International Women’s Day

Viscount Stansgate Excerpts

Thursday 6th March 2025 Lords Chamber

[Viscount Stansgate (Lab)]

My Lords, my Ladies—or can I just say “Colleagues”?—I am very pleased to take part in this debate. It is a pleasure to follow my noble friend and, of course, all five maiden speakers, whom I have listened to with great interest. It has been an extremely interesting debate. I do not think I have ever taken part in a debate with five maiden speakers before and I think, from what we have heard, that they will enrich the House for years to come.

It is also a pleasure to take part not because I have not spoken in this equivalent debate in past years—I have done so in every year that I could—but because the official title of today’s debate is exactly the subject I have sought to raise ever since I have spoken, which is the role of women in science, and I gladly now do so again.

I start with a simple question: who was the first British person in space? I have been asking this question of people I meet in casual conversation in the run-up to this debate for a reason, and the answer I get is “Tim Peake”. People may remember Tim Peake floating through the International Space Station a decade ago, being chased by somebody dressed up as a gorilla. That is all fine and there is nothing wrong with it, except that it is wrong. The first British person in space was Helen Sharman, who on 18 May 1991, then aged 27, became the first British astronaut to travel into space as part of Project Juno. She was chosen from 13,000 applicants.

I start with this example because still, in 2025, women’s scientific achievements are too often not sufficiently recognised. Women have been overlooked, underrepresented or even erased from history. Take, for example, Ada Lovelace: for years she was ignored and unknown. Her work with Charles Babbage’s analytical engine in the 19th century had been forgotten, yet it was she who realised that the potential of the device extended far beyond mere number-crunching and hence is now considered by many as the world’s first computer programmer. The programming language Ada is named after her and her image is on our passports.

I am grateful to all the scientific societies that have sent me briefings for today’s debate. I cannot deal with all the information I have but would like to mention that the Institute of Physics, the Society of Chemical Industry, the Council for the Mathematical Sciences, the Physiological Society, the Society for Radiological Protection and even the Mines Advisory Group have provided me with some very helpful briefing. I also thank the House of Lords Library for its very helpful brief, which means that I, for one, do not have to belabour the House with the pertinent statistics that your Lordships will find the Library has provided.

I should declare an interest as the president of the Parliamentary and Scientific Committee. It is Parliament’s oldest all-party group, founded in 1939 to utilise the experience of boffins—a term of endearment in those days—for the war effort. The first report that it issued was on the nutritional value of brown bread. I mention this because the Nutrition Society has written to me to say that shortly after that a group of people—all men—got together and founded that society, but its position has now been transformed. I am told that 75% of its members are now women and it has identified seven significant women in the field of worldwide importance, so there has been some progress. The Society for Radiological Protection wrote to me to say that having a visible female leader supported by women in key leadership roles has been

“instrumental in encouraging more women to be active”

and its own council is now 50:50, so that is also some progress.

Having more women involved in mathematics in the UK brings a wide range of benefits, including different perspectives in problem-solving, increased innovation in research and tackling potential biases in algorithms, which is particularly important in the field of AI. However, the Council for the Mathematical Sciences says that there is chronic underrepresentation of women at every level of mathematics education. Women account for under 40% of A-level students, 37% of graduates, 21% of PhDs, and only 12% of professors. This is a familiar pattern across the sciences. As a matter of fact, the Science and Technology Committee, of which I am a member, had a special session on maths on Tuesday this week.

Take physics: Marie Curie was the first woman to win a Nobel prize, and she won it for two separate subjects—the only person ever to do so. The Institute of Physics says that there is a significant and well-known problem with girls being underrepresented. Too many girls miss out on physics because they think the subject is not for them. They hear outdated stereotypes about the subject from family members and teachers. In her evidence to Parliament, the distinguished Professor Athene Donald of Cambridge, already mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, emphasised:

“Stereotyped behaviour directed towards a child will tend to lead to that child developing those stereotypical responses. A parent or teacher who says ‘girls can’t do maths’ will be providing a message that children internalise … These actions are not neutral; the implicit expectations will be imbibed and are likely to be material to decisions a child makes about what is ‘appropriate’ for them to … do in later years”.


The IOP reports some improvements. That the proportion of women studying physics has increased has also been mentioned. The Society of Chemical Industry says that gender balance in science is “improving”, but that women continue to be underrepresented in graduate jobs—a very similar pattern to mathematics. The Physiological Society has provided a helpful brief covering a wide range of subjects that I cannot mention.

So what can we do? First, we must encourage young girls to explore STEM without fear or hesitation. Although my time is technically up, I must say that I am a grandparent and I have been watching a lot of “Peppa Pig” recently. Mummy Pig is, in fact, pregnant. I think this is important because there is something to be said for getting in touch with programme makers of this kind to help ensure that, in the development of their storylines, young people—or pigs—are given every possible encouragement to do whatever they like. This idea that somehow it is not for them can be ruled out. We must invent an environment that supports women in science.

Finally—I really have run out of time—I invite everybody to the Attlee Suite next Tuesday, where the STEM for Britain event is being held. Early-career researchers from all the major subjects are coming to the House, and they will bring their research work. It is very competitive. These are the crème de la crème of the new generation, and it would benefit everyone in this Chamber if noble Lords just walked along in order to encourage them. Seven out of the last 10 winners of the top medal have been women, so I hope there is some progress to be made.