International Women’s Day: Language in Politics

Maria Miller Excerpts

Thursday 29th February 2024 Commons Chamber

[Dame Maria Miller (Basingstoke) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the use of language in politics in light of International Women’s Day; agrees that the respectful use of language is an important feature of a strong and inclusive democracy; and calls on all parliamentary candidates to pledge that respectful language will be used at all times in the upcoming General Election campaigning period.

I would like to start the debate, on behalf of members of the all-party parliamentary group on women in Parliament, by saying thank you. I thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting the debate, which we should never take for granted given the pressure to hold debates in the Chamber, and I thank the Fawcett Society, which provides the secretariat to the APPG. Like all APPGs, ours is open to all Members and is cross-party. There is more that unites us than divides us when it comes to women in politics and particularly to women who stand for elected office.

Let us start the debate to mark International Women’s Day, which I have to remember is a national holiday around Europe, by celebrating the women who make our communities great. Like everybody else I have a long list I could recite, but I would just like to highlight Dr Avideah Nejad, a consultant gynaecologist at Hampshire Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, who took the time last Friday, along with Dr Dominic Kelly, to speak to students at my local sixth-form college about our brand new hospital and the work she does to inspire another generation of young people to take up medicine. We need more people like that in our communities.

The APPG want this debate to be more than a celebration. We want to continue our work to ensure that the amazing women on these Benches and in our communities see elected office as a way they can contribute to the future of our country. Women are now more likely than their male counterparts to come out of the best universities with the best degrees. They make up the majority of solicitors and the majority of students studying medicine, so why has the House of Commons not seen the same leaps as other sectors when it comes to attracting women into our midst? There are still two men elected to this place for every one woman. There are many reasons for that and I remind colleagues of the excellent research the APPG launched in September, but today’s debate invites us to focus on one element.

At the moment, as we heard in the statements today, too many women reject the idea of standing for election because of the abuse they face, in particular the abusive language used on social media. Abuse affects all of us, but it is disproportionately aimed at women and is more likely to put women off from standing for election. That is not to say that abusive language is acceptable to anyone. There is far more that online media platforms could and should be doing to stop online bullying and abuse among all their users, but the evidence is that it disproportionately negatively impacts women. That poses a huge risk to the retention of women in this place and, in turn, to democratic representation.

Over nine in 10 women MPs who took part in the research reported that online abuse or harassment negatively impacts how they feel about being an MP, compared with seven in 10 men—still not a great figure. Similarly, all the black and minoritised MPs who took part in the survey reported that they were negatively impacted by online abuse. The nature of the abuse was described as misogynistic and racist, with it taking a considerable toll not only on them but their families.

Lots has been done to recognise the problem. I pay particular tribute to Mr Speaker and his team in Parliament for the work they do in monitoring and acting on online abuse against Members, and ensuring increased levels of support are in place, as we heard in the statement by the Minister for Security, my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Tom Tugendhat) a few moments ago, so that MPs have support to live their day-to-day lives as they want to, and not in an isolated ivory tower. Abusive and threatening language is spilling over into real-life behaviour. This is something I and others raised in the debates on the Online Safety Bill.

Politicians are not delicate flowers, but there can be few people who would be unaffected by having two work colleagues murdered in the last eight years. David and Jo were just going about their work as constituency MPs. We have seen the shift to protesters feeling a legitimate right to camp outside MPs’ homes, and maybe not just outside, and to attempt to intimidate MPs through their children, partners, husbands or wives—something I have experienced myself. The additional security is essential, but it will not solve the problem. We have to challenge and change the culture of online abuse, and the online abuse that is now spilling offline, too.

Free speech and its protection is often cited as a reason why we should not be regulating the online environment. Free speech is a crucial part of our democracy. The passing of the Online Safety Act 2023 into law demonstrates that the Government understand there is a line to tread between free speech and protections. But free speech is not the only thing we must safeguard. Speaking freely is just as important. Too many women in particular fear organised attacks if they speak up and speak freely on the issues that matter to them. In research, three quarters of women MPs said they do not speak up on certain issues because of the abusive environment online. The same goes for men; the numbers who are impacted are much smaller—around half—but that is still something we should be concerned about. The ability of this place to speak freely is being curtailed.

There is another aspect to this. Parliamentary privilege and the parliamentary language we use in this place means we have an obligation to choose our words carefully. People who watch our debates note that every time. But are we as careful outside the Chamber? Is political campaigning being shaped to fit the medium of social media: polarised, binary, simplistic, and chasing the algorithm first and foremost at the expense of nuanced debate? There are serious implications for our democracy if we allow our politics to be shaped by—I am afraid—a mob mentality that can thrive in the online world. The Online Safety Act can only be the start. I reiterate my call, which I mentioned in earlier proceedings, for a Select Committee for online safety to keep the issue under constant review.

In advance of the debate, I received a note from the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, who is contacted by thousands of members of the public every year with their views on parliamentary standards. The language we choose to use matters in maintaining a culture of respect in political debate. Robust debate is not the same as personal intimidation and abuse. Is referring to your opponent as “scum” part of free speech and a robust debate, or is it abusive political campaigning? We all need to think carefully about that.

[Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)]

The right hon. Lady has mentioned online platforms and a form of responsibility, but does she believe that Parliament itself should take more responsibility for the barriers that women are facing, or citing as their reasons for not entering Parliament, and for the language that we use here? What might that responsibility look like?

[Dame Maria Miller]

I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention, and for her support for the all-party parliamentary group. Trying to make this a place that people want to come to should be a cross-party effort, along with tackling social media abuse and not only holding online platforms to account, but ensuring that they take down abusive images and messages inciting violence against Members of Parliament. That should be done much more quickly than it has been in the experience of many Members. There is so much more, over and above social media, that we need to change if we want more women to be willing to come here. Although half the population of our country is female, very few women want to stand for election, for reasons including some that I have mentioned.

[Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)]

This debate is important for a number of reasons. The language that we use in everyday life can be very careless, and is becoming increasingly so in this place. I wonder whether the right hon. Lady worries, as I do, about the fact that during the current Parliament in particular there has been more focus on parliamentarians’ behaviour, and while some of it has to be called out, there have been occasions when an issue has been raised and then—if I may use a football phrase—Members have tackled the player rather than the ball: it has been about the person rather than the issue. Should we not be much more aware of not just the language that we use but how we direct that language? Should we not maintain a direction towards issues rather than people?

[Dame Maria Miller]

The hon. Lady is entirely right. In fact, I had included that analogy in my speech, but I took it out for the sake of time. I see that you are looking at me intently, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I know that a great many Members want to take part in the debate.

As the hon. Lady says, there is a discussion to be had about language versus behaviour. We have tools such as a code of conduct and the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, but not all of them enable us to examine everything we do as Members of Parliament. Perhaps it is time for us to look at the language that Members use outside as well as inside the Chamber.

It is our job to identify problems and then find the solutions. As well as calling again for the monitoring of the effectiveness of the online safety laws, today I am pleased to be launching, along with colleagues in the all-party parliamentary group, a women in Parliament pledge, which all MPs and candidates can support, to take a zero-tolerance approach to misogyny, including racist misogyny, and all other forms of hate and discrimination in campaigning and in conduct. Back Benchers are taking this initiative to drive a change in culture, and I hope that right hon. and hon. Members will sign up to it. Our APPG is also calling on the Electoral Commission to make a public statement that homes are not a campaign destination, and calling on social media platforms to take immediate action on reported hate and misogynistic content and malinformation, misinformation and disinformation.

We, as elected Members, must act to defend our democracy and our democratic values. To mark International Women’s Day in 2024 we can show that we, too, accept our personal responsibility to lead that positive culture change—online and offline—in the words that we choose and the way in which we campaign, and I call on Back Benchers, Ministers and party leaders to join us. It is the responsibility of us all to safeguard our democracy, and the best way we can do that is by ensuring that we have a representative Parliament, welcoming everyone to be part of a respectful debate.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

--- Later in debate ---

[Anneliese Dodds (Oxford East) (Lab/Co-op)]

I commend the right hon. Member for Basingstoke (Dame Maria Miller) for securing this important debate. I thank everyone who has participated in it. The issue of language in politics is vital in relation to International Women’s Day. It is possible to celebrate this important occasion, as we rightly do every year, while acknowledging the wider issues for women in politics and in society.

Many Members have already reflected on the frankly caustic nature of political campaigning. As the shadow Secretary of State for Women and Equalities, I too have sadly become accustomed to what I can only describe as an often toxic discourse, including on equalities issues. Complex and sensitive matters get boiled down to simplistic, overly oppositional narratives, such that substance is overshadowed or even completely disregarded. Well, I want that to change. I want the issues that we debate in this House always to be centred on the facts of the matter and the merits of policy. The debate is important because the language that parliamentarians use has an impact on the world outside this place. We Members all have a responsibility to use respectful language while we debate. Members are of course rightly passionate about issues, but passion cannot justify intemperance of the nature that we have seen too often lately. My hon. Friend the Member for Newport West (Ruth Jones) was right to refer to the words of the late Jo Cox, who so powerfully reminded us all of what we have in common, despite any points of division. As the representatives of our constituents, we need to take responsibility for the words we use.

[Dame Maria Miller]

The hon. Lady makes an important point. Will she join me in regretting ever hearing a Member of this House refer to their opponent as “scum”?

[Anneliese Dodds]

I think it absolutely right, when any Member makes a mistake, as was the case in that instance, that they apologise. That was unacceptable, and it is right that the Member concerned apologised. I would like all Members to apologise when they use divisive language, whether it is of the type that the right hon. Lady just described, or racist or sexist language of all types. It does us no favours when the House tries to tiptoe around these matters, as we have seen over recent days and previously. We need to face up to them, because language matters, words matter, and the language and words used by Members matter, so I appeal to all sides of the House to ensure that the language that we use is respectful. We are not at war with each other, and the language we use should reflect politics as a battle of ideas, not insults.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dame Maria Miller]

First, I should point out that I think every debate should end with two Marias.

I thank all Members who have spoken for their contributions today. Words matter, and the words we use matter even more because they are often repeated by people outside. That point has been clearly made by a number of Members today and I thank them for doing so. I thank everybody for their contributions and remind everybody that next Friday is International Women’s Day. It is an opportunity to remember all the women in our lives, and I will be remembering my daughter, Georgia, who is the most formidable daughter anyone could ever have.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved, That this House has considered the use of language in politics in light of International Women’s Day; agrees that the respectful use of language is an important feature of a strong and inclusive democracy; and calls on all parliamentary candidates to pledge that respectful language will be used at all times in the upcoming General Election campaigning period.

Post Office Horizon Scandal

Maria Miller Excerpts

Wednesday 10th January 2024 Commons Chamber

[Kevin Hollinrake]

That is exactly our intention. We are keen to make the scheme UK wide so that everybody knows exactly where they stand. As I have said, despite the fact that the legal system is different in Northern Ireland, the assembly of the vast majority of cases was done by the Post Office, so the same issues apply. We do not want any delay. We are keen to engage with the Northern Ireland authorities as quickly as possible.

[Dame Maria Miller (Basingstoke) (Con)]

I welcome the announcement. The evidence is clear that hundreds of victims have lost trust in the criminal justice system, so we need an exceptional process that ensures that every miscarriage of justice can be put right. However, the scandal involves more than financial redress. There are reports that the Post Office insisted on non-disclosure agreements, which silenced victims. In particular, the family of former postmaster Martin Griffiths felt forced to sign a settlement with the Post Office, with a non-disclosure agreement, which hid events around Martin taking his own life for almost a decade. Will my hon. Friend urgently reconsider calls that I and others have made to ban the use of non-disclosure agreements in all severance agreements? I am glad to see the Minister of State, Ministry of Justice, my right hon. Friend the Member for Charnwood (Edward Argar) on the Front Bench. I think that both Ministers share my concern and want action.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

That is a well-timed question, given that my right hon. Friend the Justice Minister is sitting next to me. My right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Dame Maria Miller) is right to say that this is an exceptional process. As she knows, non-disclosure agreements cannot prevent somebody from going to the police—

[Dame Maria Miller]

That was not my point.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

That was not the point my right hon. Friend was making. I understand her point. She wants to ensure that non-disclosure agreements are not used for the purpose she described or for other purposes, such as sexual harassment and bullying. She is running a fantastic campaign and we have heard what she has said. We will continue to work with her.

Horizon: Compensation and Convictions

Maria Miller Excerpts

Monday 8th January 2024 Commons Chamber

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I share the hon. Lady’s point that the dramatisation was invaluable in raising awareness and in making sure that we bring forward measures as quickly as possible—all things that she mentioned. As I said, private prosecution is something that I discussed with the Lord Chancellor today, and he is keen to look at that in the general context. I am sure that he will report to the House in due course. I agree with the hon. Lady entirely on delays. We want to expedite this process of overturning convictions and paying compensation, to make it much quicker and easier. That is the best way to resolve these issues and ensure that as many people as possible are confident to come forward.

[Dame Maria Miller (Basingstoke) (Con)]

Following the ITV drama broadcast last week, I have been contacted by many constituents, and they will welcome the Minister’s focus today on justice for every single victim. But he knows that, despite his efforts and those of many other Ministers, the Criminal Cases Review Commission has said that many of the 700 people who have had criminal convictions will not take part in a further legal process, perhaps because of their understandable collapse of trust in the Post Office, and also in the judicial system. Now is the time for the Government to consider how all convictions that relied on evidence from the Horizon system, which must now be seen as unsafe, could be quashed without victims having to endure further legal wrangling.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

My right hon. Friend raises important points. That is exactly the experience so far: people will not take part—of course, the Criminal Cases Review Commission can only do so much if they do not—despite the fact that the Post Office now looks at every single case and will write to people when it is not going to contest an appeal. It is trying to be more proactive in ensuring that people come forward, but I share my right hon. Friend’s ambition. Ideally, we would like a process that does not require a convicted postmaster to come forward—something that we could do across the board. That is exactly what we are looking at, and I hope to have some news for her in the coming days.

International Men's Day

Maria Miller Excerpts

Tuesday 21st November 2023 Westminster Hall

[Dame Maria Miller (Basingstoke) (Con)]

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies, in this debate on International Men’s Day. It is a particular pleasure to pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Nick Fletcher) for securing this debate, and for making such an important contribution.

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to highlight the way in which gender stereotypes are harmful to men and boys. Issues include family breakdown, excluded boys being drawn into antisocial behaviour, drugs and crime, and men’s attitudes towards seeking help not just for mental health but health per se, as well as a legal system that too many men feel militates against them, particularly when it comes to family law. I would argue that gender stereotypes, in all their forms, are harmful to human beings, and my hon. Friend made a very cogent case for the way in which they are harmful to men and boys.

I listened very carefully to my hon. Friend’s policy suggestions. I would suggest that if men and women had equal voices at the policymaking tables, we could ensure that the lives of both men and women could be seen in all the polices that come forward in this Parliament. If we encourage male Ministers to do as much as they can, and particularly to look at their female counterparts and the work they do on how gender affects policy, that could go some way towards addressing some of the issues that he is talking about.

It is not good for men if the health system is designed for men, because men have daughters, partners and mothers. We want all our public services to work for men and for women. If we currently have a system where that is not the case, we need to encourage all Ministers—whatever the Prime Minister might decide on a Minister for men—to think about the gender differences that are at play. It is not only the Minister for Women who thinks about Government policies and how they affect women. Many of my female colleagues who are Ministers do a huge amount to think about how their policies will affect women. Perhaps their male counterparts need to be doing similarly.

In Parliament, we make polices and law for people—few are gender specific. But we know—as my hon. Friend has just said—that men and women experience the world very differently. That is why I really welcome this debate on International Men’s Day. As right hon. and hon. Members might know, I often lead the debate on International Women’s Day. That is an opportunity to celebrate the contribution of women, but also to raise a lot of the issues. This debate is just as important, because it reminds us that we live in a gendered world, and we have to deal with that as politicians. We do not make the best policies unless we recognise that there is a difference.

I am sure you will not be surprised to know, Mr Davies, that I would love a world where gender is no longer an issue that drives the sort of differences that my hon. Friend just talked about, but we deal with the world as it is, not as we would like it to be. He is absolutely right that we need to consider gender when we develop policies. Chromosomal difference, although significant, is not really what he was talking about when he set out the parameters of this debate; those differences are added to by societal norms. We could have an enormous debate about nature versus nurture; I would say that nurture plays a huge part in many of the issues that my hon. Friend clearly articulated.

International Men’s Day is not only about the issues that I will come to in a moment; it is about celebrating the men in our lives and the amazing contribution men make. Men shape our lives, whether we are women or men. My father told me to go to the best university I could, and that my imagination was the only limit to my achievements—crumbs, that is a fantastic role model to have. It is about my brothers, my husband and my sons being there; such are the people who shape our lives. There are far more men in my life than women, although I give a special call-out to my daughter and mother, because they are very special too. Men are there to shape our lives, and I do not think there is anybody in this Chamber who would argue differently.

All the evidence shows—my hon. Friend made this point—that men’s and women’s lives are different. We should be concerned about the pressures that men face, including the pressure to conform to notions of masculinity, which I would argue are very out of date. I hope my sons do not feel that pressure, but I am sure they do. I do not want their childhood to be filled with phrases such as, “Don’t start acting like a girl.” I hope that is in the past, but perhaps it is not. To be branded as the breadwinner in adult life puts huge pressure on men. In reality, one in three women earn more than their partners or husbands, yet society still sees men as the breadwinner. We treat each other differently because of our gender, and the evidence shows that, as a result, we live different lives.

In the UK, we find gender a difficult concept. That came out in the trans debate recently. It also came out in 2013, when many people found it quite difficult that the Government said it was wrong for the state not to allow people of the same gender to marry. I was the Minister at the time, and we changed the law to enable that to happen and for it to be a happy occasion.

That we continue to have a gender pay gap clearly shows that society treats men and women differently, and too many boys are still being told to “man up” during their childhood. We treat men and women differently. I do not think that is right, and the world would be a better place if we outlawed those sorts of gender stereotypes.

[Nick Fletcher]

My right hon. Friend is making a very good speech. She mentioned the gender pay gap, and I keep hearing this all the time. Will she confirm—she has an awful lot of experience of that issue—that it is illegal for anybody to pay a man more than a woman to do the same job?

[Dame Maria Miller]

I think my hon. Friend is probably thinking about something different. The gender pay gap is about looking at groups of people who earn differently for doing the same thing in their workplace. It is not about pay levels—pay rates for the individual. If my hon. Friend looks at the data available now, he will see that the gender pay gap has actually disappeared for groups of men and women in their 20s and 30s, and quite remarkably it reappears vigorously over the age of 40. When companies look at what they pay groups of people who are over the age of 40, they will see that women are paid less. I wonder why that is. The average age of giving birth is now around 30—it is a lot older than when I had my first child. It is women who are finding it very difficult to come back into the jobs market and get jobs that are actually comparable with their qualifications. There is also an issue around productivity there.

This debate, however, is not about women. It is about men and we should focus on International Men’s Day. In this day and age, I think that most men want to see fairness at work and, if they have a female spouse, for them to paid fairly. I do not think that this is necessarily about men wanting to gang up on women. It is societal structures and norms that are causing the problems. We, as politicians, have a great deal to do to reset those societal norms and to ensure that the structures do not create a perpetuation of gender stereotypes, which, as my hon. Friend set out, are so harmful, particularly to men and boys.

I think that Brits are far less comfortable than our continental friends in agreeing that inequality between the genders is serious. There has been some research done to suggest that, in continental Europe, one in three sees gender inequality as a serious concern, whereas in the UK that figure is one in four. Perhaps, as a society, we need to challenge ourselves a bit more on these things.

As both my hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) have said, the way in which our public services are structured, in terms of perpetuating some of these gender stereotypes and inequalities for men, is best seen in our health service when it comes to men’s health. It is quite concerning that men are expected to live almost three years less than women, which is extraordinary. It is even more extraordinary that I do not really see a policy to directly address that. There are some policies there and, of course, the Minister has huge expertise as a Health Minister, so she will turn to matters such as the prostate cancer work being done.

Cancer rates are 20% higher among men, and men are more likely to go to hospital with heart disease, more likely to smoke, more likely to die from alcohol conditions, more likely to use illegal drugs, and more likely to die in a workplace accident. The Government do have policies, but are they really focused on the disproportionate way in which those issues affect men? I think they probably do on heart disease, and obviously they do on prostate cancer—although, again, there are issues for trans people, particularly trans women, in accessing those healthcare systems.

In terms of men’s mental health, there is an increasing gap between men and women. As my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley said, suicide rates among men are a concern. In fact, they are not just a concern; we have seen that women’s suicide rates have halved and men’s suicide rates have fallen just a fraction. Again, I challenge the Minister to ensure that we have a gendered approach to healthcare in our country.

Let us not pretend that there are no differences between men and women—there are. I would like to see a world where men and women are recognised for their separate needs and one where we celebrate our differences, but our aim should be to remove that difference when it is destructive, to enable us all to live in peace and prosperity together. That is the way in which we are going to have the best world possible.

[Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies, and I congratulate and thank the hon. Member for Don Valley (Nick Fletcher) on how he approached this topic and for his powerful speech. Men do face critical challenges because they are men—and young boys too—whether it is about mental health, violence or family breakdown. Too often this debate is seen as if there has to be an equal ledger of suffering before we will acknowledge those challenges. We do everybody a disservice if we ignore those concerns in favour of culture war arguments about whether James Bond could be a woman or whether Andrew Tate is what every man would be if they could get away with it, or if we simply snigger. I agree with the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) in so many ways, and I am so pleased to see him here today and able to contribute.

I want to take up the hon. Member for Don Valley’s challenge and talk up a particular group of men for which the term is too often loaded with negative connotations: dads. It is such an important role, but so often the butt of a joke: deadbeat dads; absentee fathers; daddy daycare; dad bods; dad jokes; sugar daddies; baby daddies; “Who is your daddy?” Our images of fatherhood are rarely ones we would wish people to replicate. Think of those famous fathers: Darth Vader; Homer Simpson; Phil Dunphy in “Modern Family”; Kevin in “Motherland”; Don Draper; Uncle Phil in “The Fresh Prince of Bel Air; Jim Royle; “Citizen Khan”; Logan Roy; Tony Soprano; Frank Gallagher—thank God for Bandit in “Bluey”. If they are not trying to take their kids over to the dark side or bullying them into a life of crime, the message is overwhelmingly that the mental load of parenting is something mothers deal with, while dads are hapless, indifferent, sidelined or, at best, cash machines.

However, a wealth of evidence tells us that dads spending time with their children leads to better outcomes. If children spend more time with their fathers at the age of nine months, by the age of three they show more positive emotions. Increasing a father’s role in a kid’s life leads to higher educational attainment and lower behavioural difficulties for both boys and girls in primary school. Indeed, the educational effect is even more profound when it comes to maths—something I know the Prime Minister is concerned about—regardless of gender, ethnicity, age in the school year, or household income. But a recent study in Scotland showed the challenge: a quarter of working dads said that they were “almost never” satisfied with the amount of quality time they got to spend with their kids—a pressure that is particularly profound for fathers of very young children.

We spend so much time in this place telling women how to be good mums. On International Men’s Day, it is time we redress the balance. The secret is that it is the same for both parents: it is about being present for kids, day in, day out, every day and all day. That is really hard in a country that does not talk about it—especially when it comes to dads—let alone value it enough to make it financially possible and socially acceptable for all.

I want to thank all those leading the change and leading the charge for fathers: Elliott Rae and the amazing MusicFootballFatherhood; Street Fathers, led by Colin James, which is helping young men make the transition from boyhood to manhood in my constituency; the Men’s Sheds project, which helps dads and men to connect and talk; the Fatherhood Institute, MANUP? and CALM for the work they are doing to tackle male mental health challenges and the dad stereotypes that the hon. Member for Don Valley set out.

Our men and boys and what they need from their dads are at the heart of so much in our society. They need dads of the involved kind—not the controlling kind, the violent kind, or the absent at work kind. The kind who does not turn around 20 years later to say, “I was away so much when my kids were growing up. I don’t know them at all.” Not the ones who say, “Ask your mum,” rather than asking themselves how they could do something and role-modelling it for their kids.

For that to become the norm, we need a Government and a country that does not think that is woke, but wise. But the last time Parliament debated how to support fathers was in 2019. The word “patriarchy” is on the record more times than “paternity”; it is a word we do not refer to unless we are talking about the Father of the House. Yes, we have a women’s mental health strategy, and that is very welcome, but as the hon. Member for Don Valley pointed out, we do not have a men’s mental health strategy. The Government’s own childcare strategy only talks about how it would benefit mums. The hon. Member for Don Valley is right: we should be asking how it benefits both parents. This year, the Government published a written ministerial statement pledging to make it easier for fathers to take flexible leave and parental leave, but that did not make it into the King’s Speech—unlike pedicabs.

Today is chance for us to collectively to reclaim “dad”; to challenge the idea that men are too stupid, too weak, too absent, too deadbeat; to help the dads working three jobs on poverty pay, never getting to see their kids grow up; and to help them be the dads that our kids, our country, and their mental health need them to be.

I have a very simple start for the Minister: how can we actually make parental leave work for dads? We know that one in 10 women experiences post-partum disorders and depression, but actually one in 10 dads experiences post-partum anxiety, which starts when the baby is born and does not stop. A 2008 study found that lower levels of cognitive development in children were associated with having a depressed dad. We should want to tackle men’s mental health problems in their own right, but also recognise that by doing so and being explicit about it, we will also help many more people around them.

So many dads are not spending the time they want with their kids because they just cannot afford to do so. More than three times more women than men claim parental leave pay. On average, new fathers take just two weeks—the statutory minimum entitlement—which is a pitiful amount of time to be able to bond with their child. That amount of leave increases only among the very wealthy. Only men with a household income of £200k or more take an average of 10 weeks.

[Dame Maria Miller]

It is interesting that the hon. Lady has brought up the amount of time that men take off for parental leave. There is also data that would suggest that even when more paid parental leave is available, it is not taken up because of a fear that both men and women feel: if we take time off around pregnancy, we are in some way letting people down. The hon. Lady, as somebody who has had children, may recognise that. Men feel the same way. It is more than simply having that offer of money; we also need an attitudinal change towards people taking the time off in the first place.

[Stella Creasy]

I absolutely agree with the right hon. Lady, whose remarks prefigure mine. Money does matter. When 43% of men say that financial hardship prevents them from taking additional leave, it matters what they get paid, in the same way that when women do not get proper statutory maternity cover, it affects our decisions. However, we also know that 17% of men cite pressure from their employer. Women’s careers get written off; men’s relationships with their children get written off. Nobody is winning in our current environment.

We need to increase the amount of time men are entitled to, but we also need to change the way we do this. We need to stop it being about men versus women and share the cost. I hope the right hon. Member for Basingstoke (Dame Maria Miller) will agree that it is about time we stopped making this issue something that just the mum’s employer has to deal with. If we want shared parental leave, we should share the cost of providing parental leave between both the mum’s employer and the dad’s employer so that everybody has a vested interest in helping to support that family, ensuring that the employers who benefit from it also contribute to it. Let us be honest: the dad’s employer benefits when the mum takes on the load.

Let us end the mum penalty that means women feel their careers pay the price. Let us challenge the idea that men taking care of their children and stepping up to share that responsibility is something shameful that they should do in such a way that nobody notices they are gone.

The hon. Member for Don Valley is also right to say that it is not just about financial cost. Elliott Rae has a fantastic campaign about “parenting out loud”. Women know that when they do that, they get judged; men need to do it to show a different way forward. What does he mean by parenting out loud? Rather than hiding parental responsibilities, men in leadership positions should talk about those responsibilities and role model how to combine them with the work they do, whether that is leaving work to go to a school parents evening or working from home to help to cover doctors’ appointments.

That is why when Ministers attack working from home or flexible working, it is not just mums whose opportunities they are closing down, but dads—as well as the next generation—who miss out on the impact of the extra hours they could spend with their children without having to commute. The good news is that we have empirical research on that. During the pandemic, men doubled the amount of childcare they were doing. The Fatherhood Institute recognised that it would take double that time—an extra eight hours—to get the same benefit of the father-child relationship. Parents can either spend two hours on a train getting to and from work or two hours helping our child to learn to read. I know which I think would be better for economy, better for their mental health and better for our society.

Whenever we take our vision of fatherhood from those value it least, men miss out. We would not frame our debate about financial exclusion based on the antics of Bernie Madoff, so why do we let those men who boast that they have never changed a nappy or that they were in the pub when their kid was born decide how dads rear their children? We should stop lauding men who do anything as if it is a surprise and they should be congratulated. They are the men who want a medal for taking their child to swimming. Instead, we should start asking how men can be the dads they want to be—present and equal in looking after their children, 24 hours a day, day in and day out—because that is what it takes to raise a child who will thrive. When we do that, the evidence is that it is good for men’s families, men’s relationships and our economy. On this International Men’s Day, we should finally let dads be dads.

Non-disclosure Agreements in the Workplace

Maria Miller Excerpts

Tuesday 5th September 2023 Westminster Hall

[Dame Maria Miller (Basingstoke) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the use of non-disclosure agreements in the workplace.

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon, Ms Ali, for this important debate on the use of non-disclosure agreements in the workplace. I will start by talking about the importance of every one of us—each and every citizen of our country—to the productiveness of our society.

Working to support ourselves creates wealth. For those who are older or younger, it is an essential part of a vibrant and successful economy. We in Parliament agonise over producing laws to remove the barriers that can stand in the way of people going to work. We stop people being made redundant simply because they are pregnant, being fired for being too old, or being denied a job because they have a disability, and we stop employees suffering sexual abuse because of an abuse of power at work.

Yet we know from the evidence collected by organisations such as Pregnant Then Screwed, Maternity Action, WhistleblowersUK, Can’t Buy My Silence and many more that employers routinely use non-disclosure and confidentiality agreements to stop workplace wrongs being talked about, punished and put right. They use NDAs to silence employees who are fired or made redundant unlawfully. They stop them from seeking medical support for the psychological trauma that they have experienced, from taking action through employment tribunals, and in some cases from taking cases of criminal wrongdoing to the police. They remove people from their jobs with an exit agreement that includes a silencing clause, creating fear that talking about even illegal acts might mean they find themselves on the wrong side of the law, with the additional fear of having to pay back any payment they might have received when they departed from their job.

We know that there is a need for confidentiality at work. Routinely when we sign our contracts of employment there is a standard condition of confidentiality in the initial employment agreement. Some people therefore dismiss concerns about non-disclosure agreements because they know that NDAs can be unenforceable if they are put in place at the end of an employment contract. But most people are not legal experts. They cannot take the risk of being on the wrong side of the law and having to pay back any settlement agreement money, and employers know that.

The lawyers are part of the problem. The Solicitors Regulatory Authority has reminded all solicitors of their duty to uphold professional standards when dealing with NDAs. It issued a warning notice in 2018 that was updated in 2020. The SRA has been proactive and is to be applauded, but in reality the questionable usage of NDAs continues, first, because the SRA found that more than a third of law firms were not even aware of the 2018 notice—something that I am sure they are putting right—and secondly, because so many NDAs are drawn up by people who are not regulated by the legal profession, or maybe not regulated at all, and this is set to grow.

When I asked my office manager to ask ChatGPT to write me a standard UK severance contract after discrimination at work, a clause was automatically inserted that reads:

“Confidentiality: Both parties agree to maintain the confidentiality of this Agreement and not to disclose any details related to the discrimination claim or this Agreement to third parties, except as required by law”,

but no further details. How many people are now using these formula contracts as a matter of course? This might be the future of accessing legal expertise for many people, so we cannot rely on professional legal ethics and regulation to ensure that employers act in the right way. We need the law to be clear, too.

[Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)]

I thank the right hon. Lady for giving way and commend her on securing this topical and timely debate. Does she agree with me about the costs? No matter where it occurs in what sector, when we get into the public sector, public moneys are expended by some large employers. The likes of the BBC employs NDAs against employees and then subsequent former employees to try to buy silence over an agreed contract.

[Dame Maria Miller]

The hon. Member makes an important point about the use of NDAs by large public bodies. He mentioned the BBC, and I could go on to mention other media organisations. Indeed, NDAs have been used routinely in this place in the past. Mr Speaker and others, however, have ensured that that practice has stopped—it is possible to stop such things, if there is a will from the top.

The Government already know the importance of that point. The Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology, my right hon. Friend the Member for Chippenham (Michelle Donelan), with the backing of the Department for Education, put in place a voluntary university pledge to stop the use of NDAs in university settings. It became law under the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act 2023, through an amendment made on 7 February, so Parliament has had its say and the Government have accepted that say, but only in connection with universities.

The pledge, when it was introduced, protected students, staff and others from the use of NDAs in cases involving sexual harassment, discrimination and other forms of misconduct and bullying. If such a ban is good enough for universities, I hope that the Minister will agree that we can see no reason why employees in other sectors should not be protected in the same way.

The Government must look at how they could provide the same safeguards as the universities now have across every workplace in Britain against agreements drawn up by lawyers and those not drawn up by lawyers, which I believe to be the vast majority. As part of the pathway that the Government will follow in the coming months to achieve that sort of change, I hope that they will also support my amendment to the Victims and Prisoners Bill, which would recognise people who have signed NDAs as victims too, for consistency.

NDAs are of particular concern to Parliament and parliamentarians, because they are disproportionately used to silence women and minority groups, flying in the face of anti-discrimination laws, which have been in place for decades. Women report signing NDAs at six times the rate for men, black women at three times the rate for white women, and, interestingly, at 40% of the rate for people with disabilities. People with disabilities suffer such NDAs far more than anyone else.

A third of the respondents to the Can’t Buy My Silence data collection in the UK are believed to have signed an NDA. Perhaps worse, another third did not go ahead with seeking the justice they were owed, because they anticipated having to sign an NDA and did not want to—for fear of the consequences perhaps. In their 2020 sexual harassment survey, the Government themselves, through the Government Equalities Office, reported that 48% of those who reported workplace sexual harassment were asked to sign a confidentiality agreement about their experience, whether staying at the organisation or exiting it. The Government are aware of the scale of the problem and they have legislated already, as a result of actions taken here in Parliament. We cannot let the status quo stand.

Given the nature of NDAs—their silencing properties and the secrecy that surrounds them—only as a result of the bravery of some who have endured NDAs do we know the damage that they are causing. I pay tribute to all those people—such as those in the Public Gallery and those Members—who have spoken out bravely publicly or privately on this matter. That includes the public reporting of the Independent Television News newsroom incidents, including multiple reports of NDAs by “Channel 4 News” and “Channel 5 News”.

A particular concern—the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell) has already made the point about media outlets—is that organisations that provide news for millions of viewers are using NDAs to cover up allegations of sexual harassment, disability discrimination, maternity discrimination and much more. Even after public reporting, those are yet to be resolved. The concern is that we rely on such news organisations to expose the truth, and yet all summer we have seen more and more media reports about the toxic environments that have flourished.

I too have been approached by a number of whistleblowers at a number of ITN newsrooms. Why? Because of the lack of transparency and the fear of speaking up created by the use of apparently legal confidentiality clauses or NDAs. I believe that NDAs have no place in British workplaces if they stop people from freely exercising their rights under the law.

[Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)]

I commend the right hon. Lady on an outstanding speech; I have no doubt that the rest will be equally outstanding. Does she agree that it is utterly hypocritical for the owners of news agencies, whether in broadcast or print media, to hide behind secrecy when it comes to how they treat their own employees? They make a living from exposing the things going on in other companies and from getting information from Governments that Governments do not want to disclose.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dame Maria Miller]

The hon. Gentleman brings up an important point. How employees are treated goes to the very heart of the culture of an organisation; we can judge an organisation on how it treats the people who work for it.

My strong feeling is that we need to show leadership on the issue of NDAs. We need to make it clear from this place that such agreements have no place in the British workplace. It is regrettable that some organisations appear to be using NDAs to silence their employees. I sometimes wonder how transparent that is to the management of the organisations. Senior managers need to be asking some serious questions of their HR departments about how such agreements are drawn up.

[Ms Harriet Harman (Camberwell and Peckham) (Lab)]

I thank the right hon. Member for her initiative in bringing forward this debate; I absolutely agree with every word that she has said and how she has put the case. I say to the Minister that if he does what the right hon. Member is asking, we will give our full support. At this stage in a Government it is sometimes difficult to do good, but if he accedes to the right hon. Member’s proposals he could do a major piece of good.

Non-disclosure agreements are unfair on the individual. As the right hon. Member said, backed up by figures, they double down and are a ratchet on discrimination. As she also said, they are perilous for the organisations, as covering up wrongdoing introduces rot. Whatever words, written by the civil service, are in the Minister’s extremely good brief, he should have a think about doing this. He will get wholehearted support from us. The right hon. Member is putting forward a really sensible case, and I thank her for that.

[Dame Maria Miller]

I thank the right hon. and learned Lady, the Mother of the House, for those kind words of support. This is not a political issue; that is really important.

I couched my opening statement in terms of productivity because what really offends me to the core is that good people are being put out of employment for the wrong reasons. That often undermines their confidence and career in a way that they find it difficult to come back from, although there are notable examples of when that has not been the case.

I am thinking in particular of the evidence given to the Women and Equalities Committee for our maternity discrimination report, in which the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Jess Phillips) played a part. We heard about people being pushed out of employment simply because they were pregnant. They then found it very difficult to get back into work afterwards. The issue has real consequences for our economy. I know that the Minister feels strongly about the importance of productivity; what we are discussing is part of the piece that we need to get right.

Can’t Buy My Silence, the organisation that brought in the universities pledge, is working on a similar voluntary agreement for businesses to stop using inappropriate NDAs; perhaps that fills a vacuum created by the many consultations going on at the moment, in both Government and other organisations. That business pledge is to be welcomed. The organisation has been shown to be powerful in turning its words into law. The pledge commits a business not to using non-disclosure agreements or clauses to silence people who raise complaints of sexual harassment, abuse or misconduct, discrimination, retaliation, bullying or other harassment, at the point of hiring, at termination or at any other stage. The organisation, very ably led by Zelda Perkins, has secured its first supporters, including a law firm, which I think shows the strength of the way the pledge has been put together and put to businesses.

When the Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology, in her time as Minister responsible for higher education, brought in the universities pledge, she said of the use of NDAs that she was

“determined to see this shabby practice stamped out on our campuses”.

I hope that the Minister replying today—I know my hon. Friend well—will wish to see this shabby practice stamped out across the whole economy, too.

Most confidentiality agreements are put in place by people other than lawyers. Other regulatory bodies have issued guidance on NDAs, as we would expect. Acas advises that NDAs should not be used

“to cover up inappropriate behaviour or misconduct, especially if there’s a risk of it happening again”.

The Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development, the body for human resources professionals, recognises that NDAs should not be used to silence people in situations of harassment, discrimination or bullying and organisations should never exert pressure on someone to sign. But the evidence of the scale of the problem shows that the advice is simply not cutting through—it is not enough. Many employers relying on the online model agreements to which I referred earlier are simply perpetuating a cycle in which NDAs, confidentiality clauses, are seen as the norm, to silence victims of wrongdoing. Therefore it is time that we turned advice and encouragement into law—I think there are very clear indications that organisations such as the Bar Council are also seeing that as the way forward and I am sure the Minister will be aware of that—so that apparently legal clauses in legal contracts cannot be used by anyone, lawyer or not, to cover up illegal wrongdoing at work.

My determination to see change on this issue stems in no small part from an interview that I saw with Zelda Perkins on “Newsnight”, which was followed by the 2019 report by the Women and Equalities Committee—I chaired it at the time—on non-disclosure agreements. The evidence given to the Committee during that inquiry left me in absolutely no doubt that this was an issue largely under the radar and urgently in need of legislative solutions. The debate today is to remind the Government of the issue and of the need to act.

I believe in a fair society in which each of us has the opportunity to reach our potential, especially in education and in work; that is the society that we should all be striving for. Equally, I believe that it is the role of Parliament to remove the barriers that people encounter in achieving that aim. Non-disclosure agreements are a barrier to people reaching their full potential at work, a barrier to fairness and a barrier to the laws that we pass in this place working in practice. They must be outlawed where they cover up illegal wrongdoing. I hope that the Minister replying today can agree that the status quo is not an option.

--- Later in debate ---

[Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Ali. I start by congratulating the right hon. Member for Basingstoke (Dame Maria Miller) on securing this important debate. As we have heard, non-disclosure agreements were designed as a legal tool to protect trade secrets, but they have a dark side. There is now overwhelming evidence that they are being used to cover up bad behaviour, and buy victims’ silence. They have become insidious and pervasive. One survivor described it as

“a way of companies and people avoiding accountability”.

NDAs can take many forms. They can be stand-alone agreements or a single clause subtly included at the end of a contract generated by a lawyer or anyone else. The effect is what is important. An NDA for these purposes should be defined as any clause that has the effect of gagging a victim. It is usually in perpetuity, which itself is extraordinary when thought about in legal terms. It stops them speaking about their experiences for ever more.

Many NDAs are not legally enforceable, but the victims I have spoken to would not have a clue. They never have a clue—and I am not sure I would, frankly. I am not a lawyer. If I were given something on official headed paper and told that someone knowledgeable had looked at it and thought it was the best thing for me, and I was at my wits’ end at the end of a discrimination case, I would just want it all to go away, too. That is tempting, and we can understand why people in that moment—when presented with that way out—take the money, sign the NDA and run.

However, we also know that NDAs hold immense power over victims. Often many years later, long after the effects should have been forgotten, they are retraumatised over and over again. Imagine someone facing a discrimination charge at work who has had to leave. They then have a further interview where they are asked about why they left, and they cannot say. Over and over again, forevermore, they are forced to remember. Many are victims of NDAs; I put it in those terms specifically because NDAs themselves cause harm. The point is made by the right hon. Member for Basingstoke in her amendment, which I very much support, to the Victims Bill: in these cases, it is the NDA itself—the silencing—that is traumatising.

I was involved in this campaign initially through students. I am delighted that through cross-party support we had an amendment accepted to the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act 2023; that is amazing. One of the young women I spoke to was a victim of sexual assault in her college. She was assaulted by another student. She was presented with what looked like an official document—it was not actually a legal document at all, but she did not know any different. There was essentially a gagging clause. Some clauses said that the assailant was not allowed into her accommodation or where she ate, which we absolutely support. However, a final clause said that she could not speak about her experiences publicly at all. When it was discussed at the time, it was sold as a way to protect her reputation. She should not have been talking about it on social media or Lord knows what damage it would cause to her later. Not only is that infantilising to a women—albeit a young woman, but an adult woman none the less who has the right to make her own decisions—but let’s face it: the reputation being protected in this case was that of the university and the college.

[Dame Maria Miller]

I thank the hon. Lady for giving way and for her support today. She talks about the importance of protecting reputations. The reason why employers sometimes say that they want a non-disclosure agreement signed is that it will save an individual leaving a company and starting to talk badly about those left behind. Surely, we already have laws on defamation that cover that, so that is not a very good argument. Does she agree?

--- Later in debate ---

[Jess Phillips]

Hear, hear. The data laid out by the right hon. Member for Basingstoke made it very clear not just the gender imbalance in those affected by NDAs, but that black women are much more greatly affected.

[Dame Maria Miller]

I want to reflect on the hon. Lady’s response to the Minister. Time is very tight, but does the hon. Lady agree that part of the problem is the lack of transparency about whether clauses are legally enforceable? Employers can, maybe unintentionally, mislead their employees into thinking that they cannot speak out. Unfortunately, we are not all lawyers, and sometimes we err on the side of caution; we do not want to break the law.

[Jess Phillips]

The right hon. Lady is absolutely right. I have met women who said, “I can’t tell the police. I can’t speak to people.” I am, like, “You can.” I had to get the Speaker to write a legal letter saying that people could speak about this to their Member of Parliament.

My time is up, but I think I have made my point. I finish with this: we rely on media organisations to do the work of cleaning up businesses for us. We rely on victims to come forward, and media organisations to report that. From what I know about media organisations, I am not entirely sure that it should not be the Government who lead on this issue.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I will come on to some other points on that issue, including on the guidance that we have given to ACAS in that area.

NDAs cannot prevent workers from reporting a crime to the police or from co-operating in a criminal investigation, because such a clause would be unenforceable—[Interruption.] I may have misheard what the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley said, but it is very important that anybody listening to this debate, who is considering what their rights are, knows very clearly that such an agreement cannot prevent them from reporting a crime in this area.

Furthermore, the use of an NDA by an employer could amount to a criminal offence—for example, if it is an attempt by the employer to pervert the course of justice or conceal a criminal offence. Independent legal advice is a requirement for settlement agreements to be valid.

In 2019, the then Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy consulted on the misuse of NDAs in an employment context. The consultation followed evidence found by the Women and Equalities Committee that individual workers may not be aware of their existing statutory rights and may be intimidated into pursuing claims even where the NDA is unenforceable—a point raised by the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon. Again, my right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke does very important work in that area.

The consultation also heard evidence that individuals are pressured into signing NDAs without the appropriate legal advice, and therefore do not understand that their NDA is unenforceable. That is why the Government took action in developing extensive guidance, which was published by the Equality and Human Rights Commission and ACAS. It is clear that NDAs should not prevent individuals from making disclosures to the police and medical or legal professionals.

We have already legislated to prevent higher education providers using NDAs, as I said. We are keen to see how that works in practice, and it will come into force in 2024. The Government held a consultation on the matter in a wider context in 2019. We all agree that these agreements should not be used to intimidate individuals or conceal criminal conduct or illegal wrongdoing, as pointed out by the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon). I point out to him that it is in the capability of the Northern Ireland Administration to implement that in Northern Ireland if they choose, with the matter being devolved to Northern Ireland.

[Dame Maria Miller]

The Minister wants to do the right thing. He wants to be a role model; he wants to be a good employer; he wants to set the tone. Will he meet me and Can’t Buy My Silence and consider signing its voluntary agreement to stop the use of NDAs? Surely the Government can lead the way on this.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

Of course I will meet my right hon. Friend, and I am very happy to meet the campaigning organisation as well. The consultation found some support for NDAs when they helped victims to make a clean break and move on—I think that point was also raised by the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders). We feel that an outright ban across all organisations may therefore not be appropriate and could have unintended consequences for employees.

The Government have listened carefully to the experiences shared through a consultation on sexual harassment. We are legislating through the Worker Protection (Amendment of Equality Act 2010) Bill, first introduced in the Commons by the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse), which will strengthen protections for employees against workplace sexual harassment by placing a duty on employers to take reasonable steps to prevent sexual harassment of their employees.

Protecting and enhancing workers’ rights while supporting businesses to grow remains a priority for this Government. We are clear that the use of NDAs to intimidate victims of harassment and discrimination into silence cannot be tolerated. We are already taking action in the higher education sector; we have published extensive guidance and consulted on the use of NDAs in the workplace; and we are carefully considering how to tackle wrongful practices in a wider context.

[Dame Maria Miller]

To sum up briefly, I thank everybody who has taken the time to be here today, including the Minister; I know he has, importantly, strong feelings about this subject and he is a good advocate for us. The debate has shown that the misuse of NDAs is a matter not of party politics, but of fairness, justice and the rule of law. All political parties in this place subscribe to that, and I know that the Government will be listening to that carefully. I hope that we will hear more news on the subject—maybe in the King’s Speech, and in other legislative programmes the Minister brings forward.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the use of non-disclosure agreements in the workplace.

HPV Vaccinations

Maria Miller Excerpts

Wednesday 19th July 2023 Westminster Hall

[Dame Maria Miller (in the Chair)]

As all parties are present, we will move seamlessly on to our next debate.

[Sir Paul Beresford (Mole Valley) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered HPV vaccinations.

I am delighted to see you in the Chair, Dame Maria. I am also delighted to see the Minister. The subject of the debate is vaccination against the human papillomavirus. Unusually, both the Minister and I have seen HPV-related cancers, the destruction that the surgery to get rid of them does in providing a so-called cure, and how that often leaves patients. To be a little more positive, we have markedly moved our healthcare towards prevention. An increasingly vital arm of our preventive attack on various diseases must be vaccination. A vaccination strategy must focus not only on protection, but on elimination. For some diseases, we have been able to move towards elimination of the causative agent. That is the drive for me in this debate.

Vaccination has been around for a long time, ever since Dr Edward Jenner used the pus from a cowpox sore to inoculate an eight-year-old boy against smallpox in 1787—the first of thousands of people he and others inoculated and saved from smallpox that year. Millions upon millions have been inoculated since. I have no doubt that in this day and age, Dr Edward Jenner would have been up before the General Medical Council and struck off for recklessly endangering life, spreading disease and not following the guidance of the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation—I do not cross swords with it very often, but I have done so in the distant past. Since 1787, the development of vaccines has saved multiple millions of lives and stopped even more millions from various serious illnesses. The brilliant development and use of covid vaccines was a spectacular example of how far and how quickly we can progress.

I remember the mass inoculation programme against the polio epidemic from when I was a very small child. We saw polio spread through our community. If I remember correctly, the vaccination was a series of three injections in the upper arm using a syringe with a needle that was, in my view as a child, like a hollow 4-inch nail sharpened at the working end. It was plunged into my arm, reused after sterilisation and sharpened on a leather strop. It really hurt. Of course, the polio vaccine is now just a sugar cube carrying the vaccine, and kids love it. It has effectively wiped out polio in this country and most others. As we are all aware, there have been huge advances in the development, delivery and programming of vaccines, particularly for small children, who have been given huge protection against a variety of diseases. Over decades, vaccinators have had the chance to rid the world of some of these nasty diseases. Polio has been virtually eradicated. Apart from a few pockets in the world, yellow fever—a horrendous disease—has gone. Smallpox has gone. Measles went, but it has come back, because the vaccinations slipped.

I turn to HP viruses. They are a large family of viruses, at least two of which are downright dangerous to humans because they are causative agents of very many human cancers. They cause cervical, uterine and penile cancers and—in my professional area, which the Minister is aware of from her point of view—head and neck cancers. I point out my professional interest as a very part-time dentist. Head and neck cancers can be very hard to detect early and are frequently very destructive to treat. Surgery is frequently required. Such surgery commonly impairs normal living, such as eating, smiling and talking, and often physical appearance.

International Women’s Day

Maria Miller Excerpts

Thursday 9th March 2023 Commons Chamber

[Dame Maria Miller (Basingstoke) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered International Women’s Day.

May I say how great it is to see you in the Chair for this now annual event on the Floor of the House of Commons, Madam Deputy Speaker? I thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting us this time, and also members of the all-party parliamentary group on women in Parliament, who yet again proposed the debate.

It is a great privilege to be able to open today’s debate. I will start by recognising the incredible achievements of every single female Member of Parliament in the House of Commons and every female parliamentarian, not just in this Chamber but at the other end as well. I have been fortunate to have so many women helping me throughout my life: family, friends, work colleagues and fellow parliamentarians. I would particularly like to say how inspired I am by my colleagues on both sides of the House—their tenacity, their ability to make change happen and their resilience, getting anything that gets in their way out of the way so that they can get things done. I salute them all for what they have already achieved, and for what they will go on to achieve in the future.

I pay a particularly fond tribute to two women in my party: my right hon. Friends the Members for Epping Forest (Dame Eleanor Laing) and for Maidenhead (Mrs May). Both have gone out of their way to make sure that they encourage women in my party to be the best they can be. It would not be proper to not also remember the late Cheryll Gillan. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] On the Conservative side of the House, she was the mother of our party, and we miss her greatly. She was an amazing colleague.

[Siobhan Baillie (Stroud) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Dame Maria Miller) is one of my inspirations in this House, but I think it is really important that we are able to talk openly about how much respect we have for colleagues across the House. I can see a number of women on the Opposition Benches whose work I have followed, not only since I have been in this place, but before I became an MP. I remind everybody that, as much as we see the ding-dongs on the tellybox, a lot of us get on and are trying to make big changes here together.

[Dame Maria Miller]

That is an excellent friend— I mean that is an excellent comment from my hon. Friend, and she is absolutely right. I should at this stage point out that there are a couple of us on the Government Benches who have not slept overnight, so please forgive us, Madam Deputy Speaker, if we stumble over our words. [Interruption.] No, a lot tamer than that; we flew back on the red-eye from the United Nations Commission on the Status of Women.

[Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP)]

I am moved to intervene because the right hon. Lady mentioned Cheryll Gillan. While there might have been many things we disagreed on, there were many things we did agree on. She did incredible work on autism and championing neurodiversity. Also, when I joined the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, she was a very supportive member and helped to show me the way. She is much missed across all Benches.

[Dame Maria Miller]

I thank the hon. Lady for those kind comments. It demonstrates how we work together and have shared interests. Just to refer back to our venture to the United Nations Commission on the Status of Women earlier this week, I chaired a panel of young women, and they were asking about how we work together, and where the political divides were. I have to say that I used Jo Cox’s words that there is more that unites us than divides us. That is another thing I would like to remember fondly today.

Having women in Parliament and in leadership really matters—we know that—because it changes the conversation, the discussion and, above all, the decisions that are made both here and in organisations across the country and around the world. To mark International Women’s Day, at the start of this week I led one of four delegations of UK parliamentarians to the UN Commission on the Status of Women. My delegation was from the all-party parliamentary group on United Nations women. We thank the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association for its support in helping that delegation happen.

At the CSW in New York, thousands of women from around the world met to discuss the status of women, with four delegations from our Parliament. There were 18 hon. and right hon. Members and noble Members of the House of Lords at that global event. The event was at times harrowing, and I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Vicky Ford) will draw later on some of her work while she was there. It was harrowing in particular to hear directly from women from Afghanistan, Ukraine and other parts of the world, including Colombia and Mexico, about their own personal experiences, particularly around sexual harassment and worse. The Afghan women we heard from talked about the brutal beatings, the torture and worse, but they are still there, prepared to protest to regain the hard-won rights of the past two decades. We also heard from women in Iran living with a brutal regime. We must continue to play our part in this Parliament, as we have a proud tradition of doing, in keeping these women’s plight at the fore and ensuring that their need for support and change is never forgotten.

[Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Ind)]

It has been difficult to watch as women’s rights have been stripped away in Afghanistan since the withdrawal of troops. Now, Afghan women who were divorced and able to escape abusive marriages under the previous Government have found those divorces nullified and found themselves at risk under adultery laws. Does the right hon. Member agree that the Government must pick up the pace with the Afghan citizens resettlement scheme to make sure we can offer sanctuary to those women?

[Dame Maria Miller]

In bringing this matter up, the hon. Lady is doing what we all must do, which is to raise these issues in public. That is what the Afghan women I met were pleading for—to make sure that their plight was not forgotten—and they were enormously grateful for hon. and right hon. Members raising these issues, so that not only does the world media not forget, but our colleagues on the Treasury Bench do not forget either.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the right hon. Lady for bringing this debate forward. Unfortunately, I have a meeting today so I cannot make a speech.

This is not just about the politicians across the world; it is also about the likes of my mother, who is 91 years old —soon to be 92—and still gets up to make fresh scones, drives a car and looks after my brother, who is disabled. It is also about my wife who runs the home, volunteers at an animal shelter and cares for the grandchildren, giving childcare to help make ends meet. I am a grandfather of three beautiful and wonderfully sassy granddaughters, who I believe will change the world, and I am the proud employer of six fiercely strong, independent and intelligent women. My point is clear: does the right hon. Lady not agree that on this day, and indeed every day, we have much to be thankful for with all the women in our lives who have shaped us and who continue to shape our world and make it a better place?

[Dame Maria Miller]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. He is always a great supporter of women. He raises an important issue, which is that women have many different roles in this country and in our national life, and we should celebrate all those roles in this debate. But, above all, we need to ensure that women have a choice as to what role they take on, and we should never allow barriers to get in the way of them succeeding and reaching their potential in life. I am sure his sassy granddaughters would agree with that.

The Commission on the Status of Women, as well as being harrowing at times, was also enormously uplifting. It was empowering to hear from other female parliamentarians, NGO leaders and activists about how they are working and campaigning for change. I had the great pleasure of meeting the Speaker of the Belize Parliament, the honourable Valerie Woods, who is also deputy chair of Commonwealth Women Parliamentarians. The Inter-Parliamentary Union had many meetings at the CSW, which serves to remind us of the importance of organisations such as the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association and the IPU, in the light not only of our Parliament, but of Parliaments around the world. They are incredibly useful organisations for women to be able to drive change and learn from other Parliaments.

As I said, the UK Parliament had four delegations—the biggest group ever to be at the CSW—demonstrating that the significance and importance of women’s rights among colleagues across the House has never been more heightened. At the UN this week, thousands of women from across the world saw laid bare the global erosion of women’s rights since the Beijing declaration was adopted in 1995: the reversal of Roe v. Wade; 4 million women and girls out of education in Afghanistan; women in Ukraine rendered victims of sexual violence at the hands of aggressors. Closer to home, two women are murdered by their partners each week in the UK—I am sure my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Jess Phillips) will be talking about that in her contribution to the debate.

There is no doubt that in the UK over the past decade a huge amount of progress has been made. I pay tribute to the Minister for Women and her predecessors—of which I am one—for all they have done to ensure that we continue to see momentum in women’s rights. The Minister has done so much, particularly on women’s health, and I pay tribute to her work in that area. Although I will speak about some of the challenges that we have to face, and ways to address them, it is important to keep at the back of our minds that huge progress that we have made as women, and the huge contribution that women make to public life, making this place, and other places, better as a result.

How do I know that this place is better for having women in it, and why it is important that we continue to push for more women to enter public office? True representation is the answer to that question. Representation—good, strong, diverse representation—is vital in political life because it encourages trust in political bodies. Engagement in democracy is stronger when people see themselves in their elected representatives. Representation tends also to result in diversity. That in turn results in a greater range of ideas, which for a deliberative system such as our democracy is hugely important to improve our decision making.

In the business world, research by McKinsey found that, for every 10% increase in gender diversity in senior executive teams in the UK, earnings in that company before interest and tax rose by more than 3%. There is a dividend not just for commercial organisations, but for organisations such as ours in ensuring that that diversity is in place.

[Margaret Ferrier]

The right hon. Lady is generous in giving way. I was at a Balfour Aviation event last week, where it was pointed out that women remain significantly under-represented in more senior roles, with only 6% of pilots being women. The training is incredibly expensive and we have heard about the barriers to becoming a high earner that many women face. Does she agree that the Government could be providing more financial support aimed at encouraging women into industries such as aviation where they are under-represented?

[Dame Maria Miller]

The hon. Lady raises an important point about pilots. I know her point is slightly broader than that, but pilots face issues in staying qualified to fly, if they have children. That is one of the reasons— I met that sector of the industry a number of years ago—it sees such a haemorrhaging of women out of the industry. But she makes a broader point. Over the last decade and a half, we have made some important progress in getting in place the idea and notion that having more women in senior roles in organisations is important. On STEM—science, technology, engineering and maths— I actually think those on the Treasury Bench should be singing much louder than they do on their success in putting STEM first and foremost in young women’s minds. When we compare STEM graduates coming out of our universities now with the graduates who came out of our universities in 2010, there are now more women than men coming out with STEM degrees. We do not shout about that enough, but she is right that those women are still on a junior level. We need to ensure that the barriers have been removed so they do not, as we see in the case of pilots, end up having to move out of the industry because barriers are in the way. She makes an important point.

As I say, in the business world, research from McKinsey found that gender diversity increases earnings and that companies in the top quartile for diversity outperform their industry mediums. McKinsey believes that that is because diverse companies are better able to win talent to improve customer understanding, employee satisfaction and decision making, leading to what it calls a virtuous circle.

If diversity can improve our businesses, it can improve our Parliament, too. Where our performance metrics are not found on balance sheets, they are found in the decisions we make for the future of our country. Diversity and deliberative processes, by which I mean voices from more backgrounds bringing new ideas from different life experiences, are foundational to what we do here. The Center for Talent Innovation identified that 56% of leaders do not value ideas they do not personally see the need for. Given that we know that women have experiences of life that are very different from those of their male counterparts, we can see from that figure how important it is that we have more women not only in this Chamber but at the decision-making table of Government.

What is the solution? We need diversity in leadership, and having women central in our debates adds legitimacy to our democratic process. It means that our work in scrutiny is done in a more rounded and full way, and policy can be made that more fully encompasses the needs and dreams of the people we serve. The UK electorate and all electorates are half women, so representing women’s voices here is directly important to at least half of our constituents. Gender equality in Parliament is all about democracy and improving our democracy. It is clear to see why it is important that we make an ever-increasing effort to ensure that diversity can thrive in this Parliament.

Our Parliament has come a long way and we have a very reforming Speaker, who has put the role of parliamentarians front and centre in this place and picked up some of the issues that are incredibly important to women not only coming into Parliament but staying in Parliament. I am thinking particularly here about personal security. However, our Speaker has also inherited an enormous backlog of issues that have not been tackled for a variety of reasons in recent years. It is my belief that the House of Commons must continue to renew its energies in this area to ensure that it is not only the political parties that are working hard to get more women into the House of Commons, but the House of Commons itself that is appealing and is a place where people want to come and have a career. The women who have the capacity, the capabilities and perhaps even the personality to come into Parliament have a lot of choices and different ways they can use their lives. If we do not make sure that the people who have the best capacity are attracted to come to Parliament, as well as have a vocation, we are going to miss out on the brightest and the best, a phrase that is often mentioned to me by Ministers who are responsible when I talk about this issue.

One of the ways we can ensure that we increase the appeal of our Parliament is through gender-sensitive audits, to ensure that we have an understanding of what makes our Parliament strong, and where we can improve it and make it more appealing for women. I pay tribute to the Inter-Parliamentary Union, which developed the concept of gender-sensitive Parliaments in 2010. Since then, multiple Parliaments around the world—including our own—have conducted gender-sensitive audits to see how they fare. That was developed further by the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, which put together a toolkit to make it easier for all sorts of Parliaments to implement such an audit.

[Hannah Bardell]

Will the right hon. Lady give way?

[Dame Maria Miller]

Will the hon. Lady forgive me if I do not? I do not want to incur the wrath of Madam Deputy Speaker.

The point of gender sensitivity is to create environments in which both men and women can operate equally. There are seven key aspects, which include: the numbers and positions of women; the legal and policy framework of the legislature; mainstreaming of gender equality; the culture, environment and policies of Parliament; the role of political parties; and the position of parliamentary staff. All those aspects can tell us a lot about how men and women are faring in their Parliaments. The House of Commons conducted a gender-sensitive audit in 2018, which was welcome, but that feels like a long time ago. Some colleagues were not even here. Our audit of how Parliament works for people today, not three or four years ago, should be foremost in our minds.

It is clear that there is more to do. I refer to the Fawcett Society’s report “A House for Everyone: The Case for Modernising Parliament”, published in December, which I am sure colleagues are familiar with. It brought into focus the problems around retaining female parliamentarians, which I know concerns colleagues on both sides of the House. The number of women in Parliament taken as a snapshot is all well and good, but Fawcett’s work reveals that, because women face disproportionate challenges, they tend to stay in Parliament for one fewer term than men. That means that those women do not get the opportunity to reach the seniority or level of experience of their male counterparts.

On what we do next, the all-party parliamentary group on women in Parliament will produce a workstream to ensure that we have a clear plan to get an equal Parliament by 2028, to coincide with the centenary of the Equal Franchise Act 1928. When that work plan is put into place, I hope that we can share it in Parliament through further debate.

It is a great pleasure to open the debate. On behalf of those colleagues who are still at CSW in New York, I wish a happy International Women’s Day for yesterday to everyone in the Chamber and those who are watching at home. I encourage everyone to ensure that the legacy from our time in Parliament is encouraging and achieving the objective of having more women on the green Benches, to make this place a fairer and even stronger parliamentary democracy.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jackie Doyle-Price]

The hon. Lady makes her point very powerfully. The way the media reports these things is like a soap opera, not a crime. It is about creating a story out of someone being the victim of a hideous act of violence. She is quite right to highlight the fact that people say, “Oh, it’s a family man who has done this”, and “Well, they were feeling so diminished because they’d lost their job”. That happens, and at the same time we have female sex workers murdered every week of the year who do not even merit a mention. That just illustrates the pervasiveness of the culture in this country that still treats women as objects, and it is still very much a world that runs according to men.

I am standing here listening to myself, and thinking, “God, what happened to you, Jackie?” When I was growing up in the 1980s, I thought the battles of feminism were won. I never thought I would be standing here banging on about the rights of women, but as time progresses I just think we are going backwards. It is almost as if Parliament has passed these laws to establish equality, and that means it is all right—job done—but the job has not been done at all. In many respects, this has gone backwards. I do not want to be treated like a delicate little flower, but, because we have a law that does not do that and that establishes my rights, that has given a lot of men a behavioural excuse not to treat me with respect and not to recognise the fact that, being a woman, I do have vulnerabilities. I do have vulnerabilities, and I am quite happy to accept that. I know some of my male colleagues think that I do not, but I do.

[Dame Maria Miller]

Does my hon. Friend agree with me that one of the things the Government have done in the last 10 years, by making relationships and sex education mandatory for all school-age children, is to start to embed in the education of all our children in this country what a good relationship looks like, which is going to be very pertinent when it comes to the treatment of women in the future?

[Jackie Doyle-Price]

I agree with my right hon. Friend, but I have a word of caution on that, because it has to be with the right materials. I am afraid that we have a bit of a wild west out there, because we have had all kinds of organisations bidding for Government money to produce materials for this space, and I certainly feel that some of the materials I have seen are not appropriate to be shared with school-age children.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dame Maria Miller]

Would my hon. Friend join me in urging Ofsted to do a deep dive on this issue, so that it can look at exactly the point she has made? It is an issue I have raised with Government Ministers and with Ofsted directly.

[Jackie Doyle-Price]

I think that point is actually a very good one. To guarantee the quality of these tools and the content there needs to be a degree of inspection. We know we will find bad actors everywhere in society, and perhaps in schools we need to make sure that we do have that protection.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dawn Butler]

It completely is. Again, it is about language, and what it is designed for and to do.

[Dame Maria Miller]

The hon. Lady brings up the interesting issue of inequality in titles. I was very fortunate to be able to receive a damehood recently and I am greatly honoured to have it. But I note with interest that the spouses of those of my colleagues who have been knighted have a different title entitlement from that of my husband. Does the hon. Lady agree that her point about titles needs to be looked at on both sides of the coin—for men and for women?

[Dawn Butler]

Absolutely. We talk about equality and equity not only in actions, but in language. It all needs to be looked at, because certain systems and structures are designed in a certain way. As I said, it is to keep women exposed and vulnerable. For example, for sex workers, working alone is okay, but working in pairs is illegal. How on earth does that keep women safe? Just this week, during the debate on buffer zones around abortion clinics, many men were telling women how they should think, what they should do and who they should listen to about their bodies. Our structures are riddled with misogyny, racism and so much else, and it is time that we change how women are written about.

I have campaigned for many things in this House. I have campaigned on domestic abuse policy, and trying to allow 10 days’ paid leave for people, particularly women, when they leave abusive relationships. In those 10 days, it could save a life because that is when they are most vulnerable. You are not safe when you leave an abusive relationship; you become more vulnerable.

I have campaigned for changes in the use of language by the Met police, for instance, when they deliver briefings and press releases about missing and murdered women. I have also campaigned for changes in the judiciary, which is filled with many—please do not take offence at this, Mr Deputy Speaker—old white men with outdated views. I need to recognise the work of Judge Anuja Dhir KC, the first person of colour to become an Old Bailey judge. She is doing her very best to change how the judicial system works, but she is just one woman, powerful as she is. Today, I am campaigning for and championing the work of Level Up, and calling for a clause in the Independent Press Standards Organisation editors’ code on reporting fatal domestic abuse. The code needs to be one that journalists are legally bound to, not a voluntary code, and I will tell the House why.

The way in which the press report domestic abuse is often inaccurate and undignified, and prioritises sensationalist headlines over responsible reporting. There is often negative framing of victims, and when this goes viral it is amplified over and over again. That is extremely damaging because it reinforces negative framing around the victims, and what is seen as acceptable or “deserving” behaviour of the woman—as it often is—who is killed. Thus, “sexism”, “misogyny”, “extremism” or “terrorism” are never words used when describing violent men. Why not? We have an epidemic in our country of domestic violence, domestic abuse and violence against women and girls. Level Up introduced the UK’s first guidelines on this and the BBC, The Mirror, The Guardian and the Metro have all taken that on board, but more needs to be done.

The recent coverage of Nicola Bulley, Emma Pattison and Brianna Ghey shows us that the media reporting of women who are violently abused or killed is out of control. Emma Pattison was killed, along with her young daughter, by her violent husband and this was reported with the headline, “Did living in the shadow of his high achieving wife lead to unthinkable tragedy?” Another headline read, “Husband of Epsom College head who ‘killed her and their daughter before turning his gun on himself’ said he was ‘desperate to do more with his days’ after his business failed”. Why on earth would we accept our media reporting the murder of a woman and a young child in that way in our country? It is unacceptable and in this House we should be able to legislate against that, which is why we need a new, enforceable editors code.

It is not an isolated incident when a woman is killed every three days by a man. My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Jess Phillips) read out those names today and that list never gets shorter. This is an epidemic.

--- Later in debate ---

[Anna Firth (Southend West) (Con)]

It is a true privilege to speak in today’s debate. This time last year, I could not take part because I had not yet made my maiden speech. It is a particular pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Brent Central (Dawn Butler), who made a fascinating speech. I really commend the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Jess Phillips), who is no longer in her place, for her contribution. Nobody in this place, particularly someone listening to it live for the first time, can fail to be moved by it. It is incumbent on us all to try to eliminate violence against women. I look forward to the day when we can come to this Chamber and have this debate and the hon. Lady does not need to read out that harrowing list.

I wish to start with three words: women, life, freedom. Many Members in this Chamber will know that those words are the strapline for the recent uprising in Iran. Yesterday was the first International Women’s Day since the brutal killing of Mahsa Amini, whose murder by the medieval regime was a lightning flash around the world. She has now become such a symbol of bravery, courage and hope.

The women of Iran have been the victims of systematic oppression for the past 44 years. It is not just about religious dress codes; women are banned from singing in places, from taking part in certain sports, and even from attending certain games in stadiums. In short, they are treated as second-class citizens. However, as we all know, it has become far, far worse than that in the 175 days since the recent uprising. Following the death of Mahsa Amini, 82 Iranian women have been murdered by the regime. The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps have been disproportionately targeting women—targeting their eyes, targeting their chest and targeting their genitals. Only this week, we heard horrifying reports of several schoolgirls being poisoned in revenge for their role in the recent protests.

I mention all of this because all that it takes for evil to prevail is for good men and women to stay silent. I am proud that, in this place, we are not staying silent about what is going on in Iran. It is a salutary lesson to consider that if any of us were to stand up and say these things in Iran, we would be in mortal danger. I have two young women who encourage me to join these protests. Every time, I think how lucky we all are that we can do this—that we can stand up for women. We could not do any of this if we were living in Iran. It is vital that we keep sending that message to the Iranian women that we stand with them, that this murderous regime has to go and that the eyes of the world are on them.

[Dame Maria Miller]

My hon. Friend is making a powerful point. It is a point that was made endlessly to me over the past three days in New York at the UN Commission on the Status of Women. The women who were there from Iran, from Afghanistan and from Ukraine need to hear vocal support from colleagues in Parliaments such as our own and at events such as the UNCSW. Does my hon. Friend agree that, when it comes to the agreed conclusions of that event, we need to be reflecting just the point that she has made: that the plight of these women cannot be forgotten.

[Anna Firth]

I absolutely agree with my right hon. Friend. It is so encouraging to know that those points have been reiterated in one of the highest commissions on the status of women, and it is extremely good to know that Iran has finally been taken off that commission. No such regime anywhere in the world has a place on any commission concerned with women’s right. I thank her for reminding us of that.

We are so lucky that we can stand for public office. Although I am privileged to be the first woman to have been elected as the MP for Southend West, I am not the first female MP for Southend. Of course, Lady Iveagh represented that seat between 1927 and 1935, so I have a proud tradition behind me. We have so much further to go, as we all know. Just 31% of MPs are women, and since 1918, more than 100 years ago, only 561 women—not even an entire Parliament—have been elected. I say to any women who are thinking of coming into public office, particularly if they are in Southend West: “I want to hear from you, and I would be delighted to speak to you.”

I am delighted that in Southend West, we have plenty of women putting themselves forward for election in May. I wish the very best of luck to Councillor Meg Davidson, Councillor Lesley Salter and—we hope—soon-to-be councillor, Cheryll Gardiner. I will be on the streets of Southend knocking on doors to support them, supported by the indefatigable deputy chairman Judith Suttling, who is still pounding the streets in her 80s and setting me a daunting and energetic example.

I will use the time that I have to celebrate the incredible work that women do in my Southend West community. I, alongside our local paper, the Southend Echo, will soon launch a new community champion scheme in Southend to highlight our unsung and hidden heroes. The first hero is not unsung or hidden, however. She will be none other than our one and only Jill Allen-King OBE, who has spent her life standing up for people who live with blindness and visual impairments.

For those who do not know Jill’s story, she lost her sight on her wedding day, aged just 24. Instead of collapsing in a well of despair, she got out there and has spent her entire life bringing to our community things that we now take for granted. Tactile paving—the little bumps on the pavement that we all see whenever we cross the road—is down to Jill Allen-King, as are the wheelchair-level buttons in buses, and she has done lots to get access to public spaces for therapy dogs. She has attracted the attention of well-known names, including Paul O’Grady and Michael Ball. Of course, she has her OBE, but this year, she has the Pride of Britain lifetime achievement award. Despite her blindness, she has been busy teaching Ashley Banjo from Diversity to do the cha-cha-cha.

--- Later in debate ---

[Karin Smyth (Bristol South) (Lab)]

International Women’s Day is a time to celebrate, and there is much to celebrate about being a woman in 2023. I always think at this time of my friends, many now spread across the country and some across the world, who I have spent time with in the past. They are now too busy with children, grandchildren, older parents and their own jobs to get together, but I know that they are always there for me, I know they are really proud of me being here, and I know that I would never have made it here without them.

This weekend, I am looking forward to joining Bristol Women’s Voice for a fantastic programme of events, in particular discussing social care and the role it could play in the Bristol economy if only it was run better. It will be chaired by my friend Diane Bunyan, who was Bristol’s first female Labour leader of the council only about 20 years ago. Many women have been at the forefront of Bristol’s long, radical history. I think of Dorothy Hodgkin, who was chancellor of the University of Bristol, Elizabeth Blackwell, who was the first woman to qualify as a medical doctor, the trade union activist Jessie Stephen and Mary Carpenter and Hannah More, who were involved in social programmes. Lady Apsley was Bristol’s first woman Member of Parliament. She was a Conservative who, after the death of her husband in 1943, won the seat. Three out of four of Bristol’s MPs are women. We allowed one man to take one of the positions, and I pay tribute to my hon. Friends the Members for Bristol West (Thangam Debbonaire) and for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy), who are supportive colleagues.

The reality is that, like the rest of the country, we are nowhere near economic or political parity. Often we hear about the challenges, and I will move between the challenges and the opportunities. We remember that some good historic achievements have been made recently, whether that is the Lionesses’ incredible success last summer, the next generation of young women and girls getting into sport, or Kamala Harris being the first female vice-president in US history. We await the first woman US president.

Women are redefining culture with historic firsts in film, television, comedy and sport. Taylor Swift became the first woman to win a Grammy for best music video with sole directing credit, and films and shows are demonstrating the varied and multiple lives that women can lead, including “Am I Being Unreasonable?”, which was filmed in my constituency of Bristol South. Labour has led the way in women’s equality since 1923, when Margaret Bondfield became the first female Cabinet Minister. It is important that we celebrate the centenary of that accomplishment and the legacy that Margaret left for all women who have followed in her footsteps.

I am appalled by the pictures, even in 2023, of international summits and events in the UK full of men with very little female representation. If we think about the women leading political movements—as we have heard again today, we think particularly of those women in Iran, and in Afghanistan and Ukraine, too—women have always been at the vanguard of social change. However, quickly, as that change starts to happen, we become relegated to a back room—often back to the home—and are rarely represented in those photographs or at those summits.

This week, I was proud to chair a session of the British-Irish Parliamentary Assembly, which we held in Stormont on the 25th anniversary of the Good Friday/Belfast agreement. I was able to chair a session with some of the founding members of the Northern Ireland Women’s Coalition. Kate Fearon, Bronagh Hinds, Dr Avila Kilmurray and Jane Morrice were amazing activists well before the GFA, and they remain so today, many using that experience across the world. Women need to be represented in all aspects of politics, wherever and whenever. We are fed up with doing that service role and then not appearing in those photographs and leadership positions.

As chair of the women’s parliamentary Labour party, which makes up more than 50% of Labour MPs, I am proud to see the successes that Labour Governments have made in promoting equality, from introducing the Equality Act 2010 to championing all-women shortlists to increase female representation. Labour is the party of women and for women. I gently say to the hon. Member for Southend West (Anna Firth), who spoke about how lucky we are to be here and able to speak, that luck has had absolutely nothing to do with it. I take her point about recognising that privilege, but none of it has been luck; it has all been power that we have taken, and it always has to be underpinned by legislation, and I am afraid it is only Labour in government that has enacted that legislation.

[Dame Maria Miller]

The hon. Lady is rightly talking up her party’s role in all these issues, and I would expect her to do nothing less, but surely she would agree that this Government have done an enormous amount—more than any other—on the issues of domestic abuse and domestic violence and making women safer online, and I do not think she can simply ignore that. These are the issues of today, and this Government are tackling them.

[Karin Smyth]

I am not ignoring it, and I pay tribute particularly to the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May) for the work she led in government, but we need to continue to use legislation to underpin, and it should be good legislation. I am not sure that in this week of all weeks we can be proud of what this Government have done. If we think about the trafficked women who are coming forward, that is deeply problematic, and it would be good if we could all work together to help those women.

People outside might not know this, but even on a very busy Monday, Tuesday or Wednesday in Portcullis House and so on, this place is overwhelmingly male. Although some great strides have been made in all these professions, we see that with journalists, lobbyists and even with the third sector people who come to see us. I think the environmental movement is overwhelmingly dominated by men. The camera people and the staff in most places are generally male. I had a message as we were sitting here today from my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral South (Alison McGovern) pointing out that yesterday at Prime Minister’s questions, all four leaders are of course male, but there were two questions from men for every one from a woman. That is the stark reality. As others have said, this place still remains 30% women.

We are celebrating how far we have come, but we recognise that more needs to be done. It is 52 years since that first women’s refuge was set up in Chiswick, and the issue of domestic abuse and violence, as we have heard again today, is still all too prevalent. Marital rape was only made illegal in the early 2000s, and the Office for National Statistics estimates that 1.6 million women experience domestic abuse in England and Wales in any given year. We know that, faced with the cost of living crisis and severe lack of funding, the number of refuge spaces in England is falling desperately short. Why, when this issue is affecting so many, is so little progress being made?

We need to work harder on this issue, and talking last week with those women from the Northern Ireland Women’s Coalition was certainly instructive. They were clear that they could only come forward, and that women in any conflict situation can only come forward, if there is an ecosystem of support that they can use, both statutory and non-statutory, operating behind the scenes, and that is sadly missing in many places today. We need to help fund those refuges, and they need to be places of safety for women to seek refuge.

We recognise the resilience and strength from women today, and we are so proud to be able to voice, on behalf of all those women, what they bring to us in our constituencies. To close, it is often our friendships with one another that prove to be our biggest strength. Outwith the fact that we disagree across the House, as is necessary, we are strong political women and we work together. It is a pleasure to be a part of this debate today, and when I look around the Chamber and up to the Gallery, I see the bonds of friendship that are made between colleagues who share the desire to make life better for women. Parliament will be safe in our hands.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dame Maria Miller]

I say an enormous thank you to everybody who has taken part in the debate. This debate always demonstrates how much agreement there is across the House; I always see more heads nodding on the Opposition side and the Government side in this debate than in any other. My final comment, therefore, is, “Let us not allow party politics to get too involved in some of these issues.” They are not about party politics; they are about changing the culture of our country, to make sure that women have the same opportunities and the same barriers as men—not different ones, but not bigger ones. The more we can keep the politics out of this, the more progress we make in that culture change. I think the vast majority of this debate has demonstrated how much agreement there is. I applaud that, and thank colleagues for taking that approach.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered International Women’s Day.