International Men’s Day

Philip Davies Excerpts

Tuesday 14th November 2017 Westminster Hall

[Jeremy Lefroy]

I absolutely agree. I will read all six of the Samaritans’ recommendations, because they are so important. The first is to recognise and take on gender and socioeconomic inequalities in suicide risk—to follow the evidence, not the preconceptions. The second is to ensure that suicide prevention policy and practice takes account of men’s beliefs and concerns, and the context of what it is to be a man. The third is to recognise that loneliness is, for men in mid-life, a significant cause of their high risk of suicide, and to enable them to strengthen their social relationships—frankly, women are usually better at doing that than men. The fourth is to ensure explicit links between alcohol reduction and suicide prevention strategies, because often the two are taken apart when they should be much more closely linked. The fifth is to support GPs to recognise the signs of distress in men and ensure that those from deprived backgrounds receive a range of support, not just medication—it seems that men from poorer backgrounds are often given much more medication than counselling and other support. Finally, and very importantly, the sixth recommendation is to provide leadership and accountability at local level, and I congratulate councils who are taking this seriously up and down the country.

I would like to hear from my right hon. Friend the Minister on how he believes we can all work together to tackle suicide in all people, and particularly the tragically high rate of male suicide. I have not gone into great detail on some of the excellent initiatives, whether sports initiatives or peer communicators, which perhaps others or the Minister will refer to, but it would be good to hear more about that.

I turn to the access rights of fathers and children. One of the saddest things I have to confront, on an almost weekly basis, in my surgeries, as I am sure all colleagues have, is the fallout from partnerships and marriages that have gone wrong. The problem is almost inevitably one of two: either a father is neglecting his responsibilities to contribute to the maintenance of his children, or father and children are denied access to each other. The causes are complex, especially in cases of the latter, and I am no expert. However, I have no doubt that, in some I have seen, there has been a deliberate attempt to use all means possible to prevent the father from seeing a child or children, just as I have seen cases in which fathers have used all means possible to avoid their responsibilities to contribute to child maintenance.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

My hon. Friend is touching on an important issue. Is he aware of the growing number of examples of parental alienation, in which one parent deliberately turns children against the other parent in order to stop access, even when people are contributing to their children’s upbringing?

[Jeremy Lefroy]

Sadly, yes. I have seen that on several occasions, and I remember one in particular in a surgery a few years ago that was just devastating; a father had lost access to all four of his children. It was very sad indeed. As I say, we need to be balanced in the debate, because there are many cases of fathers who have totally neglected their responsibilities. Both issues have to be addressed.

We must be more determined to stop people ignoring or playing around with agreements or court rulings. Such actions deny parents and children the financial support they need or the access to each other that is so critical to the development of both parents and children. I know this is a difficult area. When families have to resort to law, there is already great sadness, but when they do so, the law needs to uphold the rights and demand the responsibilities of all involved. I understand that a Green Paper on family justice will be published in the coming months and I hope that that will tackle these issues.

I turn briefly to education, on which I am sure others will speak. There is so much more for boys and men to achieve in education. In 2017, the average attainment 8 score for boys in state-funded schools was 43.4, compared with 48.7 for girls—the equivalent of about half a grade lower per subject. Only 39% of boys achieved the highest grades in both English and Maths—grades 9 to 5 in the new system—compared with 45% of girls. When it comes to higher education, the Higher Education Policy Institute published a report that identified higher drop-out rates and lower degree performance for males. However, there were other indicators where males were doing better, so the picture in higher education is not clear cut.

There are no straightforward answers to the discrepancies, as I am sure the Minister, who probably has more experience in this area than anyone in the Chamber, will appreciate. The best answer is to seek to improve attainment for all children—all students, whether male or female—but we cannot ignore the discrepancy. I would like to hear the Minister’s analysis and his proposals to address it. Technical education and investment in that area is incredibly important. It is lacking at the moment, and we need to do more in that area. There is no doubt that technical education is often more attractive to boys than some of the education that they are given and expected to complete. I know that the Government are looking at that area, but we need to take it much more seriously.

We also need to encourage more men into the teaching profession, just as we need to encourage more women into engineering. In England, 26.2% of teachers are male: 15.2% in primary and 37.6% in secondary. I spoke earlier about role models, and teaching is just about the best profession in which to be a role model. What is being done to ensure that the fine profession of teaching is introduced as a great career option to all students?

There are so many other areas we could touch on, such as rough sleepers, of whom 88% were men in 2016, and domestic abuse, which is particularly horrible for women, but can affect men as well, which is sometimes forgotten.

We have just concluded the poignant remembrance season, which brings me to a cause for great thankfulness. On Sunday, in Stafford I saw the hundreds of names of men and boys on the war memorial as I stood waiting to lay a wreath. That is not happening to our men and boys at the moment. Later, I joined the Penkridge Anglo-German Remembrance Day Association for its service at the main German military cemetery in my constituency, in a beautiful wooded vale on Cannock Chase. More than 5,000 German men—basically boys as well—lie in peace there. Finally, I went to Colwich parish church, where the names of all the men—and, again, boys, as some of them were boys—from that village and Great and Little Haywood who died in the wars of the 20th century were read out by the lychgate; sometimes two from the same family.

I and my generation, and my children’s generation, have not had to experience the horrors of a world war. That is a huge advantage. We pay tribute to the great professionals—men and women—in our armed services, who keep us safe at great personal risk. Most of us, unlike our fathers and grandfathers, have not had to spend years of our lives fighting. That gives us an opportunity and responsibility to contribute positively to our families and communities, to work for peace, to look out for the interests and welfare of others and help to build a better world. I have pointed out many areas in which we can all work together to improve the life chances, health and wellbeing of men and boys, but we can also be thankful for how much life has improved for most of us in the past 100 years and ensure that those improvements are within the reach of all.

--- Later in debate ---

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Austin. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy) on securing the debate, and other hon. Members on participating in it. Like the hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire (Jo Swinson), I too hope that next year we will see the debate restored to its rightful place in the main Chamber, where there is more time to cover some of these important issues.

It is fair to say that I am often pilloried for arguing that men and women should be treated equally. I do not see that there is anything particularly controversial in that, but it never ceases to amaze me how often I am accused of being a misogynist, sexist, or some other term of abuse, merely for saying that men and women should be treated equally before the law. That is a principle I was brought up with as a child and maintain today. What seems to have happened is that in many cases, militant feminists have tried to close down any talk about men and women being treated equally. To try to close down the debate, they hurl abuse at the people who raise these issues, in the hope that people will not listen any more to what they say, that they will stop saying those things and that other people will be deterred from standing up and saying those things.

The people who do that to me clearly to not know me, because I am certainly not going to be bullied or intimidated in that way. I am delighted that other people are finding the courage to raise issues that affect men too. I do not think that anything I have ever said should be seen as controversial in a normal world, but somehow saying that men and women should be treated equally seems to be controversial.

We have had some successes. A few years ago, I said that men were being treated more harshly in the criminal justice system than women were. It is worth reiterating that at the time, the exact opposite was being said in this Chamber. In a Westminster Hall debate that I held once, it was asserted that it was the other way round, and even Ministers claimed that. I am delighted to say that that is one battle that has been won, and now people accept that men are treated more harshly in the criminal justice system than women. Even the research carried out in the course of the Lammy review concluded:

“Males were independently associated with approximately 83% higher odds of being sentenced to imprisonment, compared to females.”

We can have victories for common sense; we just need some more. Men are increasingly getting a bad press, and it needs to be challenged. It seems bizarre to me that those who apparently fight discrimination, injustices and stereotypes are often quite happy to perpetuate all those things against men.

In thinking about International Men’s Day, let us remind ourselves that there are men who are victims of unequal pay, discrimination and harassment. We would not think so when we see all the headlines about equal pay gaps, which only mention women. They do not mention male part-time workers who are paid less than their female counterparts. For various reasons, in my view, the overall pay gap is not a result of widespread discrimination, but if they say it is, surely they should be equally outraged about the pay gap in part-time pay, where men are the losers. Surely the logic is that those men must be the victims of discrimination too, although that is unlikely to happen, because it seems that in the eyes of some people only men can be sexist.

There are also certainly men who are victims of domestic violence. Men are far more likely to be victims of violence generally. Men are victims of sexual assaults and rapes. Men are victims of stalking and controlling behaviour. Men are victims of so-called honour-based violence too; yet we would not necessarily think it if we were to pick up a paper, see the news, or hear about strategies for only tackling violence against women and girls. Every single victim of a crime is important, and preventing those crimes against anyone, male or female, should be a priority. The focus solely on women and girls is serious. To give one example of how dangerous it can be, a serious case review led to Bradford Council and the police apologising for letting down a 14-year-old boy who was groomed by dozens of men. Phil Mitchell of the BLAST Project in Bradford said:

“I think the fact he was a boy was an issue. If the police had got a call that a girl was planning to sleep with an older man then I think officers would have responded with more urgency.”

People, not least the leader of the Women’s Equality party, have said that I am a proponent of the idea that we achieve equality by treating everyone the same. If that is supposed to be a criticism, I am stumped, and I will certainly plead guilty to it.

[Jo Swinson]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Philip Davies]

I will not, because other people want to speak and I know that time is at a premium. I am coming to a close.

Why should male and female murderers not be treated the same? What possible justification could there be for treating them differently just because of their sex? Those who think the sexes should be treated differently in the eyes of the law are the ones who are truly sexist. They are the ones with the problem. Men and women are different, but that is perfectly compatible with their rightly being treated the same in the eyes of the law. Some people have said that every day is men’s day, but if anyone looks at the facts, that is certainly not the case. I would rather, as I have said before, that there was no need for an International Women’s Day or an International Men’s Day, and that men and women happily co-existed without tension or people stirring up issues with their own agendas. I hope that this year International Men’s Day provides an opportunity to focus on the negative stereotypical portrayal of men and the unjustifiable attacks on those who do not support the politically correct, militant feminist approach to things. I hope men and women can agree that that is not right, and join forces to ensure that the minority trying to do such damage do not succeed.

Oral Answers to Questions

Philip Davies Excerpts

Monday 6th November 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Mr Davies, you seem to be in a state of great excitement. I call Mr Philip Davies.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

Thank you, Mr Speaker.

May I follow up the question asked by the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper)? As the Minister will know, owing to the spending moratorium that Wakefield City Academies Trust imposed on High Crags Primary School, which is in my constituency, the school built up a surplus, or balance, of £276,000. In recent days that money has been transferred from the school’s account, without its authorisation and without its prior consent, and transferred to the trust. Surely the Government cannot stand aside and allow £276,000 to be taken out of the budget of a school in one of the most deprived parts of my constituency. Will the Minister do something to ensure that the money is reinstated for the benefit of pupils at that school?

[Nick Gibb]

My hon. Friend is right to raise this issue. High Crags Primary School was put into special measures in June 2015, before it became a sponsored academy. In 2016, just 23% of its pupils reached the expected standard in reading, writing and maths, compared to a national average of 53%. The school is now being re-brokered to be supported by the highly successful Tauheedul Education Trust, and Wakefield City Academies Trust will not be able to retain any of the reserves that it holds at the point of dissolution. Schools, including High Crags, will receive the resources and support that they need in order to raise academic standards.

Schools Update

Philip Davies Excerpts

Monday 17th July 2017 Commons Chamber

[Justine Greening]

We will set out the detail of the national funding formula in September, but it is not true that the deprivation amounts were cut. In fact, as I have said, I actively made sure that they were protected. The hon. Lady will no doubt welcome the fact that, as I said to the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), the schools in her community that were already well funded are being protected more than they would have been had her party won the election.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

I welcome the Secretary of State’s statement and applaud her for listening to the concerns that many of us have expressed about the funding formula for our local schools. At the end of the day, what really matters to schools is the budget that they are going to get. When will schools be told exactly what this will mean for their individual budgets? That is what headteachers, teachers, parents and governors want to know, so when will that information be disseminated? Can she confirm that the promise not to cut funding from any school applies to special schools as well as to mainstream schools?

[Justine Greening]

Briefly, the local authorities will now go through a process of setting a local formula, but we will confirm the allocation notionally to each school in September. That is a significant process, which involves confirming allocations for around 24,000 schools. Today, I have set out the funding not just for the core schools budget, but for high needs, and I hope that that is good news for my hon. Friend.

Education: Public Funding

Philip Davies Excerpts

Tuesday 4th July 2017 Commons Chamber

[Nick Gibb]

I hope we will have the hon. Gentleman’s support for the new funding formula, because we have said that no school now will lose under it. Hon. Members should not forget that we were very clear and transparent: we showed the effects of the national funding formula on every school’s budget, based on 2016-17, to show people how it would affect them. It was axiomatic that there had to be losers and winners when we applied the formula to that current year. But now we are saying that no school will lose funding under the formula, even if they did when we produced the spreadsheet showing how the formula would apply. The hon. Gentleman is right that we could have decided not to introduce the new funding formula at a time when schools were facing cost pressures, but we took the view that it was more important to address the unfairness in the way school funding was distributed at a time of fiscal constraint than at a time of more ample school funding.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

The Minister knows that Bradford district has some of the lowest outcomes in the education system, yet the Government planned to cut funding for the district in their original proposals. That included funding to every school in my constituency, leading Cottingley Village Primary School to say a week before the general election that it was considering closing on Friday afternoons—I am sure the timing was entirely coincidental. Will the Minister therefore confirm that no school in my constituency or the Bradford district will lose out on funding and that there is no need for any school to close on a Friday afternoon? That proposal is causing a great deal of angst and concern among the parents at Cottingley school.

[Nick Gibb]

I am happy to give my hon. Friend that confirmation. As we said in the manifesto, and as I have confirmed today, no school will lose funding as a consequence of moving to the new fairer national funding system. We are helping schools to tackle the cost pressures they face. We are helping them with how to manage their budgets. We are introducing national buying schemes to help schools to spend their non-staff spend in a more efficient way. We expect to save about £1 billion across the school system as a consequence of the national buying schemes we are introducing.

Children and Social Work Bill [Lords]

Philip Davies Excerpts

3rd reading: House of Commons & Legislative Grand Committee: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Tuesday 7th March 2017 Commons Chamber

[Angela Rayner]

I take on board the hon. Lady’s point. There has to be balance, and there has been considerable movement in that direction. I pay tribute to the Government for moving on that issue. Hopefully we can tease that out as we go through the finer details.

However, I seek clarification from the Minister on certain points of new clause 15. First, the coalition Government withdrew funding for the personal, social and health and economic education continuing professional development programme. That policy made it much more difficult for teachers to access the necessary training, thus lowering quality. Will the Government commit to any new resources for teacher training and continuing professional development, to ensure that relationships and sex education provision is of high quality?

I reiterate the earlier contributions to this debate that, at first glance, there is no explicit mention of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender issues in new clause 15. We have evidence from Stonewall and others that excluding LGBT children and the issues they encounter daily from existing relationships and sex education has a damaging impact on their health, wellbeing and attainment at school. Do the Government commit to ensuring that the new statutory guidance is inclusive of LGBT issues in an age-appropriate way? Will the Government consult expert organisations in doing so?

We know that the nature of relationships and sex education will change, which means changes to statutory guidance.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Angela Rayner]

The hon. Gentleman had loads of time to seek to intervene when the Minister was speaking.

Will the Government convene an expert group to ensure that, as the statutory guidance is updated, it covers the broad depth of topics required in RSE? Which organisations will be part of that group? On that issue at least, the House has spoken and the Government have listened. I urge the Government to do the same again on the other amendments before the House today. Many of the most vulnerable children depend on us, and we must not let them down.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs Miller]

I urge my right hon. Friend to talk to some of the teachers in his constituency who are already touching on issues of sex education in primary schools, because it is possible to do that in an age-appropriate manner. There is nothing in this Bill that would concern parents about further sex education being taught in primary schools—quite the contrary. According to research, three quarters of all parents, if not a little more than that, welcome these measures. Perhaps it is because they understand the safeguarding issues that can be very well covered by relationship education, even at an early age. I am talking about issues around consent in particular. I hope that my right hon. Friend can support these measures, because they are important not only for the future development of our children, but for keeping them safe and for giving them the ability to call out for help if and when they need it.

[Philip Davies]

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

[Mrs Miller]

Will my hon. Friend forgive me if I make just a bit more progress? I do not want to fall foul of Mr Speaker.

I thank the Minister for responding to the amendments that I have tabled with the support of my hon. Friends the Members for Enfield, Southgate and for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin). I am talking about proposed amendments (b), (c), (d) and (e) to Government new clause 15. I note the reference of my hon. Friend the Minister to a public law duty that obliges the Government to keep content in this area up to date. I can understand his argument, but it has not really worked so far, has it? It has taken about 17 years to get the guidance on sex and relationship education even on the agenda. Surely that public law duty on the Government has been there for the past decade and a half. None the less, I welcome his confirmation at the Dispatch Box, which will be recorded in Hansard, that he understands the intent behind proposed amendments (b) and (d) to undertake reviews every three years.

Governments of all complexions have, frankly, regularly sidestepped and ducked the issue of relationship and sex education, using a whole host of excuses to this House as to why it was not possible. What my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate and I have shown is that there is a cross-party desire to get this matter sorted and that the Government should not duck this issue from this point in.

In response to proposed amendment (c) to Government new clause 15 that relationship and sex education will be central to any assessment of schools, I am really reassured that there will be a lead in this area from Her Majesty’s inspectorate of education. I am sure that the Minister with his infinite influence could encourage Ofsted to go a little further on this and to consider redoing its report that so clearly showed that a large proportion of schools were failing in their delivery of sex and relationship education as it currently stands. It would be good to show that that has changed, that progress is being made and that a further report could be done.

I would also welcome it if the Minister reiterated the fact that newly drawn up regulations and guidance will be shaped by experts and not by prejudice or preconceptions in this area and that there will also be support for expert teaching of the subject. Given the news headlines on Facebook today, perhaps he might consider a levy on social media organisations that flout common decency and standards, so that they can be held accountable and perhaps pay the bills for some of the problems that they create by allowing our children to be exposed to inappropriate material.

Oral Answers to Questions

Philip Davies Excerpts

Thursday 2nd February 2017 Commons Chamber

[The Attorney General]

What is important is that the court and in particular the jury can assess the evidence that a witness gives, so it is important that that witness is able to give evidence in a clear way, so that a jury can assess whether they think that witness is telling the truth or not. Anything that gets in the way of that, I am sure the court will wish to consider very carefully.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

2. When he plans to extend the scope of the unduly lenient sentence scheme.

[The Solicitor General (Robert Buckland)]

We committed ourselves in our manifesto to extending the scope of the scheme. As a first step, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary announced that we would extend it to sentences in the Crown court for terrorism offences, and we are working with her to implement that.

[Philip Davies]

I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend for confirming that our manifesto commitment is still on track, but I should also be grateful if he was a bit more specific about the dates on which we might be able to make some headway, because these reforms are long overdue.

[The Solicitor General]

My hon. Friend is right to press the Government for a commitment to action. Work is being done with the Ministry of Justice, and both the Attorney General and I are committed to ironing out the obvious inconsistencies in the system, which cause understandable frustration among victims and their families.

--- Later in debate ---

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

There is a worrying trend among people on the left of both sides of the House that things that they do not like should be banned and that things that they like must be made compulsory. What is wrong with the principle of freedom? What is wrong with parents having a role in deciding what is appropriate for their children to be taught?

[Justine Greening]

I strongly agree that parents’ involvement in ensuring that what children are taught at school is acceptable to them and appropriate is vital. However, the most important voices that now need to be listened to are those of young people and children, who say that they do not feel that they are getting the necessary level of education in this area and want a more up-to-date approach to enable them to deal with the world in which they are growing up.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

We are out of time, but I really want to hear the last question, not least because the hon. Gentleman is a newly elected and extremely keen member of the Committee about whose name he is concerned. I call Mr Philip Davies.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

7. If he will bring forward proposals to change the name of the Women and Equalities Committee to the Equalities Committee.

[The Deputy Leader of the House of Commons (Michael Ellis)]

The Government currently have no plans to bring forward proposals to change the name of the Women and Equalities Committee. I have received no representations from the Committee to make such a change. Should the Women and Equalities Committee recommend such a change, the Government would consider it in consultation with the Procedure Committee.

[Philip Davies]

Every single departmental Select Committee is named after the Department it scrutinises. I am also on the Justice Committee, which scrutinises the Ministry of Justice. The only exception is the Women and Equalities Committee, which shadows the Government Equalities Office. Surely this Committee should be called the Equalities Committee. If the Deputy Leader of the House does not agree, will he tell us why women’s issues cannot be included in a Committee called the Equalities Committee?

[Michael Ellis]

I suggest that my hon. Friend approach the Chair of the Select Committee of which he is a valued member and invite her to write to the Leader of the House. The matter will be considered in the normal way.

Civil Partnership Act 2004 (Amendment) Bill

Philip Davies Excerpts

2nd reading: House of Commons
Friday 13th January 2017 Commons Chamber

[Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)]

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

I am very excited because, in almost 20 years in the House, this is the first time that a Bill of mine has ever got an airing on a Friday morning. That shows what can happen if we persevere, and I do hope the Minister is not going to spoil it when he gets up to signal his vast support for this very sensible and much needed measure.

The debate over the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013 has passed. The Act has become law, and over 15,000 couples have taken advantage of that new opportunity. Whatever people on the opposite sides of the argument, then or now, think, the world has not fallen in. However, as some of us argued at the time, the extension of marriage then has unwittingly created a new inequality, and a Government who argued zealously that same-sex marriage was an equality issue seem to have rather lost interest when it comes to an equality that affects opposite-sex couples. That new inequality is that marriage is available to same-sex and opposite- sex couples, yet civil partnerships are available only to same-sex couples.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

I absolutely support my hon. Friend’s Bill. He will recall that, at the time, the same-sex marriage Bill was known as the equal marriage Bill by many people. Does he agree that, for it to be truly an equal marriage Bill, it is essential that his Bill is enacted to make the situation properly equal as between homosexual and heterosexual couples?

[Tim Loughton]

I do agree, which is why, at the time, I argued that the amendment that forms part of the Bill would have prevented the inequality that was created, closed that loophole and made that Bill more acceptable for people who had difficulties with it. My hon. Friend is absolutely right.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tim Loughton]

The hon. Lady is right. I will refer to that case, which will go to appeal imminently, as she says. My Bill may not get much further than hers if I succeed in talking it out in the remaining minutes, so I will make some progress.

The Bill has high-profile supporters, including Rebecca Steinfeld and Charles Keidan, the couple who instigated the campaign. I pay tribute to them. They appeared in the royal courts in London last November seeking to overturn the Government ban on different-sex civil partnerships, arguing that it is unfair because it treats people differently dependent on their sexuality.

By contrast and more recently, Claire Beale and Martin Loat became the first UK-based heterosexual couple to enter into a civil partnership in the British Isles. The catch is that they had to travel to the Isle of Man for the privilege. Bravely, the island recently made this reform to its legislation. While our British island cousins have made this step towards equality, the Government on the mainland of the United Kingdom claim, as they did when Rebecca and Charles first went to the High Court in January, and when I first tabled an amendment to the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill, that such a change would be costly and complicated. I just cannot see how or why.

I am not convinced by the Government’s excuses. This change is very straightforward. Just as with same-sex civil partnerships, it would not be possible for someone to become a civil partner with a close family member or someone who is already in a union. Such a union would need to be subject to the same termination criteria. All that is required is a simple one-line amendment to the Civil Partnership Act 2004, which is what my Bill would enact. That is why it is a very short, one-clause Bill. It could all be done and dusted in Committee by tea time.

[Philip Davies]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Tim Loughton]

I will give way very briefly.

[Philip Davies]

I promise not to interrupt my hon. Friend again. Obviously, the other way of equalising the law would be to ban civil partnerships for gay couples. Would he be in favour of equalising the law in that way?

[Tim Loughton]

That would indeed provide equality and close the loophole, but it would be a retrograde step. For the reasons I mentioned, some couples do not want to go down the formal marriage route, whether they are of the same sex or opposite sexes. We would therefore be denying the civil partnerships to an awful lot of people. Many people have chosen to go down that route and many have chosen not to convert a same-sex civil partnership into a marriage, which they can now do.

Clearly, they have reasons why civil partnership suits them, but those of the opposite sex cannot have that same privilege if it suits them better than traditional marriage. My hon. Friend suggests one way of doing it, but there would be serious downsides.

In the Government’s original consultation before the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013, 61% of respondents were in favour of extending civil partnerships to opposite-sex couples. Alas, for some inexplicable reason, it never made it into the legislation, which would have made it a better and fairer Act. Other hon. Members and I wrote recently to the Secretary of State for Education, who is also the Minister for Women and Equalities. In her reply on why the Government do not support the measure, she said that, as part of the exercise after the Act was introduced, the Government examined whether or not people supported extending civil partnerships to opposite-sex couples and found that the majority did not. However, a clear majority in a more extensive consultation before the Act did support the extension. Why do those views no longer count?

Aside from the equality question, there is a further major practical benefit of opening up civil partnerships to opposite-sex couples: family stability, which my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton Deane (Rebecca Pow) mentioned. The Centre for Social Justice has calculated that the cost to this country of family breakdown is some £48 billion each and every year, or some 2.5% of gross domestic product. That is a big, growing and costly problem—it is costly both financially and socially.

Fewer than one in 10 married parents have split up by the time a child reaches the age of five, compared with more than one in three of those who are cohabiting but not married, and 75% of family breakdowns involving children under five result from the separation of unmarried parents. There are all sorts of statistics showing that those children are more susceptible to not doing well at school and not ending up in good jobs, and that they have problems with housing, mental health and so on. That is not to be judgmental about parents who find themselves having to bring up a child alone through no fault of their own, but two partners make for greater stability.

We know that marriage works, but we also know that civil partnerships are beginning to show evidence of greater stability for same-sex couples, including those who have children, be it through adoption, surrogacy or whatever. There is a strong case for believing that extending civil partnerships would improve that stability for many more families in different ways. If just one in 10 cohabiting opposite-sex couples entered into a civil partnership, it would cover some 300,000 couples and their children. It would offer the prospect of yet greater security and stability, less likelihood of family breakdown, and better social and financial outcomes. That, surely, is progress, and would be particularly good for children in those families.

There is a further application. Many people who have strong religious beliefs, particularly Catholics, who end up getting divorced, which is in conflict with certain religious teachings, may not be inclined to get married again if they meet a new partner because their Church supposedly believes that they should be married for life. In many cases, however, they would be able to reconcile that position by entering into a new formal commitment through an opposite-sex civil partnership. There are a number of practical real-life scenarios in which civil partnerships for opposite-sex couples could achieve something very positive that would not be available to those loving couples otherwise.

Opposite-sex civil partnerships have not been cooked up haphazardly in this country. In South Africa, the Civil Union Act 2006 gave same-sex and opposite-sex couples the option to register a civil union by way of a marriage or a civil partnership on the same basis. In France, the pacte civil de solidarité, or PACS as it is known, was introduced in 1999 as a form of civil union between two adults of the same sex or the opposite sex. Gay marriage has been added. Interestingly, one in 10 PACS has been dissolved in France, while one in three—many more—marriages ends in divorce. There is evidence that some of those civil partnerships have created greater stability, whether they are opposite-sex or same-sex partnerships. In countries such as the Netherlands, where marriage and civil partnerships are open to all, the vast majority of different sex couples continue to choose marriage, so the measure in no way tries to undermine the traditional partnership of marriage. A significant minority choose civil partnerships, so surely UK couples should have that choice.

In the many years I have been banging away on this subject, support for the campaign has grown. The London Assembly recently gave its unanimous support to the change in the law and passed a motion that states:

“The Assembly notes that whilst same-sex couples are able to form a civil partnership, different-sex couples cannot.

The Assembly acknowledges that approximately one in five households in London consist of a cohabiting different-sex couple.

The Assembly believes that the current legal situation which prevents different-sex couples from forming a civil partnership is unfair and prevents these couples from being able to get legal recognition for their relationship in a way that matches their values.

The Assembly recognises that City Hall has often been at the forefront of efforts to extend rights and liberties: in 2000 it introduced the first ever registration scheme for same-sex couples.

The Assembly calls on the Mayor to support the equal civil partnerships campaign and urges him to make representations to the government for a change in the law if the Court of Appeal rejects Rebecca Steinfeld and Charles Keidan’s appeal against the High Court’s decision to reject their application to form a civil partnership.”

Last week, there was a very supportive article in the Solicitors Journal, which referred to the current anomaly as “discriminatory”. Marilyn Stowe, the senior partner at Stowe Family Law, said:

“To some couples the concept of marriage is outdated. They do not wish to marry but equally seek a legally recognised civil union where vows and promises to each other are not required.”

There is, therefore, a lot of support for this measure. I have received many emails from couples around the country who are waiting for this change in the law to be able to signal in the eyes of the public, their friends, the law and the state that they are part of a loving, secure and sustainable long-term union. It is just a different arrangement from that which many other people choose.

I would like to quote from two emails I have received in recent days:

“Dear Mr Loughton, my partner and I have lived together for 25 years. We are not religious, nor do we feel a registry wedding is suitable for us. We have worked full-time and very hard all our adult lives and feel we deserve the recognition that other couples enjoy. As we get older”—

they are in their 50s—

“we feel we deserve the financial and long-term benefits that are given to other couples who have contributed to this great nation, but we are currently being denied these rights.”

The second email reads:

“My male partner and I”—

she is female—

“have lived together for 38 years. We do not wish to marry for many reasons, for example my mother was very adversely affected by marriage in the days when women were immediately ejected from their careers upon marrying, and rape in a marriage was legal until 1991. My mother’s advice was ‘try to enjoy it, as it might reduce the physical damage.’ But we do want a civil partnership. We are now both dependent on our pensions, but if my partner died tomorrow, heaven forefend, I would not be recognised by his pension provider and would receive nothing from them. If we had a civil partnership, they would recognise my claim.”

That is just another example of the instability facing loving couples—in this case, they have been together for 38 years—if one of them dies, because the state does not recognise their relationship.

We need to close this anomaly. I do not understand why the Government have reneged, effectively, on their promise, after the Same Sex Marriage Act, to pursue this properly and to draw an end to the inadvertent inequality that has come about through that Act. Regardless of the Act, there is a case for extending civil partnerships to opposite-sex couples for the whole raft of positive reasons that I have set out in my short comments today. If the Government are to allow people to be as free as possible to make their own decisions without harming the freedom of others, what on earth are they doing failing to make it lawful for people of the opposite sex who happen to love each other to enter into a civil partnership, when they allow that very same freedom to people of the same sex? The current situation is unfair, illogical and needs to change. That is exactly what my Bill will do with minimum fuss and that is why I commend it to the House today.

Oral Answers to Questions

Philip Davies Excerpts

Thursday 8th December 2016 Commons Chamber

[Justine Greening]

It is an important report, and we have taken time to consider it carefully. The hon. Lady will be aware that we laid gender pay gap regulations before the House in recent days, and we will be publishing that report very shortly.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

Are the Government as committed to eliminating the part-time gender pay gap as they are to eliminating the full-time gender pay gap?

[Justine Greening]

We want that to take place. The full-time gender pay gap has never been narrower than it is today, but it is important that we look beyond that and understand that people working part time have the same right to no gender pay gap.

International Men’s Day

Philip Davies Excerpts

Thursday 17th November 2016 Commons Chamber

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered International Men’s Day.

Before I start, may I thank the Backbench Business Committee for finding time for this debate, and particularly for finding a date as close as possible to International Men’s Day, which actually falls on Saturday? This was the closest sitting day on which the debate could have been held, so I am very grateful to the Committee.

A few people have said that they cannot be here today. In particular, I said I would pass on the apologies of my right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mrs Miller), the Chair of the Women and Equalities Select Committee, who wanted to be here, but could not be for reasons beyond her control. I also thank the House of Commons Library, which has put together a fantastic brief for this debate. I urge all right hon. and hon. Members to read it, as it is illuminating on the subject of men’s issues. I also want to plug Incommunities, the social housing provider in my constituency, which has been celebrating International Men’s Day and last week held a “dads and lads” day at its premises. It was very successful. Finally, I want to thank the many people who have been in touch with me to tell me their story or to put forward their perspective on their life and problems. I am grateful to them for taking the time to do so.

The aims of International Men’s Day are admirable. Its objectives are: to promote male role models; to celebrate the contribution that men make; to focus on men’s health and wellbeing; to highlight discrimination against men and the inequalities that men and boys face; to improve gender relations and promote gender equality; and to create a safer world for everyone.

The UK theme for the day is “making a difference for men and boys”. That covers issues such as the high male suicide rate; the challenges faced by boys and men at all stages of education, including attainment; men’s health, particularly shorter life expectancy and workplace deaths; the challenges faced by the most marginalised men and boys in society—homeless men, boys in care and the higher rate of male deaths in custody, for example; male victims of violence, including sexual violence; the challenges faced by men as parents, particularly new fathers and separated fathers; and male victims and survivors of sexual abuse, rape, sexual exploitation, domestic abuse, forced marriage, honour-based crime, stalking and slavery.

I want to put on record the support I received from the Prime Minister, who wrote to me last month to say:

“I recognise the important issues that this event seeks to highlight, including men’s health, male suicide rates and the underperformance of boys in school. These are serious matters that must be addressed in a considered way. As I said on the steps of Downing Street on my first day as Prime Minister, one of the challenges we must confront is that white working-class boys are less likely than anyone else in Britain to go to university. I know that you held a debate in Westminster Hall last year on international men’s day, and I note that you are hoping to hold a debate in the Commons Chamber this year. Of course, this is not a matter for me as Prime Minister to decide, but I will watch with interest to see if your request is granted.”

Let me provide a bit of background. As I said in last year’s Westminster Hall debate, I wanted the men’s day to be the start of us dealing with some of the forgotten men’s issues—and there are plenty of them, far too many for me to cover in my speech today. I outlined some of the issues at the start, but I will not have time to deal with them all today. For example, I will not have time to mention the underperformance of boys in school or some of the male health issues. One thing we seldom, if ever, hear about in this place is the part-time gender pay gap. I have not heard it noted before, but when it comes to part-time workers, women are paid 6% more than men on average. I shall not have time to concentrate on all those issues, so I shall concentrate on just a few—male suicide, domestic violence, homelessness and injustice for fathers.

There is a very great difference—I fear that the Minister rather got this mixed up at the last questions session—between men raising issues, about which there is clearly no problem either in this House or in the wider world, and the raising of men’s issues. That is very different. Although we might get a lot of the former, we seldom get much of the latter, and that is what I want to focus on today.

I shall start with male suicide. According to the Library, in 2012 more than 4,500 men felt they had no choice but to take their own life. In 2013, the figure was nearly 5,000 men, while in 2014—the latest figure for which information appears to be officially available—it was 4,630 men. In fact, over the last 30 years, according to the Office for National Statistics figures, supplied to me by the Library, 134,554 men have taken their own life. The Campaign Against Living Miserably commissioned a poll that found that four in 10 men had considered suicide, with two fifths never talking to anyone about their problems. Half of those who did not seek help did not want people to worry about them; a third felt ashamed; nearly 40% did not want to make a fuss; and 43% did not want to talk about their feelings.

I want to put on record my congratulations to the Health Committee on embarking on its suicide prevention inquiry. It is looking at suicide across the board, but it is clear that this is an issue that affects men much more than women. The figures show that 75% of those who took their own life in 2014 were men and 25% were women.

[Stephen Pound (Ealing North) (Lab)]

Although I may not agree with the general thrust of the debate, I think that the hon. Gentleman is making an important point in this respect. May I ask whether he has disaggregated the figures that he has given? In Northern Ireland, for example, more people have committed suicide since 1997 than died in all the 30 years of the troubles, and the vast majority have been men. There were clearly specific issues and reasons behind that epidemic of suicides. Has the hon. Gentleman done any disaggregation to establish whether, for instance, people from former industrial areas who no longer have access to the role model of a miner or shipworker are affected in this way? He is on to something important, and I hope that we do not lose it in the generality of his introduction.

[Philip Davies]

That is a good point. The reasons for these suicides are many and varied. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman contacts CALM, the Campaign Against Living Miserably, which has members who are real experts in this field, and also consults the Library briefing, which is also very illuminating. As he says, many factors are involved when people take their own life, and each one is an individual tragedy.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing the debate, and on the powerful speech he is making. The House will have been shocked by the figures that he has just revealed. Is he confident that the Department of Health realises that this is a serious public health issue, which urgently needs to be addressed by general practitioners and hospitals up and down the land? That must be one of the main reasons why men are losing their life: it must be one of the main causes of avoidable deaths in this country. That such a large number of people should lose their life in an avoidable way is tragic, regardless of whether they are men or women.

[Philip Davies]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Debates such as this are important because they highlight the problems and urge that more be done, and I also commend the Select Committee for looking into this issue.

I appreciate that the Committee’s inquiry is ongoing, but I had a look at some of the evidence that it has received so far. I was struck by, for instance, evidence from the British Transport police relating to the suicides with which they deal. They dealt with 388 fatalities in, I believe, the last year, of which 305 were suspected suicides; 81% were men and 19% were women, but this is not just a gender issue. According to the evidence, 57% of those people had a known mental health history, 22% had been reported missing, 11% had previous convictions—one person had a “suicidal” marker on the police national computer—4% were current in-patients in mental health units, and 2% were absent without leave from mental health units. Wider issues therefore need to be considered, but they are all tragic cases. It is clear that many of the people concerned had a known mental health history, but it is also clear that many did not, and we must not forget those people.

I do not want to pre-empt the Select Committee’s inquiry, but one point made in CALM’s submission is very pertinent to the debate. It said:

“Despite the evidence that the risk of suicide is disproportionate to men as a whole when compared to women, research is often gender neutral or narrowed beyond gender (e.g. by sexual orientation or age). As a result, there is no specific research carried out on men and societal and environmental factors. Broader, gender specific research could reveal hidden causes of suicide that have not yet been explored. For instance, there could be great benefit in researching the impact of testosterone reducing drugs on the rates of suicide in men, however the current lens of research funding and its gender neutral approach does not provide a platform for such research.”

I hope that the Government will take that on board. A message should go out from the House today. If anyone is feeling suicidal, we should say, “Please speak to someone. Don’t suffer alone, as too many men often do.”

I want people to be in no doubt that there are male victims of domestic violence and abuse, despite what people may think and despite the stereotypes that surround the issue. The notion that in every case of domestic violence or abuse the perpetrator is a big burly wife-beater is just that: a notion. According to a report from the Office for National Statistics, “Focus on Violent Crime and Sexual Offences”, which relates to the year ending March 2015 and was released in February of this year,

“The Crime Survey England and Wales estimates that 8.2% of women and 4.0% of men reported experiencing any type of domestic abuse in the last year (that is, partner / ex-partner abuse (non-sexual), family abuse (non-sexual) and sexual assault or stalking carried out by a current or former partner or other family member). This is equivalent to an estimated 1.3 million female victims and 600,000 male victims.”

It also confirmed that, specifically for partner abuse, 6.5% of women and 2.8% of men reported having experienced any type of partner abuse in the last year, equivalent to an estimated 1.1 million female victims and half a million male victims. The pattern is consistent at all levels of domestic violence. In other words, for every three victims of domestic abuse, two will be female and one will be male.

[Stephen Pound]

I did not want to interrupt the hon. Gentleman’s flow because I appreciate that what he is saying is very important, but at the beginning of this section of his peroration he rightly said that any person, male or female, who may feel suicidal, lost or alone should seek help. The Samaritans are available every day of the week, 24 hours a day, and their phone number, 116 123, is one that we should all be familiar with. The Samaritans are there for people in precisely these circumstances, and I hope the hon. Gentleman will forgive me for intruding on his flow.

[Philip Davies]

I do not need to forgive the hon. Gentleman; I welcome his intervention and am grateful for that public service announcement.

According to the ManKind Initiative, 20 organisations offer refuge or safe-house provision for male victims of domestic violence in the UK. There are a total of 82 spaces in the country, of which 24 are dedicated to male domestic violence victims only. For female victims, there are nearly 400 specialist domestic violence organisations providing refuge accommodation for women in the UK, with about 4,000 spaces for over 7,000 women and children. I suspect there are not sufficient spaces for female victims of domestic violence, but if there are 4,000 spaces for female victims of domestic violence, it follows that the 24 dedicated spaces for male victims of domestic violence clearly are not enough, when men make up a third of cases of people who suffer domestic violence.

What about the Government’s recent policy announcement to spend another £20 million on providing spaces, not for domestic violence victims generally, but specifically for female victims of domestic violence? The Government must not forget male victims of domestic violence either, and must provide suitable funding for them too, because they are getting forgotten about.

It is worth pointing out that according to the ManKind Initiative, male victims are over twice as likely as women—29% compared with 12% for women—not to tell anyone about the partner abuse they are suffering. Only 10% of male victims will tell the police compared with 26% of women, only 23% will tell a person in an official position compared with 43% of women, and only 11% will tell a health professional compared with 23% of women.

[Mr Hollobone]

My hon. Friend is making a very good point and I am sure the House will recognise that domestic violence against men is probably far more underreported than domestic violence against women, although of course all domestic violence is abhorrent. Another problem for men who have been abused is that all too often they are denied the right to see their children once the relationship breaks up, because the system is still biased—sometimes for understandable reasons, sometimes not—in favour of the woman, and this compounds the problem for vulnerable men who have been victims.

[Philip Davies]

My hon. Friend is right, and we must not forget fathers in the whole issue of bringing up children. As he says, in some cases it is perfectly right that the father, because of their behaviour, is denied access to the children, but in many cases it is not, and this is a massive problem for many people and is clearly one of the causes of the high suicide rate among men. It is not something that can be swept under the carpet. We must make sure that, where appropriate, fathers are given every assistance to have access to the children.

[Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)]

The hon. Gentleman will no doubt correct me if I am wrong, but I believe the criteria for deciding who has residence and contact in relation to children is the same in England as in Scotland, and it revolves around the best interests of the child, rather than the parents’ interests.

[Philip Davies]

I do not have time to have a philosophical debate—[Hon. Members: “It’s a legal debate.”] Well, it is a question of what is considered to be in the best interests of the child, and my point is that children having access to their fathers is in their best interests more often than the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry) indicated that the courts sometimes think. Children want access to their fathers, and in many cases they need such access. The whole point of being in this place is that when we think the law is wrong, we can do something about it.

[Joanna Cherry]

Is the hon. Gentleman aware of any empirical research that shows that the legal system in Scotland or England is biased against fathers? I am not aware of any.

[Philip Davies]

The hon. and learned Lady is trying to pretend that there is not an issue. I urge her to read the Library briefing, which she clearly has not done. Perhaps she will do us the courtesy of reading it before she—

[Joanna Cherry]

rose—

[Philip Davies]

I am not giving way to the hon. and learned Lady again. If she does not think that there is an issue—[Interruption.] Does the hon. Member for Ealing North (Stephen Pound) want to participate in the debate?

[Joanna Cherry]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker.

--- Later in debate ---

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

That is not a point of order, as the hon. and learned Lady knows. The hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) has not allowed her to intervene, but she has successfully put her view on record none the less.

[Philip Davies]

I am grateful to you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I did allow the hon. and learned Lady to intervene twice, but it was a shame that in both those interventions, she had nothing to say about looking after the interests of fathers or about the rights of men. Instead, she tried to make this into some kind of gender-bashing exercise, which did her no credit whatever. If she does not think that fathers have problems getting access to their children, sometimes unfairly, all I can suggest is that she gets out more—[Interruption.] Perhaps she might get out more in her own constituency.

[Mims Davies (Eastleigh) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate. I shall be keen to bring up some issues from my constituency precisely because I have met people at my surgery who find it easier to approach a female MP who will perhaps give them a more empathetic hearing, and who have not felt able to talk to anyone else about the access to their children that they feel is being denied to them.

[Philip Davies]

rose—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Natascha Engel)]

Order. I must point out to the hon. Gentleman that he has now been on his feet for 20 minutes, which is the amount of time allowed for opening speeches. I am going to have to put an informal time limit on Back-Bench speeches in order to get everyone in, so I should be grateful if he would come to the end of his remarks.

[Philip Davies]

I am grateful to you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I have been trying to take interventions, but I will obviously abide by your ruling. I am also grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Mims Davies) for her intervention.

I shall now canter through a few other issues that I said I would touch on and therefore must. On homelessness, according to St Mungo’s, 85% of rough sleepers are men. That is clearly an issue that needs to be addressed. With regard to injustice for fathers, Erin Pizzey, the founder of the first women’s refuge in the UK, has said:

“There are a lot of reasons why fathers are not with their children, not least that women won’t let them”.

When the Minister for Vulnerable Children and Families, my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Edward Timpson), was introducing legislation in 2014, he said—[Interruption.] The hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West wanted some evidence, but she cannot even be bothered to listen to it now. The Minister said:

“We recognise that the court should already take account of the importance of a child’s relationship with both parents, but there is currently no legislative statement to that effect. We want to reinforce by way of statute the expectation that both parents should be involved in a child’s life, unless the child is at risk of harm or it is not in the child’s best interests.”––[Official Report, Children and Families Public Bill Committee, 14 March 2013; c. 289.]

The hon. and learned Lady wanted some evidence; there it is.

One of the aims of International Men’s Day is to improve gender relations, which I absolutely support. As I have said before, I want to be very clear that I do not believe there is an issue between men and women. I would actually rather we did not have to be here having this debate, and that we did not have separate international women’s and men’s days. The problem has been stirred up by politically correct people who want to make it a war on gender. In so many ways, considering men and women separately as though they lived in complete isolation is absolutely ridiculous. Neither group is isolated. Both sexes have mothers and fathers, sisters and brothers, uncles and aunts, grandmothers and grandfathers, sons and daughters, husbands and wives, and boyfriends and girlfriends. Every woman has related male parties and therefore a vested interest in men’s issues. That is an unavoidable fact. Some issues affect men alone or more than women and vice versa, but both men and women have an interest in such issues and in working together without politically correct gender splits. If we were able to do that in this House, that would be much better.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Natascha Engel)]

I have just done a quick calculation and if everybody, including the Front-Bench speakers, takes about eight minutes, we will get everybody in. If anybody speaks for much longer than that, we will have to start cutting the limit, but if we stick to eight minutes, that should be fine.

--- Later in debate ---

[Philip Davies]

I thank everyone who has participated in this debate. We have heard some fantastic speeches. The hon. Member for Coventry North East (Colleen Fletcher) made a fantastic speech. I was very interested and pleased to hear about the excellent work of It Takes Balls to Talk. My hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley (Sir Paul Beresford) made a typically fantastic speech, even though he had to admit that Australia was ahead of us in some ways. I am sure it was a painful thing for him to have to admit, but we are grateful to him for pointing it out.

The hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Margaret Ferrier) made a terrific speech highlighting the work that Breathing Space does in her area. I am delighted that she has had the opportunity to mention that. Likewise, my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Mims Davies) made a passionate and impressive speech, and again I am delighted that she was able to highlight Men’s Sheds and Movember, even though I will not be participating in the latter—much to everyone’s relief.

I am sorry that the hon. Member for Ochil and South Perthshire (Ms Ahmed-Sheikh) rather trivialised today’s debate by talking about women instead of men. I am sure the fact that she thinks international men’s day is every day is very little comfort to the 134,554 men who have committed suicide over the last 30 years. I found that regrettable.

Finally, I am pleased that we agreed on one thing—equality. I believe in gender equality, and I very much hope that after this debate, men and women will be treated equally by the courts when they get sentenced.

Oral Answers to Questions

Philip Davies Excerpts

Thursday 27th October 2016 Commons Chamber

[Justine Greening]

I welcome the hon. Lady to her new role, particularly as she is the MP who represents my home town of Rotherham. The different ages at which children need to start understanding relationships means that what we teach in schools must be age-appropriate. Of course, SRE is mandatory in all secondary schools. Primary schools have more flexibility, but the hon. Lady is right to emphasise that if we want to get this right, we need to start at an early age so that children can understand relationships with one another.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

2. What plans she has to commemorate International Men’s Day.

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

Some women might be forgiven for thinking that every day is International Men’s Day, but this year it falls on 19 November. The theme will be “Making a Difference for Men and Boys”, and there will be a focus on the very important issue of male suicide. As with International Women’s Day, it will be up to Back Benchers to bid for parliamentary time for a debate on the subject, and I encourage them to do so. Of course, I welcome any initiatives that support gender equality and its meaning in people’s lives.

[Philip Davies]

So the answer is that the Minister has no plans. Perhaps her Department ought to take International Men’s Day as seriously as the Prime Minister has. She has said:

“I recognise the important issues that this event seeks to highlight, including men’s health, male suicide rates and the under-performance of boys in schools. These are serious issues that must be addressed in a considered way.”

Why is International Men’s Day not as important to this Minister as it is to the Prime Minister?

[Caroline Dinenage]

Let me gently say that I think that my hon. Friend is being a little unfair. The role of the Government Equalities Office is to tackle inequality wherever we find it. All parents of sons throughout the country, including me, will be conscious of and concerned about the issues that the hon. Gentleman and, indeed, the Prime Minister have mentioned. However, I am also aware that there are parts of the world where girls are routinely subjected to genital mutilation, forced marriage and sexual violence. For me, equality is not a zero sum game.

--- Later in debate ---

[Caroline Nokes]

This Government are committed to providing support to the people who need it, which is reflected in the fact that spending to support disabled people and people with health conditions will be higher than in 2010 in real terms in every year until 2020.

The hon. Lady mentions “I, Daniel Blake”. I have seen the film. My first visit as a Department for Work and Pensions Minister was to a jobcentre in Newcastle, and I can tell her that the front-line DWP workers whom I met do not recognise their portrayal in the film. The film raises important issues, which we shall debate, but we must remember that it is a dramatic interpretation. I also recognise none of its portrayals of DWP staff.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

T1. If she will make a statement on her departmental responsibilities.

[The Minister for Women and Equalities (Justine Greening)]

This Government have been clear that we want to build a country that works for everyone, which is why we are so determined to close the gender pay gap. I am therefore pleased that the Office for National Statistics recently released figures showing that the gap has narrowed significantly from 19.3% to 18.2%, reflecting the hard work of so many, not least the business community. That also reminds us that if we are to keep closing the gap, and close it completely, we must keep driving progress forward. That is why we extended the right to request flexible working and introduced a new system of flexible parental leave. We are also introducing mandatory gender pay gap reporting for large employers from April next year.

[Philip Davies]

Baroness Cox has long campaigned in the other place for the abolition of sharia councils, largely because of the unfair way in which they treat many women. Will the Government support Baroness Cox’s private Member’s Bill on the issue and ensure that Muslim women enjoy the same protections under the law as everyone else and do not feel pressured into having their cases determined by a sharia council rather than a British court?

[Justine Greening]

I assure my hon. Friend that that issue is of utmost importance. We know of concerns about sharia councils, including those raised in Baroness Cox’s Bill, and take them extremely seriously. The Government will respond to the Bill on Second Reading and will continue to consider the issue in the light of the findings of the independent sharia review, which was launched in May by the previous Home Secretary, now Prime Minister.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Lidington]

No; as I said on Tuesday, there was no argument last Friday that any hon. Member on any side of the argument was engaged in filibustering. When 2.30 pm came, the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, my hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey (Mr Gyimah), as the Minister responsible, had spoken for only one minute more than the Bill’s promoter and for a shorter time than one of the Bill’s main supporters. He sought to respond in detail to the many questions raised, and he gave way seven times to interventions. It seems to me that he behaved in a thoroughly reasonable manner.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

In order to guarantee the fairness that the Leader of the House spoke about earlier, is it not time that English votes for English laws was extended to private Members’ Bills?

[Mr Lidington]

That sounds to me like a further interesting submission to the Government’s consultation.