Women and Equalities Committee
Oral evidence: The work of the Government Equalities Office, HC 933
Wednesday 18 January 2017
Ordered by the House of Commons to be published on 18 January 2017.
Members present: Mrs Maria Miller (Chair); Tracy Brabin; Angela Crawley; Philip Davies; Ben Howlett; Jess Phillips; Mr Gavin Shuker
Questions 1–55
Witness
I: Rt Hon. Justine Greening MP, Secretary of State for Education and Minister for Women and Equalities
Examination of Witness
Rt Hon Justine Greening MP
Q1 Chair: Secretary of State, please take a seat. A couple of Members of the Committee will re‑join us in a few moments—apologies. You know the patch; we are always in and out. First, thank you for coming in front of the Committee today. I know how much time it takes out of your diary and you have a lot on your plate at the moment.
Before we begin questioning, I would just like to draw everybody’s attention to the fact that we received, late yesterday evening, at 5.20 pm and 6.10 pm, responses from the Government on two of our reports. One of them was to our report on the equalities analysis of the 2015 spending review and Autumn Statement. That arrived on time and we thank the Government for that. The other one, on our report on the gender pay gap, was more than 30 weeks late, but it arrived less than a working hour before this meeting started this morning. I am content to acknowledge that the responses have been received, but the Committee has not yet had proper time to be able to discuss them and take a decision on them to report them to the House for publication. That being the case, I would like to remind Members and the Secretary of State that any discussion of the contents of those responses, at this stage, would be a discourtesy to the House and, therefore, off limits for the meeting this morning.
I have to say that I do think it is an enormous shame that these reports were given to us with such short notice. I would like to say that it would be entirely appropriate, I think, for an apology to be issued to the staff of my Committee, who had to work into the late evening to digest what was in the report and, even then, we as Committee Members have not had a chance to consider that work, because we started sitting at 8.45 this morning. Secretary of State, I would like you in a moment to explain why, after 30 weeks, yesterday at 5.20pm was the only time the report could be released, but also undertake to come and talk to this Committee about the findings of those reports before the end of the May, at a time when we have had a proper opportunity to consider them. I would also like to put on record my enormous thanks to our staff, who worked until almost 11.00 last night to try to get some sense of order. When we have members of staff who, frankly, do not get paid a lot of money to do an amazing job of work, the Government really should be asking themselves some serious questions as to why they are putting unnecessary strain and stress on people’s working week, Secretary of State.
Justine Greening: First of all, I would like to say that I apologise for the fact that the report is so late. As we have talked about, Chair, the process within Government has been to clear what are often cross-Government reports, which is why time is taken to do that. That process can really be improved. We have talked about the fact that we can do a better job, working with the Committee, of identifying those cross-Government reports and talking with lead Departments earlier in the process. We can then do a better job of flagging up when it is perhaps taking time for other departments to respond. Finally, we can do a better job of making sure that future reports are not delayed.
I take it very seriously. The work of Select Committees, particularly this one, is very important. We worked hard across Government to make sure that the gender pay gap report was able to be released before I came to this session, but I agree with you, Chair: it needs to get a lot better. I am absolutely committed to making sure that it will do.
Q2 Chair: What unlocked the problem at 5.20pm that could not be unlocked three or four months ago?
Justine Greening: We had to work with other Government Departments to make sure that their response into the report was finally cleared by those Departments. It simply reflects the fact that the nature of your Select Committee subject is necessarily often across Government, and we have to corral other Government Departments.
What I am saying, Chair, is that I also recognise this issue. As you know, I have myself been seeking to get this report finalised so that it can be published, for a number of months now. That is why I agree that it is important that we have a better process across Government. It is something that the Cabinet Office also recognises as a challenge, and we will be supporting the DfE to make sure that, in future, we are not held up.
Q3 Chair: We will not be talking about the gender pay gap report today, because we have not had the time to review your response, but can we surmise that, because it has taken almost eight months to get a response, other Government Departments simply are not prioritising the issue of the gender pay gap in the way that certainly David Cameron set out as being one of his priorities to eliminate within a generation?
Justine Greening: No, I do not think that is the right conclusion to draw. It is simply important for us to have stronger processes within Government for clearing what are often cross‑government departmental inquiries that this Department does. We are absolutely committed to making progress on the gender pay gap, as you know, Chair. In fact, we have regulations coming into force that will give us mandatory reporting in the private and voluntary sector for large organisations. That will sit alongside improved reporting in the public sector, which is why I also think it is important that we do a stronger job of making sure that these reports get cleared because, when we are taking good steps forward on the policy areas that they concern, I want to make sure that we can put out into the public domain and respond to the Committee’s reports in a really positive and constructive way. That is why I am looking forward to the rest of this evidence session.
Q4 Chair: Can I just close this set of remarks by saying that, given the way that this has been handled and the potential for Members of the Committee and the staff of the Committee to feel that we have been treated in a somewhat disrespectful way in terms of the gender pay gap report, will you undertake to come back before the end of May to discuss it in some detail with us?
Justine Greening: I would be very happy to.
Q5 Chair: Thank you very much; that is really helpful. In terms of our discussions outwith this meeting, around making this process quicker and more effective, can you tell me exactly how you are going to achieve that?
Justine Greening: First of all, we have spoken to the Cabinet Office about this. They will help us make sure that the write‑arounds across Government can be done more systematically and effectively. We want to do a better job, as I have said, about working with you to identify early the inquiries that you are doing that are necessarily going to be cross‑Government, particularly those that are led by other Government Departments. Therefore, it is again important that we work through the Cabinet Office to make sure that those Departments put a priority on responding to all Select Committee reports promptly, including this Select Committee’s report.
The final piece of this, alongside pre‑planning and a stronger process once reports are issued, is also keeping the Committee up to date and being clear‑cut on timelines, when there are necessarily delays that sometimes may happen. However, I do hope that, with a stronger process within Government, we can reduce those to the very bare minimum.
Q6 Chair: It is reassuring to hear you say better communication, because one of the problems we have for our staff, who work incredibly hard because they are so focused on making sure we are an effective Committee, is that they can find it almost impossible to find out why these extensive delays are happening. You say that there will be improved communication and that we will better understand why the delays are happening better.
Justine Greening: Indeed, and I spent time on a Select Committee as an MP in this Parliament. I absolutely understand the work that goes into all of these reports by officials but also by Members of the House. It is an incredibly important part of how our Parliament operates, so I do think it is important that Government responds promptly.
Q7 Chair: Just so I am really clear, if there is a report from this Committee that is very clearly addressing your areas of responsibility, GEO will co-ordinate other Departments to respond if necessary and your Department will be responsible for making that happen. But if we have an issued a report that is clearly going to have a response from a Department that is not within your remit, the Cabinet Office will be responsible for making sure that a response from Government is issued in a timely manner. Is that correct?
Justine Greening: It is not quite. I see GEO as responsible and the DfE as responsible, as the Department with GEO, for making sure that these reports are issued.
Chair: For anything that comes in from this Committee, your GEO people will be responsible for getting a timely response.
Justine Greening: Indeed, but I want to flag up that I believe that, in order to for us to do that effectively, we are going to use the cross‑Government Cabinet Office to try to make sure that we do that systematically.
Chair: Brilliant, thank you very much for clarifying that. That was really helpful. Philip is going to come in with the first set of questions.
Q8 Philip Davies: Following the Prime Minister’s excellent speech yesterday, what are your department’s priorities in terms of the negotiations for exiting the European Union? Do you have any particular issues or concerns as a Department about the exit from the EU?
Justine Greening: I agree, Philip; I thought it was an excellent speech and I think it has provided clarity that lots of people, but also businesses, wanted to see in terms of the next steps that we will take and the priorities that we have. In relation to the broader department, of course—the Department for Education—education is a reserved matter from the EU, but I do think it has a vital role to play.
Philip Davies: I was really referring to the Government Equalities Office.
Justine Greening: In relation to the Government Equalities Office, we can be very proud of the existing UK law, some of which is driven from EU law and directives that we already have. Of course there are the Equality Act 2010 rules and the public sector equality duty. You will be familiar with the fact that we have the Great Repeal Bill, but we are already well placed in our domestic law to make sure that the key areas on which we are focused, which are women and equalities, are well taken care of as we exit the European Union.
Q9 Philip Davies: Do I take it from that that there are no requests that you have with David Davis’s Department, in terms of the negotiation? There is nothing that you have specifically requested that they negotiate as part of the deal?
Justine Greening: We feel that we are well placed in our existing legal base to have the architecture in place legally for the human rights, equalities and, in particular, the gender aspects of protecting rights in the UK. Some of them derive from EU law but, in the end, they are enshrined in the Equality Act 2010 and also in how Government works across Government in developing policy through the public sector equality duty. Therefore, the discussions more broadly that I am having with David Davis are across my broader remit but, yes, of course I will work with my team in GEO to understand whether there are any further issues in relation to equalities that we need to take steps to ensure are perhaps part of the Great Repeal Bill.
Q10 Chair: Can I just drill down into that a tiny bit? Is it you who is responsible then for the equalities aspects and the impact and processes of leaving the EU? It is you who is responsible for that.
Justine Greening: The Government Equalities Office works across Government, and we need to work with other Government Departments to ensure that they have due regard to any equalities issues that may emerge from our exiting of the EU. My point to Philip was that our existing legal basis for looking at and maintaining equality in the UK is strong. We should be proud of it, but we will play a role through those Brexit negotiations to make sure that that is absolutely maintained post the exit from the EU.
Q11 Chair: How is your GEO working with the Brexit Department at ministerial and official level? What is the process?
Justine Greening: GEO as a team works across Government, necessarily, on a range of issues that include the Brexit process. Of course, I meet David Davis, who leads that Department, which is carrying out the work around the negotiations. Of course, it is also discussed regularly in Cabinet, given the level of importance this Government places on getting a good deal for Britain. That means a good deal for the British people in the end.
Q12 Chair: As you will know, we have an ongoing inquiry on Brexit and the implications for equality. Can you explain why nobody from your Department and nobody from any other part of Government wanted to come and talk to us about that?
Justine Greening: From our perspective, we believe that the work that is under way in Government will mean that we can get a good deal. We will work with your Committee in relation to pulling together the report and giving the Government’s reflection on that. Of course, I know this is a good opportunity for the Committee to also take evidence directly from me in relation to that piece of work, which I hope will mean that you get the ministerial input that you are also seeking into this inquiry.
Q13 Chair: On that particular point then, we are very interested to hear the Government’s stance on the Great Repeal Bill and to know that there is a clear undertaking to ensure that, the day after we leave the EU, there is no fundamental change in the law that is in place and that people can have that certainty. We welcome that, so take that as read. But there is one area that has come out clearly to us, in the evidence we have been given, around the role of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and the backstop role that that plays in assuring equality into the future. That will be removed because, having talked to various other Ministers informally, there is a general acknowledgement that it is not possible to embed the Charter of Fundamental Rights into a Great Repeal Bill, because it is so dependent on the EU’s structures. What is the Government’s position on that particular point? It really is something on which we are finding it difficult to get a Government position.
Justine Greening: The background to the EU charter is that it collects, in a single document—which is why it is called a charter—the fundamental rights and principles that are protected more broadly across the many aspects of EU law. Our sense is that it does not add to them. Therefore, from our perspective, I would basically go back to what I said to Philip earlier: we already have our strong equalities legislation in place. Therefore, our leaving the European Union does not affect that per se.
Q14 Chair: It does, because the charter has a very different role from the Equality Act. At the moment, Parliament could decide to repeal the Equality Act tomorrow. I have no belief at all that any Government that we know would want to do that, but strange things happen in politics, as we have seen. The role of the charter is to provide a fundamental backstop ultimately to stop Parliament repealing that and, because we do not have a constitution, there is a change there. It may be that Government welcome that change, but it is not that there is not going to be a change. There will be, because there will not be that fundamental backstop to stop Parliament backtracking on the equality rights that we already have in place.
Justine Greening: I understand the point that you are making, Chair. You could make that argument for pretty much any legislative protections that are in place in law for UK citizens. Necessarily, leaving the European Union is about our getting control, in our Parliament, of the laws that British people have to live under. Obviously that matters, because our constituents vote for the people who they want to represent them, who then vote on those laws and debate them and, indeed, take part in important Select Committees.
The bottom line is that, in future, it should be down to the UK Parliament to take decisions on equalities. As you have said, we have a strong legislative base and, indeed, I very much hope that we never see a Parliament rolling back on the progress that we have made over the years, but the point of leaving the EU, among many things, is importantly that it is this place that takes those decisions. That is why the debate that we have on equalities in Britain really matters. You have a very broad spectrum of inquiries because, fundamentally, the issue that you look at touches on so many people’s lives. I spent a lot of time in my previous role in DFID trying to improve the prospects of women and girls around the world. It is equally important for me to now play a strong role in leading that effort to improve the rights and the prospects for women and girls here in the UK, alongside other groups that suffer from discrimination.
Q15 Chair: You think Parliament should have the flexibility to be able to change equality law and perhaps even weaken it.
Justine Greening: In the end, Parliament is sovereign. That is the fundamental impact of our exit from the EU and that is a matter for Parliament. My position on all of these issues is very longstanding and very well known, and almost certainly shared by people around the Committee, which is that I want to see us protect human rights. I want to see us take more steps to tackle discrimination and I want the UK to be held up around the world as a country that is activist in all of these areas. I hope that we have a Parliament that will reflect that in continuing to develop our laws that we all live under. I will always be a voice for progress on human rights.
Q16 Chair: What plans do the Government have to map civil society and research work in the equalities sphere, which currently makes use of EU networks and funding? What analysis is planned to establish where there might be risks of gaps emerging or expertise being lost?
Justine Greening: There is broader research that goes on as part of our membership of the EU, not least through work with our partners in various member states individually. You are right that we need to continue to make sure that our evidence base, on which we want to base policy, is not undermined by leaving the EU, but I do not believe it will be, Chair. We have a strong research base in this country. I am looking to see what we can do to strengthen it further. I would like to see the UK really be a trailblazer in having a strong evidence base around what works, in tackling discrimination, particularly around gender. We are looking at how we can take our next steps on that.
Q17 Chair: Have you mapped out what is currently happening, so you know what we are losing?
Justine Greening: That work is happening. We do have a clear understanding, at any point, of what work is under way. I talked earlier about the process that now happens within Government to look not only at the policy impact of exiting the EU but of course the other relationships. Whether you are one of our universities, with the impact of leaving the EU on university research and those relationships, or, indeed, you are part of a community looking at equalities and rights, all of those relationships are touched on by our changed relationship with the EU. They can all be maintained and they can all be enabled to continue in a way that remains constructive.
Q18 Chair: Do you plan to publish that work, so that we can look at what you are going to continue to make sure is funded and what is not?
Justine Greening: Perhaps the best thing I can do, Chair, is to write to you after this meeting with a summary of the work we are able to do and then, hopefully, to get some agreement from you setting out what we think the landscape is—whether we do or do not need to take action. Let me come back to you with a clearer sense of where we think any emerging gaps are or, indeed, our confidence that we have a strong research base and do not expect gaps to emerge.
Q19 Chair: Within that, perhaps you could also outline for us what plans the GEO has to ensure that equality stakeholders and civil society organisations can feed into making an evaluation of the policy relating to our country’s exit from the EU.
Justine Greening: We have a variety and a number of meetings with stakeholders. I had a number of stakeholders in the Department earlier last week, talking about women’s economic empowerment. We will absolutely make sure that, as part of that work, we are constantly discussing with partners how we can make sure we make exiting the EU something that does not in any way impinge on the strong work that is already under way and the strong position we have. If anything, we should be using it as a springboard to say what more we can do.
Q20 Ben Howlett: This is just a very quick point. You and I both campaigned on the same side of the fence on this, and I know from your previous role that you were very focused on not just the loss from the UK but the potential loss of our impact in Europe. We have been a leading figure in the European Union, in pushing the diversity agenda, gender issues and all the rest, on which a lot of other European countries have looked to us for leadership. Speaking on their behalf, there is a concern that, given the responses just made, we are looking at this at a very domestic level. We need to be thinking about not just how we preserve what we currently have in our own domestic agenda but how we do this internationally too.
Given that the Commission on the Status of Women is coming up, which I do hope you will be able to attend, as you did for the High‑Level Panel on Women’s Economic Empowerment at the UN last year, do you feel that Britain will be able to replace some of the structures it had or at least maintain some of the influence that it had across the continent, once we have left the European Union?
Justine Greening: It is a really important point. There is a lot that I could say on this but, in summary, there are two different aspects. First of all, yes, we are changing our relationship with the European Union, but we are not moving. We will still intrinsically be a country that is part of the European continent, with strong relationships with our near neighbours, in the same way that, as I travelled around the world in DFID, I saw countries with strong relationships with their near neighbours. We absolutely need to make sure that those relationships remain in place, and because of our long-standing membership that we have had within the EU, we are well placed; we have strong relationships and will be able to maintain them.
Internationally, I think and I hope that we can be really proud of the work that our country has done to raise the issue of improving the rights and the prospects for women and girls around the world, not just in the practical work that DFID does, which I had the privilege to be part of, but also by being a real, strong and stronger voice on this issue than we have ever been in the past. I want to see that continue. You talk about important times, like the Commission on the Status of Women, which happens every year. That is also focusing this year on women’s economic empowerment. I remain a member of the high‑level panel that Ban Ki‑moon set up to look at women’s economic empowerment. That came out of the gender goal 5, as part of the new sustainable development goals. The UK was a key lobbyer for a stronger gender goal, and the high‑level panel is now taking forward how we can make sure that, on the economic empowerment piece of this, we see further progress.
For me in this role, I then get the chance to make sure that the work that that panel is doing is something that we can use strongly here in the UK to make sure that we take more steps forward on women’s economic empowerment, not just in terms of their progress through the workplace but around the gender pay gap, around flexible working and around the role that men have to play in helping to get gender equality in the UK as well. I am very excited about it all and I genuinely believe that, when you look at the things that can help make sure Britain is successful post-Brexit, improving gender equality is one of the most important things we can do. It is not just the right thing to do; it is one of the most important economic levers that we have and it is how we close the productivity gap as well as, alongside—I should say, Chair—also improving social mobility.
Q21 Ben Howlett: I am incredibly pleased to hear that, and it is great to hear that it is loud and clear, as well. I am sure that will continue in the coming months, as we go through the different negotiations. Obviously with GEO it does have an international role and international elements as part of the organisation. I just want to be clear: are the conversations happening with the Foreign Office at the moment, between GEO and the FCO, in terms of how to ensure there is a plan in place so that our links and strategies are going to continue post‑exit, in terms of equality and gender?
Justine Greening: I am confident, Ben, that we have not only the right mechanisms in place but also the genuine political will of the people concerned to keep this high up our agenda. Let us not forget that our Prime Minister is a woman but, as importantly, a person who has done a huge amount on this agenda. When we did the Girl Summit in 2014, the Home Office and Theresa May as Home Secretary then co‑hosted it with DFID. We used it as a real moment to take additional steps on tackling violence against women and girls, here in the UK. We are very well placed, and I would say that we have a role, but also a responsibility as a country, to be a strong voice in this area, and that is what I want to see us continue doing.
Q22 Jess Phillips: Going away from Europe, back to home, obviously there has been a change in that GEO used to sit within DCMS or be separate, stand-alone, and now is part of the Department for Education. What do you think are the strengths and weaknesses of the fact that it now sits within the Department for Education?
Justine Greening: On a purely personal level, it makes a huge amount of sense, because it certainly enables me, now in the role of Secretary of State for Education, to be able to continue all of the work that we led internationally and now to bring my focus to how we can translate that into a domestic push on it too. I would like to pay tribute to my predecessor, Nicky Morgan, who did a huge amount of work on this too and, indeed, to you Chair, on your role as well. I am determined to make sure that I bring all of my experience from DFID into this important role.
Secondly, it makes sense because I feel that part of this is about making sure that girls coming through our education system come out of that with strong knowledge, skills and experiences, getting the right advice to be able to progress. We know that girls are doing well through our education system. It is once they leave that we start to see differences in career paths. It fits very well with our portfolio and our policy remit. I also think it sits alongside our responsibility for childcare, for example, and the 30 hours manifesto commitment that we are putting into practice.
We will not talk in detail about the gender pay gap but, when you look at the stats on the gender pay gap, the big problem we have is what happens after women head off and start to have their family and their first child. The work around flexible working, but also giving women stronger choices that are more viable to be able to get back into the workplace, is really important. Again, they are part of the department that GEO now sits in.
More broadly, we have talked about women and that aspect of equalities a lot but, when you look at LGBT, bullying and some of the work that we need to do in schools, there is another natural crossover there that we can take advantage of, while recognising that it is very important that GEO is sharp‑elbowed across Government to make sure that other departments also reflect the importance of this agenda in their policy remits.
Q23 Jess Phillips: Obviously I am not expecting some diagram minute by minute, but how would you say you split your responsibilities between being the Secretary of State for Education and the Minister for Women and Equalities?
Justine Greening: That is a really good question. The answer is it depends on the week, as you can imagine, but the bottom line is I am massively committed to this. On a personal level, it really matters to me as much as anything else. It gets a lot of my attention. The whole role that I have is hugely important and I am determined to do my best on it, but this is a big part of it.
Q24 Jess Phillips: I say with confidence that I do not doubt your commitment at all. Having different personnel in the role of Women and Equalities Minister obviously makes a huge difference. People matter—people’s personalities and people’s ability to work with other people matters. This is in no way a personal probing of that question, but do you not, because of your commitment, feel that it potentially should be a stand-alone position with a stand-alone remit?
Justine Greening: In the end, it is a matter for the PM how she wants to organise different Government Departments. I can just assure you of my 100‑and‑whatever per cent commitment to what we do and why. I am very proud to have the privilege of having this role and I going to do my best—I am doing my best—to make sure that, on some practical issues, we do a better job working with this Committee. We will have a look at the big things but also some of the smaller things that we can do that can make sure that this agenda moves forward. There is a massive opportunity for us.
Q25 Jess Phillips: Long may you reign, because we could easily get an Education Secretary who was not as committed to that field; historically, those people who held the post were given it and their Department because of their commitment to the field. Let us hope you keep your job. I am sure you hope that too. With regard to the funding of GEO and where it sits within the accounts of the DfE, when it was in the DCMS it had specific budget lines and sat completely separately in the accounts. I am sure I could talk all day about the problems in funding in the DfE. Currently GEO sits just within the general DfE budget framework, and that is obviously a concern for us, as it could get lost without a ring fence.
Justine Greening: We have a well-resourced GEO team. It is not just the quantity of people. It is important to get high‑quality people who are massively committed to the agenda, too. Beyond that, though, I want to see my team mainstreaming this agenda across the whole of the Department as a start, and then of course, yes, doing the work across Government. For example, when you look back at the new sustainable development goals, how are we really going to achieve gender goal 5? It will be partly by mainstreaming effort across all of the other elements of those goals. It is a perfectly decent challenge, and the real test is being able to have a small, focused team, but then see it do a great job of changing our organisational culture across the DfE and across Government. That is the real test.
Q26 Jess Phillips: Should there be further Treasury cuts to the DfE, it is very difficult to know, if it is not distinct and stand-alone, if it will be seen as an easy win in a budget line or if it will be cut at the same rate as a proportion as the other DfE budget areas. While we cannot see it in the accounts, we cannot tell if that becomes the issue.
Justine Greening: I go back to what I said, Jess. It is an important question. I believe we have the right team and the right people in that team to really make a difference. I will be the first to talk to my permanent secretary if I feel that we are under-resourced in any way, whether in quantum or indeed in skills. Like all Government Departments, everybody could do more if they had more, but we have to live within our means. Maybe putting my chartered accountant hat on, I hope I am as well placed as any Minister to try to make my money go as far as possible.
Q27 Chair: Can I just press that point a little more? Our job is scrutinising Government. It is very difficult for us to scrutinise Government if we do not know what the budgets are, so how are we going to know how much money you are spending?
Justine Greening: Chair, it sounds like I need to go away and write you another note to give you a sense of how we look at this. All I am flagging up though is that really the key to success in making sure that this agenda is a priority across my department of Government is having it mainstreamed very broadly across our teams. That is about winning hearts and minds of policy officials in very different teams as well. Let me get you some additional details, but I just wanted to make that point.
Q28 Chair: We are not doubting your commitment, Secretary of State. We are doubting whether there is transparency there. For our job, if there is no transparency, it is damned difficult to know whether or not things are working as they should. If you are able to clarify that, we would be most grateful.
Justine Greening: That is understood. Let me see if I can provide a bit more clarity.
Q29 Jess Phillips: Moving away from the budget, it would be interesting to hear what you consider to be the role of GEO in respect of equalities departments of other Government Departments, when you are talking about this gold strand. Can you give us some examples of what GEO is doing and how you measure the influence that GEO has on other Government Departments?
Justine Greening: I have talked about the relationship of GEO within the DfE, and how having a joined-up GEO and DfE means that, at that level alone, we can really make sure that our DfE approach reflects those priorities. When you look across Government, your reports very much show the Departments that we are working with. On employment, we are working with the new Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy. We are working with MoJ, for example, which takes a lead on gender recognition policy‑wise. We working with DWP around areas like flexible working, and of course the Treasury too.
We have a series of areas that we are pushing on, many of them reflected in the reports that you do, including things like the gender pay gap, and then we work across Government to make sure that the legislative changes that we want to bring through are taken forward. Secondly, where we need to get broader policy input, that takes place as well.
Q30 Jess Phillips: I think that you would point out that the proof of the pudding is in the legislation that gets changed, in some regards. Does GEO have any impact measurement systems or reporting to you, as the Minister, on how effective they feel they are being in influencing other Government Departments?
Justine Greening: It is hard to put a hard number on how we influence other Government Departments, but we are clear about our overall agenda. We are clear about what we want to try to achieve, working across Government. As I have said, I want to make sure that it is a team that is sharp-elbowed in making sure that the women and equalities brief is one that is at the top of every Department’s agenda, not just mine.
Q31 Jess Phillips: What levers does GEO have for ensuring that the equalities impacts of other Departments’ policies are assessed robustly and transparently? Our Committee published a report in November calling for greater transparency from the Treasury about how it assesses the equalities impacts of the spending reviews and fiscal events. It would be interesting to hear how, transparency once again being the issue, we can see some of this. On the day of the Autumn Statement, for example, I stood up and asked about how much of the new investment, which we would all welcome, would be spent on women’s jobs, because it was largely about infrastructure etc. The response from the Minister was just “We are not going to monitor that”. There is very little transparency over how that is monitored.
Justine Greening: The principal mechanism that we have is the public sector equality duty and the fact that that feeds into policy making across the board. It is complemented by the equalities impact assessments that are done for many policies, as they get developed as well. One of the other reports, Chair, that was finally released on time, overnight, was from the Treasury responding to your inquiry. I am of course always happy to raise the issues, alongside those raised by the Committee, with the Treasury. It is important that we do have a good understanding of the impact of Government decisions on different groups of people in our country.
Q32 Jess Phillips: I am not entirely certain about the robustness and, once again, the transparency. Taking the example of the Autumn Statement, what equality impact assessment was done and how can that be reported to us as the body that has to scrutinise it?
Chair: Can I gently suggest that might fall into the problems around not having had a chance to look at the report yet? Maybe we could save that for our next meeting, for the end of May.
Jess Phillips: Excuse my exasperation; it has taken a while to come. The Prime Minister has put a great deal of emphasis on promoting fairness and equality of opportunity. How will GEO flex its muscles in setting out to achieve this?
Justine Greening: In what, sorry, Jess?
Jess Phillips: In setting out to achieve the Prime Minister’s big fairness speech in Downing Street: “We will think not of them, but you”—that one.
Justine Greening: There are probably three tranches of what I would like to say in response to that. For me, particularly around women and girls, but more broadly on the equalities and discrimination agenda, it is about voice, choice and control. For women and girls, it is about making sure that, on voice, we see another step up in women’s participation in this place and also at the council level. For the first time, following recent by‑elections, a third of MPs in Parliament are women. A third of the Cabinet are women as well, so that translates through into the Cabinet. Alongside lots of people, I want to see the next step up on that and I am keen to look at what we can do to see that move on. We need to make sure that we do not flatline now that we have got to a third, improving women’s voices in Parliament and in our political system.
On improving women’s choices around employment, we have talked a little bit about this already. It is not just about eliminating the gender pay gap in a generation. We are closer to doing so than we have been in the past, but we still have some way to go. It is also about seeing more female representation on FTSE 350 boards. It is also about seeing women more in control of their lives. By that I mean continuing to tackle violence against women and girls. There is an element of that that is important for schools to do, so there is a big agenda. I could talk a lot more expansively, but I know that we do not have time, Chair.
There are two other things that I really just wanted to mention. There are women and girls but, on equalities, the LGBT agenda is hugely important, and so is disability. I do not believe that we really will be a country for everyone until everyone has the chance to really play a full role in British society and British life. That absolutely follows for disabled people. Certainly for me as a local MP, I have done a lot of work to try to make sure the practical steps that we can take at the local level, for example making public transport accessible, take place. I would like to use this role to continue to see more very practical steps often taken that make an impact. That then sits alongside the work that we all need to do on changing attitudes. A younger generation of people growing up in Britain may have different attitudes on, for example, diversity and LGBT issues than an older generation may have. We need to hear their voices regarding what they want to see in terms of equality as well.
Q33 Jess Phillips: I recognise all of those things and, again, your commitment, and the commitment of GEO, I am sure. But currently the DfE’s annual report only contains three performance indicators for GEO: the gender pay gap, the proportion of FTSE 350 board positions held by women and monitoring the number of same‑sex marriages. We would also recognise the difficulty in putting numbers on some of the things and ambitions that you have just mentioned, but does there need to be a more robust framework for key performance indicators that is more ambitious, as you are obviously ambitious for GEO?
Justine Greening: The indicators that we have very much tie back to the commitments that we have made on the manifesto. As you say, Jess, numbers can tell you so much, but sometimes they are not the full picture. FGM is a good example of where what we are trying to do is stop FGM happening, although we strengthened the ability of our courts to take legal action against people who do force young girls to undergo FGM.
I will take on board the points that you have made. As I said, formally it is about reflecting the progress that we are making on our manifesto but, underneath that, of course there are many other things that we are looking at around the granularity that we will get on gender pay gap reporting, and the progress that we are seeing around representation on boards and in executive pipelines. As this overall agenda continues to develop, we will hopefully get better reporting and better metrics to measure our progress.
Q34 Jess Phillips: Of the things that you spoke of having ambition on, for example, we could have a KPI on the number of transport companies or bus companies that have moved to full accessibility. In fact, the Supreme Court has today ruled in favour of the disabled complainant. You could have a target for increasing representation in this place and local councils, as you said. Although I completely agree with you on FGM—when we seek solely to have the convictions, we miss the point a little—there are some KPIs that could be put in place for some of your ambitions.
Justine Greening: My attitude on all of this is: whenever you are putting them in place, you have to make sure there is a strategy behind them that is going to deliver, otherwise you are simply measuring and not changing things on the ground. The measurements that we have are in relation to the strategies that we have in place. I hope that, over the coming months, we can look at how we develop those strategies to be more effective. As we expand our reporting on things like the gender pay gap, we are going to open up the ability, dare I say, not just of Government to look at data and metrics but of civil society to hold everybody’s feet to the fire on progress.
I was at a meeting related to the high‑level panel in the Department last Monday. One of the parts that we discussed was how we can look at the different indices that are being produced now, in different sectors, and start to see whether there is a smarter way that we can assess progress. I want to see us create an environment where it is a race to the top and where we really give credit to those companies that are going above and beyond the bare minimum, and we give credit to those organisations that are helping to drive innovation. This is why the research question is an important one. It is about having the whole architecture in place to really support progress across the board.
Q35 Jess Phillips: Finally, GEO currently leads on equality issues for women and LGB&T. When did we change from just saying LGBT? I get so confused with the “and”. Should the Government have an equality strategy for all protected characteristics?
Justine Greening: We work across the board. We have identified some priorities. For anyone who suffers discrimination, that is an unacceptable situation. One instance is unacceptable. Set alongside that, I would simply say that, if you prioritise everything, you have prioritised nothing, so we try to make sure we are clear‑cut about where we think we can make the biggest impact. We work across a quite broad portfolio, as you know. Indeed, the issues change over time, so we are doing more work now on things like transgender than in the past, perhaps. As the LGBT agenda steadily moves on and we make more progress, the work that we do takes a different form over time. We are understanding evermore how important it is for us to work in schools and help make sure that the young people coming out of our education system do not just know what they need to know to be successful, but also have the skills and the understanding of relationships, for example, to be able to be successful people, as well as successful in their jobs.
Q36 Philip Davies: You have mentioned the gender pay gap and about holding people’s feet to the fire. Obviously I will abide by your strictures at the start, Madam Chairman, about the gender pay gap and what we cannot discuss. As you are all for holding people’s feet to the fire, what are the gender, disability and race pay gaps in the Government Equalities Office?
Justine Greening: I do not have the disability and the race pay gaps, but I do have the gender pay gap, Philip, and it is 5.9% in the DfE. Across the Civil Service more broadly, it is 13.6%.
Q37 Philip Davies: If we are lecturing everybody else about the gender pay gap and everything, do you not think that Government should get its own house in order first, before it starts lecturing everybody else about these things?
Justine Greening: It is important that the public sector plays its role as an employer in reducing the gender pay gap. When you look at the overall gender pay gap now, it is 18.1%, so it is the lowest on record. Across Government, we are below that, but the Resolution Foundation work that came out recently shows that there is still some way to go, particularly for older women and particularly for women who have left work and started a family.
One of the many things that I learned during my time at International Development is that, if you are going to really make progress, sometimes you have to realise that there are transition moments in people’s lives. They can come out of that change that they are going to go through—whether it is puberty, whether it is having your first child, whether it is going into the workplace for the first time—and they will come out on a good path, a great path, a mediocre path or a bad path. If you can make sure that the policy work and the support around that point are well done, you can disproportionately impact people’s lives. On the gender pay gap, we are seeing that it is that transition for women going through their careers; there is a much lower pay gap for girls and women up until that point. It is after that point of starting a family that it starts to open up. What it is telling us, Philip, is that we are making some progress, but it is that moment of women starting a family that we particularly now need to focus on. That means looking at flexible working and shared parental leave. It means looking at childcare and, Philip, it also means making sure that men can play a full role in those transition moments as well.
Q38 Philip Davies: Why do you know the gender pay gap but not the race and disability pay gaps in your department?
Justine Greening: I just do not have those statistics on me, Philip. I am very happy to feed them back to the Committee, if I can get them within the Department, after the Select Committee meeting. I can, though, give you the percentage of our workforce who are disabled and BME. That is 10% within the DfE and 9% across the Civil Service. For BAME, it is 17% within the DfE and across the Civil Service overall it is 11%. I just do not have the pay data for those groups on me.
Q39 Philip Davies: Let me try to help you out. The last figures that I have available for this showed that the Government Equalities Office paid white people, on average, £2,676 more than people from an ethnic minority. The last figures I have here are that they paid non-disabled people £3,667, on average, more than disabled people. Is that not a pretty shameful record for the Government Equalities Office?
Justine Greening: It simply shows, as much as anything else, that we do have diverse teams. They are in different roles. Your point in relation to pay is demonstrating that once you have the data, you can start to investigate why the data are what they are. This is why we put such a premium on equalities and transparency, because having those conversations gets inequalities tackled.
Q40 Philip Davies: If you could provide us with the up‑to‑date information and the reasons why, that would be very helpful. Finally, Madam Chairman, in answer to Jess, you also said about discrimination that one person suffering discrimination was one too many. Can you tell us how many complaints your Department has had, from members of its own staff, about discrimination over the last four or five years, whether it be race discrimination, disability discrimination or sex discrimination?
Justine Greening: I do not have those details on me, Philip. I am very happy to write to the Committee with further details on it. We have strong processes in place, not just in the DfE but across Government, and I think that is important.
Q41 Angela Crawley: As a starting point, as we approach LGBT History Month, I would welcome a move from the Government towards a commitment to reforming the Gender Recognition Act. Moving towards civil society, what support and mechanisms have been established to ensure that civil society stakeholders can obviously engage with the Government on equalities issues? How effective would you say this has been to date?
Justine Greening: We do have regular engagement with civil society, in terms of one-to-one meetings, round tables and also events that we host as a Government Equalities Office. One of those took place before Christmas, particularly looking at the women and girls aspect of equalities, which I was part of. Of course Ministers, including me, have regular meetings as well. I saw the Terrence Higgins Trust last week, for example, as part of this role. All of those relationships are important.
I feel that we have a very good relationship with civil society. Jess talked about legislation and the role that that can play in advancing this overall agenda, but alongside that is changing attitudes often, and improving awareness and understanding as a way of doing that. Civil society has a really vital role to play in that whole arena. I will never forget the work that the girls from Bristol did around FGM. Their civil society organisation was called Integrate Bristol. It managed to really transform the FGM agenda and turbo‑charge it up the political agenda. They did an amazing job. Civil society is absolutely critical in all of this.
Q42 Angela Crawley: What is your assessment of the current capacity of civil society organisations to do this work? Can you also give us some examples of how this has been done, other than the example that you have given, in Parliament, to date?
Justine Greening: There are loads of reasons why I am proud to be British, but one of them is our civil society and the myriad work that people do all over our country, generally on a volunteer basis, to make their communities a bit better, and a lot better in many cases, and often to be a voice for people who do not have a voice and to speak up for the issues that they face.
We work with many organisations with the Government Equalities Office, but also with DfE. For example, if you look at the grants that we announced earlier, at the end of last year, in relation to tackling LGBT and generally homophobic and transgender bullying, one of those organisations was Stonewall, but there are many that we worked with on this agenda. I said I met up with the Terrence Higgins Trust last week, and I would like to say a very big public thank you to all of them, because the work that they do is vital in opening up a public attitude for change that can really improve people’s lives.
Q43 Angela Crawley: Moving towards the Equality Act itself, what steps are you taking or are you planning to take, as the Minister for Equalities, to assess and improve the effectiveness of the Equality Act and the public sector equality duty in practice?
Justine Greening: The last formal review of the Act took place in July 2015. Our sense is that the Act is working satisfactorily and as Parliament intended when it was passed. You just saw the EHRC prior to me coming to the Committee; it is obviously enforced through actions by not just individuals but the EHRC. They often play a role on some of those more strategic and important cases that come out. Overall, the Equality Act is a really strong base for us, but we should continue to be prepared to look at how it needs to adapt, over time, for a modern Britain that frankly is ever‑changing.
Q44 Angela Crawley: Some people would argue already that the Equality Act is somewhat outdated. What priority does the GEO give to the enforcement activity to reduce discrimination, as opposed to awareness-raising and voluntary progress?
Justine Greening: The Act itself provides a really strong legal basis to allow people themselves, frankly, to make sure that their rights are upheld. Of course, as I have said, the EHRC often does not just take forward cases but plays a strong role in making sure that, for example, employers understand what they need to be doing.
I would also just point, Chair, to the fact that we have sometimes put in place legislation, for example around flexible leave in relation to maternity and paternity, and part of the next step is to make sure companies understand that legislation is there and that, for those people who want it, it is indeed available. Secondly, yes, it is to make sure that people who are less aware of their ability to use those advantages that the legislation has brought through are aware of them and able to take them up. At the moment, you still principally see women taking advantage of the maternity leave, less so men and paternity leave. I would like to see a lot more men looking at taking advantage of the legal framework we have now given them to be very involved in that most important very early part of their child’s life. It is not just good for men and good for the child—we know that; I think you can easily see the evidence that shows that this kind of flexible working is better for employers as well.
Q45 Angela Crawley: Just coming back finally to the EHRC, are you content with the way it is discharging its responsibilities in relation to enforcement activity?
Justine Greening: Yes, it does an important job. Obviously it is independent of Government, but it plays an important role and I believe it is discharging its duty effectively, although you cannot measure it purely on the number of cases it takes on per se because, as I have said, a lot of it is also about making sure that the environment changes, so that those cases do not have to be brought in the first place.
Q46 Mr Shuker: We have talked, understandably, a lot about gender in this session, up until now. I would like to talk about religion and a few other associated issues. In our report on Muslims in employment, we revealed that unemployment rates for Muslims are about twice that of the general population. Some 41% of Muslims are economically inactive, and two thirds of those are women. Of course, many of those women face a triple discrimination of their race, their religion and their gender. Given that, can you justify the Government’s rejection of the central premise of that report, namely that there are specific disadvantages that require a specific response from Government?
Justine Greening: I do recognise how important this is. I am a local MP who represents a mixed community in my part of London. Your characterisation of our response to the report is a little harsh; we actually only objected to two out of 17 recommendations. From our perspective, we feel that we are seeing progress. You are right to highlight it as an issue to focus on. The good news is that we are seeing progress and, in fact, there were 45% more Muslim women in work in 2015 than in 2011, so we are seeing quite rapid change over time. Part of that will also be reinforced by a new generation of young Muslim women growing up, who have expectations, quite rightly, of being part of our economy, as well as our society, so we are making progress on this, Gavin. We gave a positive response to your report. I of course acknowledge that there were two recommendations that we did not agree with though.
Q47 Mr Shuker: Just to be clear, I am characterising the central aspect of our report being around saying that there should be a specific piece of work and a stream of work there, but you referred to the two that you rejected. Let me just refer to one other, which is our recommendation around the conflation of counter‑extremism work and integration work. As the Minister with responsibility for the GEO, how will you work to ensure that the counter‑extremism work, which is essential in Government, does not further reinforce inequality for those of a Muslim faith?
Justine Greening: In relation to the issues that report raised, there is not only progress but a lot of work going on across Government to make sure that progress continues. One of the first announcements that the incoming Prime Minister made was a race audit across Government to look at how our public services treat people from different backgrounds. We are also trialling new ways in Jobcentre Plus to make sure that staff there are thinking creatively but also working effectively in engaging some of the communities that perhaps have been less involved in the workplace or employment in the past, so that we are tailoring employment services.
We are working on engaging Muslim communities through a number of faith and integration projects. Of course, that sits alongside other work we have to make sure that English language courses, while not exclusively being offered to Muslims, are absolutely targeted to make sure that they are available to Muslim women. Of course, the 30 hours’ free childcare that we will be putting in place, starting from September this year, will also help.
Your point around effectively ensuring that the work that is done on counter‑extremism and the work that is done on integration works as a whole is very well made. It is extremely difficult because, in some respects, even positive steps that communities but also Government and Government Departments can take can sometimes be viewed negatively. Sometimes there is so much you can do to manage that, when a constructive proposal is made that is not seen as constructive. We are alive to those risks and, indeed, trying to manage them. However, there is a lot more work that we can and need to do. When you look at the report that Louise Casey released at the end of last year, it was a call to action in that we all need to go a lot further and have a role to play—not only the government departments but more broadly—in helping to make sure that integration can take place.
I can only speak, again, from my own experience locally but, in my case, I have a local Muslim community, principally the Ahmadiyya Muslim community, that is incredibly well integrated and is an integral part of our overall community. We can also learn from what is working, as well as of course using the report that Louise Casey produced to get a sense of where things are not working. DCLG will of course respond to Louise Casey’s report.
Q48 Mr Shuker: I am glad to hear that you are alive to the possibility that communities might take well-intentioned actions by Government in the wrong way. You would also probably be aware that there are actions by Government that reinforce the link between counter‑extremism and integration, for example the announcement around language courses, not as being a carrot for communities but as a stick. There is much concern about that, but I do accept your point on it. Just lastly—and thank you, Chair—on a separate matter, you are in a unique position in that you had such an influential role in negotiating the sustainable development goals and are now charged with domestic implementation in your own domestic department. Is it right that DFID should take responsibility for co-ordinating that work across Whitehall?
Justine Greening: DFID is taking the lead and I support that. I also want to see my team playing a key role in making sure that, on the gender and equalities brief, we are absolutely making sure that we see progress implemented across Government and, more importantly, on the ground in the UK in response to the sustainable development goals. I have been to many countries where people do not have even the most basic provision. I have been to many refugee camps where I see people are in a fundamentally different and far worse situation. I have done a lot of work in DFID to make sure that children are able to get into school even when they are nowhere near home, and in Lebanon or Jordan in the case of the Syrian children.
The point I am trying to make, Gavin—sorry I am taking too long—is that we should reflect on how much progress we have had in the UK and the position that we are already in. It is extremely important that we show credibility ourselves in delivering on the SDGs, because they are universal; they relate to all countries. You certainly have my assurance that they matter. Particularly on gender goal 5, as we have talked about, I really want to see what I can do to bring this alive for our country, and to use my work on the high‑level panel and what that will come out with as concrete actions from the next phase of our work, which we hope will be in place and complete by the Commission on the Status of Women. That is a real vehicle for making sure that we do pursue the SDGs in the UK. In the meantime of course, yes, it is DFID that is corralling those Government Departments on those goals. I understand it will be putting out a report on that shortly.
Q49 Tracy Brabin: Just picking up what you said earlier regarding schools and sex education, we are very glad that you recognised in your response that sexual violence and sexual harassment in schools is widespread and seems to be rising. However, all the evidence submitted to the inquiry demonstrated that leaving schools to tackle it in their own way, on a voluntary basis, is not working, which is why we recommended the statutory duty. Do you have confidence in this voluntary approach in the codes of practice? Will it be more effective than it has been to date? Where are the KPIs to ensure that this is having an impact?
Justine Greening: I have been very clear that we need to look at this area. When you look at the backdrop to it, which is some guidelines that were first pulled together in 2000 and have not been updated since, it is important that we look at what we can do to address that. I have spoken, Chair, not just to this Select Committee, but to the Education Select Committee back in September, reflecting that. The key to success is making sure that we do not rush in like a bull in a china shop but really understand the different parts of this that need to be properly tackled. It is not just the “what”, and I have talked about how the guidelines are very old in a changing world; it is also how it is taught.
When you look at Ofsted, they have reflected on PSHE more broadly not always being taught effectively within schools. You raised the point around where it should be taught, which is also an obvious question that people raise, given that this subject really matters. I know that my Minister of State, Edward Timpson, in the Children and Social Work Bill was clear that we are actively looking at this. We want to make sure that, as an overall approach, we get it right.
I certainly would not want to open up an important discussion, which really matters to parents, as much as anything else, and especially to young people, in a ham‑fisted way. That is why I am talking with groups like the Terrence Higgins Trust, for example. I want to make sure that, if we take a fresh look at this, we do it in a responsible way and that we get it right. My sense is that we can do that.
Q50 Tracy Brabin: To go further with that, how does the advisory group hold the schools accountable to the high standards of diligence that will be required of them? How are we going to see the effects?
Justine Greening: The advisory group will help us ensure that we have the right follow‑up on the work that is under way within schools. I talked about some of the grants that we set out last year. That was following earlier grants that we would also put in, in relation to sexual harassment, bullying, sexting and that whole aspect within schools. The advisory group will mean that we have a series of experts who can give us a clear sense of whether they feel that we are making progress or not. Of course, a lot of those programmes are predominantly delivered by civil society groups, which can also play a role themselves in feeding back on the outcomes. The way in which our grant‑making process would always work is to be clear‑cut on what we are expecting as outcomes in schools and the breadth of that work that would take place. We are well placed to monitor progress on all of this, but progress there does need to be.
Q51 Tracy Brabin: I suppose that is the next question. On that progress, the Minister of Children and Families gave evidence to us in July last year, saying that the Government was “genuinely actively reviewing PSHE and SRE”, and hoped to make “significant progress in the next few weeks and months”. That was six months ago. Can you give us the firm date for when the Government might announce its plans for ensuring that sex and relationships education is taught appropriately?
Justine Greening: The first public comment I made on this was in September, once I was at the Education Select Committee. Edward Timpson, who is the Minister of State concerned, has been very clear that, over the course of the Children and Social Work Bill, we will make sure that we set out our next steps. We are actively working on that.
Q52 Chair: I know Ben wants to ask a supplementary, but some research from Barnardo’s this week showed that seven out of 10 children want compulsory sex and relationship education. Do you agree with them?
Justine Greening: It shows why we are right to be, as I would call it, actively reviewing the situation. It is not the only piece of research that is pointing to this, Chair. Our children are growing up in a very different world and it is one that they are confronted with, through social media, 24 hours a day in some respects. It is why part of the solution to how we make progress is not just around a stronger approach within schools. I also think technology can play a role in this as well, in helping children to deal with the problem, as well as the challenge it gives in exacerbating bullying, in some respects, that has gone on in the past. There is lots of work to be done. Barnardo’s is another report that yet again sets out why it is important that we look at this.
Q53 Chair: It is interesting, because children only get one childhood. Every week and month that we do not act on this is another cohort of children who are not getting the right support. We can all give very warm words, but what children are calling for is action. I am really pleased that Edward Timpson will be setting things out in the Children and Social Work Bill, but I hope it is in some great detail, because I think that is what children and parents want.
Justine Greening: After 16 years, I hope we will be able to set out some strong steps forward. I also hope that people will reflect that there has been a lot of time with no action, and I aim to make sure that we address some of the issues that Barnardo’s is raising and the broader ones around having a strong approach in this area, because it does matter.
Chair: They will applaud you for the action you take, I am sure.
Q54 Ben Howlett: This is a follow‑on point from exactly what the Chair said, and I share your sentiments on this. In fact, Chair, this is a plug for you here. The Chair launched a very good campaign yesterday, #SupportSSRE, which is widely available on Twitter. In relation to the Children and Social Work Bill, it has gone through Committee stage and Ofsted was a recommended option for the regulation. I appreciate the reasons, and I have read Edward Timpson’s comments and the Minister’s comments quite carefully on that, but without giving too much away, and I am sure you probably cannot say everything here, what would you see as an appropriate type of regulator for appropriate levels of SRE?
Justine Greening: That will flow from the approach that is taken in the future. I would simply reflect that this is obviously a very sensitive subject for many stakeholders, but most of all for parents and children. I would hope that we can have a very measured debate on the very real issues that have led to calls, such as your own, Chair, and the Select Committee’s, for progress. It is really important that, if we are taking any steps forward on this, they are the right ones and that the voice of young people especially is at the centre of our thinking, in terms of how we have a stronger approach in the future.
Q55 Chair: I cannot thank you enough for your time today, Secretary of State. There is just one closing question from me. We have one outstanding report on maternity discrimination, which is a shocking report, because it shows, as indeed the Equality and Human Rights Commission report has shown, increased numbers of women who feel that they are suffering discrimination during their pregnancy and when they return to work. It is now 11 weeks since we should have received a response on that. I realise that this again falls into the category of requiring input from other Departments but, given the gravity of the situation, what assurances can you give the Committee that we are going to receive a reply in the near future and hopefully not simply before the next time we see you?
Justine Greening: You are right to say that it is the BEIS Department leading on this report. The latest information I have is they will issue a response in the next few days.
Chair: That is incredibly helpful. It also helps members of staff to plan their time.
Justine Greening: I will, of course, Chair, will endeavour to make sure that that is delivered on.
Chair: Secretary of State, we are very grateful for that and we are very grateful for your time, and the amount of time that you have spent with us this morning. It is incredibly helpful to hear your thoughts. Thank you very much.
Justine Greening: Thank you for having me.