My letter to the Equality and Human Rights Commission today regarding pay transparency. The justified anger must now spur the change for equal pay. As the equalities watchdog the EHRC must lead and the Government must give them the funding they need to do this:
My letter to the Equality and Human Rights Commission today regarding pay transparency. The justified anger must now spur the change for equal pay. As the equalities watchdog the EHRC must lead and... Read more
Harman, left, and Baird said the government used “completely flawed” research
Two senior legal figures are challenging the attorney-general and the new lord chancellor over claims that the law is protecting rape complainants from being questioned at trial about their previous sexual history.
Two former solicitors-general, Harriet Harman, QC, an MP who served as deputy leader of the Labour Party, and Dame Vera Baird, QC, now a police and crime commissioner, accuse Jeremy Wright, QC, and the then lord chancellor David Lidington of using “completely flawed” research to claim that the law is working as it should.
In a letter issued today, Harman and Baird say they are seeking a meeting with the Wright and Gauke for an explanation of how the research was relied on and to suggest how the law could be improved.
In 2016 Wright and Lidington commissioned research into the workings of section 41 of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999, which prevents the use of sexual history by the defence to discredit the complainant unless the judge agrees.
The case of the footballer Ched Evans, who was acquitted of raping a 19-year-old woman, led to concerns that the rule was being breached.
The study looked at 309 rape cases and found that in 92 per cent, no evidence of the complainant’s sexual history was permitted to be introduced by the defence, and applications to do so were made in only 13 per cent of cases.
However, in their letter, Harman and Baird say they are “disappointed and baffled” by the research report and accompanying statement.
They say that it fails to challenge the findings of other evidence about the use of section 41 and that it cannot be accurate because the Crown Prosecution Service does not require its prosecutors or caseworkers to note if a section 41 application is made. Any application at the start of or during a trial is unlikely to be recorded because in most trials there is no CPS caseworker present and no requirement for the prosecuting barrister to report.
“The numbers in your report are therefore not based on anything which could be regarded as reliable. Yet on this basis you conclude the law is being correctly applied and does not need amending,” they write, adding: ”We seriously challenge this.”
The cite a proposed Domestic Violence and Abuse Bill as an opportunity to amend the legislation. They also question why the research report included trials involving “guilty pleas” because there would be no point in a section 41 application by the defence in such cases.
In a statement to the Commons in December, Wright said: ”These findings strongly indicate that the law is working as it should, and strikes a careful balance between the need to protect complainants and ensuring that defendants receive a fair trial, consistent with the common law and Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights.”
However, he added: “Whilst this is reassuring, we want to do more to provide vulnerable victims, and the public at large, with complete confidence in our criminal justice system.”
Harman, left, and Baird said the government used “completely flawed” research Two senior legal figures are challenging the attorney-general and the new lord chancellor over claims that the law is...
This afternoon I spoke in Parliament to praise Carrie Gracie, former China Editor at the BBC, for the principled stand she has taken in denouncing unequal pay on behalf of women not just in the BBC and broadcasting but in workplaces up and down the country, I demanded the government to reverse the cuts of almost 70% to the Equality and Human Rights Commission to ensure they have the funds to tackle the pay discrimination which is now laid bare.
From April 2018 all organisations with more than 250 employees will be required to publish their gender pay gap every year. The exposure of the persistence and extent of the pay gap will anger women employees. But it is important that this information is the spur for change, empowering women to demand change, rather than just increasing the justifiable resentment which women feel.
-It is crucial that a woman at work is able to see clearly how the pay gap in the organisation for which they work compares with other similar organisations.
-It is crucial for women to be able to track the progress their organisation is making in narrowing the pay gap year on year.
-It is crucial for the government and local government to see the regional pattern of the pay gap.
The Equality and Human Rights Commission has the responsibility to monitor this, to ensure companies publish their pay gaps and to set targets for companies to close the gap. But in order to ensure that the EHRC are able to carry out this important task and right this wrong, it is vital that the government gives them the money they need.
You can read my full statement below or watch the debate here.
I think what we should be doing today is to be thanking Carrie Gracie for the principled stand she has taken. She has done this on behalf of women, not just in the BBC, not just in broadcasting, but women throughout the country who suffer pay discrimination. As a broadcaster and as a journalist she is exceptional, but as a woman facing entrenched pay discrimination, I’m afraid she is the norm.
He rightly says that when it comes to the transparency, the requirement to publish the pay gap, which is in the 2010 Equality Act, it’s for the regulator, the Equality and Human Rights Commission, to police that, to monitor it, to make sure companies publish and to set targets that they close the gap. But, will he commit that this Government, in order to ensure that they are able to carry out the important task, to remedy this discrimination, that they redress the cuts of up to 70% that have fallen upon the Equality and Human Rights Commission?
This is a pivotal moment. We need the Equality and Human Rights Commission to be able to do their job. They need the funds to be able to ensure we right this wrong.
Matthew Hancock, Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport:
Well, I pay tribute to the leadership that the Right Honourable lady, in Government and since, on this issue, because making sure that equality of opportunity pervades our country is important, and that means gender equality too. She’s rightly been an outspoken voice in favour of gender pay equality and equality across the board.
What I would say about the EHRC, is that it is their actions, and they have a duty to act and now they are indeed acting, and that is a question of judgement as much as it is a question of judgement.
This afternoon I spoke in Parliament to praise Carrie Gracie, former China Editor at the BBC, for the principled stand she has taken in denouncing unequal pay on behalf of...
Following reports of death threats to MPs after last week’s Brexit vote, I asked the Home Secretary what actions the Government is taking to combat the toxic culture surrounding the Brexit debate.
“I fully endorse the words of my right hon. Friend the shadow Home Secretary. I thank the Home Secretary for her statement, but I want to press her on the question of death threats to MPs because of how they voted in last week’s debate. Does she agree that we have here a toxic triangle, which is made up of the divisiveness of the Brexit issue, The Daily Telegraph and The Daily Mail identifying certain Members as targets and framing the attack on them and—facilitated by social media—the mob following? When MPs in other countries are threatened with violence because of how they vote, we call that tyranny, and we call that fascism, but that is what is happening here.
As well as rightly commending the bravery of her Conservative colleagues, will the Home Secretary be brave herself and call in the editors of the Daily Mail and The Daily Telegraph? We have more contentious votes ahead of us, and there are people out there who are vulnerable to being incited to violence. Barely 18 months ago, our colleague Jo Cox was killed. The safety of MPs is at stake here, and so, too, is our democracy.”
“The right hon. and learned Lady makes a passionate case about the difficulties, challenges and very real threats that all MPs find themselves facing. Let us be clear that the real criminals are the instigators of these threats and attacks. Everybody should be clear that anything that is illegal offline is illegal online, so anybody who is in receipt of such a threat should go to the police, so that action can be taken.
From the Government’s point of view, we have made sure that the police have the resources to address the problem. We have invested, through the police transformation fund, in new digital advice to ensure that the police know how to record for evidence the types of accusation and attack that Members may receive online, so that there is a proper trail of evidence for prosecution. I believe that the attackers are the clear enemy, and we should focus our policy on them.”
Following reports of death threats to MPs after last week’s Brexit vote, I asked the Home Secretary what actions the Government is taking to combat the toxic culture surrounding the...
It was great to welcome the lively and enthusiastic Ivydale Primary School Council to Parliament today. A big thank you to the teachers and parents for bringing them!
It was great to welcome the lively and enthusiastic Ivydale Primary School Council to Parliament today. A big thank you to the teachers and parents for bringing them!
The run-up to Christmas is the busiest period of the year for the police. This afternoon I visited police stations in Camberwell and Peckham to take part in their annual #WalktheMet event. I later also joined local officers talking to residents in The Lane.
Thanks to all at Southwark Police for the work they do.
The run-up to Christmas is the busiest period of the year for the police. This afternoon I visited police stations in Camberwell and Peckham to take part in their annual...
Today, I visited Camberwell Sorting Office, meeting with staff and thanking them for the great work they do at this busy time of year.
Postal workers and Post Offices are a key part of our community, providing a vital public service. Tory cuts and privatisation of Royal Mail mean that Post Offices are closing, including Rye Lane Post Office last year, and Postal workers’ conditions have worsened.
Labour values our postal workers and will, when in Government, bring Royal Mail back under public ownership improving service provision and conditions for staff.
HARRIET HARMAN MP THANKS LOCAL POSTMEN AND WOMEN AS THEY DELIVER A FIRST CLASS CHRISTMAS
- Harriet Harman MP passed on Christmas greetings to postmen and women at the Camberwell Delivery Office
- Christmas is Royal Mail’s busiest time of the year and Ms Harman saw the hard work and dedication of local postal workers to sort and deliver festive mail
- The last recommended posting dates for Christmas are: Second Class – Wednesday 20 December, First Class- Thursday 21 December and Special Delivery - Friday 22 December
Harriet Harman MP visited the Camberwell Delivery Office to see first-hand the operation of delivering Christmas post and to pass on season’s greetings to its hardworking staff.
Ms Harman was shown around the office by Delivery Office Manager, Brian Chapman, and was introduced to the postmen and women, who are pulling out all the stops to sort and deliver mail in Camberwell over the Christmas period.
The Festive Season is Royal Mail’s busiest period, as millions of people shop online for gifts and send Christmas cards and parcels.
Harriet Harman MP said: “At no other time is the hard work and dedication of postmen and women clearer than during the festive period. There is a huge amount of effort and dedication that goes into delivering a first class Christmas.
“It was great to meet the team here at Camberwell and thank them for the extraordinary lengths they go to ensure Christmas cards and presents are delivered to loved ones on time, and for all they do year-round.”
Brian Chapman, Royal Mail Delivery Office Manager, said: “Our postmen and women are working extremely hard to deliver Christmas cards, letters and parcels to people in Camberwell. We are grateful that Harriet visited the office to see our operation and to support the team.
“We’d like to remind our customers to post early so that friends and family have longer to enjoy their Christmas greetings and to please also use the postcode as this helps us greatly in the job that we do at this busy time.”
The last recommend posting dates for Christmas are:
Second Class – Wednesday 20 December 2017
First Class – Thursday 21 December 2017
Special Delivery – Friday 22 December 2017
Customers can also help Royal Mail ensure that all their letters, cards and parcels are delivered as quickly and efficiently as possible by taking a few easy steps:
- Post early – Avoid disappointment by posting your cards and parcels early.
- Use the postcode – A clearly addressed card or parcel, with a postcode, and return address on the back of the envelope, will ensure quick and efficient delivery.
- Use Special Delivery – For valuable and important packages and parcels guarantee delivery with Royal Mail’s Special Delivery, which means your gift is tracked, traced and insured against loss.
- Wrap parcels well and always give a return address
- For more information about Royal Mail’s last recommended posting dates, please visit: www.royalmail.com/merrychristmas or call 03457 740 740
Today, I visited Camberwell Sorting Office, meeting with staff and thanking them for the great work they do at this busy time of year. Postal workers and Post Offices are...
Today I asked the Health Secretary, Jeremy Hunt, to come to Parliament and make an urgent statement on the resignation of Lord Kerslake as the Chair of King’s College Hospital NHS Foundation Trust.
The problem at King’s is not the leadership, any more than it is the growing number of patients or the dedicated staff. The problem at King’s is that there is not enough money. The Government shows no recognition of the fact that over the past two years, King’s has already cut £80 million—double the rate that other hospitals have had to cut—and taken on an ailing trust to help out the wider NHS. King’s is now being told that it has to make even further cuts. How can it keep its A&E waiting times down, prevent waiting lists from growing and continue to meet cancer targets if it goes on to make further cuts?
The Government must face up to the fact that problems caused by lack of money are simply not going to be solved by blaming the leadership. King’s is an amazing hospital and a specialist world centre of research, which is also there for local people. It was there after the Grenfell Tower fire and the terrorist incidents we have had in London. Is it too much to ask the Government to recognise the reality of the situation and pull back from imposing further cuts, which will make patients suffer? No amount of changing the faces at the top will make that difference. It is the Minister’s responsibility.
Today I asked the Health Secretary, Jeremy Hunt, to come to Parliament and make an urgent statement on the resignation of Lord Kerslake as the Chair of King’s College Hospital...
***Check against delivery***
Thanks very much to Les Allamby for inviting me today and for his input and support of the work of our Joint Committee on Human Rights.
I’m delighted to be here to pay tribute to, and support, the work of the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission
I well remember when the Commission was established in 1999 as part of the peace process. But there had been a movement for human rights and equality in Northern Ireland long before that. And strong links with the human rights movement in the rest of the UK. In the 1970s when I was legal officer at NCCL (now Liberty) there was an active Northern Ireland Committee examining, and challenging, everything to do with human rights from job discrimination to internment without trial.
Because of the divisions between the Catholic and the Protestant community (republican/loyalist) and the accompanying violence and intimidation, the context for your promotion of human rights was highly challenging but also hugely important. You have had to defend rights in a very difficult context of and amidst controversy caused by issues such as those surrounding parades, protests and blasphemy
So I start by acknowledging the brave work on human rights and equality that has been done within and between Northern Ireland’s different communities.
Your Commission has, over the years, dealt with all the issues that the EOC, CRE and now the EHRC does - of sex discrimination and racism.
You have, like other commissions, moved forward on issues which are newly commanding focus on the rights agenda such as age discrimination, disability discrimination, gay rights, Female Genital Mutilation and human trafficking.
Highlighting the NI women who’ve fought for their rights
I have admired, in particular, the work over the years of the Women’s Movement in Northern Ireland.
As we campaigned for laws prohibiting sex discrimination and unequal pay and for their rigorous implementation - I knew of and admired the work of Inez McCormack, who along with many others, blazed a trail for women in Northern Ireland.
And though the context of the campaign for women’s equality in Northern Ireland was very different from our situation in the rest of the UK, many of the battles were the same.
And the women’s movement had the same energising effect on all of us - all over England, Scotland Wales and Northern Ireland, and our arguments were the same. We wanted nothing less than the transformation of women’s role - in the home, at work and in society.
When I was growing up in the 1950s and 60s the summit of aspiration for a girl was to get a husband
And when you’d achieved that lofty ambition - to look after him, the home and the children.
Education was wasted on a girl - or worse, was dangerous as it might jeopardise her ability to snare the husband. No man would want a wife who was too clever by half. And certainly not cleverer than him.
Women worked - but didn’t have careers. Women who’d gone out to work when they left school “gave up to get married”. (Example of woman in Scotland).
But for the unfortunate few who had failed to achieve a husband - there was a whole language around these women. Spinsters, left on the shelf, wallflowers.
My own mother - one of the very few who went to university, qualified as a barrister but she gave up the law when she got married. Solicitors explained to her that clients thought they were getting second best and would lose their case with a woman barrister. And anyway she had a more pressing role which was to make my father’s breakfast and dinner.
So she gave up - and her wig and gown was consigned to our dressing up box.
The Women’s Movement - rejecting subordination to men
But I was part of a new generation of women who weren’t going to put up with this.
Not the man as “head of household”
Not take a vow to “obey”
Not his right to beat her
Not defined by what you look like
Not have to choose between family and work - but do both
And to do that we needed to break into men-only areas in every walk of life
Men only judiciary
Men only trade union movement and business leaders
Men making decisions in councils, in Parliament and governments
Demanding an equal say
We demanded this as a matter of principle
Because to exclude women was discrimination
But also because it would lead to better decisions
This was challenging the established order and was fiercely resisted.
It was even controversial to count the numbers. (E.g. in FTSE 100 counting women on boards and the number of men only boards).
Women in councils
Women in Parliament
I got selected - and elected
But, because of terrible results for Labour in 1983 no other young feminists came in
Pressing for more women
Hard to make a difference if outnumbered.
When I was first elected in 1982 it was to a House of Commons of 97% men.
And of MPs from NI constituencies it was 100% men.
Women’s voices were simply not heard.
We thought it was not enough to get the vote so that we could vote for men - wanted to have our own voice.
Labour women struggled for women’s representation, in the party of women and equality.
All regions, women from trade unions and professional women.
Making the case - but no change.
Then, we tried one woman on every shortlist - but no change
Then, Shortlists 50% women - but no change
So, All Women Shortlists
1997 over 100 women Labour MPs (still none in Northern Ireland)
Slow - but steady - progress
So women had got into Parliament. But still women lacked influence as they were the most junior
But, over time, women moving up in the civil service
Moving up as special advisors
Into the political commentariat
And as more women were elected, on all sides of the House of Commons, the momentum gathered for a steady march of progress.
*a national childcare strategy
*doubling maternity pay and leave and introducing paternity leave
*new laws on domestic violence
In the 30 years since I became an MP...what we have now is a transformed political agenda but the practical reality is we still need much more to change.
- There’s an acknowledgement that domestic violence is a terrible thing - but still pervasive. Still 2 women a week are killed by a current or former husband or partner and every day refuges are being forced to turn women away.
- There’s an acknowledgement that women are entitled to equal pay - but they still don’t get it. Once they’ve had their first child, let alone their second, their pay and prospects suffer and never recover.
- There’s an acknowledgement that women need time off when they have a baby - but maternity pay is so low that still most women can’t afford to take all their maternity leave and woefully small take up of paternity leave. And, as yet, there is no maternity or paternity leave for MPs or councillors. We’re hoping to change that now and Sylvia Hermon and Emma Little-Pengelly are both supporting us with that.
- There’s a recognition that childcare is essential but there are still women tearing their hair out to trying to find, or afford, good quality, flexible childcare…or unable to work.
So in the decades ahead we must, having won the arguments, win the practical change. Next year as we celebrate the centenary of the first women winning the right to vote we must step up our ambition not just to “get into the room” but to insist on change. Less persuasion and more insistence. Less requests, more demands. Less suggesting, more asserting.
Solidarity between women in the cause of progress
One of the most fundamental tenets of the women’s movement of the women’s movement has always been solidarity between women.
Back in the 1970s the notion of “sisterhood” was a new and surprising thing. When I was growing up, other women were regarded as deadly rivals, mostly in completion to get the husband. There was plentiful language to describe women’s rivalry - such as “scratching each other’s eyes out.” My sister was applying for work as a lawyer in the 1970s. This was before the Sex Discrimination Act banned overt discrimination against women. So she applied to a firm where she knew they already had a woman. Phoning them and asking to apply for the job she was told that they wouldn’t consider her - because she was a woman. But, she said, you do employ women, you’ve got one. That’s precisely why, they said. We’ve already got one and if we had another you’d only fight. There was no sense that women could support each other.
But the determination that we would stand together in solidarity, working together in common cause was one of the transformative elements of the women’s movement. The women’s movement changed how we saw ourselves, how we saw our relationships with men and how we related to each other.
We were going to insist on pressing forward in every aspect of life - in factories in offices, in the law and universities, in councils and in parliament – and in our homes. And the way we were going to do this was by working together as women. Women not as rivals but as allies in the difficult and often painful quest for change.
And that solidarity was to all women - not just those near at hand but those from other walks of life, women in different countries and from other parts of the country. So we looked over to our sisters in Northern Ireland. And they looked over to us. So many things about our lives were different. But so much of our ambition was the same. And instinctively we were, and are, in solidarity with women’s quest for change here.
New solidarity between women in Parliament with women in NI
Relations between the government in Westminster and decision-making in Northern Ireland was and remains, extraordinarily sensitive and complex, deeply entwined with the peace process. Which we all wanted to see succeed. Often when women in Northern Ireland reached out to us for support we were warned by our colleagues in parliament, “that’s got to be decided in Northern Ireland - if you interfere you’ll jeopardise the peace settlement.” Of course it is fundamental to us that we support devolution and decision-making by Northern Ireland’s own representatives. But there’s a new dimension to the sense of solidarity between women in Westminster with our sisters in Northern Ireland which I think marks a turning point. The preparedness of Parliament to engage in the issue of abortion for Northern Irish women is testament to that. In a PLP which is now 45% women and where there are young women on all sides of the House who are what I describe as “daughters of the women’s movement”, there is now a refusal to accept being told to stay out of it, just accept what male-dominated Northern Irish politics dictates and don’t intrude.
Women should decide their own destiny
And another tenet of the women’s movement was that we should decide for ourselves, as women. And that men should not tell us what to do.
The slogan on the banners that we marched under in the 1960s in support of the Abortion Act was “not the church, not the state, women must decide their fate.” We could have added - if it rhymed, when it comes to women’s lives, women - not men - should decide. In those days there was a natural expectation that men made decisions and women abided by them. In the early 1980s as a new MP I did a survey of the expert committees which advised government. It was men in government being advised by male advisory committees. Men, it seemed were the experts on everything - the mines, the motorways, the money supply. It was the last straw when I discovered that even on the maternity services advisory committee it was all men! But it seems that they were the experts on giving birth too and had the say so on abortion.
When I look back at all the progress we made I can see that there are some lessons I’ve learnt.
Solidarity “despite” devolution
One of them is that you’re always told that there’s an overriding reason that you shouldn’t “interfere” in support of other women. There’s always a political imperative advanced that though it might be right in principle, it’s not right at this particular point to act in support of that quest for equality. Heeding those voices is applauded as “realistic” as “teamly”. But the reality is that lack of solidarity weakens equality movements and postpones the day when people achieve the rights that they seek.
So, we were warned that putting gay marriage in the Equality Act would anger the Catholic Church in Scotland and thereby unsettle the Labour vote. We were warned that using our votes to support the demand of women in Northern Ireland for abortion would destabilise the finely balanced, all important political equilibrium within Northern Ireland and between Britain and Northern Ireland. And jeopardise the peace process. So we mustn’t get involved.
We have always deferred on questions of devolution. That was the reason we didn’t, for example, extend the Equality Act to Northern Ireland. But the question we’re asking now is, where does that leave you? If it leaves you failing to extend equality to gay couples how can that be right? If it leaves women in Northern Ireland without our support for abortion rights, rights that we in the rest of the UK have had since 1967, how can that be right? If it leaves women in Northern Ireland held back by male dominated politics, how can that be right?
There’s a new sense amongst women in Westminster that we will not step aside when our sisters in Northern Ireland call for our support. I don’t know whether that is because there are now more women MPs on all sides and that brings with it a new assertiveness, or whether it’s because the new generation of women are that much more distant from the violence of the division in Northern Ireland. But, whatever the reason, I think it promises significant and welcome change. And the manifestation of this came with the change on abortion in England for Northern Irish women. The government had to accede to the demands, ably led by Stella Creasy MP, for women from Northern Ireland to get NHS abortions in England because if they didn’t we would vote on it, we had the numbers and they would lose.
Those who oppose change can, in my view, no longer rely on the assumption that Westminster will step back from supporting demands for rights in Northern Ireland because of our support for devolution. Women’s rights, gay rights are human rights, human rights are universal and we must champion them in every part of the UK as well as every part of the world. We will call on your solidarity as we struggle to take things forward. And I can say with confidence that you can call on our support. So let’s work together closely. And I’m sure we can identify opportunities to turn that solidarity into action.
No borders between sisters - Speech at Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission annual statement launch
***Check against delivery*** Thanks very much to Les Allamby for inviting me today and for his input and support of the work of our Joint Committee on Human Rights. I’m...