Good afternoon and welcome to the Women and Equalities Committee. Today we are holding our first evidence session of this Parliament on the work of the Minister for Women and Equalities. We will be hearing from the right hon. Bridget Phillipson MP, Minister for Women and Equalities and Secretary of State for Education; the right hon. Anneliese Dodds MP, Minister of State for Women and Equalities and Minister of State for Development; and Anna Thompson, Deputy Director, External Communications at the Office for Equality and Opportunity. Welcome, and thank you so much for taking the time to be with us today. We have quite a range of questions, so I will ask for the questions and answers to be as short as possible, please. Where you feel that a more detailed response is needed, please feel free to say that you are going to write with extra evidence. Thank you. My first question is for Bridget, if I may call you that—

Yes, of course.

Thank you. How is the portfolio for women and equalities divided between you both in terms of responsibilities and day-to-day work? It is already very clear that you run the women and equalities side of things very differently from previous Governments in the fact that there is a lead for each Department, and we see that at oral questions.

Yes.

It would be good for the Committee to understand how you are working.

Absolutely. Let me begin by saying thanks so much for the opportunity to be in front of the Committee today. We will seek to keep our answers short to get through as much as we can and follow your steer on providing more information in writing as required. It is an enormous privilege to do this job, and we have a fantastic ministerial team. As you will appreciate, I am the lead Minister as the Secretary of State, leading on the overall direction of the brief and anything with a children and young people element, or anything connected to socioeconomic disadvantage, given that I lead the opportunity mission. That falls within my domain, and that really does complement the work I do in the Department for Education. As you say, there is a ministerial team, each of which has a delegated portfolio. I will not go through them all as you will have seen them listed, but it really does allow us to have that breadth across Departments to make sure that Ministers who are answering questions in the House are able to give full and wide-ranging responses on, for example, health and disability, and much more besides. Anneliese, do you want to say a bit about your work and how you lead things?

I am delighted to be here with the Committee and to finally be able to change things for the better, which is what we are determined to do right across our team. I work really closely with Bridget and the other Ministers. As Minister of State, I particularly focus on OEO legislation. I am sure that we will get into the detail of that soon, but that covers the Employment Rights Bill, the equality (race and disability) Bill and the conversion practices Bill. I also lead on women’s equality policy, so I have a seat on the VAWG mission sub-board, again a subject we may talk about. Then, as Bridget mentioned, our other Ministers cover discrete other areas. As the Committee will be aware, we have Minister Timms focusing on disability, Nia Griffith focusing on LGBT+ people, Seema Malhotra focusing on racial and ethnic inequality, and our brilliant Lords spokespeople—I want to mention them as well—Lord Collins and Baroness Smith.

Fantastic, thank you. What are your key objectives for the first two years in these roles?

Over the next two years we want to have made significant progress on a number of our key manifesto commitments, particularly when it comes to legislative priorities, and we can go into more detail on that. Anneliese is leading on the legislation. We have the Employment Rights Bill scheduled to receive Royal Assent within the next year or so, we hope, subject to passage through Parliament. Key areas within that address lots of important areas around equalities. We will be publishing a draft Bill on conversion practices, delivering a full, trans-inclusive ban. That will provide safety to LGBT people subject to those practices, and that will be in the form of a draft Bill with pre-legislative scrutiny. We will also be publishing a draft race and disability Bill, which will mandate disability and ethnicity pay gap reporting in the workplace. We also intend to commence the socioeconomic duty, but we recognise that public bodies and other organisations will require guidance in that, so we are taking our time on that one to make sure it is properly worked through. It is my job to make sure that equalities is the responsibility of us all, right across Government Departments. The work that we are doing through the refocused OEO is to make sure that that is embedded right across the work of Government, covering all Government Departments and really pulling together what needs to change in order to deliver a more open, more inclusive and more equal society for everyone in our country.

That integration is, of course, critical across the Government’s different missions; we are ensuring that there is that equalities input with them all. The other clear difference with the new Government is that we are determined to integrate equality and opportunity-based work, including in relation to socioeconomic inequality. Bridget is leading the opportunity mission. We are then making sure that we are joining that up right across our equalities team of Ministers as well, so that we have a seamless connection. People out there in the real world have a number of different aspects of their lives that they expect Government to be paying attention to, whether that is their social class and income, their ethnicity or whether they are a man or a woman. We need to make sure we are reflecting that and actually delivering for people right across our country.

Thank you. That is great to hear. On a practical level, could you describe how you are using your influence to shape Government policies and legislation in everyday working life?

I will quickly talk about the VAWG ministerial board, and then I am sure there are many other examples that Bridget will mention. I represent OEO on that board; clearly, there are representatives of a number of different Government Departments. Hopefully, members of the Committee will be aware that we have made the first ever commitment as a Government to halve VAWG. Of course, we need to have action right across Government, working, of course, with civil society, local government and others. From the OEO point of view, we are trying to make sure that there is preventive work that is joined up across Government, and that we are ensuring that we have a really clear focus on where there are inequalities that impact on the experience of violence against women and girls. For example, we know that disabled women are far more likely to experience domestic violence than women who are not disabled, and there are significant differences across ethnic groups that we really need to pay heed to. That is one concrete example, but I am sure there are many others we can talk about.

I will keep it brief, but I lead the opportunity mission, working across Government to tackle issues around socioeconomic disadvantage—making sure that your background does not determine all that you can go on to achieve. I also sit on all five of the mission boards, which means that the work on equalities runs throughout every mission board. To further continue that, for example, the safer streets mission board plays a key role in making sure that the approach we are taking on violence against women and girls is genuinely cross-governmental. Of course, the Home Office, as the lead Department, has an essential role to play, but so does the Department for Education, so does the Department for Transport—I could go on. As you have said, this really is a different way of seeking to work. We believe it will be more effective in terms of driving forward our plan for change and wider reform if we have that genuine cross-governmental engagement.

Thank you, both. That gives us a much clearer picture of how you are working. You have clear ways in when it comes to legislation, but I want to talk about guidelines and how you are able to feed into them. We recently heard about the guidelines that were handed out from the Home Office around asylum: anybody who has come to the UK illegally or used a dangerous route will normally be refused, regardless of the time that has passed since the illegal entry took place. I wonder whether there is a space there for women and equalities, because there will be an equalities angle on this. Has an equalities impact assessment been done on those guidelines, particularly for people who are victims of sex trafficking and modern slavery, which will impact women and girls but also people with protected characteristics?

I understand your concerns. If I may, Chair, I will ensure that further information is provided on all those points.

Okay. Thank you very much.

I have a brief supplementary question. Thank you both for coming. Bridget, you obviously have a big brief already with education and, Anneliese, likewise with your brief. Is it working with this almost as an add-on to your existing brief, or do you think it should be a whole brief on its own, separate to the work you are doing? I am not saying you cannot manage.

No, I understand, and it is a very reasonable question. Both of us have a busy set of responsibilities, but if you want something doing, you usually ask a busy person, don’t you? More seriously, we are both able to dedicate the necessary time to this crucial work. I find the work that I do around equalities, together with the work that I lead in the Department for Education, genuinely complementary. In recent months, I feel policy development has been improved by that close connection between the two and by the work across Government. It is always a challenge when you carry lots of responsibilities, but I feel it works well. With the range of ministerial appointments that have been made alongside that, there is a wide and big team that is also able to take forward really important work. For example, we talked about Minister Timms and the work around disability. That is really allowing us to drive work forward across Government Departments in that crucial area, perhaps in a way that it was not before.

I do not want to hold up the Committee, but I could not agree more. It is exactly the same for me and, I think, for the other Ministers as well.

Thank you. Kirith has some more questions about the OEO.

You have mentioned the OEO a few times. Could you explain the structure of the Office for Equality and Opportunity? Do all the different units within it report to yourselves?

The OEO is a Cabinet Office business unit. It leads on that cross-governmental, cross-cutting policy related to all the areas that you will be aware of. It is right that it sits at the heart of Government through the Cabinet Office because so much of that work does require co-ordination across Government Departments. There are different business units within OEO, each leading on a different aspect of equalities policy. We have the women and equalities unit, the race equality unit and the disability unit, alongside the sponsorship of a number of arm’s length bodies. I felt it was important to make the change last October to rename what had been the Equality Hub. It was an important signal of this Government’s commitment to putting equalities right at the heart of our work, and it was at that stage that we announced the full ministerial team with a record five Equalities Ministers plus our two spokespeople in the Lords. This demonstrates and underlines the Government’s commitment to taking this work incredibly seriously.

How is the new OEO different from the Equality Hub it replaced?

Of course, changing the name of an organisation only gets you so far, but that was an important signal. I think the ambitious programme that we have set out really does speak for itself—the legislation that we have already brought forward as a Government and that we are intending to bring forward, and how we have demonstrated our commitment to that wider work across Government with the representation of so many Ministers in the team.

How is the OEO’s work with other Departments structured? Are there any formal arrangements?

There are formal arrangements in a number of areas of work. Violence against women and girls is one example, but there are other emerging areas, too. I will give another example: we are working across Government on SEND reform through a ministerial working group in that area. There are a number of ways that we are seeking to make sure that policymaking is better reflective of what a number of Departments will need to contribute. You will appreciate that in some areas of reform, while you might have a lead Department, without the contribution of others we will not be as effective as we would seek to be.

Indeed. One of the priorities of the OEO is to improve the quality of evidence and the data about inequality. What key evidence gaps are you are seeking to fill, and how will you go about doing that?

Anneliese, do you want to speak to that, because it covers legislation as well, doesn’t it?

Absolutely. This is a real challenge. If we are being completely frank, we saw the Race Disparity Unit set up by Theresa May, which was intended to improve the quality of data gathering and use across Government on issues to do with racial and ethnic inequality, and I would argue there was not a huge amount of impetus in subsequent years around its work and the broader activity that needed to take place politically to drive this. We really are focusing on how we can make sure that we have the right evidence and information—for example, when it comes to violence against women and girls, ensuring that we have appropriately fine-grained information about both what will drive change and the incidence of different forms of violence against women and girls, and ensuring that we are actually using data and evidence from other countries and from different local authorities. That has particularly been the case with violence against women and girls, where there is some very good practice that we can draw on and make sure that we are putting it into the policy conversation.

Thank you. One of the other top priorities is embedding equality and opportunity throughout the Government, including a new focus on socioeconomic background. What does that involve on a more practical level?

We are committed to enacting the socioeconomic duty, and we intend to set out in due course when that will happen, but there is also the relationship with the opportunity mission, which is cross-governmental. The key focus of that is to ensure that background is no barrier to opportunity. We are looking at the measures by which we will judge progress, and sitting underneath it there is a lot of work that relates not just to education, but to wider measures around, for example, socioeconomic disadvantage and the connection between family income and long-term success. In some areas, there are well-established measures that we can draw upon, but there are still data gaps, and we are looking across Government at how we seek to capture the current position and how we effect change over time. There is also legislation that we can come on to that will allow us to have a better and clearer understanding, particularly when it comes to workplace-related discrimination.

You mentioned the equality (race and disability) Bill. I am assuming that would be one of those mechanisms.

Absolutely.

It is great to see you both here, Ministers. I am sorry, Chair, but I have a general question that I am going to sneak in before my questions about reproductive health. You have explained very clearly how the portfolio is divided and the day-to-day work, but in five years’ time, how will we know your work has been successful? In a nutshell, what will success look like?

Great question.

I hope that we will have the legislation that we committed to in our manifesto in place. I hope that we will have driven change on those core missions—halving violence against women and girls and a number of others as well. Above all, I hope we will have a country where there is more opportunity for people wherever they live, whatever their background, and that we will have worked across Government in order to deliver that. That certainly would be my measure of success within five years, and I hope we can deliver quite a lot of that more quickly than within five years.

I will just add that, alongside the work that I have talked about today, I co-chair the child poverty taskforce with the Work and Pensions Secretary. We know that far too many children in our country are growing up in poverty and, again, this is an area where we are working right across Government to make sure that we can really start to tackle the scourge that blights the life chances of so many children. As Anneliese said, there will be milestones along the way in terms of legislation, but the legislation is an enabler for the change. We want to create a more equal society where everyone can play their full contribution and where the family that you are born into and the town where you are born does not determine everything about your life chances. Sadly, we know that for too many of our people, background is destiny. I do not believe background should be destiny.

Anneliese, you talked about halving violence against women and girls over a five-year period. Is there an acceptance that it may go up if reporting mechanisms are improved and trust within the system improves? We know about the level of under-reporting.

The mission is for a decade, so I want us to make sure that we are in the right direction by the five-year point, but you are right. Of course, we need to look really carefully at the measures to assess this. The Home Office, as you would expect, is particularly focused on how we can ensure that we really are looking at the right indicators for where there is change here. Historically, there has been significant under-reporting. We believe that there still is under-reporting in a number of different areas in relation to violence against women and girls, so we are focused on that, particularly in the ministerial board.

Would you like me to address the precise measure as well?

Yes.

Home Office colleagues believe the best measure of VAWG is prevalence, as reported through the crime survey for England and Wales, but we are working with the ONS across Government on producing headline measures overall, so a suite of metrics where we can work towards the halving of violence against women and girls in a decade, including on making sure we have accurate reporting around female homicide victims.

Moving on to reproductive health, we recently did a report that, I am afraid, really shone a light on the dismissive approach to gynaecological health across the healthcare system. Bridget, what are you doing to challenge this mentality?

It is an enormous challenge. If you do not mind, Chair, I will defer to Anneliese, who leads on this area for us.

We are both really passionate about it, and I know that many members of the Committee are, because we are seeing a situation where, unfortunately, as the Committee has found, too often we see women’s symptoms either not being diagnosed for far too long or being dismissed and women not being listened to. Unfortunately, the Committee has shown this in spades with the research that you have undertaken. We believe that there has to be change. It is not right that women are, for example, waiting up to 10 years to get a diagnosis of endometriosis. That is why we have set out the plan for change in relation to the NHS. I am sure that the Committee will have seen many of the measures that are being undertaken there. There has been immediate action to support women’s healthcare, including an extra £57 million going into Start for Life, rolling out a new programme on maternity outcomes, because we have seen major issues there, and ensuring that women’s health is at the heart of the work necessary. Of course, that also means making it easier for women to access information about their health. A number of members of the Committee were at an event last night showcasing work that is being undertaken, for example, in relation to menstruation to make sure that women get the information that they need about what is just a period and what is most definitely not just a period, and what might indicate the need for medical intervention.

Thank you. Picking up on one of the topics you mentioned, would the Government commit to a target to reduce the diagnostic time for endometriosis to two years?

We certainly want to see those diagnostic periods coming down; we think it is really important. We do not have a commitment to a target on that issue, but we do have a strong plan to be making sure that we are progressing on this. That covers a whole range of different areas: the measures that I mentioned; the overall plan for change for the NHS; the work that is being undertaken on workforce to make sure there is appropriate training around this, which traditionally has been an issue both for endometriosis and, of course, for menopause and other areas of women’s health too. So there is a multi-pronged effort to be dealing with this, and to make sure that we really are applying the pressure needed to shift the system on it.

You mentioned the event yesterday and the issue of what is a normal period. Heavy menstrual bleeding is something that many women experience, unfortunately, and women who have it are very susceptible to, or vulnerable to, period poverty. Do you support our recommendation that they should be able to access free period products?

What is central to the work across Government on poverty overall is that we want people to have more money in their pockets to make the choices that are right for them. It is a scandal that so many of our fellow citizens do not have enough money to provide for the basics, whether that is food for their children or period products. There are a number of ways that support is put in place—through the NHS, for example, and there is a scheme that operates from the DfE for education settings—for period products to be provided for those who require them, but I believe that we need to tackle poverty at its root cause so that all women in our country have enough money in order to provide the basics.

We recommended that the Employment Rights Bill should make it clear that supporting women with reproductive health conditions falls under the definition of advancing gender equality. Is that something the Government would agree with and support?

The equality action plans within the Employment Rights Bill will be focused on gender pay gap-related action and menopause action plans. Those action plans will enable the opening up of space around a whole range of different issues. We are going to be working on ensuring that there is appropriate information for employers. Of course, this is a requirement for larger employers with 250-plus employees, but it will be helpful for smaller businesses as well. We have not specified a focus on, for example, other women’s health conditions or menstrual health more generally. However, when I have engaged in discussion with businesses around this—as you would expect, I have done a lot of that as we have been formulating these plans—they have very often found that having that conversation around menopause and supporting older female workers has opened up the space for broader discussions in relation to women’s health. We want to go with the grain of what businesses have found to be very successful on this in terms of retaining their female staff, which we think is critical.

On the employment rights side of things, you will have seen that the Committee produced a report on miscarriage bereavement leave and has put forward an amendment to the Employment Rights Bill to support women and partners who experience pregnancy loss before 24 weeks. Is that something that you are minded to support, or that you have heard and seen the evidence for?

I have seen the evidence that has been produced by the Committee, and we have all been very moved by a lot of the discussions that have gone on within the Committee. If I may say so, Chair, your leadership on this has been incredibly impressive. Obviously, the loss of a child is an incredibly difficult time; miscarriage can be a really difficult time for women. We know that many employers will show compassion and understanding in these circumstances. I know the Committee is well aware of this, and you talked about it previously, but there is protection against discrimination regarding pregnancy that includes miscarriage. I know that is not exactly what the Committee has asked for, but I would just point out that people who are not able to work are able to access statutory sick pay depending on their circumstances. That is how we are looking at this issue. Of course, we have considered the evidence that has come from the Committee. We want to continue talking about this. We are really determined to consider the detail of amendments that have been proposed on this subject and, of course, we will fully update both the Committee and Parliament in the usual way on these matters.

Thank you. When it comes to the idea of sick pay, we heard evidence from women who had suffered from multiple miscarriages that sick pay was not appropriate for them in terms of the message that it sent out that there was something wrong with them, but also that they were incredibly worried, if they had had multiple miscarriages, that they were going to accrue sick leave to the point where it would trigger HR. There was also an understanding that, while you can get a certificate to recognise that loss, you are not allowed time to mourn that loss any more. I am grateful that you are looking into it. Hopefully we will see some progress. In terms of childcare, Catherine, you have some questions on the Employment Rights Bill.

Yes—well, on childcare in general. Unfortunately, as I am sure you both know, we have one of the most expensive childcare systems in the world in both England and Wales, where I am from. I get a lot of requests about childcare in my postbag in Monmouthshire, where I know it is devolved to the Welsh Government, but it is really important. We have talked about retaining women in the workplace, and the Fawcett Society estimates that one in 10 women leaves the workplace because of childcare pressures. In Wales, you can access the childcare offer if you are not working or if you are in training. Are there any plans to do that in England so that we can give more women—more parents—access to childcare? What are our plans to try to reduce the cost of childcare?

This is a crucial area. I am incredibly passionate about making sure we have really high-quality and accessible early education and childcare in terms of women’s life chances. It is women in particular that we are talking about here, who often suffer that disadvantage when childcare is not available and accessible. Alongside that, it is a crucial part of how we will deliver on our commitment to the best start in life for every child here in England, so making sure that record numbers of children reach a good level of development by the end of the early years foundation stage. I will briefly touch on a couple of ways in which we are seeking to achieve that. We made an £8 billion investment in childcare through the Budget, delivering the expanded entitlements here in England, but I recognise that there are areas of the system where further reform will be required in due course. At the moment, we are focusing on making sure we can deliver on those commitments and entitlements, and a crucial part of that will be how we build up places in parts of the country where they do not currently exist. The doubling of the early years pupil premium is one way we are going to incentivise providers to create places in areas where parents perhaps cannot pay additional costs and charges, or where the demand for hours is not so high. Alongside that is our commitment to more primary-based nurseries here in England. We have already launched the first wave. We will be setting out where those nurseries will be later this year. Finally—I could talk about this for a long time, but I will not be drawn too much—while it is crucial that we talk about the early years, for a range of reasons, not least children’s life chances, we all know that childcare needs do not end when children start at school. That is why, through the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill, we have a commitment to roll out breakfast clubs in every primary school. The first 750 early adopters will open in April this year, and we have a commitment to roll out more through the course of this Parliament as part of that Bill—a really clear signal about the priority that we attach to it. Alongside that, more recently, we have put in additional investment around an expansion grant connected to the early years pupil premium with a focus on disadvantage and place creation.

Are there any plans to extend the childcare offer to women who are not working or who are in training so that they can get into work?

I understand the argument, and there is a need to reform the system overall. We will reform the system through the course of this Parliament. There are elements of the offer that are available to disadvantaged families, in the parlance, but I appreciate that there are cliff edges within the system. That is something that we are looking at and will continue to keep under review. Rolling out the childcare expansion with that £8 billion commitment is a big undertaking. It will require us to ensure that providers are creating the places and have the workforce in place to deliver the final phase in September.

Of course, the case that was mentioned is one that is currently in the courts, so it would not be appropriate for me to comment on it. Furthermore, it relates to the Scottish NHS, which is an area that is devolved to the Scottish Government. However, on the broader issue of single-sex exceptions, the new Government have been very clear that we back the Equality Act. Initially, that Act was a Labour Government Act—it was one of the last actions of the previous Labour Government. We are determined to ensure that there is clarity around this. Of course, there is the ability for service providers to ensure that they provide single-sex services, and we have been seeking to ensure that that is very clear. For example, I visited a single-sex women’s refuge quite soon after I started in post to make sure that the Government are making that message clear as well.

It is really important that there is clarity around particularly what service providers understand of the law. We have been seeking to try to ensure that, especially around the availability of single-sex services, where they are required. Of course, that applies in conditions like the one I mentioned—refuges—and other circumstances where it may be particularly important for safety and privacy, and we have been making that very clear. There is also the ongoing For Women Scotland case, which is specifically about these issues related to the definition of sex within the Equality Act. Colleagues will understand that I cannot go into that in detail, but we are very clear that there has to be clarity around this so that service providers, in particular, understand what the law means.

Well, policies must be lawful rather than unlawful—that is, of course, important. In fact, there is now case law making it clear that belief is a protected characteristic, as we know, again going back to the Equality Act, which was produced by the previous Labour Government. Obviously, as a new Government, we also want to make sure that taxpayers’ money is protected, and that is going to be very important.

I am not completely sure what comes under that definition. I have met with a number of groups within the Foreign Office who have asked me to meet with them. That has included, for example, the cancer network. I have also met with the LGBT+ network. I was particularly keen to have a discussion with it because, of course, in many countries we see that homosexuality, for example, is illegal, and that there can be very unsafe environments for gay, lesbian, bi and trans people, and it was important for me to understand that situation for those staff.

I am not aware that I have, but I am happy to check and come back on that point. Just to re-emphasise the point that Anneliese was making around the approach that the Government take in these areas, when it comes to single-sex exemptions, we want providers to have absolute clarity on what is covered by the law. Before I was an MP, I managed a women’s refuge. I know how incredibly important it is that women have access to safe, timely and dignified support. I want to make sure—and we do across Government—that everyone who requires support in whatever context gets what is required while being clear that there are circumstances in which single-sex provision is absolutely legitimate and necessary under the law. I want to be absolutely clear on that point.

What role, if any, are you and the Women and Equalities Unit playing in the Government’s review of parental leave? Obviously, that has a huge impact on equalities.

Yes, it absolutely does—there is no question about that. We are aware that the system of parental leave is not operating in the way that it should be. For example, we see extremely low take-up of shared parental leave. There are a number of measures that colleagues may be aware of in the Employment Rights Bill—around day one rights, for example—that are going to improve the situation. The overall review is a Department for Business and Trade lead, but we are engaging in that as the OEO. We are determined to ensure that we have a proper review of this area, because we also know the positive economic impact that can come from getting these things right. They are not just important for parents and, of course, their children; they are really important for our economy, too.

Apologies for being late to the meeting; I had another meeting with a Minister. You will be aware that the Conservatives promised to ban the abusive conversion practices almost six years ago, and it was in numerous King’s Speeches, but it was never delivered. It was also in this Government’s King’s Speech. Could you update us on how you are getting on with that and when you expect it to finally be on the statute book?

We are working on this right now. You completely accurately described the previous situation, where there was a huge amount of instability and different approaches were taken over time. As a new Government, we are really clear that we will take forward a full, trans-inclusive ban on conversion practices. We are clear that they are abuse. We are also clear that any ban must not cover legitimate psychological support, treatment or non-directive counselling, and it has to respect the role that teachers, religious leaders, parents and carers can have in supporting people who are exploring their sexual orientation or gender identity. That exploration, of course, can be really important for people, but we are working right now on that ban. There is actually quite a lot of cross-party consensus on this, despite the twists and turns that we saw over recent years, but we need to make sure that we have a ban that will work, that will be effective and that is very clear in terms of its impact legislatively and in practical terms. We are going to be working closely with a whole range of different organisations, bodies and, hopefully, parliamentarians on this.

We have seen a rise in those sorts of practices taking place and being organised particularly by gender-critical groups, so I am really pleased that you have confirmed that those practices will be trans-inclusive. Have you seen a difficulty in those practices being purported to help with people questioning sexuality, but really being conversion practices to prevent people from exploring their gender?

We believe that exploration is very important. We have the previous Government’s consultation to examine, which was contributed to by a very large number of people. That indicated a range of situations where people had been subject to what they described as conversion practices. Of course, it will be really important for us to have a very clear definition in the Bill. As I said before, we want to be clear that exploration is actually very important for a lot of people, but when we see abuse, that is not acceptable, and that is what we are focused on now. Of course, as I mentioned before, this is critical when it comes to ensuring that healthcare practitioners can carry out their work, as well as religious leaders, carers, parents and so forth.

Do you have a timescale for when we should be expecting that to come forward? It was in our King’s Speech, and obviously we have seen that happen before—it was in a number of King’s and Queen’s Speeches, but it has not been delivered. Can you give an idea of the timeline and of where the unit’s work on that is at the moment?

This was not just in the King’s Speech; it was in our manifesto as well. It is something we are strongly committed to. We are working on a draft Bill right now and we will be publishing it later this Session, so this is something that we really are pushing forward on. As I said, we need to make sure that we have a Bill that, above all, will be effective to ban abusive practices, but that it is a well-drawn Bill with a clear scope, too, so that people who are exploring their sexual orientation and gender identity are able to do that.

We understand that the Equality and Human Rights Commission is currently operating with only seven commissioners. That is contrary to the Equality Act 2006, which states that there should be no fewer than 10 and no more than 15 commissioners. What led to its only having seven commissioners, and when can we expect the appointment of the correct number of commissioners?

Our first priority is to appoint the new chair, and the recruitment campaign for that began in November last year. The advert closed on 8 January. A recruitment campaign for additional commissioners will begin after the chair is identified, including for a Wales and Scotland commissioner. In the meanwhile, we have extended the terms of the chair and the interim deputy chair to provide stability during this time. It is simply just the way of things that, often, terms will come to an end and then it is necessary to make sure that a recruitment process takes place to replace the outgoing commissioners. It is right that we proceed with the appointment of the chair so that the chair is able to be involved in the wider recruitment process. I also want to put on record my thanks to Baroness Falkner for all her work taking forward the EHRC. It has been a pleasure to meet her and discuss the work of the EHRC, as I know Anneliese has also done on a number of occasions.

I am going to push you a little on the timeframes for appointing the new chair, for hopefully getting back up to 10 commissioners and for appointing the Wales and Scotland commissioners. When do you expect to be able to lay out timeframes?

The recruitment process for the chair is well under way; that advert closed in January. We want to move as rapidly as we can to make sure that the new chair is put in place. To the question on the wider complement, of course, we are within quoracy, so the EHRC can continue to operate, but I recognise that it is important to bring more commissioners on board. We have already appointed one new commissioner, Keith Richards, who has been appointed for a four-year term. He brings real expertise when it comes to disability rights in particular. We are broadening the work and making sure that we are really capturing the range of areas where action is required, but of course the EHRC is operationally independent, and it is important that that continues to be the case.

That is good to hear, because we have heard reports that sometimes the commission is not quorate because it only has seven, and at times, therefore, it is not able to make decisions. If somebody is not present out of the seven then it causes issues, so it is good to hear that there is a plan to get back up to the level needed. My final question is on funding for the EHRC. It has been functioning since 2012 on the same budget that was judged to be the minimum needed to function that year. Given the increase in the remit of the EHRC, is there any commitment to reviewing and potentially increasing the budget?

For 2024-25, the EHRC received a slightly increased baseline budget delegation of £17.5 million, which was up from £17.1 million. During the previous financial year, the Cabinet Office provided up to £0.8 million of additional funding to accommodate in-year pressures. The support has been put in place but, as an independent non-departmental public body, it is for the EHRC to decide how to allocate resources and manage its funding. Of course, there is a wider context across Government that is exceptionally challenging where it comes to the public finances. We recognise that every arm’s length body is facing challenges in this area. I believe that the EHRC has a crucial role to play. We want to make sure that the resources, the commissioners, the chair are able to discharge their responsibilities and duties as effectively as possible.

At our recent hearing on misogyny in music, we heard a number of calls for section 83 of the Equality Act to be amended to extend protection against discrimination and harassment to freelancers. Will you make that change?

We believe that everyone, including freelance workers, needs to be able to operate at work without any fear of harassment, discrimination or even violence, and certainly, the hearing that was undertaken and the update from the Committee were extremely concerning in that regard. We recognise that many allegations have been made on these issues in creative subsectors—in music and in other areas of the arts—including by freelancers. We are pleased to see that there is now industry progress around this. We are really pleased that the Creative Industries Independent Standards Authority is being formed and we hope it is going to help tackle these issues. We are aware that it is going to be able to provide advice to workers, including freelancers, right across the piece, but there is clearly further work required; certainly, we have been saying to industry that they need to consider what more they can do, including around issues of gender discrimination. Of course, we have seen some high-profile cases recently that have thrown this into relief again.

So you will be making that change to the Equality Act.

We are not committing to change the Equality Act on this issue. We have that industry-led initiative that I mentioned. We want to see that being effective and it is really important that it delivers, but we are of course going to be monitoring this really closely and will reserve the right to take action if we do not see appropriate progress being made. We really need to see that progress.

When will section 14 of the Act, on dual discrimination, be brought into force?

In our manifesto, we committed to enacting that provision, which is often known as dual discrimination and sometimes called combined discrimination. We are committed to strengthening protections against that kind of discrimination. We are determined to make that change. We are looking carefully at how we are going to be able to make progress on that commitment, and we are giving careful consideration at the moment to exactly how we can ensure that we do that and that, when we do enact the provision, it drives the change that is needed. We find very often that when individuals have to take cases on different aspects—we saw this in relation to menopause with age and sex, and indeed I think the Committee remarked on it at the time; for some people, disability would cover something, but often it would not—that is really complicating the machinery for individuals when, ultimately, they should be able to work in a context free of discrimination.

That is very helpful, thank you. We also heard calls for non-disclosure agreements to be banned in cases of sexual harassment and abuse. Is that a step the Government are prepared to take?

I am aware we have seen cases—the Committee has gone into detail on this—where employers and organisations have been potentially misusing NDAs to intimidate and silence victims of crime. I know that many campaigners have sought to highlight these issues, including people who have been subject to sexual harassment themselves. In fact, last weekend I saw Zelda Perkins, who quite rightly raised these issues. Minister Madders, who is focused on the employment rights machinery overall, has met a number of campaigners to discuss the misuse of non-disclosure agreements. We will set out our next steps in due course, but we think it is really important to explore all the evidence—to look closely at what the Committee did, at the evidence that others are providing to us and at best practice—and hear views from a whole range of stakeholders. The key thing we want to ensure, above all, is that we stamp out sexual harassment, because—to relate this to the previous point—we have seen time and again the terrible impact it has on employees, businesses and our economy. We have to deal with this seriously.

Given that a lot of those people who are being asked to sign non-disclosure agreements are not necessarily employees, under what legislation do you think you will bring forward those regulations?

We are making three changes when it comes to the broad sexual harassment machinery. Aside from the NDAs question, the Employment Rights Bill will require employers to take all reasonable steps against sexual harassment, and we are introducing other changes as well. You are right that they are in relation to employees rather than others who are generally within a workplace, but one of those changes, which is about ensuring that employers act on third-party harassment, is potentially going to have a significant impact on other people who might be in a particular workplace. I have spoken with women who have been subject to harassment from the same individual over and over again and nothing can be done about it. These provisions will help there and help to create the better culture that we want to see in all workplaces.

Before we bring the employment rights section to a close, Kirith has a supplementary.

You mentioned menopause earlier. I want to know what is being done to ensure that women are supported at work with their health throughout their lives, not just in terms of the menopause. There are women who suffer from endometriosis or painful periods. What more can be done to ensure that they are being supported and not taken out of work or mistreated as a result of what they are experiencing?

This is a really important area, because ultimately we need to ensure that all women are able to thrive at work. Again, it is important for them and for the whole economy that that happens. The evidence base when it comes to menopause is particularly strong. Some work that has been done suggested that around one in 10 women in the relevant age category has said that an inability to fit their existing working patterns and conditions with dealing with symptoms of menopause has led them to leave the workplace. We have focused on that in terms of the equality action plans—specifically menopause action plans—after discussions with employers who have adopted similar approaches. It could be changing uniforms, for example, or looking at how flexible working arrangements operate in the workplace. As I said, we have heard from employers that they think this may well facilitate broader discussion around women’s health. The Committee will be well aware that very often we see a workforce that comprises people my age and a bit older with younger male managers who may not know anything about menopause or other women’s conditions. This is going to provide the opportunity to help managers as well as employees.

Can I just clarify that? You are saying you have a strong argument and evidence base for how menopause impacts women in the workplace. Are you saying there is not enough evidence or not as strong an argument for some of the other monthly health conditions women might experience and how that impacts their work?

Actually, we do see that there is some evidence that those conditions can have a really significant impact on many women. That is the case for many women with endometriosis, and certainly I have read many of their testimonies about how it has had an impact. I am really pleased that the Office for National Statistics is conducting work looking at exactly this question in relation to endo, I believe, and focusing on the labour market impact of it. That will be really helpful.

Thank you for the work you are doing to halve violence against women and girls. You have already covered my first question, on what measure you are going to use, the timeline and how you are working cross-departmentally, so thank you for that. How will the target to halve violence against women and girls will be affected by the creation of new offences, such as criminalising the creation of sexually explicit deepfakes?

As I was talking about earlier, we have the measures in place for how we will seek to track progress over the decade, but you are right that alongside that we have commitments to creating and making sure the full legislative framework is available for prosecution of emerging offences—what you just described, for example, and the sharing of intimate abuse images. We have also set out a range of further measures, for example around stalking, some of which are non-legislative in terms of statutory guidance. Alongside that, there is what we need to do to both prevent and halve violence against women and girls, and we can talk more about that. There is also the work the Ministry of Justice has under way in sorting out the enormous court backlog we face at the moment and the fact that so many women wait years on end to see justice, if it comes at all. We know the prosecution and conviction rates have been appalling in recent years. I can talk about that work in more detail if that is helpful to the Committee. We need to speed up this process, as well as making sure we are doing more around prevention and developing confidence in reporting, which goes to the work the Home Secretary is leading on building confidence in the police forces across the country.

On the court backlogs, a constituent came to me—she had had her case postponed so many times, and each time she tried to take her life. What are we doing to make sure that the existing backlog does not affect women who have faced the most traumatic crime?

The experience your constituent has had is absolutely appalling, and you are right to draw attention to the enormous impact it can have on mental health and the way victims can be re-traumatised by the experience. We want to make sure that when victims get to court, the environment and the support they receive allow them to find the experience not as difficult as it might be. I appreciate that having to go to trial in those cases can be incredibly traumatic, and if that is compounded by further delays and cancellations, that re-traumatises many victims. To the precise measures we are taking in order to get through the backlog, the Lord Chancellor has commissioned an independent review of the criminal courts led by Sir Brian Leveson, looking, for example, at how magistrates might be further empowered to deal with other cases to free up time in Crown courts in order to deal with cases that must be dealt with there. In October, she also announced the doubling of sentencing powers of magistrates, increasing the number of sitting days and seeking to get on top of these massive backlogs we face. It is an unprecedented crisis. We know victims are waiting too long for justice and we are determined to make progress in this area. I believe the intention is for Sir Brian Leveson to report back this year, ideally in the spring. We are also looking at what further is required by way of specialist courts, and that is something I know the Lord Chancellor takes very seriously and is seeking to prioritise.

We estimate that around 10 babies are born every day in the UK as a result of rape, but there is no acknowledgement of it on any Government website. As part of an earlier evidence session, we recommended that the women’s health strategy for England should include guidance for women who conceive and give birth as a result of rape or decide not to and have a termination, or children who later find out that they were conceived as a result of rape. Is that something the Government can support?

If I may, Chair, can I just thank you, Natalie, for your incredible work in this area and the leadership you have shown? You have shown enormous bravery in speaking out on this, and I really commend the attention you have drawn to this important area. If I may, Chair, I will take that issue away and come back and provide further detail to the Committee in this area. It is an important area where it is vital that the right level of support is put in place, including the right therapeutic support on an ongoing basis and making sure children receive the support they need. We know that, alongside this, there is a massive issue and crisis in CAMHS services, for example. We are determined to speed up access to timely mental health support for children and young people on a wider basis, but I will return to the Committee in writing on the precise question you raise.

If I may, I will very briefly say that this is an issue we are working on internationally as well, both where there has been conflict-related sexual violence and in other contexts.

You might have to come back to us on this one as well, which is absolutely fine. Women report having to hide the crimes of men, because if they tell the truth that the conception was a result of rape, for example, the man says they will demand access to the child, and there is nothing stopping them doing that, whether they have served prison time for it or not. Is that something the Government can look at?

I know this is something a number of Members have raised, including recently in debates and questions in the House, and I know it speaks to wider challenges in the family courts overall, which is something, again, that the Lord Chancellor is keen to make progress on. I will return to the Committee with further information on that point, but the last thing any of us wants is for children to be further subject to trauma or abuse. The family courts and wider support services, including statutory services, have an important role in protecting children and making sure they are not exposed to neglect, emotional abuse or any form of child abuse overall.

Finally, how are you working with the Home Office to tackle misogyny in the police, in terms of both misconduct and improving the handling of cases of violence against women and girls?

The Home Secretary has set out ambitious plans to make sure we can all have confidence in the police. That also goes to questions around ensuring there is the highest quality of vetting to ensure that those who discharge their responsibilities as police officers are of the highest standards and that we can be completely confident in their abilities. I should just add that I know, as will all constituency MPs, that the vast majority of police officers seek to do what is a very tough job in difficult circumstances to the highest of standards. They put themselves in harm’s way, often in very violent and difficult situations, as we sadly saw in the summer with disorder in our streets, and they deserve our praise for doing so. But where behaviour falls short and there is unacceptable practice, the Home Secretary is clear that we will not tolerate it, and the need for wider reform overall is essential to the work she is leading. Alongside this—it is a slightly separate point but demonstrates the commitment of this Government to making change happen—we have set out plans for a national policing centre for violence against women and girls and public protection. We have invested £13 million this financial year to make sure we are really targeting and really clear about how we bring focus and attention in these areas and that the practice developed is shared right across police forces to avoid any element of postcode lottery in terms of what victims might expect when they need to contact the police.

On trust in the police and ensuring that the highest standards are met, the Met police chief, Mark Rowley, has recently said that a number have failed the vetting reviews but he is unable legally to sack them. It feels like a very odd thing for a trade unionist to be arguing about, but are some of the reviews from the Home Office going to involve changing legislation to improve ways in which unsuitable officers can be dealt with and ensure that there are actual consequences for them?

The Home Office is currently consulting in this area around vetting and that consultation is due to conclude very soon. In response to what you describe, the Home Secretary set out yesterday that we intend to make rapid progress in ensuring that police forces have the powers at their disposal to ensure that the officers who serve the public maintain very high standards and that we can all be confident around vetting processes.

So are we expecting changes in legislation to enable other police forces to do this, not just the Met?

That consultation is under way. We will take whatever steps are necessary in order to maintain confidence. I am not clear whether or what form of legislation might be required, or whether the Home Secretary may be able to discharge her functions in a way that delivers on what I think is essential around police forces having the necessary powers to ensure high standards of their officers.

I have a question on a slightly different topic. In Monmouthshire, groups like Queerspace have reported to me a big rise in online abuse, and trans people in general are having real difficulties at the moment. What are the Government doing to try to protect trans people and ensure that online abuse is stamped out?

It is essential that everyone in our society is able to live free of abuse and free of such unacceptable targeting, including online. Sadly, in the world in which we live, we know this happens far too often to too many people. I would always encourage anyone who is targeted online or receives abuse of any form in person or in the street—wherever that might be—seeks appropriate support. Where it meets the criminal standard, I know the police will seek to take that seriously.

The Committee will be aware that the Online Safety Act is coming into practice. Much of that is focused on protecting children, but there are other measures, particularly around vulnerable adults. I know that the Government are going to be looking very carefully at the operation of that, particularly in areas where we see the incitement of violence and, unfortunately, criminal activity potentially being facilitated. This is something that the Government are focused on.

We have three fairly chunky subjects left, and I am going to hand over to Christine.

Since the Budget, a lot of us have been approached by third sector organisations about the rise in national insurance contributions. I wonder if you could tell us what impact the Government are expecting the rise in NICs to have on third sector organisations that support minority groups and vulnerable people.

It will apply differently to different organisations. The change to national insurance contributions was a difficult but necessary decision in order to raise the revenue that is required to fund our public services and restore economic stability. I recognise that that involved some very difficult decisions on tax. I really value the work of our charities and third sector organisations. Our tax regime for charities is generous in terms of the wider reliefs that are available and the ability for charities to receive wider public support through the tax system overall. But the Government are not in a position to provide additional support around national insurance contributions short of where we are talking about public sector workforces, for example, where additional funding will be allocated in order to ensure that public sector organisations can meet the additional costs that they are facing. I appreciate that that is challenging, but we inherited a very difficult fiscal backdrop that has necessitated some really hard choices where it comes to public services.

Was an equalities impact assessment done on what the impact might be on the work of third sector organisations such as Mencap and Rape Crisis and the people they support?

We carefully considered the impact of all policies, including the changes around national insurance. An assessment of the policy was published by HMRC in its tax information and impact note, and the OBR looked at the macroeconomic impact of the changes, which is in line with the way this was dealt with previously and the way previous Governments approached it. There is no intention to publish further impact assessments on this policy.

You mentioned the cost of supporting the third sector further. Was a cost analysis done on how much it would cost to exempt third sector charities from the national insurance rise, considering the potential extra pressure on the public sector if charities are not able to cope and reduce their services?

This is obviously a Treasury lead. My understanding is that various assessments were undertaken as a part of that, but not in the way you describe, which is in line with previous changes to national insurance contributions and how that would have been approached. The Government will be providing support for Departments and other public sector employers, but I am afraid that applies only to those employers.

Considering how wide-ranging this change was and the impact it is already having, do you think it might have been an opportunity to assess and look at things differently, and perhaps to do this type of assessment that is not normally done but might have been appropriate in this case?

I can certainly put that point to Treasury. My instinct is that what you are asking for is not necessarily straightforward, but I will happily ensure that that is picked up with Treasury. I would also emphasise that, while we believe as a Government that it was necessary to make that tax change, we protected the smallest businesses and charities through the process of doubling the employment allowance, which means that more than half of employers—including charities with NICs liabilities—will either gain or see no change next year, alongside maintaining the tax reliefs that already exist for charities, which are among the most generous in the world. We recognise the important role they play and the degree to which the British people want to support charities, including through contributions that relate to the tax system.

It is nice to see you here. I am going to move on to disabilities. Just last week I had a visit from Minister Timms to my constituency. He was wonderful—he made people feel very seen—and I thank you for the fact that there is a disabilities champion in each Department; that is wonderful. I want to talk specifically about autism. The NICE standards on autism state that autism diagnosis assessments should begin within three months of a referral. What is the current waiting time for a diagnosis?

I have to say that I do not know the precise waiting time. However, I have been very concerned about waiting times, because I certainly know from my constituents—of course, this is something Minister Timms is well aware of too—that, unfortunately, too many people have been waiting for too long. I know you will be aware that it is the responsibility of integrated care boards to make available appropriate provision, and that includes access to autism assessments. There is a national framework and guidance now, but we really want to make sure we see change here. There has been a particular issue when it comes to diagnosis in girls, which NICE is focused on, and I know that the Department of Health really wants to make sure there is due regard to the NICE guidelines that have come through. We are seeing an increase in referrals, but we need to be seeing more progress on this. Some £4.3 million has been made available nationally to improve services for autistic young people, including autism assessment services. This is something we are committed to really trying to take action on as a Government.

Any idea on timeframes for improving? I know we do not know how long the waiting times are, but are there any targets for reducing the waiting times and any time by which we will have reduced them?

We want to get away from a situation where there is effectively a very wide variation, with some parts of the country having significantly longer waiting times and that whole process feeling very inaccessible to many people. Minister Timms is focused on this, as is the Department of Health and Social Care, and we have made that money available so we can try to make progress on this. This area is also very relevant to the work Bridget has been doing on education.

I will add a bit on children and young people, if it is helpful for the Committee. We have seen increases in diagnosis connected to education, health and care plans partly because there is a much wider understanding of neurodivergence and autism, and that is a welcome development. But where it comes to schools in particular, we recognise that staff do not necessarily have what is needed in order to cater for children with a wider range of needs, which is why we have a lot of work under way in the Department for Education around neurodivergence. We have a task and finish group led by Professor Karen Guldberg that is looking precisely at what you are describing there around autism. We also have work under way around inclusivity in mainstream settings to make sure all mainstream schools are better able to cater for children with a range of needs while making sure that specialist places are available for children with the most complex of needs. I have also appointed a strategic adviser on SEND to make sure the views of parents and other organisations are heard as a part of this. The SEND system overall, of which autism is an important part, is really creaking at the moment. We know we need to deliver long-term reform that better supports outcomes for children who are not where they should be, really builds up parents’ confidence in the system, and provides a school system where all staff are able to provide the right kind of education and care to children with a range of needs. We have seen big changes over time but a lot more needs to happen. We invested more through the Budget and that was crucial, but investment alone is not the answer; we need to see reform in this space as well.

Linking back to the comment on childcare earlier, we know that parents who have children with special educational needs probably struggle even more to get the wraparound care they need, let alone the half-term holiday care they need, so I am just mindful—well, I am preaching to the converted, quite frankly. Thank you for that. I do not know whether you are aware, but in May last year, this Committee—our predecessors, obviously—published a report raising concerns about inequalities in healthcare and employment for people with a learning disability and autistic people. Can we flag to you that we have not yet had that?

Yes, absolutely; I am aware that you have not yet had that. This is a responsibility of the Department of Health, but my understanding is they are seeking to really take into account the significant work that is under way at the moment to drive long-term improvement to health and social care services and take the time to properly consider how the recommendations in that important report can be addressed within whatever actions are needed. The development of the 10-year health plan is now under way, for example, and there are other actions that the Department of Health is taking. Obviously, I do not sit within that Department, but I know this is something where they are really keen to deliver improvements. I am sure that response will be coming to the Committee on those important issues because I know they are working on them.

Let me move on to a slightly different but hugely important topic: the over-reliance on in-patient care. The Disability Unit website does not list the Mental Health Bill as one of its priorities. Just for a bit of background and to frame the question, I am wondering what the Disability Unit and Race Equality Unit have done to understand and tackle why people with autism and minority ethnic groups—particularly black people—are at high risk of detention under the current Mental Health Act.

This is a significant issue. We know there are some really big disparities in outcomes broadly across the mental health system, but, as you rightly say, under the Mental Health Act as it currently stands, black British people are around three and a half times more likely to be detained under the Act than white people. As you talked about, in-patient care is very differentially distributed when it comes to different ethnic groups. They are also seven times more likely to be subjected to a community treatment order. My Department of Health colleagues are working on the Bill to reform the Mental Health Act, and Gillian Merron is the lead. Different models of advocacy are being piloted as well—this is often a challenge, including for families and those who may be in-patients themselves—so that there can be much greater consideration and understanding of the nature or presentation of mental ill health and what is needed in order to secure recovery and appropriate treatments. This work is ongoing, and there is also the patient and carer race equality framework that has been rolled out by NHS England, which hopefully is going to be driving change on this too.

Are you and the Disability Unit involved in—

Yes, the OEO is involved in this work.

I met with Mencap today. Around 2,000 people with autism are currently hospitalised and should be moving to social care and having much more care provision, as opposed to a hospitalised environment. What is the OEO doing to work with the social care side of the Department as well as the NHS side of the Department to bring us to a suitable conclusion for those 2,000 people who have been hospitalised inappropriately?

There are changes to the detention criteria that will be coming about. When that happens it is really important that there is strong community support available, and that is something we have been really focused on across Government. You may well be aware that there are new duties within the Bill that try to ensure that that will be provided. Obviously, this applies to autistic people and people with a learning disability as well, and there are measures, like the statutory care (education) and treatment reviews, and dynamic support registers, that we hope are going to be facilitating this, because those people deserve the right support above all.

Absolutely, and particularly with the autistic and learning disability side of things, there will be a great need for that support, and there is a question whether local authorities are resourced to provide that, particularly given the complex nature. Some people have been hospitalised for far too long and will take a great deal of reintegration into a care system. Can we get assurances that local authorities will be provided with the right level of resource, particularly for these people who have been hospitalised?

We really want to make sure that we do not end up in a situation where, for example, people are still detained when they might not have to be. We also do not want to have a situation where there are alternative legislative routes for detention when section 3 is not an option, so we need to make sure that that provision is there. Of course, for individuals where there would be a concern, there are already those measures within the Bill that are designed to face up to this, but I know this is something that MHCLG will be looking at really carefully and trying to join this up across Government so that provision is there. Of course, it is important for those people with autism and learning disabilities as well as for their families, carers and loved ones.

Thank you, Minister. Samantha, you have some questions about Access for All.

Yes—Access for All and making railway stations available for everybody, no matter their disability. I just wonder what role, if any, the Disability Unit has in the Access for All programme.

This is a DFT lead but we are committed across Government to making sure we improve accessibility to the railway; we know it is absolutely crucial. We are considering our approach to Access for All. We are not able to offer comment on specific stations or projects at this stage, other than to say that a further eight are due to be completed by the end of financial year 2024-25, and this will be the most stations delivered in one year since the programme began. We know that more is required right across the board. I also know that the experience of too many travellers with disabilities is often just not good enough, and providers have a responsibility to ensure that, for example, passenger assistance services are provided in the way that disabled passengers should expect, which the Transport Secretary is working on.

You mentioned there were eight pilots going forward. I read somewhere that there were 50 stations on a feasibility list. Would you be able to commit to six-monthly updates on that programme? I am mindful that for the eight that will be completed by the end of this year, a six-monthly update is not going to be relevant, but it would be great to get progress reports on those.

I can certainly ensure that that is raised with colleagues across Government to make sure that updates are provided as the Committee requires.

We met with Dame Sara Khan recently. Why have the Government not spoken to her yet on community cohesion, and what recommendations from the Khan review are the Government planning to take forward?

I was really pleased to see that the Committee had met with Dame Sara Kahn. Her independent review, which was commissioned under the previous Government, made a number of recommendations around cohesion and strengthening democratic resilience in the UK. The Government are looking closely at that review so we can bring forward robust and deliverable action, but a considerable train of work is already in action within Government around those issues of community cohesion. We felt that we saw too much drift and not enough grip on these issues. The Deputy Prime Minister, in particular, has been focused on this; she has created a new communities and recovery steering group. We have had many visits, in particular to areas that were impacted by the disorder that took place last summer, and there has been support in relation to those towns and cities that were impacted, and work towards a much more strategic, longer-term approach to social cohesion, because that is really what we need to be seeing.

Will the Government meet with Dame Sara Khan to discuss the recommendations in her review?

I cannot speak for colleagues, but I would have thought that generally they are very open to making sure that they are gathering evidence from as many places as possible. Certainly, I know that the review that was conducted by Dame Sara Khan has fed into the work that is ongoing in Government, but as I said, there has been that considerable train of work more generally. If I may also say so very briefly, Chair, that has included making sure that local voices are really heard, particularly in those areas where there have been instances of disorder, and that the voice of local government is well represented within this too.

Just to add to that, there is work going on across Government. While the Deputy Prime Minister leads this, I attended the first meeting of the cross-governmental steering group that she set up. The Department for Education is also represented as a part of that work. We know that this is about the wider services that are available, including locally, and I am sure she would be happy to provide further updates to the Committee on the work she is leading in this important area.

What are the Government hoping to learn from the independent commission on community and cohesion that is not already covered by the Khan review?

Of course, that commission is not Government-sponsored, but it is going to be really interesting to see what it comes out with. Really experienced people are involved in it, and the Together coalition has done a lot of work in this area. We really want to be seeing constructive proposals that address the threats we face and that bring communities together. As I said before, the core thing for this Government is that we have a longer-term approach to this and that we make sure we really are focused on community cohesion. We felt this was an issue where there clearly was focus under the previous Labour Government. We have had peaks and troughs since then, and we want to have something that is actually going to cohere for the longer term now.

Would the UK Government commit to developing an annual dataset to monitor community cohesion across the UK, following best practice by countries such as Australia?

I am sure it is a question that a number of different parts of Government have looked at. In fact, to relate it to your previous question, we have been looking at the different sorts of data that are accessible to Government on related questions. The British social attitudes survey goes into many of these subjects. For example, over time, it has asked questions like who people would be happy to have as a neighbour—those kinds of questions that can be an indicator. We also have an understanding from other surveys of whether people believe that British society is divided and whether Britain is tolerant. I have to say that, compared with just about every other country, Britain is a country where people are tolerant, we look out for each other and, while we may have different views around politics, we still like each other and want to have conversations with each other. Of course, we always need to be vigilant and working really hard, especially on the kinds of issues that you raised in relation to the Khan review and the disorder we saw last summer.

On the disorder that we saw in the summer and the riots, there is one group within our communities—many Muslims—who would not have felt quite as glowing as yourself there, Minister, particularly at the height of that level of hatred and division that was directed solely at them and their communities. We saw quick action from the Government on providing 24-hour security for mosques. What are your views on defining Islamophobia? We have held evidence sessions on community cohesion, with Dame Sara, and in our gendered Islamophobia inquiry, which will be broadened as a result of the information that came out. It is really difficult to tackle an issue that cannot be defined, and to tackle it with a standard approach that is the same across the country, services and institutions. How are you inputting into any definition of Islamophobia or anti-Muslim hatred?

You quite rightly referred to the disgraceful hatred that was targeted at Muslim people during that period of disorder and—thank you for doing so, Chair—the action that was taken around ensuring that those criminals who engaged in disorder were very quickly held to account. In addition to that, of course, the Government have been absolutely clear that targeted attacks on Muslim communities will not be tolerated. No one should be targeted because of their faith or ethnicity. Thank you for referring to the money that was made available for protective security funding. An additional uplift of £4.9 million has gone into that, and we are committing to it for the next four years. I should mention that Muslim faith schools, as well as mosques, are being supported through this, and there is also funding that has rightly gone into supporting victims of Islamophobia. On the question specifically of a definition—you leaned into this a little, Chair, if I may say so—any definition of hatred and discrimination has to comprehensively reflect multiple perspectives, because it would have different implications for different communities, not least for Muslim people themselves. We are actively considering our approach to Islamophobia, including definitions, and we will provide further updates about this in due course. In that process, it will be really helpful to see the work the Committee is undergoing on this. Clearly, the OEO wants to make sure that this is an area where we achieve change so that everyone feels safe wherever they are in the UK and whichever community they are part of. Of course, MHCLG in particular is also focused on this work.

Thank you very much. There are follow-up questions on some topics we have touched on today, and I am going to hand over to Catherine first.

I am not sure who is the most appropriate Minister to direct this to, but I would really like to know what specific work the Office for Equality and Opportunity is doing to support young trans people.

I am happy to kick off on that and then I am sure Bridget will want to come in. It is important that all young people are protected, whether they are trans, not trans, lesbian, gay, bisexual or straight. We want to see that support being available. Perhaps one of the most important things that we have sought to do is to ensure that we are clear that everyone should be treated with dignity and respect. Of course, that includes young trans people and all young people. On a whole range of equalities issues, there will often be a discussion around the right policy that should be adopted. That is quite right and proper, but we must conduct those discussions in an atmosphere of dignity and respect. That is particularly the case when it comes to young people and making sure they are supported.

My question relates to the issues around policing and data gaps. Is any work being done to improve or address those data gaps, particularly around VAWG and victims of domestic abuse? Are police forces being encouraged to collect data on the race and ethnicity of victims and extend that to perpetrators as well? That would provide a lot of organisations with a dataset to work from and to see trends and patterns across different races and ethnicities.

My understanding is that that is the case, but I can make sure the Home Office provides you with a more comprehensive update on that. The Home Office also wants to ensure that there is a more consistent approach overall to data gathering, because there is variation between different police forces.

I have one last question. The previous Committee called for good-quality RSHE as part of the tools to educate children about their bodies and health conditions, and to prevent VAWG. We have heard loud and clear in almost every inquiry we have held, whether it is on women’s reproductive health, misogyny in music or community cohesion, that it starts at a young age. Where are we with the review for RSHE?

The last Government launched a consultation on RSHE, which concluded not long after the formation of this Government. I agree that it is incredibly important that all young people have access to high-quality RSHE, particularly covering crucial areas such as consent and healthy relationships, in a way that is age-appropriate, not least because we know that it is often teachers or other education staff who will receive disclosures from children, particularly where they may have been exposed to abuse, including sexual abuse. It is often only at that point that young people who have been victims of abuse, including in a family context, are able to share their experiences with a trusted adult. We are looking carefully at the responses we have received to the consultation. You will appreciate that there was a significant volume of responses, and we are seeking to work through them as quickly as we can in order to set out to Parliament the next steps and how we will take forward RSHE guidance. In addition, it is important to make sure that those delivering RSHE in our schools—primarily teachers—have not just the training and support they need to access good curriculum content in terms of available materials, but the necessary skills to deliver what can be quite sensitive and difficult issues on an age-appropriate basis. Sadly, sometimes it falls to whoever volunteers to do it, and I am not sure that is necessarily the best way to approach what is a really crucial area. Parents want to have confidence that the subject matter is of the highest quality and to be able to understand, as parents, what is being taught through that process. Parents have a right to ask schools to provide materials, for example, so they can perhaps continue that discussion at home on any issues that arise out of it.

Thank you very much. Thank you, Ministers, for your time and for your team’s time; we are all very grateful. That brings proceedings to a close.