International Health Regulations 2005

Debate between Maria Miller and Cat Smith

Monday 18th December 2023 Westminster Hall

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

I beg to move,

That this House has considered e-petition 635904, relating to the International Health Regulations 2005.

In March 2021, a group of world leaders including the then UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson announced an initiative for a new treaty on pandemic preparedness and response. The initiative was taken to the World Health Organisation and will be negotiated, drafted and debated by a newly established, intergovernmental negotiation body. This is the second time that the Petitions Committee has scheduled this issue for debate. In April this year, a petition that called for the Government to

“commit to not signing any international treaty on pandemic prevention and preparedness established by the World Health Organization (WHO), unless this is approved through a public referendum”

was debated after it reached the threshold of 156,086 signatures. Today’s e-petition calls on Parliament to

“Hold a parliamentary vote on whether to reject amendments to the IHR 2005”.

The Government have responded to the petition, explaining that the UK supports strengthening the IHR and the amendment process.

Having met the petitioner, I know that she would like the Minister to address the concerns of the petitioners in his response, specifically which amendments, if accepted, would require changes to UK domestic legislation; who represents the UK; if the information will be publicly available; the Government’s position on the amendments that change language in the regulations from “may” to “shall”; and if the UK will vote against those changes. What is the UK’s position on whether the regulations should be binding or non-binding, and has it proposed any amendments? I hope that the Minister will be able to address those issues in his remarks when we get to that stage of the debate.

In the March 2021 joint article, the group of leaders said:

“The main goal of this treaty would be to foster an all of government and all of society approach, strengthening national, regional and global capacities and resilience to future pandemics. This includes greatly enhancing international co-operation to improve, for example, alert systems, data-sharing, research and local, regional and global production and distribution of medical and public health counter-measures such as vaccines, medicines, diagnostics and personal protective equipment.”

Given the weekend news coverage of the fallout from some of the challenges faced in the procurement of PPE, it is perhaps timely that we debate the petition today. When the next pandemic happens, I hope that any future Government will have learned the lessons from the past.

On specific questions of UK sovereignty and amendments relating to restrictive measures, the UK Government have explained in their response to the petition that

“we have been clear that the UK will not sign up to any IHR amendments that would compromise the UK’s ability to take domestic decisions on national public health measures. There are currently no plans to hold a vote on IHR amendments. Should the UK Government wish to accept an IHR amendment, then depending on the content of the respective IHR amendment, changes to domestic law considered necessary or appropriate to reflect obligations under the IHR amendment, may be required. The Government would prepare such draft legislation before Parliament in the usual way. In all circumstances, the sovereignty of the UK Parliament would remain unchanged, and the UK would remain in control of any future domestic decisions about national public health measures.”

Finally, I take the opportunity to thank all our healthcare workers who worked through the pandemic. As we go into the Christmas period, many of them will be working while we are enjoying turkey dinners with our families, so I pay tribute to their commitment and to all others who work in our healthcare systems. The pandemic affected us all differently, and I hope that in this season of good will we are mindful of all those who are more vulnerable than ourselves. With that, and on behalf of the Petitions Committee, I thank all members of the public who have engaged with e-petitions, including this one in 2023. I look forward to hearing the well-informed contributions of hon. Members.

[Dame Maria Miller (in the Chair)]

Before I call the first speaker, I remind Members that if they wish to contribute, they should bob. I remind those sitting in the Public Gallery that there should be no applause and no photographs at any time.

Dissolution and Calling of Parliament Bill

Debate between Maria Miller and Cat Smith

Committee stage & 3rd reading
Monday 13th September 2021 Commons Chamber

[Cat Smith]

I agree with the heckling from my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda. I think the right hon. Member for Elmet and Rothwell (Alec Shelbrooke) is quite wrong and that the public are watching the debate with deep fascination. He underestimates the passion for constitutional legislation in this place. The point is that the new clause would remove the possibility of the courts being involved, and I think there is consensus across the Committee that that would be desirable. It strikes me that new clause 2 would be the most straightforward and easy way to do that. Of course, we know fine well that if the Government of the day can carry the House—in most cases, they can—there would be no issue in having a Dissolution. It would also avoid dragging the monarch into politics and remove the governing party’s electoral advantage. The new clause therefore strengthens the Bill, so I support it.

I turn to amendments 1 to 3 and new clause 1 on the length of an election campaign. It is impossible to look at the Bill without considering how it would move us to a position in which pretty much all elections will be unscheduled. I say “unscheduled” rather than “snap” because I recognise that an election period is very long; it certainly does not feel very snappy for candidates, voters or anyone campaigning. Unscheduled elections cause a problem for our electoral administrators. From having spoken to many of them and heard representations from the Electoral Commission and the Association of Electoral Administrators, it is clear that many close misses happen on the timetable, and a reduction of the timetable alongside the Bill, which could lead to more unscheduled elections, risks the public’s confidence in our democratic elections. For that reason, although it would be desirable to have shorter elections, I cannot support those amendments.

The Bill is not in a vacuum—we also have the Elections Bill and the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill before the House—and taken together, it is clearly part of a political power grab with a movement of power away from Parliament. It is a movement away from 650 Members to the hands of one man or woman who is Prime Minister, who will decide when the starting gun will be fired on an election. The Bill is, frankly, an overreaction to and misunderstanding of the causes of the gridlock in the 2019 Parliament. The principle of fixed terms is not wrong, although the Fixed-term Parliaments Act was clearly flawed. Prorogation should be in the hands of Parliament, not the Executive.

[Mrs Miller]

I rise to speak in particular to new clause 1 in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Mr Goodwill), my hon. Friends the Members for North West Cambridgeshire (Shailesh Vara), for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Aaron Bell), for Thurrock (Jackie Doyle-Price) and for Calder Valley (Craig Whittaker) and a number of others. It is well supported. As the Minister set out, this is an important Bill. I had the privilege of serving on the Joint Committee on the Fixed-Term Parliaments Act, where we heard the most extraordinary body of evidence about the last 10 years. I must say that it was overwhelmingly in support of the Government’s direction, which should take us back to the status quo ante position so eloquently outlined by the Minister. However, the evidence sessions also revealed a number of gaps—things that the Bill might do but does not—particularly on general campaigns and their lengths.

The Minister talked about the importance of a clear and easily understood scheme, and I completely agree. Elections are incredibly important parts of our democratic process—the pillar of the process in many ways—and should be clear and easily understood. However, as I alluded to in my intervention, the length of general elections is neither clear nor easily understood, and one must dive into the mice type to find out what the rules are.

The legislation says that elections should be 25 days in length, but that is not actually what it means: it is 25 days plus high days and holidays, and in essence that means an awful lot longer.

Parliamentary Constituencies Bill

Debate between Maria Miller and Cat Smith

Consideration of Lords amendments & Ping Pong & Ping Pong: House of Commons
Tuesday 10th November 2020 Commons Chamber

[Cat Smith]

Indeed. The hon. Member is right about the butterfly effect, because of course we cannot change one parliamentary constituency without having a knock-on effect on all the neighbouring constituencies too.

The truth is that constituencies should look like communities. I thought that point was made very effectively on Second Reading by the right hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mrs Miller). I hope she does not mind if I quote what she said then:

“Constituencies should not just be numerical constructs; they should be constructed for communities first and foremost”.—[Official Report, 2 June 2020; Vol. 676, c. 804.]

I completely agree.

[Mrs Maria Miller (Basingstoke) (Con)]

Forgive me, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I was quoted. Does the hon. Lady agree, though, that a variance of up to 10,000 voters will actually give the Boundary Commission more than ample flexibility to be able to accommodate communities? The figures she was citing earlier were not, I think, entirely accurate.

[Cat Smith]

I hope that the right hon. Lady will be able to expand on that in her contribution; she is next on the call list to speak. However, I do not quite understand the point that she is trying to make, because there is always going to be a balance between—[Interruption.] If she would like to listen, there will always have to be a balance between hitting the quota and getting as close as we can to 0% from the quota—it would be desirable if every constituency had the exactly the same number of electors—while keeping communities together. I do not think that the idea of dividing a street or a housing estate arbitrarily to create exactly the same size constituency boundaries would cut the mustard with the public. The 5% rule runs a coach and horses through those community ties. It creates a kind of painting-by-numbers approach to the boundary review, and it will lead to long-established communities being split from one another and will erode local identities and divide neighbourhoods. Quite simply, we cannot have it both ways; we cannot protect local ties and enforce a strict quota.

Throughout the Bill, the Government have argued that a 5% tolerance will make every vote count equally, but I would argue that even a 0% quota would not make every vote carry the same weight. Leaving aside the fact that millions of voters are effectively disenfranchised every election owing to the existence of so-called safe seats, it is simply not true that every vote would count equally as a result of this Bill, because at any election we now know that in the region of 9 million eligible electors are incorrectly registered and are losing out on their chance to vote. Millions more will potentially join them if the Government’s plans to roll out voter ID come into force, as we have seen, similarly, in US elections.

I turn to Lords amendment 8, which was tabled by Lord Shutt, who, very sadly, died two weeks ago. He was passionately committed to improving our democracy and it is quite fitting that his last contribution was in support of this amendment. I was speaking to the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) earlier today and he told me that he was a down-to-earth, humble, funny and genuinely nice bloke. I would like to put on record the Opposition’s condolences to his family at this sad time.

Lord Shutt’s amendment would represent a significant step forward in voter registration and, hopefully, participation among young voters. As we all know, electoral registers are the fundamental building blocks for constituency boundaries. Sixteen and 17-year-olds can register as attainers head of their 18th birthday. Since the introduction of individual electoral registration, the number of 16 and 17-year-olds who have been registered has fallen from around 45% in 2015 to just 25% last year. This amendment would enable the Government to ask local authorities’ registration officers to add 16-year-olds to the electoral register when they get their national insurance number or, alternatively, ensure that 16-year-olds would be provided with information on how to apply to join the electoral register on receiving their national insurance number.

This sensible arrangement could radically improve the number of young people registering to vote, hopefully helping them to develop a habit of a lifetime of voting, and—more relevant to this legislation—mean that our constituency boundaries are representative of younger voters. The 16 and 17-year-olds that are considered when it comes to drawing constituency boundaries are likely to be the electors at a subsequent general election. For that reason alone, the Minister should give the amendment great consideration.

In conclusion, the Labour party fundamentally rejects the Government’s attempt to end the parliamentary approval of the new constituency boundaries, and we ask that Members think hard about the impact of the restrictive 5% quota. Ministers know very well exactly what needs to be done to enable greater democratic engagement, and the fact that they have consistently failed to take any action tells us all we need to know.

[Mrs Miller]

It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood (Cat Smith). We also seem to have a number of Members of the Public Bill Committee in the Chamber today. It was a vigorous and very compelling Committee and I am sure that the debate today will follow that.

Parliamentary Constituencies Bill

Debate between Maria Miller and Cat Smith

Report stage & 3rd reading & 3rd reading: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Tuesday 14th July 2020 Commons Chamber

[Cat Smith]

My right hon. Friend made some thoughtful and interesting contributions in Committee and continues to do so on Report. The points he raised are entirely correct. The Government would do away with Parliament’s role in the process—a role that Parliament has always had. In short, the Bill removes the power from Parliament and hands it to the Executive. The Government’s justification for the change simply does not stack up. The Minister says that her Government are removing Parliament from the process to prevent delay and interference from MPs, but according to Professor Sir John Curtice—and who are we to challenge him?—delay and interference by the Executive will still be “perfectly possible”.

[Mrs Maria Miller (Basingstoke) (Con)]

I apologise for interrupting the shadow Minister’s train of thought, but she keeps repeating this “fact”, which is not a fact at all. The Bill actually takes away power from the Executive; it does not give the Executive more power, because it removes the reserve powers of Government to amend the boundaries. The hon. Lady needs to set the record straight; otherwise, she risks misinterpreting the Bill for a wider audience.

[Cat Smith]

I thank the right hon. Lady for her intervention, but I am afraid that I quite simply disagree. This Bill takes power away from the whole of Parliament and hands it to the Executive. After all, they are the ones who can table primary legislation and choose to bring forward or not to bring forward the report for a vote. The power has been in their hands, which is why we are in the mess that we are in today with boundaries that are 20 years out of date, and looking to be a quarter of a century out of date by the next election if we do not make progress with this Bill.

In her speech on Second Reading, the Minister stated that the removal of parliamentary oversight and approval would quicken the process, thereby avoiding wasting public time and money. If she is so concerned about wasting public time and money, why did she allow the commissioners to carry on with their sixth periodic review and then not bring it to Parliament for a vote?

New clause 1, which stands in my name and in the name of the Leader of the Opposition, is a pragmatic and constructive amendment. I very much hope that Members will consider supporting it. It seeks to alleviate the inevitable break-up of communities resulting from the too narrow 5% quota. While the commissioners should always aim to hit electoral quota, in some particularly challenging cases this new clause would allow them to have a greater flexibility of 7.5%. This 5% variance from electoral quota was first introduced at the sixth periodic review, and it was introduced alongside reducing the number of constituencies to 600. That is important because, at 600 constituencies, a 5% variance is approximately 4,000 electors either side of quota, but at 650 constituencies, which is what we have before us today, a 5% variance narrows and is approximately just 3,500 electors either side of quota, making it even more difficult to keep wards whole and communities together. The 5% variance needs to be adjusted in line with the number of constituencies. When we consider that the average urban ward in England is around 8,000 electors, we can appreciate the significance of needing at least 4,000 electors either side of quota to prevent the breaking up of wards and communities.

Parliamentary Constituencies Bill (Seventh sitting)

Debate between Maria Miller and Cat Smith

Committee stage & Committee Debate: 7th sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 30th June 2020 Public Bill Committees

[Mrs Maria Miller (Basingstoke) (Con)]

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship again, Mr Paisley, in a much cooler room.

I commend the hon. Member for Ceredigion on his amendment. He has made an extremely strong case for the importance of recognising language. I know how important the Welsh language is. I was brought up in south Wales, albeit not west Wales, and we all have views on the parts of Wales we know and love well. Now, more than when I was at school, Welsh is a living language. I commend everybody who has made that possible.

Within the rules that are already set out in schedule 2 to the Parliamentary Constituencies Act 1986, “local ties” can take account of language. Indeed, in the hon. Gentleman’s own advocacy for his amendment, he set out clearly that the boundary commission is already receptive to arguments made with regard to the Welsh language and it has already been shown that Welsh can be taken into account in the local ties.

The reason I have chosen to speak to this amendment is that I want to share with the Committee a way that we might think about this. There are lots of different ties that can be called local ties, including language. My concern about specifying language on the face of the Bill would be the impact that that might inadvertently have on other local ties. By having language on the face of the Bill, it might imply that other local ties that are not specified in that way may not be taken into account, or not be treated as well as they might have been in the past.

I understand the hon. Gentleman’s argument and why he wants to put it forward, but my concern is that that might inadvertently affect the way the boundary commission views other local ties. I hope that the Minister, while listening to the point, will see that the Government should not accept the amendment at this point.

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Paisley. I rise to support the arguments made by the hon. Member for Ceredigion about the ties that are the Welsh language. I do not think it is possible to overstate the fact that the Welsh language is a cornerstone of Welsh identity. Although in the past we have seen a decline in the Welsh language, that is now reversing with the Welsh Government’s target of 1 million Welsh speakers by 2050. The hon. Gentleman’s arguments may one day become quite irrelevant if Wales is entirely full of Welsh speakers.

We have previously referred to the Council of Europe’s Venice commission, which recommends that boundaries be drawn

“without detriment to national minorities”.

Welsh language speakers are a national minority who require protection within this legislation. Welsh language ties are an important part of identity, and I would like the Minister to provide some clarity about the use of the Welsh language as a factor in the commission’s decisions. Language is an indicator of local ties. Although I do not speak Welsh myself—dwi ddim yn gallu siarad Cymraeg—and my life is probably all the poorer for it, I recognise the importance of the Welsh language to the Welsh identity, as does the Labour party. I therefore congratulate the hon. Member for Ceredigion on having tabled this amendment.

Parliamentary Constituencies Bill (Sixth sitting)

Debate between Maria Miller and Cat Smith

Committee stage & Committee Debate: 6th sitting: House of Commons
Thursday 25th June 2020 Public Bill Committees

[Cat Smith]

To speak to new clause 9—

[Mrs Miller]

On a point of order, Sir David. I apologise for interrupting the shadow Minister. Can you clarify whether you are taking clause 6 stand part as part of this group? I am a little confused. I thought that we were discussing amendments 8 and 9. Are we doing the stand part debate as well?

UK Elections: Abuse and Intimidation

Debate between Maria Miller and Cat Smith

Wednesday 12th July 2017 Westminster Hall

[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.

Women in the House of Commons

Debate between Maria Miller and Cat Smith

Thursday 12th January 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Maria Miller (Basingstoke) (Con)]

I thank the Backbench Business Committee for the opportunity to make a statement to the House on the fifth report of the Women and Equalities Committee on women in the House of Commons after the next general election, in 2020. The successful preparation of all our reports depends on the hard work of the Committee’s Clerks and staff, the diligence of hon. Members who make up our Committee—I am glad to see my hon. Friends the Members for Portsmouth South (Mrs Drummond) and for Bath (Ben Howlett) in the Chamber—and the generosity of our witnesses, who give up their time to prepare for and take part in our sessions. I particularly thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire Dales (Sir Patrick McLoughlin), the right hon. Members for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) and for Moray (Angus Robertson), and the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron), all of whom enthusiastically shared their views with the Committee and told us about the work of their respective parties.

If, 100 years ago, the suffragettes who fought for women’s rights—for our right to be elected and to sit in this place—had been told that just 455 women would be elected to this place over the next 10 decades, I am not sure whether they would have laughed or cried. I think they would be proud of the fact that the United Kingdom has had two female Prime Ministers, but the fact is that there are as many men sitting in this place today as there have ever been women elected to be Members of Parliament.

At the moment, we have 195 women MPs and 455 men. I am yet to see any evidence to suggest that women are less qualified than men to represent their communities, or that women do not want the opportunity to be a Member of Parliament and to improve the lives of those who live in their community. Therefore, this startling imbalance should cause us all a great deal of concern. At best we are failing to reach out; at worst the parties, which are, for the most part, responsible for selecting candidates, are failing in their duty. The Committee’s report provides an evidence-based set of recommendations to change that, to help to ensure that Britain does not slip further down the global rankings for female parliamentary participation, to promote a more representative Parliament and to make this place stronger.

Our report has consciously focused on female representation, but our recommendations should, we feel, also open up discussions about how to secure improved diversity in other areas so that we have a Parliament with more black and minority ethnic representation and more disabled members. All that will help to ensure that the debates that we have and the laws that we make are better. Of course, the report builds on significant work that has already been done on representation in Parliament, such as the 2010 report of the Speaker’s Conference on parliamentary representation —convened by you, Mr Speaker—and the comprehensive work done by Professor Sarah Childs, who produced “The Good Parliament”.

The trigger for the Committee’s new report was the Boundary Commission’s initial proposals about reducing the size of Parliament to 600 constituencies. There is no reason why that process should adversely impact women or any particular group, but the proposals mean that the seats of more than 20 women MPs would, to all intents and purposes, disappear. If political parties do not take action, it could mean that there is a smaller proportion of women MPs after the next general election.

The Committee’s recommendations are for the Government, political parties and, indeed, Parliament, because we all have to take responsibility. The first of our key recommendations is for more transparency from parties about the work that they are doing to improve candidate selection. We feel that the Government should immediately bring into force the statutory requirement for political parties to publish their parliamentary candidate diversity data for general elections, as set out in section 106 of the Equality Act 2010, so that we can properly scrutinise parties’ records of selecting a diverse slate of parliamentary candidates.

Secondly, we recommend that the Government should seek to introduce in legislation in this Parliament a statutory minimum proportion of female parliamentary candidates in general elections for each political party. We have proposed a minimum of 45% of women. This measure would be brought into force only if the number and proportion of women MPs failed to increase significantly after the next general election.

Thirdly, we have set out in our recommendations a domestic target of 45% for the representation of women in Parliament and local government by 2030. That is to inform the work being done by the Office for National Statistics to establish domestic indicators for the UN sustainable development goals—particularly goal 5, an indicator for which my right hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Justine Greening) and David Cameron fought hard when these goals, which apply to the UK as well as to other members of the UN, were established. To make progress, the measures need to have teeth, so the Committee has recommended the extension of the Electoral Commission’s remit to introduce fines for non-compliance.

In our evidence sessions with the chairman and leaders of the political parties, it was evident that there is enormous support for a more representative Parliament. Indeed, each of them agreed that Parliament would be a better place if 50% of MPs were women. However, we need to turn those warm sentiments into bums on seats—I hope that that is not unparliamentary language. The parties lack clear and comprehensive plans to turn those important warm words into clear action.

This Parliament is the mother of all Parliaments, but at the moment, on our watch, we are letting ourselves down on the global stage. Since 1999, Britain has fallen from 25th to 48th in the world for female representation. Parliament should have a clear aspiration to be the global leader for female representation and diversity more generally. The recommendations in the report can help us to achieve that.

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

I thank the right hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mrs Miller) and the Women and Equalities Committee for this important report. The Labour party is committed to increasing the representation of women in Parliament and at every level of politics. As the report recognises, more than half of women Members of Parliament are Labour Members—women make up 43.7% of the parliamentary Labour party. Much of that is to do with Labour’s commitment to all-women shortlists. Does the right hon. Lady think that other parties should introduce all-women shortlists for their parliamentary selections? Does she agree that parties that are not already taking direct positive action to tackle the under-representation of women in Parliament should do so as a matter of urgency?

[Mrs Miller]

The parties should look at the evidence of what works. Our report clearly states that there is a body of evidence that parties can look at. It is not for a Select Committee to dictate to parliamentary parties how they run their selection procedures. That is for them, but they should also consider the evidence.