Gender Sensitive Parliament

There has been significant progress, particularly since 1997, towards women’s equal representation in the House of Commons. However, women still only make up just over a third of the House of Commons’ 650 MPs. There are considerable variations in women’s representation in the House across the political parties, which have taken different approaches to their selection of parliamentary candidates. There are also very considerable variations in representation of minority ethnic women across the parties. Lack of equal representation undermines our democracy and, while selection processes remain predominately a matter for the political parties, the Government should take steps to incentivise effective action on gender sensitive and inclusive selection processes across the board. We echo the The Good Parliament report, the UK Gender Sensitive Parliament Audit 2018, our predecessor Committee and witnesses to our inquiry, including the Equality and Human Rights Commission, in recommending the Government enact without further delay section 106 of the Equality Act 2010 on diversity data of candidates. Greater transparency is likely to incentivise political parties to take steps to select parliamentary candidates who are representative of the communities they seek to serve and allow for clearer scrutiny of the parties’ contributions to achieving a gender and diversity sensitive House of Commons.

The rise of online abuse and harassment of female parliamentary candidates and MPs, including rape and death threats, is intolerable. It is unacceptable that such behaviour has become commonplace and contributed to female MPs standing down at the last general election. Vicious misogynistic abuse must not be accepted as an inevitable facet of a woman’s life in politics. The Government points to the Draft Online Safety Bill and the Elections Bill as ways of addressing the issue. However, we are concerned that these pieces of legislation lack specific focus on the abuse currently being experienced by women, and particularly Black and minority ethnic women, in politics. It remains to be seen whether the Government’s current legislative proposals will be sufficient given the sheer scale and severity of the problem.

We urge the Government to respond positively to the recommendations in the Report of the Joint Committee on the Draft Online Safety Bill, including those in paragraphs 127 and 136 relating to the Law Commission’s proposals for communications that contain threats of serious harm or that stir up hatred based on sex or gender. We further recommend the Government set out in its response to this Report its plans to monitor the effectiveness of its Draft Online Safety Bill and Elections Bill legislation specifically in protecting female parliamentary candidates and MPs, especially those from Black and minority ethnic backgrounds, from threatening and harmful online harassment and abuse. We will return to the issue of online harassment and abuse of female politicians, including the case for further, specific legislation and new offences, in our work on preventing violence against women and girls. (Paragraph 32) 44 Equality in the heart of democracy: A gender sensitive House of Commons Support for parent and carer MPs

The proxy voting scheme for parental absence is a huge step forward for gender sensitivity in the House of Commons. We strongly welcome the scheme as a permanent feature of the package of support for parent MPs. However, we note witnesses’ concerns that the scheme does not mirror statutory maternity leave entitlements or best workplace practice, in which parents can choose to share up to 12 months of leave. It does not provide parity of cover for women and men, which entrenches assumptions about unequal gender roles in childcare. There is no explicit reference to arrangements for parents whose children are born through surrogacy. While the scheme’s applicability to those who experience complications in childbirth is very welcome, its reference to “due date” in relation to the start of the period of proxy voting for biological mothers could have unintended negative effects on those who give birth prematurely or later than expected. Cover for complications, miscarriages and baby loss is welcome, but should be made explicit in the scheme. These anomalous features of the scheme should be rectified. We have written to the Chair of the House of Commons Procedure Committee asking her to consider them as part of her Committee’s current inquiry into extending the scope of the proxy voting scheme.

Like the House of Commons’ proxy voting for parental absence scheme, the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority’s (IPSA) new MP parental leave cover fund is a major step forward. It is an important part of a raft of measures in recent years that make the House of Commons a more welcoming and accommodating place for MPs who are, or want to be, parents. However, in mirroring the entitlements of the proxy voting scheme, granting only two weeks leave cover for biological fathers, it entrenches damaging gender assumptions about primary responsibility for childcare. Like the proxy voting scheme, it makes no explicit reference to arrangements for parents of children born through surrogacy. We agree with Professor Childs that IPSA’s scheme should set a better example. We recommend that IPSA consult on extending the current support offered through the MP parental leave cover fund to biological fathers, partners and second adopters so that it is line with best workplace practice and supports the objective of enabling women and men to share childcare responsibilities. IPSA should also make clear the arrangements for parents of children born through surrogacy.

We welcome the recent extension of the extended leave fund to cover a greater range of MPs’ absences from Westminster, including for ill health and wider caring responsibilities. We also welcome the establishment of a new working group in IPSA to consider how to further embed and improve extended leave support, in the interests of a more inclusive and family-friendly working environment. IPSA’s working group on extended leave should take into account the results of the House of Commons Member Services Team’s survey of MPs’ experiences, which we recommend in chapter 5 of this Report.

We note that the last Equality Impact Assessment (EIA) of IPSA’s Scheme of MPs’ Staffing and Business Costs was published in 2017 and its intention to conduct an EIA alongside the next comprehensive review of the scheme, no later than 2024. We recommend that IPSA ensures the EIA is comprehensive and fully in line with the Equality and Human Rights Commission’s guidance on complying with the Public Equality in the heart of democracy: A gender sensitive House of Commons 45 Sector Equality Duty. We further recommend that IPSA consider as part of its 2024 Corporate Plan the case for conducting more frequent EIAs of the scheme as and when significant changes are made between comprehensive reviews.

Publication of MPs’ staffing and business costs incurred in relation to parental leave and other costs associated with having dependent children make parent MPs look “more expensive” than those without children. This could be perceived negatively by the public and may therefore be acting as a disincentive to claims. We recommend that IPSA make a transparent assessment of the impact of publishing additional costs associated with being a parent—including parental leave cover, and additional transport and accommodation costs in relation to dependent children—on the willingness of women and parent MPs to claim support. While we understand and support the imperative for transparency as a default, we believe, in the interest of gender sensitivity, that additional costs associated with childcare and parenthood should be published only at the aggregate, rather than individual MP, level, as is the case with costs associated with disability and security. (Paragraph 58) A gender-sensitive working environment

Provision of dedicated car parking bays for MPs with young children would be a simple way of making the House of Commons more family-friendly and a small step towards reducing the burden on MPs who are also the primary carers of their children. It is a straightforward measure that you would expect to see at any car park for a large public building. We recommend the House of Commons’ Head of Access and Services swiftly review the availability of ground level parking spaces close to the Chamber and, taking into account the needs of disabled Blue Badge holders, designate the maximum possible number for parent and child parking. We further recommend that the Parliamentary Works Sponsor Body consider the provision of accessible car parking spaces as part of its Outline Business Base for Restoration and Renewal.

It is clear that gender sensitivity was not embedded in the Restoration and Renewal programme from the outset in 2013. We note that the programme now has accessibility and inclusion as one of its strategic aims and that the Parliamentary Works Sponsor Body (Sponsor Body) has a small Equality, Diversity and Inclusion team. We welcome recent steps taken by the Sponsor Body to survey the experiences and needs of the parliamentary community, including MPs. However, we are concerned that there continues to be insufficient institutionalised focus on, and expertise in, gender sensitivity to support the programme. We recommend the Sponsor Body appoint an independent advisory panel of experts on gender and diversity sensitivity to advise on building design and facilities in the Outline Business Case for any temporary decant location and the restored and renewed Palace of Westminster. This panel should include specific expertise to support the Sponsor Body to comply with its legal obligations under the Equality Act 2010 on sex and other protected characteristics. We also recommend that the Sponsor Body conduct and publish annual audits of its contribution to a gender sensitive House of Commons, drawing on the recommendations in The Good Parliament report and regular consultation with 46 Equality in the heart of democracy: A gender sensitive House of Commons the parliamentary community, so that there can be transparent scrutiny by the public and this Committee. Its annual audit should include the diversity of the Sponsor Body itself, including its parliamentary membership.

The Government has acted to return to pre-Covid 19 procedures in the House of Commons wherever possible, in the interests of effective representation of MPs’ constituents and parliamentary scrutiny. However, elements of the hybrid proceedings approach adopted at the height of the pandemic had important benefits for inclusion, which should not be discounted. Measures adopted through necessity have demonstrated what is possible. The flexibility afforded by the approach was particularly welcomed by female MPs. In the interest of gender sensitivity, proper consideration should be given to the benefits of retaining aspects of the approach. As the Leader of the House of Commons said, it is a matter of balance. There is a balance to be struck between the effective conduct of the House’s business, effective representation and the needs and interests of its diverse membership. Ultimately, procedure is a matter for the House as a whole and MPs should be given the opportunity to make their personal experiences and views known, free from party- political considerations.

There has been significant progress towards making the House of Commons a more welcoming and accommodating place for female MPs and those who are or want to be parents. But the House has work to do to fully understand and meet the needs and interests of women, parents and other groups, such as disabled people and those with long-term health conditions. We recommend the House of Commons Member Services Team conduct a survey of MPs, to gather and understand their personal experiences and views about current working practices, facilities and provision, and the need for further reform in the interests of gender and wider diversity sensitivity. The survey should gather MPs’ views on: • the adequacy of childcare provision at different times of the day and evening; • the adequacy of facilities including toilets and spaces for baby-changing, breast- feeding and expressing milk; • access rules, including the rules on MPs’ babies in the Chamber and in Westminster Hall; • the extent to which the facilities of the House of Commons meet the needs and interests of those who are disabled or have long-term health conditions; and • the House’s working practices and their effects on participation in House of Commons proceedings by parents, carers, disabled people and those with long- term health conditions. The results should be disaggregated by sex and other protected characteristics, so far as is consistent with protecting the anonymity of respondents. We recommend this survey be completed within three months of publication of this Report. The results should be fed into the House of Commons Commission’s gender sensitivity and diversity action plan, which we recommend at the end of this Report. (Paragraph 89) Equality in the heart of democracy: A gender sensitive House of Commons 47 Transforming culture and behaviour in the House of Commons

The Independent Complaints and Grievance Scheme, alongside the Behaviour Code, Valuing Everyone training and the establishment of the Cultural Transformation Team, is a significant step towards effectively tackling the House of Commons’ damaging culture of bullying, harassment and sexual misconduct. We welcome the steps being taken, following the reviews of the scheme by Alison Stanley CBE, to increase its accessibility to the whole parliamentary community and improve its operational efficiency, in particular to speed up investigations where possible. We will continue to scrutinise progress.

We welcome the recent changes to Standing Orders that are intended to allow the triggering of recall petitions in relation to MPs sanctioned by the Independent Expert Panel to suspensions from the House for the minimum duration set out in the Recall of MPs Act 2015. While the delay in bringing forward the necessary motion was regrettable, the application of amended Standing Orders to be read alongside the Act should now correct the error. This must now be seen to be effective in applicable cases; if not, the law must be changed for the avoidance of any uncertainty and to act as an effective deterrent to inappropriate and harmful behaviours.

In other workplaces, suspension of employees under investigation for sexual misconduct is rightly considered the norm. We note that the House of Commons Trade Union Side is not arguing for suspension of MPs under investigation for sexual misconduct, only for temporary exclusion. However, exclusion of MPs from Parliament is not straightforward. MPs are not employees, they are individually elected postholders, with a specific constitutional and democratic role as their constituents’ sole representative in the legislature. This status must be balanced with the need to protect the parliamentary community from potential harm, particularly given the risk of repeat behaviour by men who engage in sexual misconduct. The complex employment relationships in the House of Commons and parliamentary constituencies may mean there is no perfect solution to this issue. However, the House should consider whether the current approach, based on case-by-case risk assessments, potential withdrawal of services and facilities and, where necessary, informal agreement through the usual channels that an MP under investigation should not attend Parliament, provides the right balance. We recommend the House of Commons Procedure Committee seek fuller advice from the House’s procedural and legal advisers on the issues around balancing protecting people, in Parliament and constituencies, from harm, and constituents’ rights to political representation. The Procedure Committee should consider, in the light of this advice, whether to inquire into this matter further and bring forward recommendations, taking into account the need to: • maintain confidentiality for complainants and respondents; • maintain a presumption of innocence and ensure fair investigations; and • mitigate any undue risk of vexatious allegations.

We welcome the clarification by the House of Commons’ Clerk Assistant and Director of the Independent Complaints and Grievance Scheme (ICGS) of the circumstances in which the policies and procedures of the ICGS apply to the behaviour of MPs in 48 Equality in the heart of democracy: A gender sensitive House of Commons House of Commons proceedings. The distinction between MPs speech and writing, such as speeches and interventions in the chamber and formal discussions and papers in Committee meetings, that is part of a proceeding and therefore outside of the scope of the ICGS, and behaviours that might occur during a proceeding, such as whispering, note-passing and unwanted physical touching, but do not form part of the formal proceeding and are therefore covered by the ICGS, is a clear and helpful one. We recommend that this distinction be clearly set out in updated guidance on the new ICGS Hub. We welcome the Committee on Standards’ inclusion of this issue in its broader review and consultation on changes to the Code of Conduct, and its proposal that Mr Speaker should, in certain circumstances, particularly those related to alleged bullying, harassment and sexual misconduct, have the option to refer MPs behaviour in the chamber and other proceedings to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards for investigation under ICGS policies and procedures. We encourage MPs, and staff, to submit their views on this to the Committee on Standards’ consultation. (Paragraph 117) Maintaining institutional focus and driving further reforms

Despite recent progress in several areas, the House of Commons currently lacks a comprehensive and systematic approach to driving forward reforms to promote gender and diversity sensitivity. This Report has demonstrated the need for further reforms in each of the key areas we have examined: equal representation; support for parent and carer MPs; a gender and diversity sensitive workplace and working practices; and an inclusive culture in which inappropriate and harmful behaviour is no longer tolerated. There is clearly no room for complacency. Now is the time to review progress, build on it through a reinvigorated action plan and institute a systematic monitoring mechanism. We recommend, as a first step, the House of Commons Commission conduct a swift review of the implementation of recommendations in The Good Parliament report and the UK Gender Sensitive Parliament Audit 2018, in line with best practice recommended by the Inter- Parliamentary Union and Commonwealth Parliaments Association. We recommend this review be published within six months, together with the results of the Member Services Team’s survey of MPs that we have recommended in this Report. We further recommend the Commission report annually to us on progress in any outstanding areas. Where necessary, we will hold annual oral evidence sessions to scrutinise progress and make further recommendations. (Paragraph 123) Equality in the heart of democracy: A gender sensitive House of Commons 49