carry on discriminating, particularly against Muslim women, who are more likely to be discriminated against in the workplace than many other groups?

[Caroline Dinenage]

As I have already made clear, we are working closely with the Equality and Human Rights Commission to update guidance for employers on dealing with religion or belief in the workplace. Nevertheless, we will continue to revise the guidance so that it takes account of the judgment. We want to be absolutely clear to all concerned that the Equality Act remains unchanged, as do the rights of women and religious employees, which we will continue to protect.

[David T. C. Davies (Monmouth) (Con)]

I am sure I am not alone in seeing a big difference between a headscarf, crucifix or turban, and the burqa or niqab. How will the judgment affect the two police forces of which I am aware that currently state they are willing to consider applications from female police officers who might want to wear a full niqab or burqa?

[Caroline Dinenage]

The Government wholeheartedly support the invaluable work being done by people throughout the country who are inspired by that faith. If it is safe for them to continue to wear their religious garments while doing their job, we very much feel they should be encouraged to do so.

[Shabana Mahmood (Birmingham, Ladywood) (Lab)]

This ruling sends an appalling message to faith communities in our countries, and many visibly religious people at work today will feel more scrutinised and more insecure as a result. The ruling also creates a lower threshold for religious freedom than we enjoy under UK legislation. Many thousands of people in my constituency are affected; they need a clear and continuing signal from the Government that they will support our national legal settlement. I am grateful for what the Minister has already said on that, but how will she and the Government monitor the ruling’s impact on employees currently in the workplace? What steps will she take to prevent any further marginalisation of visibly religious people in the workplace?

[Caroline Dinenage]

The hon. Lady is absolutely right to raise that issue. The Government believe that people need to be able to feel strong in their religious identities. We have to continue to ensure that the voices of people of faith are heard in Government. We should recognise that people are completely free to follow their faith. We want a society that treats people equally and with respect, so we will always keep this matter under review and take the necessary action if and when it becomes apparent that we need to.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

This is a complicated issue, but my constituents in Kettering would view it as yet another inappropriate judgment from a European court, telling us what to do when we have not sought its advice in the first place. Will the Minister clarify what power the ECJ will have over this country once we have left the European Union?

[Caroline Dinenage]

We know we are leaving the European Union. We are committed to a successful withdrawal and to forming a new relationship with Europe, and at that stage the court will have no power. We will preserve all the rights that employees currently enjoy and ensure that the robust protections that European legislation affords them are enshrined in domestic law.

[Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)]

The Minister talks about neutral dress codes applying to both genders, but does she accept that even if a no-headscarves rule applies to both genders it effectively discriminates against only women, and that a no-turbans rule effectively discriminates against only men? Is not something more robust required?

[Caroline Dinenage]

It is absolutely clear that a no-headscarves rule or a no-turbans rule would be illegal, as it would constitute direct discrimination. The only form of discrimination that is allowed is a blanket ban on any form of religious clothing or symbols, under the legislation referred to in yesterday’s court case.

[Andrew Stephenson (Pendle) (Con)]

Many of my constituents feel that the ban clearly targets Muslim women who wish to wear the hijab. Given the improving but still below-average employment rate among Muslim women, does the Minister not feel that the ruling sends out completely the wrong message as we try to build a country that works for everyone?

[Caroline Dinenage]

It does send out an unhelpful message, particularly as this Government take really seriously discrimination in any form. We will renew our efforts to ensure that no one is held back by any outdated attitudes or practices.

[Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) (Lab)]

A person’s ability to do 99.9% of jobs, including that of security guard, is not affected by whether they wear a skull cap, headscarf, turban, cross, mangalsutra or tilaka. Can this ECJ judgment be rejected in domestic law to prevent confusion among employers about its having any bearing on this country? As G4S receives public funding and is discriminating against people, can its contract be reviewed?

--- Later in debate ---

[Caroline Dinenage]

Domestic equality legislation is very clear. Employers do not need to change any legitimate policies on dress code in the workplace, but it is vital that employers and employees understand what the law allows them to do, and that is what this is about. We do not want any employers mistakenly thinking that this ruling gives them any authority to sack public-facing staff who wear headscarves or any other religious symbols. Those protections are already clear in domestic law, and we will always make sure that they are most strongly enforced.

[David Rutley (Macclesfield) (Con)]

At a time when many Members of this House—both across parties and in the Government—are working to promote the principles of freedom of religion or belief internationally, does my hon. Friend agree that it is vital that we work hard to protect long-standing religious freedoms here at home?

[Caroline Dinenage]

Yes, my hon. Friend is absolutely right. We have one of the strongest legislative frameworks in the world to protect communities from hostility, violence and bigotry. We continue to promote that on the world stage, as it is fundamental to everything this country stands for—tolerance and the embracing of other cultures as we make them part of our national identity.

[Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)]

This is a worrying judgment for all people of faith. Has the Minister seen that the Church of England this morning described the judgment as “troubling”? Will she confirm that she understands why the Church of England has taken that view, and that it is right to do so?

[Caroline Dinenage]

The right hon. Gentleman is right to bring that up, because the judgment applies to religious symbols, whatever the faith of the individual who happens to be wearing them. The ruling will be equally troubling for the Church of England, for people of Muslim faith, for people of whatever faith and indeed for people of none.

[Wes Streeting (Ilford North) (Lab)]

Sophia Dar, a Muslim woman in my constituency, was attacked in broad daylight on Oxford Street, one of the busiest shopping streets in the world, let alone London, by a man who forcibly tried to remove her hijab from her head. Do not these judgments reinforce a sense that other people have the right to tell people of faith what they can and cannot wear and how they choose to practise or not practise their faith? In addition to the very welcome guidelines to which the Minister has committed today, will she look at what we can do to enforce existing laws that protect people from religious discrimination so that the attacker of my constituent is brought to very heavy justice?

[Caroline Dinenage]

I am very sorry to hear about the hon. Gentleman’s constituent. That sounds like a very distressing thing to happen. Those who perpetrate hate crimes of any kind will be punished with the full force of the law. We are committed to tackling hate crime and have produced a new hate crime action plan that focuses on reducing hate crime, increasing reporting and increasing support for victims.

[Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)]

We have all heard about hijabs being ripped from girls’ heads by people emboldened by the referendum result—admittedly, that was an unintended consequence of the result. I am encouraged by the Minister’s words. Will she do all she can to ensure that this illiberal judgment, which has nothing to do with workplace performance, does not have its own unwelcome by-product? Apparently, Muslim women are 70% more likely to be unemployed than non-Muslim women. The judgment could be a recruiting sergeant for Islamic extremist groups. Will she have a word with colleagues about proposed cuts to provision for English for Speakers of other languages.

[Caroline Dinenage]

The hon. Lady is right: hate crime, whatever form it takes, should never be tolerated. It should be punished with the full force of the law, and the Government take that very seriously.

[Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) (SNP)]

I am heartened to hear the Minister’s comments and her very clear guidelines, but I am still concerned that this ruling may allow intolerant employers to ban symbols such as the hijab or even a cross on the forehead. How are the Government planning to monitor employers, and how will they make it possible for employees to report problems without fear of repercussions?

[Caroline Dinenage]

That is an important question. We are very clear that employers do not need to change legitimate policies on dress codes in the workplace, but it is vital that employers and employees understand what the law allows. Employers cannot act unscrupulously in some mistaken interpretation of the law, and employees must not feel that they cannot report any incidents of this kind.

[Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)]

When I was married, as part of the service my husband gave me a ring. We all know that that is culturally loaded. Wedding rings are allowed, but headscarves on young Muslim women are a problem. I ask the Minister for the fifth time—unlike the hon. Member for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy)—what she will do about G4S.

[Caroline Dinenage]

Ironically, my husband did the same—I have a ring, too. The hon. Lady makes a valid point, and it is one that we keep under consideration. This is not a domestic issue and it has not happened with G4S in the UK, but we take it very seriously and will keep it in mind when making any decisions.

[Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)]

I welcome the tone of the exchanges in the House and I know that they will be very well received by the many Muslim and Sikh constituents whom I have the honour to represent. I also welcome what the Minister said about new guidance to be produced by the Equality and Human Rights Commission. May I ask her to ensure that the EHRC has the resources necessary to carry out its enforcement function, about which, as she knows, there are significant concerns?

[Caroline Dinenage]

Let me be clear: this is existing EHRC guidance, but we will work with the commission to make sure that in the light of the most recent judgment it is updated and entirely fit for purpose. I am confident that the EHRC has sufficient funds to do its job efficiently. The hon. Lady might be interested to know that even after some recent changes in its workforce, the commission still has four times more staff than we have in the Government Equalities Office.

[Rob Marris (Wolverhampton South West) (Lab)]

I am the chair of the all-party parliamentary group for British Sikhs. I thank you, Mr Speaker, for again this year hosting the Vaisakhi celebration, on 18 April in Speaker’s Rooms. I welcome the Minister’s statement today, but will Her Majesty’s Government make representations to the Governments of France and Belgium, which overtly have state-sponsored discrimination against Sikhs, including British Sikhs who move to France or Belgium?

[Caroline Dinenage]

That is a matter for my colleagues in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, but we will have that conversation with them. We take discrimination seriously and will continue to ensure that no one is held back by any outdated attitude or practice.

[Lady Hermon (North Down) (Ind)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Workplace Dress Codes (High Heels)

Caroline Dinenage Excerpts

Monday 6th March 2017 Westminster Hall

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Women and Equalities (Caroline Dinenage)]

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hanson. I thank the hon. Member for Warrington North (Helen Jones) for securing this important debate and for setting out the issues so clearly, and in some cases shockingly, in her opening speech. I congratulate all the other Members who have taken part.

I am grateful to the Petitions Committee and the Women and Equalities Committee for their report on high heels and workplace dress codes. It is clearly concerning, and highlights both unacceptable behaviour and the persistent challenges faced by some women in the workplace. I am most grateful to Nicola Thorp and other brave whistleblowers like her who have shone a light on this important issue.

Let me be clear: the Government will not tolerate any form of discrimination on any grounds, including gender. As the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Paula Sherriff) said, it is International Women’s Day this Wednesday, so this debate could not be more timely. The international theme this year is “Be Bold for Change”, and our own national theme is supporting women in the workplace. When it comes to supporting women in the workplace, we mean to be bold, including by enforcing strong laws to tackle sex discrimination at work, including dress codes.

We should renew our efforts to be bold for change. After all, we have had anti-discrimination laws in this area for over 40 years, yet it is a safe bet that this sort of dress code has still existed under the radar, and that female employees have put up with discrimination because “that’s the way things are”. However, whether shod in heels or flats, we are collectively putting our foot down. Attitudes are changing, and this petition has brought that change clearly into the public domain.

However, this is not just about shoes; it is way bigger than that. It is about how people are treated in the workplace, and this debate is specifically about how women are treated in the workplace. We have a higher number of women in work than ever before, but it is essential that they should feel comfortable and confident in their employers’ due regard for their health and wellbeing. They should feel empowered to do their best and be rewarded for their hard work. They should feel confident of their rights and that they can redress a problem where it persists. Employers must meet their legal obligations towards their employees, and we will support them to do so.

We are carefully considering the Committees’ report and recommendations and will be issuing a response later this month. I do not want to pre-empt that response, but the evidence sessions conducted by the Committees were invaluable in setting out the extent of the problem. They highlighted some shocking workplace dress code requirements, such as the requirement to re-apply make-up throughout the day and to dress in a sexualised fashion, supposedly to attract clients and customers. I do not know who should feel most insulted by that: the person being required to re-apply their make-up or the consumers whose intelligence is being insulted by the suggestion that a fresh coat of lipstick will somehow induce them to purchase something.

The report also shows that the problem is compounded by the further issue of health and safety, which many hon. Members have mentioned. If an employer requires staff to wear particular shoes as part of a dress code, they should consider the implications. It is absolutely right that the Committees are shining a spotlight on discriminatory dress code practices. In 2017, such outdated and sexist employment practices should not be part of the workplace.

I am proud that in this country, women have a voice and a way to bring such issues to Parliament. We now have plenty of female parliamentarians—maybe not quite enough yet, but enough to bring this issue to Parliament. However, we must also ensure that women have a choice. Whether they choose to wear high heels or not—we have heard very good cases for and against; personally, at 5 foot 10 inches, I have never really needed a few extra inches—should be up to them, not up to some outdated, dodgy 1970s workplace diktat. I must reiterate that the Government utterly condemn such dress requirements where their effect is discriminatory. We strongly support the existing equality legislation that provides protection to women and indeed men who are treated less favourably because of gender in the workplace, but clearly the legislation must be more widely understood and better enforced.

The Equality Act 2010 clearly prohibits an employer from discriminating against an employee or job applicant because of their sex when deciding whom to offer employment or in relation to the terms on which employment is offered. Dress policies for men and women do not have to be identical, but the standards imposed should be equivalent, meaning that where an employer or an agency supplying staff imposes a dress code, then unless similar or equivalent rules are laid down for both male and female employees, that code may be directly discriminatory. For example, a man may be asked to wear a shirt and tie while a woman is not, but she would be expected to wear equivalent smart work wear. A code that results in a degree of discomfort or expense for a female employee that a male colleague would not be expected to endure is likely to be discriminatory. In the case of a requirement for high heels, as the hon. Member for East Renfrewshire (Kirsten Oswald) pointed out, a blanket rule for women might also be indirectly discriminatory on grounds of disability—for example, if a female employee has difficulty in walking because of a medical condition but is required to wear heels along with her colleagues.

Dress codes can be a legitimate part of an employer’s terms and conditions of service—we accept the importance that some firms place on presenting a smart, uniform corporate image, particularly where services are offered to the public—but such codes must apply fairly to men and women. I was thinking about whether there are any workplaces in which both men and women are required to wear high heels, but the only one that I could think of was the musical “Kinky Boots”, in which everyone seems to wear high heels at the end. Personally, I fail to see why a high heel should be a byword for smartness.

I hope that this case acts as a reminder to employers of their responsibilities and makes employees of both genders aware of their rights under the 2010 Act. However, to ensure that the message is driven home, particularly to employers, the Government and the Equality and Human Rights Commission are taking action. The Government are clear that the law to deal with such cases of discrimination is adequate, but we recognise that some employers lack awareness of the law or even choose to flout it. We are therefore developing guidance for employers, working closely with the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service, the EHRC and the Health and Safety Executive, in response to the recommendations in the Committees’ report. I welcome the work that the EHRC has already done to raise awareness of discriminatory code practices on social media; I am also aware of, and welcome, the fact that it is looking more generally at how to sharpen and improve its enforcement work under the 2010 Act.

I commend Nicola Thorp and I encourage other whistleblowers to call out employers on these outdated and potentially unlawful practices. These kinds of headlines do not show anybody in a good light, and people should be calling out the employers concerned. Taking that action is never easy, but it is invaluable in raising the profile of the issue and in encouraging employers to review and, where necessary, revise their current dress code practices—as the employer in this case went on to do.

I would like to use this debate to challenge all employers with dress codes to review them and consider whether they remain relevant and lawful. I urge employers to consult the existing guidance available from EHRC and ACAS on the issue, and our forthcoming guidance, which will be prepared with the Thorp petition and the Women and Equalities Committee’s report in mind. Consulting with employees on any proposed dress code may ensure that the code is acceptable both to the organisation and to its staff. In particular, I expect the sectors highlighted in the report—hotels and tourism, travel and airlines, temporary agencies, corporate services, retail and hospitality—to review their dress codes, if they have not already done so. With that in mind, I have recently written to all the trade bodies that represent those sectors. I have drawn their attention to the report and asked them to impress on their members the importance of treating their employees, both male and female, fairly and decently when setting dress codes. I am already beginning to get responses from the trade bodies, and so far they have been very positive.

The hon. Member for Warrington North mentioned that women are sometimes afraid to take complaints against employers further. It is important to emphasise that the 2010 Act has victimisation protections that can give women the confidence to complain about dress codes that may be unlawful, safe in the knowledge that their employer cannot dismiss them for making a complaint. However, there is room for improvement, especially in employees’ understanding of their rights, and the Government have a role to play in that. We will look at how we can improve awareness and understanding of the protections available and how better to enforce them.

To further our ability to spot and respond to this type of discriminatory practice, the Equality Advisory and Support Service has agreed to refer any reports of dress code issues to the EHRC to consider further action. That will ensure that the situation is investigated, that whistleblowers are supported and that we can assess whether further action is required on the part of the Government or other bodies.

The lack of test cases is nothing to do with EHRC budgets. The EHRC has not historically taken on cases of this sort; it has been concerned with taking on strategic cases, generally those that might extend or expand the law, and a basic dress code would not normally be part of that category. However, the EHRC is now looking at strategic cases, to see whether they can include more basic areas of public or parliamentary concern such as this.

We want the UK to lead the way in gender equality in the workplace to ensure that we are a true meritocracy that harnesses the talents of everyone. Making women wear sexualised clothing is about as far away as it is possible to get from our vision of gender parity in the workplace.

The EHRC budget is a bit of a red herring. The EHRC has and will continue to have sufficient funds to fulfil its functions. Its total budget allocation in 2016-17 is £20.435 million. To put that in perspective, it has four times as many staff as my entire Department, the entire Government Equalities Office. We are confident that it has sufficient money and resources to continue to fulfil its statutory functions.

We are committed to enhancing the role of women and removing barriers to equality, including outdated practices and attitudes, by tackling the gender pay gap, increasing the number of women on boards, increasing support for childcare costs and ensuring that employers are aware of their obligations to pregnant women.

A number of hon. Members raised tribunal fees. We are currently consulting on proposals to extend the support available under the help with fees scheme. Under these proposals, the gross monthly income threshold for a full fee remission would be increased to £1,250 a month—broadly the level of the national wage. If implemented, the proposals will help people on low incomes.

We have made great progress on tackling gender discrimination, but there is still much more to do, and it is the responsibility of all of us. We will continue to work hard to ensure that women are not excluded from or held back in the workplace because of exactly the type of outdated attitudes, practices and discriminatory dress codes that we have heard about today.

International Women’s Day

Caroline Dinenage Excerpts

Thursday 2nd March 2017 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Women and Equalities (Caroline Dinenage)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Jess Phillips) and other Members on securing this really important debate, and all the inspiring female MPs—and, indeed, one brave male MP, the hon. Member for Ogmore (Chris Elmore)—on taking part in today’s significant debate, because International Women’s Day is significant. It is an inspiring annual event that celebrates the achievements of women, both past and present day. It is a great opportunity to take stock of how far we have come, but also to keep fighting for what we believe in around the world and to look at how far we still have to go in our own country. I am grateful to Members from both sides of the House for their thoughtful contributions.

I am incredibly proud that we now have our second female Prime Minister, and that our Parliament is becoming more diverse. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wealden (Nusrat Ghani) said, it has been 700 years in the making, which is painfully slow by anybody’s standards. She is right to call on any women watching our proceedings today to come and join us. As my hon. Friend the Member for Telford (Lucy Allan) rightly pointed out, it is the presence of women in the Chamber that is changing the situation we are talking about. The reason we are having this debate is that there are so many more females MPs, and that is the only way we will make the significant changes we want.

The theme for this year’s International Women’s Day is “Be Bold for Change”, and the Government want to be bold for change. It is only through being bold, being courageous and taking risks that we can create the lasting change we all want. No country can truly succeed while half its population is left behind, and despite the conscious efforts of many men and women over the years, barriers to equality do exist. The Government are committed to tackling such barriers to equality wherever they manifest themselves. That is why International Women’s Day is for everyone, and we know that gender equality is not a zero-sum game: true equality enables both men and women to be who they want to be, unconstrained by outdated stereotypes and unconstrained by assumptions about what it means to be a woman, or indeed a man.

I know that Members on both sides of the House share the Government’s commitment to driving forward this agenda. I am particularly grateful to the Women and Equalities Committee, which rightly holds the Government’s feet to the fire all the time. It is very hard to believe that this Select Committee only started to exist in June 2015, given the breadth and range of its inquiries so far. Its work is rightly recognised and respected, which is why I am very pleased to announce today that the House of Commons intends to make the Women and Equalities Committee permanent. This is a very fitting testament to the energy and commitment of all members of the Committee, but I must pay special tribute to the very dynamic leadership of my right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mrs Miller). I pay tribute to her and all the members of her Committee for their work and their amazing achievements in this important space.

Not only is gender equality the right thing to do, but it is good for our society and really good for our economy. It is essential to unlock the potential of women in the workplace. We need to build a stronger economy that fully utilises the talents that women have to offer. I am very proud that there are more women in work than ever before and that the gender pay gap is the lowest it has ever been, but we must go further. The Government are committed to eliminating the gender pay gap entirely, which is why our bold and groundbreaking legislation coming into force next month will require businesses, voluntary organisations and the public sector to publish both their pay and bonus gaps. The regulations will shine a light on the difference between men’s pay and women’s pay, and we hope employers will lead the way by publishing early. We have also set the standard for highly productive, agile working practices by bringing in shared parental leave, extending the right to request flexible working, and providing 30 hours of free childcare a week for working parents of all three and four-year-olds so that men and women alike can balance work and family life.

My hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth South (Mrs Drummond), who is the excellent co-chairwoman of the all-party group on women and work, rightly celebrated the skills, talents and experience that older women can bring to the workforce. On 2 February, the Government published our “Fuller Working Lives: A Partnership Approach” document, which sets out the key actions the Government are taking to support older workers to remain in the labour market. That is not just great for business. I was struck by the words of one woman who had just gone back into the workplace after many years of caring responsibilities when she told me, “It’s the first thing in my life I have ever done for myself.” Those words have really stayed with me.

We want to support women and girls throughout their lives, but to get the whole picture we must look at everything—from the classroom to the boardroom and beyond. In education, we are committed to increasing the number of girls studying STEM—science, technology, engineering and maths—subjects. We are also supporting girls and boys in school by giving them the tools they need to be safe, confident and able to develop healthy and respectful relationships. That is why my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education announced yesterday our plans for 21st-century relationships and sex education. Our proposals will ensure that children of all ages and from all backgrounds will have the opportunity to learn what positive, healthy and nurturing relationships should look like. The building blocks for this will start in primary school with relationships education, and continue in secondary school with relationships and sex education.

We have made great progress at the very top of business, where female representation has gone from strength to strength. We know that companies with more diverse boards and senior executives can access a wider talent pool and that they better represent the society they serve.

To ensure that girls and women thrive, succeed and go as far as their talents can take them, they must have the right to live safely and free from all forms of violence. The key to that is a strategy to prevent violence against women and girls. Sadly, many Members, like women across the country, have had their lives invaded by the new threat of online violence. There is no doubt that that insidious misogyny limits the benefits women can gain from the digital world, but there should be no public or private space where violence should be allowed to continue. That means eradicating violence and abuse of any kind, anywhere—online, in our workplaces, in our communities, and in every home.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke asked about the future of the revenge porn helpline. I am very keen for its important work to continue and we are looking closely at how we can continue to support it. In addition to the £80 million already committed to provide services and support for victims and survivors, the Prime Minister recently committed to reviewing the legislation on domestic violence and abuse to transform the way we think about and tackle violence, and that basic right to safety. We are determined to ensure that the law is working to protect women and girls so that intervention and prevention, not crisis response, are the norm.

The hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley again this year read out the list of women killed at the hands of violent men since we were last in the Chamber for this debate. This year, the names included, of course, one of our own, Jo Cox. Every life lost is a tragedy; every name is a name too many. No girl should be in doubt of her right to succeed free from fear and the threat of violence.

The hon. Member for Hampstead and Kilburn (Tulip Siddiq) spoke compellingly about her constituent, Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe. She drew attention to the plight of women and girls in prisons overseas, but specifically to the tragic case of her constituent, and I will personally take that up with No. 10.

The right hon. Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) was absolutely right to outline the pain and suffering that the Yazidi women endured—we should never forget that. The hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw (Marion Fellows), who is a force of nature, spoke about the importance of educating girls internationally, and we are supporting 5.3 million girls in school, including girls from the most marginalised communities. We have also helped 36 million women to get access to financial services and are spending more than any other country on bringing an end to female genital mutilation. Those examples underline our commitment to promoting gender equality at home and overseas. I am proud that we are a world leader in this work.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke asked about the number of police trained in dealing with domestic violence. All new recruits undertake a public protection learning programme, of which domestic abuse is a key feature. New police training called “Domestic Abuse Matters” focuses on recognising controlling and coercive behaviour. That has already been rolled out in five police forces, with many more in the pipeline.

My hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mrs Trevelyan) made an excellent speech on behalf of women in the armed forces. She is a feisty champion of the armed forces. Despite some excellent initiatives, more remains to be done, but we have raised our target for recruiting women in the armed forces to 15% by 2020.

The hon. Member for West Ham (Lyn Brown) spoke beautifully about the match ladies. I remember going to see a play about them when I was at school. It was so inspiring and I certainly back her call to have those ladies recognised.

International Women’s Day is a fantastic opportunity to take stock, to recognise the progress that we have made and to celebrate the amazing women, past and present, who have fought the battles, and who continue to fight every day all around the world in the name of equality. It is an opportunity to discuss how much further we have to go, and a time to remember that there is so much more to do and to remind ourselves to be bold in the pursuit of change.