Exiting the European Union: Meaningful Vote

Maria Miller Excerpts

Tuesday 11th December 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Maria Miller (Basingstoke) (Con)]

This is an extraordinary use of parliamentary time. After having called for more consideration of the content of the withdrawal agreement, voices from both sides of the House are now asserting that a pause in proceedings is wholly unacceptable. If Members really want to get to an agreement, then this pause in proceedings could be exactly what we need to resolve some of the issues that have already come out in the debate, however inconvenient that may be to Members.

The factions in this place really need to take a long, hard look at themselves in the mirror: the Brexiteers, the no dealers, the ones who want to reverse article 50, the ones who want a second referendum, the ones on the Labour Front Bench who want a general election, and the ones who fancy their chances as Prime Minister. Members need to grow up collectively and realise that any agreement requires compromise. That is what the Prime Minister is seeking to achieve.

[Dr Rosena Allin-Khan (Tooting) (Lab)]

Will the right hon. Lady give way?

[Mrs Miller]

I will not give way to the hon. Lady, because there are lots of Members who want to take part in the debate.

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Minister for the Cabinet Office, my right hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr Lidington) was absolutely right when he said that we have to face some home truths, particularly those who are intent on rejecting this deal. Home truth No. 1 is that no deal is still on the table and no Government can take it off. EU citizens here and UK citizens abroad are at risk of having no support—none of the support all of us have been calling for over the past two years—and we risk the worst damage to our economy. A second referendum would not only split our country down the middle; I believe it is an abrogation of our responsibility when we were elected last year on a mandate of implementing Brexit.

The withdrawal agreement is, like it or not, what Brexit looks like in reality—backstop and all. To get an agreement, the Prime Minister is entirely right to pause the debate. It is our job to minimise the risk of the UK leaving the EU, and the Government owe it to the House to have the best deal to put to a vote. Rather than focusing on the sensibilities of the House of Commons, I will focus on what is best for our country. The Government are clear that there will be a meaningful vote and debate, and that they will try to resolve some of the issues around the backstop. As Members it is our duty to come to an agreement—not to pass the buck and certainly not to duck our responsibility—to get a way to leave the EU that is acceptable to both sides of the House.

European Union (Withdrawal) Act

Maria Miller Excerpts

Tuesday 4th December 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Maria Miller (Basingstoke) (Con)]

If the contents of this withdrawal agreement had been secured by the then Prime Minister, David Cameron, in 2016, it would have been heralded on both sides of the House as a great success. I think that it is a huge pity that people in Brussels did not take that opportunity more seriously.

As in any negotiation, Members of Parliament have to weigh up the merits of and concerns about every option before us. I voted remain and I fear the impact of leaving the EU not only for business reasons, but for issues of peace and security. However, we have to look for compromises and a way forward. What I have found most disturbing about the debate tonight is the lack of that compromise coming through in Members’ contributions.

Where should that compromise lie? It has to lie where we feel that people wanted us to act as a result of the referendum. What did people want us to do as a result of that vote to leave? Many people voted to remain, but most voted to leave. They voted for a return of control of our borders and an end to the freedom of movement. They voted to stop vast sums of money being sent to the EU. They voted for an end to the European Court of Justice’s jurisdiction in the UK. What nobody voted for is uncertainty in our businesses and threats to our jobs. The sort of threats the hon. Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr Godsiff) has outlined could well be realistic for people working in the manufacturing sector in his constituency.

[Mr Jonathan Lord (Woking) (Con)]

I think this is still there on the official Vote Leave website, but it mentioned being out of the customs union, out of the single market, a comprehensive free trade deal with the EU and free trade deals around the world. So it was there. That was the mandate and that is what the people want us to see through.

[Mrs Miller]

My hon. Friend has every right to say that. I am saying to him: should we not be looking for a way forward in reality, rather than in the theory of the words set out in a manifesto? We have to look at the reality of what we are dealing with in terms of negotiation. A negotiation cannot happen by one side alone; it has to happen with the second partner as well. I would agree with anybody who has spoken today to say that leaving the EU is inherently risky, but the option before us at least has the detail behind it for us to be able to consider more closely.

How do we move forward? We could take the view of my right hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson), who sounded rather like Micawber in saying that something will turn up. I certainly will not be holding my breath. The people we represent would not expect us to enter into something as risky as hoping that the EU changes its mind.

We could embrace uncertainty; I am referring to some of the comments made by SNP and Liberal Democrat Members. They talked about no Brexit—remaining in the EU—and perhaps having a second referendum. I believe that that would do very little to enhance democracy in our country and I certainly would not support that. I was pleased to, I think, hear from Labour that it will not be supporting that either.

We could embrace the uncertainty of no deal. I think the catastrophic impact of that is recognised by many people in the House today. I do not believe that there would be a majority in this place for a situation where we have no transitional period in which to forge the trade deals with the EU or beyond, and indeed no protection for EU citizens or for UK citizens living in the EU as a result of having absolutely no deal in place in March.

What is the least risky option and the thing that we should be responsibly advocating? Surely it is what the Prime Minister called “an unprecedented economic relationship” with the EU—the withdrawal agreement that is before us. It is the option that we know most about. It is the option where we actually have details to debate today in the Chamber. As the Prime Minister has set out, it delivers far more than the Canada deal could do and far more than a Norway deal could do. It would mean an end to freedom of movement, an end to the EU Court’s jurisdiction in the UK, a single market and a framework for our future relationship.

I am not going to stand here and say that this is without risk. Of course, there is risk—that is the territory within which we are operating—but a trade deal with the EU has to be something that is of value to our EU neighbours as well as to ourselves. I simply do not buy the argument that we would fall into a backstop as a result of lack of negotiation or lack of technology. Many of our near European neighbours, such as Switzerland, already operate in a similar way to the way we will operate in Northern Ireland. The technology exists. It is therefore a faux argument, and we will not be prevented from being able to operate in future.

There is much talk of proposed amendments to the agreement. I want the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union to address that at the end of our immense debates. The Attorney General was extremely clear and helpful yesterday and I applaud him for the time he spent explaining things to Members. He referred to

“anything that is incompatible with our obligations under the withdrawal agreement.”

He went on:

“Any amendment to the meaningful vote that would introduce a qualification to our obligations under the agreement would be likely to be viewed by the European Union as a failure to ratify it”.—[Official Report, 3 December 2018; Vol. 650, c. 561.]

Does that mean that inserting an end date to the backstop could risk destabilising the only negotiated option on the table for us to view today, or indeed, throughout the five days of this debate? I will not support any amendment unless the Secretary of State can confirm that it would not destabilise the withdrawal agreement.

Leaving the EU is a huge risk for our nation. Everybody knew that when they voted in the referendum. To say that they did not belittles the thought that our constituents put into their vote. I speak as a Member of Parliament whose constituency reflected the national result: 52% voted to leave and 48% voted to remain. It is a democratic decision, but it is still a huge risk. That is why we have a duty to look at the facts. Our constituents expect us to weigh up the risks and act accordingly.

Above all, we have to deal with the situation as it is. Unlike other Members, Ministers are dealing with the hard reality of negotiating with Brussels and of the legal confines within which they have to operate.

Trade-offs are needed, but in going forward we must have a clear plan. That is far less risky than no plan, less risky than rerunning a referendum and far less risky than hoping against hope that the EU has a change of heart. In my four years as a Minister, I never encountered the EU having a change of heart, so I hope that the Secretary of State is not banking on that.

I will support the Government’s withdrawal agreement because I believe that it is in the best interests of not only my constituents in Basingstoke—a major trading part of the south-east of England—but the whole of our country. I hope that more Members, particularly those who were more on the Brexit side of the debate than me, realise that this is probably as good as it gets for them. I am surprised that they have not already woken up to that.

Oral Answers to Questions

Maria Miller Excerpts

Wednesday 21st November 2018 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I first send my deepest condolences to Claire Throssell, the hon. Lady’s constituent, and pay tribute to the fantastic work that she does as an ambassador for Women’s Aid. We are committed to transforming the response to domestic violence. The consultation that took place in the spring received more than 3,200 responses, which shows the degree of concern that people have over this issue of domestic violence and the recognition of the need to look carefully at the legislation on this. I understand that the Home Office will be publishing a response to the consultation together with the draft Domestic Abuse Bill later this Session.

[Mrs Maria Miller (Basingstoke) (Con)]

All the evidence shows that diversity delivers better decision making, yet, over the past 100 years in this place, 4,503 men have been elected and just 491 women. I am proud that two of those Conservative women became Prime Minister, but can my right hon. Friend share with me what she feels that Parliament, as well as the political parties, can do to help to encourage more of the women who are with us here today as part of the Ask Her To Stand campaign actually to go forward and stand for election and join us on these Green Benches?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank my right hon. Friend for championing this important cause. She is absolutely right that greater diversity in this place means that we get better decisions; that is the same for Parliament as it is for a business or any organisation. We should send a very clear message from everybody across this House about the significance of the work of an individual Member of Parliament and the change they can make for their community. Being a Member of Parliament is one of the best jobs in the world. It is an opportunity to make a real difference to people’s lives, to be a real voice for those whose voice otherwise would not be heard and to take decisions that will lead our country forward and provide a better future for people’s children and grandchildren. It is a great job and I encourage all the women who are here today and thinking of standing to stand for Parliament, get elected and make a difference.

Oral Answers to Questions

Maria Miller Excerpts

Wednesday 14th November 2018 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Chloe Smith)]

We believe that the legislation is working well, but we would be happy to look into any specific further points that the hon. Gentleman would like to make.

[Mrs Maria Miller (Basingstoke) (Con)]

T3. The Government Equalities Office funding is in Education, its staff are in the Home Office and its Ministers are in the Department for International Development. My Select Committee recommended a year ago the wholesale move of the GEO to the Cabinet Office. Does my right hon. Friend agree with that?

[Mr Lidington]

My right hon. Friend and her Committee did indeed make a powerful case. It has needed a lot of cross-departmental discussion, but I hope that in the very near future, we will be in a position to give her a definitive response.

Points of Order

Maria Miller Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd May 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Maria Miller (Basingstoke) (Con)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. It is clear from media coverage that a former senior member of staff in this place has felt unable to speak out about serious alleged wrongdoing because of an agreement signed with the House of Commons when they left. The Women and Equalities Committee is currently investigating the way agreements can affect individuals’ ability to speak out, or their perceived ability to speak out.

Mr Speaker, I understand that, as Chair of the House of Commons Commission, you are the ultimate employer of House of Commons staff. What steps will you be taking to make it clear to staff, both current and former, that they can speak out about wrongdoing experienced while working in this place? Can I ask whether you will be making a personal statement, given your involvement in these further allegations that potentially have the effect of undermining the reputation of this House?

[Mr Speaker]

I am extremely grateful to the right hon. Lady for her courtesy in giving notice of this point of order—I am conscious of her and her Committee’s interest in the subject of non-disclosure agreements—and for giving me the opportunity to reassure her and current and former staff of the House.

Let me be clear: current and former staff are not constrained by any agreements from talking freely and confidentially to the independent inquiry into bullying and harassment, which is being conducted by Dame Laura Cox, QC, and I hope that they will do so.

I also understand that the Clerk of the House has this morning provided the right hon. Lady with a note on the standard terms of compromise agreements, now called settlement agreements, between the House and staff who leave under individual arrangements—matters in which, I should emphasise, I am not myself involved and never have been. He, that is to say the Clerk of the House, has explained that these are not non-disclosure agreements, in the sense generally used, and do not in any way seek to prevent disclosure of wrongdoing on public interest grounds—i.e. whistleblowing. I am asking the Clerk to make this note more widely available.

As for myself, I say to the right hon. Lady and to the House that I have made a public statement, to which I have nothing to add.

Syria

Maria Miller Excerpts

Monday 16th April 2018 Commons Chamber

[Alison McGovern]

My hon. Friend makes an important and wise point, as she does normally.

We have been coming back to this place after each horrific event and asking ourselves, “How did we let this happen?” Let this time be different. Let this be the moment when we decide to take a long-term view and bring together all the best efforts of everybody in Britain to secure peace.

[Mrs Maria Miller (Basingstoke) (Con)]

The hon. Lady is making a powerful case, particularly about the importance of aid. What does she think should be done to ensure that other countries follow the UK in standing by their responsibilities to deliver aid to Syria?

[Alison McGovern]

I thank the right hon. Lady for her intervention. As someone who fought the battle to get a Bill through Parliament to guarantee the aid of this country, I would happily talk to parliamentarians in other countries about what they ought to do, but this debate is not about what others should do. Our Prime Minister is here, and my focus is on what she can do and what our country can do to try to assist vulnerable Syrians.

Fourthly, we need to defund Assad. Unfortunately, Syria has still managed to function as an economic actor in the world, but that cannot be right. It cannot be okay that business goes on as normal in the face of such brutality and inhumane actions by that country’s Government. I ask the Prime Minister to investigate what actions we can take to remove Syria from the SWIFT system, which provides for international financial transactions. That would send a strong signal that we are no longer prepared to tolerate Syria just going on as normal. It has involvement in a number of forums around the world, and we must go through each one and remove Syria. We need to send a message that the Syrian Government are beyond the pale and that their actions prove that they can no longer be treated as a normal member of the international community in any sphere of life, especially economically.

Oral Answers to Questions

Maria Miller Excerpts

Wednesday 7th March 2018 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

We have introduced the apprenticeship levy, and we are looking at its application. We have a commitment over a period of years for the number of apprenticeships, and we are going to increase that number to 3 million over this Parliament. We will be doing that, and we will look very carefully at the operation of the apprenticeship levy and its impact.

[Mrs Maria Miller (Basingstoke) (Con)]

On International Women’s Day tomorrow, we will be celebrating record numbers of women in work, including of course our second female Prime Minister, yet attitudes towards pregnancy mean that more than 50,000 women a year are forced out of their job just for having a baby. When will the Government be taking forward the review of existing protections for pregnant women that was promised following the Women and Equalities Committee’s inquiry into this important issue?

[The Prime Minister]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise this issue. We have very clear laws in this country that say that discrimination in the workplace is unlawful, and there are clear regulations in place that employers must follow. In our response to the Taylor review, we committed to update the information about pregnancy and maternity discrimination, and we will review the legislation relating to protection against redundancy within the next 12 months.

Women in the House of Commons

Maria Miller Excerpts

Thursday 7th December 2017 Westminster Hall

[Mrs Maria Miller (Basingstoke) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the Fifth Report of the Women and Equalities Committee, Women in the House of Commons after the 2020 election, Session 2016-17, HC 630, and the Government Response, Cm 9492.

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Sharma. I thank the Liaison Committee for the opportunity to debate this important report, published by the Women and Equalities Committee in the last Session. I also thank my incredible Committee staff and all the witnesses who gave written and oral evidence. In particular, Professor Rosie Campbell, professor of politics at Birkbeck College, Professor Sarah Childs and Lord Hayward all gave a great deal of their time. I also thank the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, the Leader of the Opposition, and those other individuals who gave oral evidence.

In the 100 years since women were given the right to vote and stand for election, just 489 women have been elected to this place—I was the 265th, elected in 2005. Record numbers of women are in work and women are achieving record highs when it comes to education, but just a handful have had the opportunity to use their skills and expertise to represent their communities in this place. We have to ask ourselves whether that is a sign of a healthy democracy. Nothing can be more important than making sure that the institutions that are vital to our system of democracy are fit for purpose. They should function in a way that gives the electorate confidence that Parliament can make the laws that we need for a free and fair society.

Society changes, so Parliament has to change too. It is not an institution that can afford to place itself in aspic. It has to evolve to ensure that it truly represents the people we speak for and serve. That must involve recognising the changing role of women in society. Almost 100 years since legislation was passed to give some women the vote, it is timely to be debating this important report, considering what progress has been made, and ensuring that there is a clear pathway forward on the matter of women being elected to the House of Commons.

One point that emerged from the evidence session with senior representatives from the major parties in Westminster was that Parliament would be a better place if 50% of MPs were women. There is a growing understanding that although MPs represent all people in our communities, regardless of their sex or gender, women view the world through a different lens—the lens of having experienced life as a woman, and the associated differences that that involves. This place was established at a time when only men were allowed to dictate our laws and shape the future of our country. Our political parties were shaped then too. The Women and Equalities Committee’s inquiry has set out a number of recommendations that members of the Committee felt would do more than simply try to retrofit women into Parliament, instead allowing them to play a truly equal role—something that we are still very far away from achieving and can only really achieve through a step change.

The 2016 inquiry focused on what the Government, political parties, the House of Commons and the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority could do to ensure better female representation in the House of Commons in 2020 and beyond. It was launched in the context of the Boundary Commission review and the proposed reduction in the number of House of Commons seats. When the inquiry was launched, women held 30% of seats in the Commons, and the UK was ranked 48th globally for representation of women in legislatures. A lot has changed since then, but a great deal of the report remains extremely pertinent.

We found that Parliament should actively encourage women to participate in democracy, and should continue to look at ways to ensure that there are no unnecessary barriers to women coming here to represent the people who voted for them. We found that political parties had the primary responsibility to ensure that women come forward to represent them. Although the political parties have measures in place to help to achieve equality in gender representation, we felt that there was insufficient analysis of how effective those measures actually were, and that in all the parties there was a lack of clear strategy and leadership to achieve gender equality and representation.

The Committee made some quite radical recommendations. We recommended that the Government set a domestic target of 45% representation by women in Parliament by 2030. We recommended that they introduce a statutory minimum proportion of female parliamentary candidates in general elections—that target should be at least 45%, given the current deficit—with sanctions for political parties if it was not achieved. We also recommended bringing into force section 106 of the Equality Act 2010, requiring political parties to publish the data on diversity for general elections, and continuing the measures that allow things like all-women shortlists.

The Committee suggested that political parties take greater ownership of this issue, make gender balance in candidate selection a real priority, and accept that they have primary responsibility for making sure that the House of Commons is a more diverse place. We suggested that they publicly set out the measures that they plan to take to increase the proportion and number of female parliamentary candidates at the next election, and that they adopt, fund and promote training so that women can achieve those goals. We suggested that the parties should provide support for younger women and women entering politics for the first time, and that there should be a clear sense of direction towards increasing female representation in parliamentary parties, ensuring that their leaders work more closely with national decision-making bodies and local associations to deliver that.

The Government’s response was quite startling. They rejected all six of our recommendations. I do not mind if people reject one or two of them, but not all six at a time when we are still nowhere near equality. I am really pleased to have secured today’s debate, and that my colleague from Hampshire—my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes)—is the Minister responding on behalf of the Government. In Hampshire, we have actually done an amazing thing: about 40% of our Members of Parliament are women. We know how to do it there; we just need to do it nationally.

The Government did not support the use of legislative quotas or sanctions on parties to achieve gender balance in the Commons. I know that that is a philosophical approach. They emphasised that political parties had the primary responsibility for improving representation in the Commons. Although the Government stated that they were ready to support parties on approaches to improve diversity, they did not detail how. I was struck that they rejected the idea of enacting section 106 of the Equality Act, which would make the number of women from political parties standing for election transparent, at the same time as they were asking businesses to implement gender pay gap reporting mechanisms, which were intended to create transparency about the role of women in business and their ability to progress. I realise that gender pay gap reporting is something done by larger businesses, so perhaps the Minister could explain why we could not just ask the larger parties to report in line with section 106 of the Equality Act. That would be a way of getting started.

Unfortunately, a general election then happened, which meant that our report, which was carefully crafted around the prospect of a 2020 general election, was slightly thrown up into the air. It is good, however, that at the election earlier this year we saw the highest number and proportion of female MPs ever recorded in the UK— 208 out of 650 MPs, making up about 32% of seats.

We need to put this in context. Membership of the House of Commons is not infinite. It is actually quite small—it is just 650 people—so a big change in the proportion of women requires quite a small change in numerical terms. Specifically, to achieve a 50:50 Parliament, we need only 117 more women to be elected at the next general election. Nobody would argue that there are not 117 incredibly capable women in this country who would be able to take over from some of the men who are here at the moment—with the greatest respect to all of my male colleagues. To achieve that, all political parties need a plan, and transparency needs to be at the heart of those plans. It is the responsibility of Parliament as an organisation to evolve into a place that everybody can thrive in. I pay tribute to Mr Speaker’s work in establishing the House of Commons reference group, which I and a number of other Members sit on, to look at the workings of the House and to make it easier for a more diverse group of people—not just women—to come here to work.

We also have to be realistic about the external factors that can dissuade women from seeking public office, including becoming an MP. To that end, the Women and Equalities Committee took some further oral evidence from the political parties on 15 November 2017 as a result of the inquiry. I want to draw out a couple of themes from that additional evidence. Do the parties have a plan? Based on that evidence session, I would still say that the situation is mixed. I cannot put my finger on an exact plan that any of the parties talked about, so there is more work to do there.

I am still looking for more encouragement from the Minister that the Government will press forward on transparency and the collection and publication of diversity data. The Conservative party said it hopes to publish more data. The Liberal Democrats, the Labour party and the Scottish National party agreed that it would be helpful for the Government to bring into force section 106 of the Equality Act 2010, although the Labour party raised a number of issues about how the data would be gathered. Again, they said that it was the smaller parties’ fault that it was not being brought into force, so we thought we would write to the smaller parties and ask them whether it would be an enormous burden to enforce section 106 of the 2010 Act. So far, we have not been overwhelmed with negative responses. We will be looking at that issue further, and if the so-called smaller parties that are represented here today want to voice any opinions on that, that would be incredibly helpful. We will analyse how we can overcome some of those apparent problems through the drafting of secondary legislation. It is not beyond the wit or man—or indeed woman—to do that.

The second issue that came out of our further oral evidence was the culture, which still causes many women concerns about coming to work in this place. The witnesses talked about cultural factors blocking women’s aspirations to take on leadership roles and become Members of Parliament. The Labour party, the Liberal Democrats and the Scottish National party agreed that late-night voting in Westminster—a topical thing to talk about, given that we were voting at midnight this week for no apparent reason—is a barrier to women’s coming forward. They said that voting could perhaps be organised in a different way. We often call it a family-friendly way, but I call it a human-friendly way, because I am not sure there are many individuals who think it is possible to work in the way we do without it having some impact on their capacity.

[Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP)]

I thank the right hon. Lady for bringing this timely and hugely important debate to the Chamber. On the matter of voting, does she agree that there are models in the devolved nations? In the Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish Parliaments, there is a seat for every Member and electronic voting. It takes two seconds to press a button in Holyrood in Scotland, yet it takes us 15 minutes to walk through the Lobby. A huge amount of time and public money is being wasted.

[Mrs Miller]

I am not sure I totally agree with the hon. Lady on that issue. Like in many corporate organisations, we benefit from talking to and interacting with each other, and votes are often the only way we can do that because we are spread out doing many different things. I do not think the mechanism of voting is a bad thing. I just do not understand why we cannot do it on a more regularised basis.

The issues that prevent women from thriving in business—I was at a conference this morning held by the Trades Union Congress talking about that very issue—include irregularity and the lack of certainty about what a business might ask of them. That is not just a problem for women; people generally want more certainty. Everybody would say that there is some latitude when we are debating incredibly important things such as the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill. On those matters we need to ensure we are all there when we are needed to vote, but that is not necessary on every single piece of legislation and on things that are not so time-specific. I hope the Government and their Whips Office are considering how they can make the way we operate in this place appear as if we are at least in the 20th century, if not the 21st century. Holding late-night votes on just any business should have gone out with the ark.

The other cultural issue that came up is the representation of women on party decision-making bodies. The Labour party, which gave evidence to us in November, aims to have a gender-balanced party conference and National Executive Committee—I am sure Labour Members understand what that means more than I do—but other parties were more uncertain about that. They all offered to write to us, and we will look carefully at their submissions, but if there is not gender-balanced representation on parties’ decision-making bodies, it is likely that having more women in Parliament will not be seen as such a pressing issue. I hope all parties will write to my Committee with their views on that.

The next issue that was raised—it is important to set this out in my opening speech—is the working environment here in Parliament. Clearly, impropriety in behaviour is still in the headlines this week. All parties have a code of conduct for Members of Parliament. Labour and the Conservative party have recently strengthened theirs, and all parties have been asked to write to the Committee outlining their procedures for reporting inappropriate behaviour. I look very positively at the way the parties reacted to earlier issues that were raised.

The final point, which is very important, is the abuse and harassment of parliamentary candidates. Although my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston) is not a candidate, I was shocked at what she experienced this week. A coffin was put outside the parliamentary office in her constituency as part of a “family-friendly” event. People have to think very carefully about the abuse and harassment that parliamentary candidates experience. That sort of behaviour towards elected representatives has to be rejected. We asked the parliamentary parties to write to us to tell us how many party members have been expelled or suspended for abusing or harassing parliamentary candidates. We need a zero-tolerance approach. I applaud Members of all parties who stand up for their colleagues here, regardless of party.

In conclusion, the Select Committee is already working to follow up on the report, which we see as a continuing part of our work. This Parliament does not look like our country, in particular when it comes to women. Ninety-nine years ago this month, the first woman sat as a Member of Parliament. I am incredibly proud that next year we will be celebrating Nancy Astor, a Conservative Member of Parliament, as the first woman here.

It fills me with great pride that my party has given this country the first two female Prime Ministers, both extraordinary women. Margaret Thatcher made me interested in politics at a time when few other people could do so; and my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May) has not shirked from taking our country through the most politically challenging period of modern history—our exit from the European Union. Everyone knows her tenacity as this country’s longest-serving Home Secretary and her commitment to get more women elected to this place by establishing Women2Win. In my parliamentary career, my right hon. Friend has been a friend, a mentor and a champion for thousands of women in the Conservative party, and we all owe her a debt of gratitude.

My point is that each party has a story to tell about women in the party—and we should tell it—but no party has found the holy grail. No party in this place can claim to have equality for women, and each has a different set of problems. This debate needs to be honest about that. Each party needs to explain better how it will ensure equality for women in the future.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tulip Siddiq]

I thank my hon. Friend. People would stare at me because they were not used to seeing, for a start, women under 5 feet, or loud-mouthed women of colour working in Parliament. I went on to work as a researcher, a press officer and a special adviser, and then left Parliament and came back as an MP.

In every layer of the party that I have described, whether special adviser, press officer or researcher, I always stuck out like a sore thumb. It fills me with a lot of pride and a sense of joy when I walk down the corridors now and see the difference in Parliament. Again, I will emphasise that we have not reached where we need to be, but there is no doubt about the big difference in Parliament now from what I saw 17 years ago.

My worry about the report is that the burden of progress seems to have been entirely assigned to political parties and that certain courses of action that could help, such as quotas and targets, are ruled out entirely out of hand. That concerns me. At a time of such major constitutional upheaval for the country, I feel that this place could show its determination to truly equip Britain for the future by putting women on an equal footing, and at a time when we are led by a female Prime Minister.

The recent oral evidence given before the Women and Equalities Committee revealed that entrusting political parties with that task will produce limited results. The Government should take the matter away from party bureaucracy, with all the delays and compromises that such a route entails, but their response to the report clearly rejects the imposition of targets, so I want to make a few alternative suggestions.

First, the prevailing culture in Westminster deters women from joining. Authorities must be up front about that and willing to take action when required. Secondly, outreach programmes must be considered as an apolitical way of making Westminster more attractive not only to women but to black and minority ethnic communities. Thirdly, Parliament must be proactive about ensuring that equal representation is enshrined in the new democratic contests that take place—that is not only parliamentary elections, but mayoral or police and crime commissioner ones. We need improvement at all levels, in different kinds of elections.

Parliament needs to be proactive in fostering an environment that does not put people off even before they have contemplated a career in public service. I am sure everyone in the Chamber will join me in expressing the horror that we felt about the accounts of harassment. Clearly we must deal with the aspects of this place that create a hostile environment for women. All parties working together on something we all care deeply about will deliver a confidential and independent complaints service and a procedure for victims to have their voices heard and their complaints dealt with properly. I hope that extends to people who visit the parliamentary estate, as well as those who work here.

When dealing with the cultural problems of the Commons, we must also look at the behaviour of Members in debates—Members of all political parties, I accept, not just one—and the bureaucratic structures that discriminate against women. As the Committee’s report notes, a 2015 survey from the Administration Committee explored experiences of working in Parliament, finding that

“the unappealing culture of Westminster…deterred women from standing as parliamentary candidates.”

Whether that is hon. Members barking like dogs at women who are speaking in debates, or the centuries-old voting systems that prevent new mothers from representing their constituents, the authorities must accept the fundamental link between the prevailing culture of the Commons and the continued under-representation of women within it.

As an MP for a London constituency, I often speak at schools, including all-girls schools, where women will ask me whether it is uncomfortable being a young woman in politics. I always hesitate, because I do not know whether to tell them the truth and deter them from joining politics or to say, “Hand on heart, I believe this place is welcoming for young women.” I do not want to feel like that. When I go into a school and am questioned about whether I would encourage young women to come into politics, I want to be able to say with a clear conscience, “Yes, this is a welcoming place. Yes, here you won’t face any discrimination. Yes, it’ll be as easy for you as it is for the male student sitting next to you.” That is the problem I face in schools. We need to talk about this problem but at the same time, if students from Hampstead and Kilburn are listening: I do not want to deter you from coming into politics.

I also want to pick up a little on intersectionality. We are talking about women, but we cannot separate that from the fact that there is more discrimination against women of colour. That must be part of the debate if we want to secure equal representation in Parliament. We now have 51 BME MPs in the Commons, since the 10 who were elected at the 2017 general election. That increase is welcome, not least because it includes my hon. Friends the Members for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Preet Kaur Gill), the first female Sikh MP, and for Battersea (Marsha De Cordova), who is registered blind as well as being a woman and a woman of colour.

We have come far, but I still want to make another point. Especially in the context of this Parliament’s make-up, I want to look at an important part of Parliament: Select Committees. There are 28 departmental and specified Select Committees in total. Only nine of the Chairs are women, and not a single Chair of a Select Committee is from a BME background. To me, in a Parliament like this, that is really shocking.

The number of BME MPs make up 7.8% of the new Parliament, which still does not reflect the population at large, where the figure is 14%. I come back to that Select Committee point, however: it is not just about having MPs in Parliament who are BME, but about what positions they hold. Are they party leaders, or in the Cabinet or shadow Cabinet? Are they the Chairs of Select Committees? The answer to the last question is: no, there are no BME Chairs of Select Committees.

To go back to the report, the rejection of quotas for women was disappointing, and so was the omission of a formal response to the Committee’s recommendation for Parliament to lead outreach initiatives. The Committee provided the Government with an opportunity to think boldly and to deliver an apolitical advocacy programme that could sell the virtues of life in Westminster to under-represented groups. By encouraging the political participation of traditionally marginalised and hard-to-reach groups, we can help to bring that focus to the forefront. In the end, diversifying candidates diversifies policies.

[Mrs Miller]

As a fellow colleague on the Select Committee, I thank the hon. Lady for her contribution to the work that we do. The educational outreach that Parliament does is fantastic, so one could argue that we already have an apolitical programme that hopefully is encouraging young people to be MPs in future. What the Committee suggested was really just an extension of that, was it not?

[Tulip Siddiq]

Yes, and I pay tribute to the right hon. Lady as Chair of the Committee. The Committee works very well together and constructively, and its members are from all political backgrounds—people have different viewpoints, but we do a good job. She is absolutely right. What we want is an extension of something that already exists. We do not think it is a huge ask. I fear that, given the progress required, until statutory enforcement is seriously considered even for just an interim period, we will not achieve our goals.

I will not take up too much more time because I know that lots of Members want to contribute to this important debate. Speaking as an ex-councillor, representing constituents at ward level provided me with experience and the belief that I could go on to do that on a constituency-wide basis. As such, the Committee’s recommendation that the Government update the Sex Discrimination (Election Candidates) Act 2002 to allow all-women shortlists for all elected mayoral and police and crime commissioner posts seems like a sensible proposal. The Government say that the evidence base for taking such a step is as yet under-developed. Since 2002, only two of the Labour party’s 18 elected Mayors have been women. The Select Committee report shows that, in every major party, less than 40% of councillors are women. The evidence base seems to be the opposite of underdeveloped.

The Government leave the door open by saying that they will consider the issue further. I hope they will do just that. In all the three areas that I have discussed, I truly hope that the Committee’s report will prompt the Government to take the lasting top-down steps required to deliver the equal representation that we are all hoping for.

I will be a bit cheeky and follow the right hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mrs Miller), who paid tribute to the Prime Minister. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle), because if it was not for her encouraging me to stand, and if it was not for the informal networks that are created among women who came to the House before I did, who told me over and over that I could be the MP for Hampstead and Kilburn, I would not be standing here today.

--- Later in debate ---

[Eddie Hughes]

Yes and no. I am absolutely not saying that women are not able to do as good a job as men. The clue to my disagreement is in the way the hon. Lady phrased the question, by saying “short term”. I do not want a short-term solution; I want a sustainable, long-term solution. I appreciate that it may seem naive and idealistic of me to view it that way.

I look at the Benches opposite and I am particularly terrified of the hon. Member for Brent Central (Dawn Butler), because on Monday I will be on “The Politics Show” with her. I appreciate that she is an experienced, incredibly able Member, and I will look decidedly puny in political terms by comparison, so I am starting my preparation now in earnest and I hope that she has a bad day. I see members of the Women and Equalities Committee who I have grown to know over the past few months who are equally brilliant. I do not feel for one minute that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Jess Phillips) needed an all-women shortlist to get to that position.

[Mrs Miller]

May I say first how much my hon. Friend brings to the Women and Equalities Committee? His passion for these issues is apparent to everyone. He said that there is a cornucopia of women with the ability to do jobs—even in the construction industry. Does he not see that although we may have a large pool of capable women, they are not able to progress because of the way their competencies are judged? Does he agree that there needs to be a focus on removing barriers to women progressing? That might be done in this place through all-women shortlists, which would not allow substandard people to come through, but would create a level playing field of opportunity.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jess Phillips (Birmingham, Yardley) (Lab)]

I want to pay tribute to all who have spoken, with some special tribute to my colleague the hon. Member for Walsall North (Eddie Hughes). Like him, I grew up in a family in Birmingham, I have only brothers—obviously we make boy babies in Birmingham, because I also have two of those—and I grew up with an Irish heritage. I certainly have the same touch of the Blarney that he has. My experience and my views are different from his, but I know we have the same goal.

In case there is any question whether the Labour party feels that what happened in Totnes with a coffin was appropriate, I will self-appoint myself as spokesman for the Labour party and say that it is totally unacceptable to have political debate that leads to a Member of Parliament having a coffin put outside her office. It is especially unacceptable in regard to that particular Member of Parliament, who works tirelessly—often better than some members of the Labour party—to hold the Government to account. There is no question that she is fighting. If the Labour party had any involvement in that, I can only apologise whole-heartedly. It is totally unacceptable.

Stopping the cross-party love-in, I am disappointed that the Government did not listen to a single one of the recommendations of the Select Committee. If it had been me writing those recommendations, they would have been considerably more radical. I would have asked for the moon on a stick. The Committee’s recommendations were thoughtful, and it was not asking too much to recommend some of the outreach, as has already been pointed out. Some of the tiny changes to the Equality Act 2010, which would mean we could have all-women shortlists for mayoral and police and crime commissioner candidates, are the sweep of a single pen. They would not affect a single person in the Government even slightly, because their party does not recognise all-women shortlists anyway. They do not have to do it. We just want to, and we need the law to reflect that. If the Conservative party, the ruling party, does not think that quotas work, then it can crack on with that point of view. We in the Labour party know that they work. To answer the question asked by the hon. Member for Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock (Bill Grant), the progress was made as a result of the Labour party and all-women shortlists. They are the single biggest reason for progress.

[Mrs Miller]

I pay tribute to the work the hon. Lady does for the Committee, and she knows that I support the recommendations of the report. Is she not a bit disappointed that she feels her party needs all-women shortlists for mayoral elections in order to get female representation?

[Jess Phillips]

I feel utterly disappointed, but the triumph of hope over experience tells me that I have to force my party to look at electing women into the position of metro Mayors. The Conservatives want it too, but they are not willing to do it, whereas I am willing to say, “Yes, we have a problem. I have a solution. It will work.”

To speak to the point made by my hon. Friend, and I will say friend, the Member for Walsall North—is it north? It is all just the Black country to me—the idea that I would not want a surgeon selected via a quota to operate on me is not something I recognise. I would be delighted to have somebody who had been selected from an all-women shortlist be the surgeon in my hospital and operate on me. I would be less happy to have somebody who had probably got the position because he went to a certain school or was born into a certain family. He would be no better; he would just have been given all the tools to allow him to become a surgeon or even to dream of becoming a surgeon. My hon. Friend will know, just as I do, that kids from Birmingham who have kissed the Blarney stone rarely end up being surgeons in Birmingham’s hospitals. I would be more than happy to be operated on.

To draw out the surgeon analogy, when somebody operates on me I expect evidence to have been taken about how they do that procedure. I want to know how they have come to the conclusion that that procedure is the very best thing for my health. I want to know that it is going to work, and I look for evidence. I want to see more women in Parliament, so I will look at the evidence of what works and I will ask that it is implemented. What works is quotas for women and sanctions when they are not realised. There is no other area of Government where we would just say, “Oh, do you know what really works to stop people being hit by buses? Oh, well, I’m just not sure it’s the one we want to go for,” or, “Do you know what really, really works for making sure that more kids go to school? But I just don’t know whether it’s good enough for choice if we do that.” We would not do that with any other thing, so why do we do it about this?

We look at clear evidence about the heavy lifting and the reason we have more women in Parliament now. In the last election, the Conservative party went backward. The Labour party surged forward. Do not get me wrong: the Labour party is in no way faultless in this area—I have just had to apologise for someone having a coffin left outside their house—but it is willing to do the thing that actually works, and to do it at every single level of the political party. It has to be balanced for every single person who sits on the National Executive Committee and for every person who goes to the conference. That is not because of people who want to claim they are great heroes of the movement. It is because of women in the Labour party fighting and bearing the scars.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dawn Butler (Brent Central) (Lab)]

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Sharma, and to contribute to the debate.

As I have previously stated, 51% of the population are women, and the other 49% would not be here if it was not for the women, so arguing for 50:50 representation in Parliament is really quite reasonable. I am quite disappointed that the Government have not accepted any of the recommendations in the Women and Equalities Committee report. That is the problem with politics—people see that we say one thing and do something else, and it puts people off politics or politicians. If we truly believe in equality of representation, we must accept at least one of the recommendations, and that will make the Committee feel that it is doing a great job.

The report states:

“We are concerned that Parliament is failing to be a world leader on women’s representation.”

That is really important to consider as we debate Brexit and our standing in the world. It is important that we do not fall back. That alone should get people to sit up and listen to the debate we are having on representation in Parliament.

The right hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mrs Miller) is an excellent Chair, and her Committee’s report makes reference to the “inflexibility” of Parliament’s working practices. How we vote in this place has been mentioned a number of times. I accept that there is value in us mingling in the Lobby when we vote, but once could be enough, and we could then vote electronically for the remaining 10 votes. There are ways we can improve the current system without losing some of its benefits.

We must also look at gerrymandering and the boundary changes. We will see a substantial loss of women representatives if the Boundary Commission’s recommendations go ahead. The Fawcett Society found that 37% of those at risk are women. If that goes ahead, the loss to this place will be substantial.

[Mrs Miller]

I do not want to add a discordant note, but if there were an issue of gerrymandering, surely it is the fact that at the moment constituencies such as mine have 85,000 people in them, while constituencies in other parts of the country have only 50,000. Surely that is the gerrymandering that we are trying to get rid of with the boundary changes, which I fear will not go through because of a lack of cross-party support.

[Mr Laurence Robertson in the Chair]

[Dawn Butler]

The whole system is substantially flawed in how it counts the number of constituents, because it takes into consideration only people who are registered to vote, and not everybody who actually lives in the constituency. The right hon. Lady will find that constituencies such as mine—a London constituency—have a substantial number of constituents who are not registered. The whole system is flawed in terms of how the number is calculated, but it is not only that. The Labour party is set to lose more seats under the boundary changes than any other party, and we would therefore lose more women. That is where some of the gerrymandering comes into effect.

The report states:

“Our focus on women in this report should not be taken as a lack of interest in diversity more generally”.

I accept that. When we look at achieving gender equality, we need to look at all kinds of women. My hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Kilburn (Tulip Siddiq) referred to intersectionality in women of colour, who often get ignored or brushed out of the feminist argument. Even though we are looking at women, we need to look at the diversity of women. This is not confined to women of colour; it is also working-class women, disabled women, LGBT+ women, single women, single mums and so on. It is important that when we talk about women, we are not focusing on one particular group of women who are then the acceptable face of women generally.

On the theme of thanking women, I would like to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Rushanara Ali), who replaced an awful misogynistic male. She was fundamental in my journey to get here.

The hon. Member for Walsall North (Eddie Hughes), who is no longer in his place, made quite a powerful speech, some of which I agreed with. I am sorry that he is a little bit scared of me, but I am also quite pleased. I hope that his time on the Committee has brought him on a journey to understand that it is not that women are not capable of doing certain jobs or being in certain positions. It is often that barriers are put in women’s way that are not put in men’s way. It could be the old boys’ club, the secret handshake or what you drink down the pub. Certain barriers are put in women’s way, and that stops them more than their ability to do a job, which is often not the case. I said this at the Committee, but I will repeat it for those who were not there: I will know when we have reached real equality, especially in this place, when we have as many rubbish women as rubbish men. Then I will know that equality has really hit its peak.

The hon. Gentleman also spoke about conditioning people, and especially males, from a young age. That is all well and good, but the process of conditioning takes time—decades—and therefore we sometimes have to force that thought process. The way to force it is to have quotas or all-women shortlists or to make the decision makers more accountable. That is how we force conditioning or undo the conditioning that has happened.

More than 57% of women who have ever sat in the House of Commons have been Labour Members. All-women shortlists played a fundamental role in making sure we took that step forwards. To ignore the importance of all-women shortlists or the difference they make is to ignore the progress we often talk about in Parliament. It should not be ignored.

There has been a lot of talk about women in power. It is not just about women being in power; it is about women in power empowering other women. That is vital. We talk about the ladder of success. I like to think that when women are on that ladder, we lay the foundations for an escalator. If we are on that escalator of success, we lay the foundations for a lift, so that we make the journey of the woman coming behind us faster, smoother and easier, and we celebrate that fact. The fact that 86% of the cuts that our Prime Minister has presided over have affected women is a real disappointment for a woman in power.

Labour is seeking gender equality by 2020 or whenever the next general election is. It might be next year—who knows? The last general election was called quite quickly, so we did not have time to enforce all-women shortlists, but even then, the Labour party still achieved 45% of its Members being women. Of the 262 MPs, 119 are female. Labour has more female MPs than all the other political parties added together. That is something to celebrate and talk about. We cannot have this debate without acknowledging how far the Labour party has come.

In regard to black, Asian and minority ethnic representation, 32 out of the 52 are Labour MPs. Again, the fact that that journey has come about is fundamental to who we are as a party in regard to equality, but there is also a thought process and the measures that we have put in place.

[Mrs Miller]

The hon. Lady says that this is fundamental to what her party is about. It has had all-women shortlists for 20 years, yet her hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Jess Phillips) advocates—as my report advocates—that we should perhaps look at extending all-women shortlists, because, as her hon. Friend tells me, the Labour party is still finding it difficult to get women elected to mayoralties and as police and crime commissioners. Why has that not caused a culture change in the hon. Lady’s party if she says that it is part of its culture in the first place?

[Dawn Butler]

It is a fact that we have two police and crime commissioners who are women in the Labour party. We could do better in regard to elected Mayors, but the need to do better does not negate the fact that we are doing better than the Conservative party, the Lib Dems or any other party. I concede that we need to do better, can do better and must do better, but that does not in any way negate what we have done or mean that we should not celebrate the fact that the Labour party has done so well. As much as that might grate, it is a fact.

The game changer was all-women shortlists. What I often hear, especially from the Conservative party, is, “We want the best person for the job,” or, “We want the best man for the job.” Sometimes the best man for the job is a woman. The best person could be a woman. I find quite irritating the assumption that a woman getting the job is not the best person for the role.

On the whole, I commend the report. It insists that the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority conduct an equality impact assessment, which I think is fundamentally important. I hope the Minister will talk about equality impact assessments and how important they are for analysing what happens and who is affected. I hope that the Government will take equality impact assessments on board in all their policies because, at the end of the day, all the women who are in this place stand on the shoulders of other women who fought really hard, who died and who shed blood, sweat and tears—literally. It is important that we ensure that whatever we produce from this House emboldens and empowers society as a whole, but in particular women.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs Miller]

It is wonderful to see you in the Chair this afternoon, Mr Robertson. I thank everyone who has taken the opportunity to come and contribute to the debate, and particularly the Minister for giving such a positive response. It is heartening to hear that my right hon. Friend the Minister for Women is undertaking an evidence review. We will all welcome that, and we will welcome her involvement, and that of the Minister, in finding a way forward. It is not a choice; it is a necessity. We need better gender representation and diversity in Parliament. It is the responsibility of us all, and such debates help to move the issue forward. I assure all the Members present for the debate that the Women and Equalities Committee will continue to look at the issue in detail.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the Fifth Report of the Women and Equalities Committee, Women in the House of Commons after the 2020 election, Session 2016-17, HC 630, and the Government Response, Cm 9492.

Race Disparity Audit

Maria Miller Excerpts

Tuesday 10th October 2017 Commons Chamber

[Damian Green]

I am puzzled by the disparity between the Labour party’s response to the audit and that of the stakeholders who actually work in the sector. I came to the House today from a roundtable at No. 10 that was chaired by the Prime Minister and attended by about 12 of the principal non-governmental organisations that have worked for many years to improve the lives of ethnic minority people in this country. They are universally positive about this, unlike the Labour party—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Brent Central (Dawn Butler) says that was not what they told her, but I have quotations from them here. Simon Woolley of Operation Black Vote has said:

“The findings from the Race Disparity Audit present us with a real opportunity to make transformative change in tackling persistent race inequality”—

[Hon. Members: “What are the Government going to do?”] He actually went on to say:

“Yes, some findings make uncomfortable reading, but unless these things are laid bare we can’t begin to resolve them.”

After 13 years of a Labour Government trying to hide the facts, we now have a Government who are ready to expose them and to do something about them.

Jeremy Crook of the Black Training and Enterprise Group—apparently it has also been ignored by the Labour party—says:

“The data can support local communities to have conversations with local public bodies about ensuring that no ethnic group gets left behind in education or health or any other area of public life.”

The people who actually know what they are talking about welcome the audit, and welcome what the Government are doing. The people who do not are members of the Labour party who live in their own world.

The hon. Member for Brent Central appeared to take the general view that in all areas problems for people from ethnic minorities were getting worse. I appreciate that the website has been live for only about an hour, so she will not yet have had time to investigate all 130 datasets, but when she does, she will find a point that is much more nuanced than those that she has made. There are some problems, and some things are getting worse, but some things are getting better. The difference between the general employment rate and the rate among all ethnic minorities decreased from 15 to 10 percentage points between 2004 and 2016. Since 2004, employment rates have increased among all ethnic groups. The inactivity rate among Pakistani and Bangladeshi people, who have often had the worst unemployment rates, has fallen by 10%—[Interruption.]

I would hope that Labour Members, rather than laughing from the Front Bench, might welcome the fact that some of our most disadvantaged communities are doing better than they ever have before in this country. The Labour party seems to think that that is something to laugh about.

The hon. Lady referred to universities and tuition fees. I remind her that more disadvantaged people are applying for university places and going to university than ever before, and more people from black and minority ethnic communities are applying than ever before. Labour Members have a view of the world in which people are permanent victims, but that is not what this audit shows. Their lack of transparency, and their lack of ability to welcome a step by the Government that is welcomed by all experts in the field, reflects very badly on their party.

[Mrs Maria Miller (Basingstoke) (Con)]

I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement, and the Prime Minister for her commitment to tackling the injustice that is race discrimination. When will the Government bring forward plans across Government to ensure that it is clear what every single Department is doing to tackle these inequities, and particularly to separate economic disadvantage from race discrimination, because at the moment the figures blur together?

[Damian Green]

My right hon. Friend makes a good point, because we of course need to determine the real causes of disadvantage, as I have said. Sometimes they are based on ethnicity, and sometimes on other factors. That is precisely why, in addition to the individual measures that I have announced today for three Government Departments, other Departments will be making policy proposals in the months and years ahead to address the various disadvantages, and they can now, for the first time, be based on publicly available facts and figures. That is the great advantage of the step forward that we have taken today, because we now have transparency. We will have much better evidence to ensure that the policies we bring forward to tackle disadvantage will be effective.

UK Elections: Abuse and Intimidation

Maria Miller Excerpts

Wednesday 12th July 2017 Westminster Hall

[Simon Hart]

I absolutely recognise that point, and I will come to it later in my speech. There will be individual contributions from Members who might have had particular experiences that defy that challenge, but I agree with the hon. Lady, and I am grateful to her for making that point so early in proceedings.

[Mrs Maria Miller (Basingstoke) (Con)]

I thank my hon. Friend for giving way so early in his speech, and I congratulate him on securing the debate. While I understand why he has brought forward a debate with particular regard to general elections, does he not agree with me that the recent research done by BBC Radio 5 Live—it found that half of British female MPs have been threatened with physical abuse, nine out of 10 have been abused online and 80% have been verbally abused—shows that the issue is not restricted to election time?

[Simon Hart]

I thank my right hon. Friend for her timely contribution. One thing that has struck me—I know it has struck people in our Whips Office, too—is that when I started uncovering this topic, I found out about stuff that I simply did not think existed. I have been astonished by the quantity of evidence I have received from all sides. As she said, I had assumed that the issue might just be around election times, when we are perhaps a higher profile community, but it is not. Actually, it seems to be going on all the time, and a number of colleagues are suffering in silence. I hope that they do not have to suffer in silence.

I mentioned swastikas on election boards, offensive slogans and language on posters, but there have also been scratched cars, broken windows and posters of the bleeding heads of some of our political leaders on stakes at marches and demos. There has even been the occasional police officer or teacher joining the overall fray. That is not the rule, but it is occasionally the exception.

Retailers and hoteliers have felt that they cannot support a candidate publicly or make a donation to the party or candidate of their choice, because they are worried that they might be attacked on online review sites or, even worse, in person. There are elderly voters who will not put up a sign in their windows. There are volunteers who worry about handing out leaflets and having abuse hurled at them. There are colleagues whose sexuality or religion has resulted in them being spat at—not once, but regularly. We will hear more on that later in the debate. These people form the core of democracy and our election effort, yet they are being steadily put off getting involved in politics at a time when their contribution has never been more important.

Of course, the abuse is online, too, and we will probably spend quite a bit of the debate talking about that. For Government Members—I am sure it is similar for colleagues in other parties— #toryscum is a regular feature of our lives, and that is just the bit I can repeat in the Chamber. I chose my words carefully. I do not know how many colleagues have read the report from BCS—the Chartered Institute for IT—and Demos. It contained a survey showing that over a three-month period MPs received 188,000 abusive tweets. That is one in 20 tweets received by MPs.

--- Later in debate ---

[Cat Smith (Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hanson. I thank the hon. Member for Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire (Simon Hart) for bringing this important debate to the House. It is clearly one in which every Member has some interest, because I doubt that any Member or anyone who stood for election to the House has not faced some level of abuse. I also thank the other Members who took part in the debate. I am keen to hear more detail about the examples they raised of abuse that was done in the name of my party, and I am happy to take up those cases.

I am aware that many Members did not take part in the debate because they do not want to give oxygen or attention to the people who abuse them. For the same reason, I do not want to go into the details of the abuse that I have received while I have been in the public eye over the past couple of years, but I stress that such abuse has no place in our democracy. If we are truly to be a country with free and fair elections, everyone must feel able to stand as a candidate, or to support a candidate or a political party, without fear.

A lot has been said about us as politicians, but I stress that this issue is also about people who purport to support a political party. My hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness (John Woodcock) told me that supporters of his who put “Vote Labour” posters in their windows were subjected to hate mail, which, owing to its content, is currently being investigated seriously by the police. That is alarming.

This is of course not just an issue for one political party; it happens across the political spectrum. I think that this issue was first brought before the House at the first Prime Minister’s Question Time of this Session, when the hon. Member for South East Cornwall (Mrs Murray) spoke about the abuse that she had received during the election. That, too, is abhorrent. This is an issue for all political parties.

Abuse is also an issue both during and outside election campaigns. While we serve as Members in this House, we are afforded some level of security. Since the murder of Jo Cox, the importance of that security has been brought very much to our attention. That incident reminds us how serious this issue can be. Online abuse does not happen in a vacuum; when someone can go online and tweet abuse or put up a Facebook message saying that they want to “put a bullet between his ears”—that is a comment that I reported to Facebook, which said it did not breach its terms and conditions—and get away with it, it gives them the confidence to do so offline, on the streets.

I am obviously very hurt when I am the victim of abuse, but I am hurt far more when members of my staff are abused in the street. Occasionally, they are even mistaken for me, which makes me feel terribly guilty. This issue is about the protection not just of politicians but of their families and colleagues.

[Mrs Miller]

I am sorry for interrupting the hon. Lady, but does she not think that the leadership of our parties must set the right tone? If they do not, people will follow that example. Surely she agrees.

[Cat Smith]

The right hon. Lady pre-empts the movement of my speech towards exactly that point. It is important that political parties and political leaders have a way in which they can address this issue. The Labour party has a social media policy and a code of conduct, which we expect our members to abide by. Where we find examples of members not doing so, we do not hesitate to remove them as members. When they join the party, our members pledge that they will not use any form of abuse; if they do, they risk losing their membership. In fact, in 2016, the Leader of the Opposition, my right hon. Friend the Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn), tweeted to say that such abuse was not acceptable, and he reiterated that in the “Question Time” debates during the general election campaign.