:00:25. > :00:34.Order, order. Please move the motion. It is a great pleasure to
:00:35. > :00:41.see you in the chair this afternoon and I beg to move that the house has
:00:42. > :00:47.considered eve petition number 129823 on high heels and workplace
:00:48. > :00:50.dress codes, along with the joint report on the select committee on
:00:51. > :00:57.petitions and on winning inequalities on the same subject. --
:00:58. > :01:03.women inequalities. I think members will remember how this petition came
:01:04. > :01:09.about. Nicola Thorpe who created the petition worked for an agency called
:01:10. > :01:13.portico. In December 2015 she was sent for a job as a temporary
:01:14. > :01:18.receptionist at PWC headquarters in London. When she arrived she was
:01:19. > :01:26.told that the smart black shoes she was wearing, were not acceptable
:01:27. > :01:31.because they were flat and portico's dress code at the time specified a
:01:32. > :01:38.heel height of between two and four inches. For women that is. But for
:01:39. > :01:43.men. She was offered the opportunity to go out and buy a pair of high
:01:44. > :01:48.heels, and when she refused she was sent home without pay. Now two
:01:49. > :01:56.things struck me immediately about this story, first of all, there was
:01:57. > :01:59.no suggestion ever, that Miss Thorpe was not smartly dressed, in fact
:02:00. > :02:05.anyone who knows her knows that she is impeccably turned out at all
:02:06. > :02:08.times. And secondly, that it was clear that this was a requirement
:02:09. > :02:16.that impacted far more on women, bad men. In fact -- ban on men. In fact
:02:17. > :02:23.most of portico's dress code at the time, was all about how women should
:02:24. > :02:28.look. Not only must they wear high heels but they were compelled to
:02:29. > :02:35.wear make up. And it was specified that they should wear a minimum of
:02:36. > :02:40.foundation, powder, light blusher I'm not sure whether that referred
:02:41. > :02:46.to the colour or the application, mascara, eye shadow, and lipstick or
:02:47. > :02:53.tinted lip gloss. Not just any old lip gloss. Tinted lip gloss. It must
:02:54. > :02:59.be regularly reapplied throughout the day, and women were excused from
:03:00. > :03:02.wearing make up only if they had a medical condition. They also had to
:03:03. > :03:12.wear what were described as skin coloured tights. Skin coloured being
:03:13. > :03:18.really, the sort of tights we would wear like tope and natural tan, not
:03:19. > :03:22.at all suitable for women of colour. In fact at one time a black woman
:03:23. > :03:28.who turned up in black tights was told that she should change them,
:03:29. > :03:32.for a flesh coloured pair. Which of course were not the colour of her
:03:33. > :03:38.flesh at all. Portico even specified the shades of nail varnish which
:03:39. > :03:45.were acceptable. There was a colour chart. So he decided, to investigate
:03:46. > :03:48.these issues and asked the women and equality is committed to join us in
:03:49. > :03:52.this investigation and I'm very grateful to them for their help and
:03:53. > :04:00.support in this. We took evidence from employees and from portico.
:04:01. > :04:04.From the TUC and from the Institute of recruiters, the CBI declined to
:04:05. > :04:07.give us evidence, which is an attitude that they might want to
:04:08. > :04:16.rethink in the future when dealing with my committee. And we also heard
:04:17. > :04:21.from barristers who specialised in employment law, and most importantly
:04:22. > :04:26.from women themselves. We set up a web forum where they could tell us
:04:27. > :04:33.their experiences. It is fair to say that what we found shocked us. We
:04:34. > :04:39.found aptitudes that belonged more I was going to say in the 1950s but
:04:40. > :04:44.probably the 1850s might be more accurate, than in the 21st-century.
:04:45. > :04:51.And we found women especially young women in invulnerable employment --
:04:52. > :04:55.vulnerable employment. Were exploited at work, threatened with
:04:56. > :04:59.dismissal if they complained, they were forced to bear pain all day or
:05:00. > :05:03.two wear clothing that was totally unsuitable for the tasks that they
:05:04. > :05:09.were asked to perform or to dress in a way that they felt sexualised
:05:10. > :05:15.their appearance and was demeaning. But they had to put up with this, if
:05:16. > :05:20.they needed a job. And for that reason I'm very grateful to the
:05:21. > :05:24.women who came forward to give evidence to us in public. Because I
:05:25. > :05:32.think it took a great deal of courage, courage that I possibly
:05:33. > :05:35.would not have had as their rage. Let media with high heels first,
:05:36. > :05:40.people don't think we should have been investigating with this at all.
:05:41. > :05:45.In fact they think this is a bit of a joke. Well yes it is true that
:05:46. > :05:49.women sometimes wear high heels. But there is plenty of evidence that the
:05:50. > :05:56.damage from wearing heels long-term, is well known and has been known for
:05:57. > :06:00.some time. We received written evidence from the College of the
:06:01. > :06:05.dietary and individual podiatrists on our web form setting out just
:06:06. > :06:13.what that damages. Wearing high heels, over the long term alters the
:06:14. > :06:18.balance, it reduces flexion in the ankle and it weakens the calf
:06:19. > :06:23.muscles. Over time, that can make women much more prone to a number of
:06:24. > :06:31.problems including stress fractures, Mortons neuroma, ankle sprains,
:06:32. > :06:35.bunions, and it gives a reduction in balance that actually last into old
:06:36. > :06:41.age putting people more at risk of falls. Most importantly though we
:06:42. > :06:45.heard from women themselves, women who told us that they were forced to
:06:46. > :06:51.wear high heels even during pregnancy. Who told us that at the
:06:52. > :06:58.end of the day, their feet hurt so much they could not walk, who told
:06:59. > :07:01.us that their feet bled while they were working and when they tried to
:07:02. > :07:09.raise these issues, they were dismissed. Nicola Thorpe told us,
:07:10. > :07:13.she said, girls would be in tears because their feet were bleeding.
:07:14. > :07:17.And they were just laughed at. So it isn't a joke for any woman, it is
:07:18. > :07:22.particularly not a joke for older women. They may not be able to wear
:07:23. > :07:27.heels, or women with disabilities. In fact we were given evidence by
:07:28. > :07:36.many of these women that they were put off applying certain kinds of
:07:37. > :07:38.jobs, because of the dress codes. Evidence that was confirmed by the
:07:39. > :07:44.director-general of the Institute of recruiters who told us that
:07:45. > :07:49.definitely, such dress codes reduced the pool of women applying for jobs.
:07:50. > :07:57.But we also heard how unsuitable this was, for the tasks that women
:07:58. > :08:02.were expected to perform at work. Tasks like moving furniture. Walking
:08:03. > :08:06.long distances. He particularly heard from people who are cabin
:08:07. > :08:14.distances are had to walk long distances in airports. Standing all
:08:15. > :08:21.day, even climbing ladders. So it wasn't funny, yet few employers
:08:22. > :08:24.carried out a health and safety assessment. Portico told us they
:08:25. > :08:30.hadn't done so and they are not alone. We heard evidence both from
:08:31. > :08:36.the TUC and the Institute of recruiters, that there is very
:08:37. > :08:40.little information available to employers about this kind of
:08:41. > :08:43.footwear problem. If you look online, there is plenty of
:08:44. > :08:48.information about where people should wear steel toe capped boots
:08:49. > :08:51.and so on, but there is in so much about the health and well-being
:08:52. > :08:58.attitude, issues surrounding footwear. But stress codes that
:08:59. > :09:03.impact more on women go much further than making them wear high heels. We
:09:04. > :09:08.heard from women who could not even travel to work without wearing full
:09:09. > :09:13.make up or they would be disciplined. We heard from cabin
:09:14. > :09:20.crew, who were all forced to wear the same shade of lipstick.
:09:21. > :09:28.We were told of women who were told to unbutton their blouses a bit to
:09:29. > :09:33.appeal to male clients. We were told of a woman being told to Di her hair
:09:34. > :09:36.blonde. The problem is that these issues are not just discriminatory
:09:37. > :09:44.and impact more on women, but they both stem from and feed into an
:09:45. > :09:50.attitude to women in the work place, which is totally reprehensible,
:09:51. > :09:53.which consown twrats on a stier -- concentrates on a stereotypical
:09:54. > :09:56.appearance rather than on the skills women can bring to the job.
:09:57. > :10:01.Witnesses told us how demeaning they found. This One woman who had worked
:10:02. > :10:06.as cabin crew member told us that she thought that her appearance was
:10:07. > :10:12.sexualised for the sake of the business. And that was both
:10:13. > :10:18.dehumanising and humiliating, given that male cabin crew were simply
:10:19. > :10:23.expected to look smart and I think those of us who fly regularly will
:10:24. > :10:28.know exactly what she means by that. Another woman who worked in retail
:10:29. > :10:32.and was told near Christmas to unbutton her blouse a bit and wear
:10:33. > :10:37.shorter skirts to sell to male customers told us she felt that
:10:38. > :10:44.devalued her skills as a saleswoman and her knowledge of the products.
:10:45. > :10:50.But it gets worse than that. Frequently, these issues go hand in
:10:51. > :10:54.hand with a work environment in which women are harassed, where
:10:55. > :10:59.women particularly younger women, have to put up with daily comments
:11:00. > :11:07.about their bodies from managers, where they are exposed to unwanted
:11:08. > :11:12.attention from customers. We heard, for instance, of women who are asked
:11:13. > :11:15.when they're finishing work, of women who received unwanted
:11:16. > :11:21.attention online, really amounting to harassment. Of people trying to
:11:22. > :11:26.find out where they lived or if they were abroad, what hotel they were
:11:27. > :11:32.staying in, even of women being followed home from work by
:11:33. > :11:39.customers. All of that is unacceptable in the 21st century. It
:11:40. > :11:44.degrades women. Now the Government thinks that the law is fairly clear
:11:45. > :11:49.on this. Their answer to the petition, they were clear that the
:11:50. > :11:54.requirement that Nicola Thorpe experienced to wear high he's is --
:11:55. > :11:58.high heels, is illegal under the equalities act. We received some
:11:59. > :12:04.legal evidence which would suggest that the law is not quite as clear
:12:05. > :12:09.as that. The legal opinions that we had suggested that what you might
:12:10. > :12:13.call a conventional dress code, for want of a better word, might not
:12:14. > :12:17.constitute direct discrimination under the equalities act because men
:12:18. > :12:22.and women do tend to dress differently. But if it impacted more
:12:23. > :12:28.on one sex than another, it was likely to be indirect
:12:29. > :12:32.discrimination. Now the problem is that indirect discrimination can be
:12:33. > :12:38.justified if it is reasonably necessary in pursuit of a legitimate
:12:39. > :12:46.end. There isn't a proper definition of legitimate end. But more
:12:47. > :12:50.importantly, not only can tribunals decide cases differently in
:12:51. > :12:55.different parts of the country, but actually, very few cases are getting
:12:56. > :13:08.to tribunal at all. We heard that there is very little case law or
:13:09. > :13:12.advice for employers on this. So the Managing Director of Portico when
:13:13. > :13:15.asked whether it had occurred to him whether the dress code was
:13:16. > :13:18.discriminatory, no, it hadn't at all. That's why we are suggesting
:13:19. > :13:21.that the Government needs to provide much more information to employers
:13:22. > :13:25.not only about the health and safety aspects of their dress code, but
:13:26. > :13:30.about what may constitute discrimination too. That is
:13:31. > :13:35.particularly true for smaller employers, who do not have in-house
:13:36. > :13:40.solicitors and HR departments. I give way to my honourable friend. I
:13:41. > :13:44.thank you for giving way. She's making a very powerful case. The
:13:45. > :13:46.evidence we saw over the hearings was pretty shocking, to be
:13:47. > :13:51.completely honest with you, particularly as a man, seeing this
:13:52. > :13:56.on a day-to-day basis. The question for the honourable lady is around
:13:57. > :13:59.not just the information provided for about business, but information
:14:00. > :14:05.for pro-vieded for the individuals. We're not seeing enough cases come
:14:06. > :14:07.forwards. Where can information come available for the women affected by
:14:08. > :14:13.this? I think the honourable gentleman is quite right. I will be
:14:14. > :14:20.coming onto that later in my speech. It is very important that people
:14:21. > :14:25.have information about their rights. But information by itself is not
:14:26. > :14:29.enough. We nouned that there were real issues about -- we found there
:14:30. > :14:33.were real issues about enforcement and access to justice in this. Women
:14:34. > :14:40.told us when they raised these concerns, they were belittled. One
:14:41. > :14:45.said, "I was told that I would be fired straight away if I chose to
:14:46. > :14:49.put flats on. Another was told that she'd have plenty of time to rest
:14:50. > :14:57.her feet when she was unemployed. And women don't take these matters
:14:58. > :15:00.further for several reasons. Many of them are in insecure employment.
:15:01. > :15:07.They may be on fixed term contracts or in zero hours contracts. They may
:15:08. > :15:13.not have worked for long enough to bring a claim against their
:15:14. > :15:23.employer. But awards in this area are fairly low. We were given
:15:24. > :15:28.ballpark figure of about ?250 to ?1,000, that is less than the cost
:15:29. > :15:31.of going to tribunal nowadays. That is not good enough. A right that
:15:32. > :15:40.can't be enforced isn't a right at all. Yet we found that these cases
:15:41. > :15:46.were not getting as far as a tribunal all the time. That's why
:15:47. > :15:50.we're calling on the Government to look at increasing the penalties on
:15:51. > :15:54.employers for breach of the law. They should be set at a level which
:15:55. > :15:58.doesn't discourage people from bringing the claim but which
:15:59. > :16:03.disincentivises employers to break the law. As one of our witnesses
:16:04. > :16:09.says, in the current climate employers take a punt that no-one
:16:10. > :16:14.will bring a claim. We have a situation where not only do we have
:16:15. > :16:18.this happening in an insecure workforce, but also because the
:16:19. > :16:23.budget for the equalities and Human Rights Commission has been cut, they
:16:24. > :16:29.are no longer bringing as many test cases to test out the law. We are in
:16:30. > :16:36.the position with the equalities act which, I think we were many years
:16:37. > :16:40.ago with the Equal Pay Act. The equalities act sets out general
:16:41. > :16:44.principles. Because English law proceeds by an accumulation of case
:16:45. > :16:51.law it needs to be fleshed out by people taking cases. Now, we all --
:16:52. > :16:57.we also think that if the Government gave to tribunals the power to issue
:16:58. > :17:01.injunctions to stop the use of discriminatory dress codes, these
:17:02. > :17:09.cases could be drelt with more quickly. But funding and access to
:17:10. > :17:15.justice is a key issue. We are very grateful that since our report was
:17:16. > :17:18.issued, the equality and Human Rights Commission has told the
:17:19. > :17:26.equality advisory and support service to notify it of any cases
:17:27. > :17:29.involving dress code so they can decide whether litigation is
:17:30. > :17:36.necessary and whether enforcement action is required. We are also
:17:37. > :17:41.grateful that they have now started a campaign on social media to inform
:17:42. > :17:46.women of their rights. As the honourable gentleman said, much more
:17:47. > :17:50.needs to be done, we are calling on the Government to start campaign,
:17:51. > :17:56.particularly targeted at areas where people are most vulnerable, like in
:17:57. > :17:59.hospitality, frerchl, to inform both employees of their rights and
:18:00. > :18:04.employers of their obligations in this. I give way to the honourable
:18:05. > :18:10.gentleman. Does she not agrow with me, this is building on a point
:18:11. > :18:13.she's made, it's one thing informing people of their rights, but it's
:18:14. > :18:16.critically important that the issue fees are set at a level where they
:18:17. > :18:20.are affordable and people can exercise their rights and seek a
:18:21. > :18:23.remedy in the courts. Indeed. I absolutely agree with the honourable
:18:24. > :18:28.gentleman. What we have seen since these fees were raised in 2013 is
:18:29. > :18:34.these cases are falling off a cliff. They are not being brought any more.
:18:35. > :18:39.We have to remember that many of these women work in non-unionised
:18:40. > :18:45.work places. So a union cannot bring a claim. The Equal Pay Act was
:18:46. > :18:48.extended by unions actually bringing test cases on behalf of their
:18:49. > :18:57.workforce. Now that is not happening any more. Ultimately, women must be
:18:58. > :19:02.able to enforce their rights. If only those who are well paid and in
:19:03. > :19:07.secure jobs can enforce their rights, not those who are low paid
:19:08. > :19:12.and in insecure employment, then we don't have equality. If older women
:19:13. > :19:16.or women with disabilities are deterred from applying for jobs
:19:17. > :19:21.because of the dress code, we don't have' quult. -- equality. If women
:19:22. > :19:25.are forced to bear pain all day at work or put up with what is really a
:19:26. > :19:31.toxic working environment, we don't have equality. If young women are
:19:32. > :19:37.subject all the time to comments about their bodies, we don't have
:19:38. > :19:45.equality. So what began for us as what we thought would be a nice,
:19:46. > :19:50.limited inquiry, exposed a whole number of issues in the work place,
:19:51. > :19:53.which are going to need further study and further action by the
:19:54. > :20:00.Government. I will give way once more before I wind up. One of the
:20:01. > :20:07.issues that have come up time and again not just in relation to this
:20:08. > :20:09.report, but from the women's equalities perspective,
:20:10. > :20:13.descriptation isn't inscribed in the act currentsly. She makes a powerful
:20:14. > :20:18.point to age and gender as well. Does she agree with me it would be
:20:19. > :20:21.appropriate for the Government to look at dual discrimination to bring
:20:22. > :20:24.the cases to trial? I couldn't agree more with the honourable gentleman.
:20:25. > :20:30.He's quite right about this. One of the things that we also say is that
:20:31. > :20:33.if the existing law is not shown to be working, then the Government will
:20:34. > :20:38.need to take action to clarify the law. But as I say, we thought at the
:20:39. > :20:45.beginning, this would be a short inquiry. But it's exposed a whole
:20:46. > :20:53.number of issues in the work place. It has exposed widespread
:20:54. > :20:58.discrimination against women. It stereotypical views of what women
:20:59. > :21:03.should dress like and behave like. It's shown up outdated attitudes
:21:04. > :21:08.towards women in the work place. It has shown that constantly women are
:21:09. > :21:12.belittled when they try to challenge those attitudes. So the conclusion I
:21:13. > :21:18.think that I come to is that we have a long way to go to solve these
:21:19. > :21:25.problems. But I hope that the Government will take them seriously.
:21:26. > :21:32.Because women in the work place, everybody in the work place deserves
:21:33. > :21:35.better than that. Better than this stereotyping, better than the pain
:21:36. > :21:41.and inappropriate clothing they are forced to put up with. And better
:21:42. > :21:47.than the attitudes that women encounter every day. I think as a
:21:48. > :21:52.member of Parliament, we have had a long struggle for women to be
:21:53. > :21:57.accepted in this place. But actually, our life is a bed of roses
:21:58. > :22:01.compared to those women in low paid and insecure employment and what
:22:02. > :22:06.they are having to put up with every day to keep their jobs. I hope that
:22:07. > :22:13.the minister, when she replies, will see this is not a trivial issue. It
:22:14. > :22:16.is a very serious issue that affects women every day at work and the
:22:17. > :22:24.Government must now take it seriously.
:22:25. > :22:28.The question is that this House has considered e-petition number 1298923
:22:29. > :22:37.relating to high heels and work place dress codes. I call jil
:22:38. > :22:41.Furness. Thank you, it's a pleasure to serve under your chairman sop.
:22:42. > :22:48.I'm pleased to be speak -- chairmanship. I'm pleased to speak
:22:49. > :22:51.on this Dee bait with women and discrimination with regards to work
:22:52. > :22:54.place dress codes. I'm calling on the Government to tighten the rules
:22:55. > :22:59.so this is no longer prevalent in the work place. This debate is
:23:00. > :23:05.happening because of a petition signed by over 150,000 people in the
:23:06. > :23:10.United Kingdom, showing the real and serious concern many people have
:23:11. > :23:16.about the fact that in 2017 women are still subject to unreasonable
:23:17. > :23:19.footwear requirements at work. On the same week as international
:23:20. > :23:23.women's day, when we are celebrating the success of women across the
:23:24. > :23:28.world, whom for the past searchingery have made huge strides
:23:29. > :23:32.in an attempt to secure economic, political and social parity, we must
:23:33. > :23:39.pay great attention to the fact that there is still some way to go.
:23:40. > :23:50.Indeed as recent studies have shown, none men in terms of equal pay, with
:23:51. > :23:56.median hourly rates ?12 82 an hour, compared to ?14 16 for males.
:23:57. > :24:02.However, as this debate highlights, parity in the workplace does not
:24:03. > :24:07.only related economic parity. As of attrition has rightly pointed out,
:24:08. > :24:09.that despite the introduction of equality laws, women continue to
:24:10. > :24:15.face discrimination in the workplace. Manifesting in various
:24:16. > :24:21.ways including high heels in the workplace. But let me assure the
:24:22. > :24:24.house that in workplaces across the country, women are often instructed
:24:25. > :24:30.to wear a full face of make up and even told which shade of red to wear
:24:31. > :24:34.on their lips. In evidence provided to the petitions committee and
:24:35. > :24:39.women's inequalities committee joint report, women admitted they found
:24:40. > :24:45.the dress codes, though, to wear high heels to be humiliating and
:24:46. > :24:50.degrading. While some of us felt sexualised by the employer 's
:24:51. > :24:54.insistence. It is this effect on the psychological well-being of female
:24:55. > :24:58.workers is deeply worrying. The evidence is clear, there is no real
:24:59. > :25:03.practical function and I challenge anybody in this house to provide
:25:04. > :25:06.evidence otherwise that wearing high heels in the workplace should be
:25:07. > :25:14.mandate three, and forced upon women employees. In the case of high
:25:15. > :25:18.heels, evidence from the College of the dietary reveals that there is a
:25:19. > :25:22.strong body of clinical evidence against wearing high heels for a
:25:23. > :25:27.prolonged period of time. We know that in some professions standing in
:25:28. > :25:32.high heels for a period of an eight-hour shift is the norm.
:25:33. > :25:37.Wearing heels in this way often causes foot pain, bunions, skin
:25:38. > :25:42.lesion, low Olympus ology and other related discomforts for the seal
:25:43. > :25:44.wearer. In fact my and daughter suffered from a metatarsal fracture
:25:45. > :25:51.which is more commonly affiliated with sports injuries when she was
:25:52. > :25:54.forced to wear high heels. Quite literally adding insult to injury
:25:55. > :26:01.she was tonight any compensation or sick pay and she wasn't on the
:26:02. > :26:04.payroll for long enough. Needless to say, she did not return to this type
:26:05. > :26:10.of work but not everyone has that choice. In my view, all of this
:26:11. > :26:15.disqualifies any practical argument being forced to wear high heels in
:26:16. > :26:20.the workplace. It is my view that dress codes in all workplaces should
:26:21. > :26:24.serve a practical purpose and should be neutral. Targeting men and women
:26:25. > :26:32.in the same way, indeed, this is compatible with what the law states.
:26:33. > :26:36.Equality act 2010 is clear in principle and aims to harmonise
:26:37. > :26:43.discrimination law. And aims to strengthen the law to promote
:26:44. > :26:47.equality in the UK. Section 39 and 41 of the equality act prohibit
:26:48. > :26:52.direct discrimination, and as the government put to the petitions
:26:53. > :26:55.committee and women and equality is joint report, and I quote, it
:26:56. > :27:02.specifically states that employers must not discriminate as to the
:27:03. > :27:06.terms of employment, or indeed by subjecting an employee to any
:27:07. > :27:13.detriment at work. However, we are here debating this today because the
:27:14. > :27:16.law is not working in practice and it is particularly advantageous to
:27:17. > :27:21.women in the workforce or disadvantages to women in the
:27:22. > :27:25.workforce, who often feel vulnerable for calling out these injustices. In
:27:26. > :27:33.order to be effective the law must be understood both by employers and
:27:34. > :27:36.employees and employers must take such discrimination seriously. If
:27:37. > :27:42.they do not then appropriate punishments should be set out
:27:43. > :27:48.clearly. Today's job market is fragile, record numbers of people
:27:49. > :27:53.working in zero our contracts. Often the zero our contracts are in the
:27:54. > :27:56.retail and hospitality sectors. There have been many cases of women
:27:57. > :28:01.in particular being sent home because they have not complied with
:28:02. > :28:06.certain dress codes, such as wearing high heels or putting on the wrong
:28:07. > :28:11.shade of lipstick. In conclusion I support the calls for the government
:28:12. > :28:14.to take urgent action to improve the effectiveness of the equality act as
:28:15. > :28:19.well as clearer guidelines on these issues, so that the laws already in
:28:20. > :28:26.existence are properly functional and effective, thank you. Thank you
:28:27. > :28:30.Mr Hansen and it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. I
:28:31. > :28:35.wanted to speak in this debate for three reasons. The first one is,
:28:36. > :28:40.that I have personally never quite fathom the fashion for cripplingly
:28:41. > :28:44.high heels. I have only ever owned one pair of really high heels, they
:28:45. > :28:48.were bought for a wedding, they were worn once and then they were
:28:49. > :28:52.consigned for the charity shop. I have always been a fan for a comfy
:28:53. > :28:59.shoe and nothing gladdens my heart more for a sensible shoe and a glad
:29:00. > :29:08.fitting. The second reason, is that I was a workplace trade union red
:29:09. > :29:12.for Unite the union before I was elected in this place and I have
:29:13. > :29:17.spent many hours discussing dress codes with HR advisors and managers
:29:18. > :29:25.I would advise against it if it can I would advise against it if it can
:29:26. > :29:29.possibly be avoided of course. I was one of these people who she would be
:29:30. > :29:32.discussing, although I suspect it may not have been a thankless task
:29:33. > :29:36.if the discussion had been between us. Could I ask if she ever
:29:37. > :29:43.discussed the requirement to wear high heels as part of any of these
:29:44. > :29:46.negotiations? I thank the honourable lady for that intervention and I am
:29:47. > :29:51.happy to say that I didn't because I worked for the NHS and our dress
:29:52. > :29:57.code was very much along health safety lines, and protecting people
:29:58. > :30:02.at work rather than forcing them into a unsuitable garments for the
:30:03. > :30:12.workplace. The third reason I wanted to speak in this debate is because
:30:13. > :30:18.I'm a feminist. Particularly ones that are uncomfortable, they ability
:30:19. > :30:23.to walk properly, stand for long periods of time at even run away. I
:30:24. > :30:28.find that quite a borrowed. And I find the idea that an employer might
:30:29. > :30:33.make the wearing of such items a prerequisite for the job, even more
:30:34. > :30:38.abhorrent still. And I can well remember when the NHS Trust I used
:30:39. > :30:44.to work for, reduced a 30 page document, outlining what staff could
:30:45. > :30:50.and could not wear. From the contents page containing such
:30:51. > :30:57.headings as "Acrylic nails, make up, hair, jewellery, tattooed,
:30:58. > :31:01.piercings," Judy extremely -- to the extremely prescriptive details that
:31:02. > :31:09.followed. I was so interested to hear about the flesh coloured tights
:31:10. > :31:11.dilemma. I can run the long conversations we had about what
:31:12. > :31:18.exactly was meant by the requirement to wear flesh coloured tights? Given
:31:19. > :31:23.the diversity of our workforce, exactly what colour of flesh did the
:31:24. > :31:29.management have in mind? After much discussion management finally agreed
:31:30. > :31:34.to drop this requirement. And piercings and tattooed were the
:31:35. > :31:39.source of much agitation. I do recall I worked in the laboratory.
:31:40. > :31:44.Had interviewed for a lab assistant, he pointed to a young man who turned
:31:45. > :31:48.up for his first date with his face resplendent with various piercings.
:31:49. > :31:54.Which it hadn't worn to the interview. And I can remember the
:31:55. > :32:00.anguished cry of our laboratory manager, "We have taken on metal
:32:01. > :32:04.Mickey. " And he appeared to feel he had been duped in some way. Yet this
:32:05. > :32:09.young man proved to be conscientious, good at his job, and
:32:10. > :32:12.given that his role involves minimal contact with the public on his
:32:13. > :32:18.too much of a problem. And of course too much of a problem. And of course
:32:19. > :32:21.a lot of the dress code issues in the NHS are necessary because of
:32:22. > :32:25.health and safety at work and the need to wear personal protective
:32:26. > :32:31.equipment. And I certainly don't think there was any emphasis at all
:32:32. > :32:33.on making women to conform to some of standard stereotypically
:32:34. > :32:38.attractiveness that this petition concentrates on. However I mention
:32:39. > :32:42.these details just to emphasise that dress codes do not have two B 30
:32:43. > :32:49.page document stipulating what can and cannot be worn down to the
:32:50. > :32:55.tiniest detail. And I do recall the horrible phrase in our code
:32:56. > :32:59."Underwear must not be visible". I was wondering if that also apply to
:33:00. > :33:03.my boss 's string vest, always clearly visible through his white
:33:04. > :33:08.shirt. I'm on trees Ake where you buy these things from. But a good
:33:09. > :33:13.dress code only has to be a fuel lines and I think my own counsel
:33:14. > :33:17.Rochdale Council, has an exemplary policy which is very brief but
:33:18. > :33:24.covers all eventualities and health and safety and comments. It simply
:33:25. > :33:28.states "First impressions count, and there is a general expectation that
:33:29. > :33:32.employees dress appropriately to the nature of their duties and
:33:33. > :33:38.responsibilities. The Council values and welcomes the ethnic diversity of
:33:39. > :33:42.its workforce, and therefore expects all employees to recognise and
:33:43. > :33:47.respect those in terms of dress. Where there is a clear business,
:33:48. > :33:50.service or health and safety reason, appropriate dress codes may be
:33:51. > :33:56.introduced following consultation, to suit the service needs and meet
:33:57. > :34:00.public expectations. Uniforms must be worn where required and provided.
:34:01. > :34:05.Personal protective equipment must be worn where it is appropriate to
:34:06. > :34:12.do so or if directed by the manager or the health and safety advisor.
:34:13. > :34:17.The Honourable may did give way. It was very interested, read it out,
:34:18. > :34:21.saying uniforms must be worn when provided. The issue however is
:34:22. > :34:22.whether the uniforms that are required are indeed appropriate
:34:23. > :34:31.adult -- and ultimately, the key to side
:34:32. > :34:35.must be a court. Does she agree with me that the key is to make sure that
:34:36. > :34:39.people can access those courts to establish where those boundaries lie
:34:40. > :34:44.and to achieve justice on case law to apply for future circumstances?
:34:45. > :34:49.Layla I thank the honourable gentleman for that intervention and
:34:50. > :34:55.I do agree, that every worker should have access to the courts.
:34:56. > :35:00.Unfortunately, the tribunal fees that had been introduced have
:35:01. > :35:06.restricted this access. I think I'm right in saying that no employee, of
:35:07. > :35:11.Rochdale Council has had to do that. I appreciate the point that he
:35:12. > :35:14.honourable gentleman is making, but the uniforms are provided by
:35:15. > :35:18.Rochdale Council and they do tend to be very practical and appropriate to
:35:19. > :35:24.the job. But I do think that brief dress code is really all that is
:35:25. > :35:28.needed. And any attempt to be prescriptive and to go into further
:35:29. > :35:32.detail about particular items of clothing is really a waste of
:35:33. > :35:36.everyone's time. And given the vagaries of fashion, is likely to be
:35:37. > :35:42.superseded very quickly by some new fad or trend. I personally think
:35:43. > :35:47.that high heels hobble and restrict women, and hamper our ability to
:35:48. > :35:53.move freely and even run away if necessary. But I recognise that some
:35:54. > :35:55.women will choose to wear high heels of their own volition and I will not
:35:56. > :36:00.criticise them for that, we should all be free to wear what we like. At
:36:01. > :36:05.what I cannot tolerate his employers trying to force women into an ideal
:36:06. > :36:11.of what constitutes professionalism or power dressing, by insisting that
:36:12. > :36:16.particular items such as cripplingly high heels must be worn. And I am
:36:17. > :36:20.reminded of Ginger Rogers famous response when she was asked about
:36:21. > :36:23.dancing with Fred Astaire and she said it is easy, I just do
:36:24. > :36:31.everything that Fred does. And then she added, just backwards and in the
:36:32. > :36:36.high heels. That is all the dress code stipulations are, and attempt
:36:37. > :36:40.to hobble and restrict women for us to have two perform as well as
:36:41. > :36:46.better than men while be held back by quaint stereotypical notions of
:36:47. > :36:49.what constitutions femininity and a professional appearance. So I say to
:36:50. > :36:56.women everywhere, let's have no more going backwards in high heels, let's
:36:57. > :37:05.go forwards had an sensible shoes. -- and in sensible shoes. It is a
:37:06. > :37:11.pleasure, I'm very pleased to follow such an interesting and
:37:12. > :37:16.thought-provoking contribution. I must also commend Nicola Thorpe, who
:37:17. > :37:19.brought this to our attention. I thought the ball member for
:37:20. > :37:22.Warrington North spoke very passionately, for some of the
:37:23. > :37:27.depressing realities of working life for many of the young women that she
:37:28. > :37:31.and her committee spoke to. Like her I commend these young women who came
:37:32. > :37:35.forward to give evidence in public. I think putting a head above the
:37:36. > :37:39.parapet could be daunting, and in this case it did attract some
:37:40. > :37:43.comment and that will have made it more so. I did follow the case, that
:37:44. > :37:46.led to the petition and the subsequent committing quarry with
:37:47. > :37:54.some interest because as I have already said today, -- committee
:37:55. > :37:57.Inquiry. Because I did have to write the dress code policy for my
:37:58. > :38:01.organisation and work with the staff and trade unions to arrive at a
:38:02. > :38:05.sensible policy and I can recall us having lots of discussion but I have
:38:06. > :38:11.to say very little disagreement about how things might be expressed.
:38:12. > :38:13.I think I heard very sensible words about people being attired
:38:14. > :38:17.appropriately for the task in hand and I think that is a reasonable
:38:18. > :38:21.summary of where I would expect most organisations to arrive at. I had to
:38:22. > :38:26.say there was precious little discussion about shoes and there was
:38:27. > :38:28.none whatsoever about some of the other quite astonishing requirements
:38:29. > :38:36.that we have heard about today being placed upon women. Women required to
:38:37. > :38:42.dye their hair blonde?! Revealing outfits, and to constantly reapply
:38:43. > :38:47.make-ups. As for flesh coloured tights, I do despair. I would fare
:38:48. > :38:52.on every single one of these accounted the overall topic, if what
:38:53. > :38:58.is said about women in the workplace and on wider society was not so
:38:59. > :39:01.depressingly serious. I would have remembered if there had been any
:39:02. > :39:09.discussion group, because unlike the honourable lady, I'm quite partial
:39:10. > :39:15.to a pair of high heels. They don't really do in the House of Commons.
:39:16. > :39:21.Sensible boots are smart enough and thankfully they add a number of
:39:22. > :39:25.inches to my height, I am sure they would fall foul of the dress code we
:39:26. > :39:31.have heard today because they're simply too sensible. Interestingly
:39:32. > :39:35.the only discussion I can remember about footwear and dress codes was
:39:36. > :39:40.in relation to safety footwear that. Was the only area where we felt it
:39:41. > :39:46.was appropriate at all for us to be specific. For most staff smart was
:39:47. > :39:51.clarity enough. For those people working in environments where things
:39:52. > :39:55.could cause injury, there was the unbreakable rule that safety
:39:56. > :39:59.footwear must be worn, which seems eminently sensible to me and it
:40:00. > :40:03.seems to be in line in the century in which we are having this
:40:04. > :40:06.discussion. I'm a member of the Chartered Institute of Personnel and
:40:07. > :40:09.development I thought they would probably have a view worth
:40:10. > :40:14.considering on this issue. So they did. They say dress codes are
:40:15. > :40:18.lawful, provided they're reasonable and provide equivalent requirements
:40:19. > :40:21.for both sexes. This suggests key points that employers should
:40:22. > :40:26.consider when implementing or amending a dress code. They should
:40:27. > :40:30.always avoid any form of discrimination. They should remember
:40:31. > :40:33.that imposing certain standards of dress for health and safety reasons
:40:34. > :40:37.is acceptable. I would go further and say it is vital. This should
:40:38. > :40:41.apply -- they should apply dress codes equally to men and women. The
:40:42. > :40:45.difficulty arises here, because men and women do not generally wear
:40:46. > :40:50.similar shoes or clothing and most men do not wear make up. But it is
:40:51. > :40:54.surely possible in this day and age for us to agree, for instance, that
:40:55. > :40:58.both sexes need to look smart, without having to enter areas where
:40:59. > :41:02.women are clearly treated less favourably than men. For instance,
:41:03. > :41:05.this requirement to wear make up would surely amount to
:41:06. > :41:10.discrimination. As would a requirement to wear revealing
:41:11. > :41:13.clothing and certainly dying your hair blonde. I can see age
:41:14. > :41:21.discrimination that would follow some of these extremely unhelpful
:41:22. > :41:24.gender-related suggestions too. The CIPD advise that employers should
:41:25. > :41:28.make sure there's a sound business reason for imposing personal
:41:29. > :41:31.appearance criteria on staff and a clear written policy, that's clear,
:41:32. > :41:36.has been implemented and widely communicated. They conclude today
:41:37. > :41:41.was important to avoid the pit fall of believing that clients would
:41:42. > :41:45.automatically take offence at an employee's personal appearance. I
:41:46. > :41:49.don't know about anyone in this chamber today, but the sight of a
:41:50. > :41:50.woman in flat shoes does not usually send me reaching for the smelling
:41:51. > :41:55.salts. LAUGHTER
:41:56. > :41:59.I imagine that clients coming to meetings will be spectacularly
:42:00. > :42:03.unbothered by the heel height of anyone in attendance and rather more
:42:04. > :42:08.focussed on the business at manned. -- hand. Unless their meetings is
:42:09. > :42:12.being held in the 1970s. Clearly the key thing we should be looking at is
:42:13. > :42:16.safety. It is vital everyone is kept safe at work and that all health and
:42:17. > :42:20.safety requirements are met. Nobody should be expected to work in an
:42:21. > :42:24.environment that damages their health unless perhaps you're someone
:42:25. > :42:28.who works in a company where high heels are required. We've heard only
:42:29. > :42:31.too clearly from the honourable member for Warrington north about
:42:32. > :42:35.the real health impacts, to say nothing of pain, which these dress
:42:36. > :42:38.codes can cause. Also very worryingly about the fact that women
:42:39. > :42:44.were put off applying for jobs because of these criteria. I have
:42:45. > :42:49.admitted to owning a number of high heeled shoes, some of them very
:42:50. > :42:54.high, but that is my choice. There is absolutely no compulsion on me to
:42:55. > :42:58.wear these to work. If I did, according to research I'm in a
:42:59. > :43:04.little bit of trouble. Because women over 40 and sadly, that is me, are
:43:05. > :43:10.particularly affected because their balance is apparently affected by
:43:11. > :43:13.age. So quite seriously, there are more potential issues of
:43:14. > :43:16.discrimination here on the grounds of age and potentially disability.
:43:17. > :43:20.The report of the women in equalities committee was very
:43:21. > :43:23.helpful in clarifying the relationship between the equality
:43:24. > :43:27.act provisions and work place dress codes isn't as widely understood as
:43:28. > :43:32.it should be. And the fact that the current approach is not working.
:43:33. > :43:36.With ewelcome the report and the calls that it makes for new
:43:37. > :43:39.legislation, new ways of tackling discrimination and stopping women
:43:40. > :43:42.for being forced to comply with these discriminatory dress codes. I
:43:43. > :43:46.understand that the UK Government says that the existing law is clear
:43:47. > :43:51.and that the dress code that prompted this petition is already
:43:52. > :43:54.unlawful. But it is obviously the case that discriminatory dress codes
:43:55. > :43:58.remain widespread, so clearly the existing law is not yet fully
:43:59. > :44:02.effective in protecting employees from discrimination at work. It's
:44:03. > :44:05.wrong for someone to be expected to wear high heels, make up or
:44:06. > :44:10.revealing outfits, if these demands are not placed on both Jen dears.
:44:11. > :44:15.Clearly, that would be undesirable, but sadly, this type of ingrained
:44:16. > :44:19.work place sexism continues to prevail. It is clear from the report
:44:20. > :44:22.that many people do not feel able to challenge the dress codes that
:44:23. > :44:26.they're required to follow. I quite agree with the recommendations that
:44:27. > :44:29.the Government equalities office should work with ACAS and the Health
:44:30. > :44:33.and Safety Executive to make sure that detailed guidance can be push
:44:34. > :44:35.lawyered to help people understand -- published to help people under
:44:36. > :44:40.equality and health and safety law and how it applies to dress codes.
:44:41. > :44:43.Mr Is insufficient evidence in the public domain about health and
:44:44. > :44:46.safety and risk implications in relation to wearing high heels, for
:44:47. > :44:51.instance, and I look forward to these bodies working on that as soon
:44:52. > :44:55.as possible. Because it really does smatter. I'm pleased that the SNP
:44:56. > :44:58.Scottish Government is taking action to ensure women's equality in the
:44:59. > :45:02.work place, because I think that goes right to the heart of this
:45:03. > :45:06.issue. What we're hearing about today of women being subjected to
:45:07. > :45:11.ridiculous requirements and far worse harassment in the work place
:45:12. > :45:18.is completely unacceptable. In 2017, equality for women in the work place
:45:19. > :45:22.should be at the heart of every Government's agenda and closing the
:45:23. > :45:25.gender pay gap, dealing with maternity discrimination and looking
:45:26. > :45:29.at how these issues can feed into economic growth are vital. But these
:45:30. > :45:32.things can't be dealt with alone and until we can deal with the issues
:45:33. > :45:37.which have been brought here today, then we will not make the progress
:45:38. > :45:40.that we should. These things are key to driving forward gender equality
:45:41. > :45:44.in the work place. We must address the issues that have been brought
:45:45. > :45:48.here today. I would press the minister to tell us what she can do,
:45:49. > :45:55.what she will do and when we can expect some action.
:45:56. > :45:59.Thank you. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this
:46:00. > :46:01.afternoon. I'm grateful to my honourable friend for the powerful
:46:02. > :46:07.way in which she introduced this debate on behalf of not only the
:46:08. > :46:10.be-Titians committee but on behalf of over 150 thousand people who
:46:11. > :46:13.signed the petition. I wish to pay tribute to an incredible lady,
:46:14. > :46:19.Nicola Thorpe, who started this petition. Nicola's actions on that
:46:20. > :46:24.day in December 2015, when she was given the choice, and I use the word
:46:25. > :46:28."choice" with the loosest possible meaning, to either return to work
:46:29. > :46:31.with a pair of high heels or leave work and forfeit a day's pay, has
:46:32. > :46:34.the potential to change the experiences of women in the work
:46:35. > :46:38.place. She acted not just for herself, but as we can see as a
:46:39. > :46:41.result of the subsequent inquiry, from the petitions and from the
:46:42. > :46:45.women and equalities committees for thousands and thousands of women up
:46:46. > :46:49.and down and country. From the 150,000 people who signed this
:46:50. > :46:53.petition to the over 700 responses to the inquiries web forum, it is
:46:54. > :46:57.clear to us all that Nicola's was no isolated incident. The inquiry took
:46:58. > :47:02.evidence on the medical effects of prolonged wearing of high heels,
:47:03. > :47:06.which the college of Po die tridescribes as disabling. As we've
:47:07. > :47:10.heard this afternoon, this includes severe pain, knee, hip and spine
:47:11. > :47:15.problems and stress fractures. It places all the women or perhaps
:47:16. > :47:18.those with disabilities, already marginalised groups, at a particular
:47:19. > :47:22.disadvantage and impacts upon women's performance at work. As
:47:23. > :47:27.reported by many of the respondents to the inquiry, women often find
:47:28. > :47:31.these dress codes humiliating, degrading and demeaning, designed
:47:32. > :47:35.not to guarantee a professionalised image of the employer but to sexual
:47:36. > :47:40.women employees. This evidence in the committee's report highlights
:47:41. > :47:44.just this. For me personally, it was dehumanising and humiliating to be
:47:45. > :47:48.made to wear specific items of uniform that sexualised my
:47:49. > :47:51.appearance or enhanced by sexuality. No aspect of the men's uniform was
:47:52. > :47:58.designed to enhance their male sexuality. These dress codes are
:47:59. > :48:01.based on the objectification and sexualisation of female employees.
:48:02. > :48:04.They hinge on the requirement of someone else in the work place to
:48:05. > :48:09.appraise the physical appearance of their staff members. Obviously,
:48:10. > :48:12.gender-based dress codes like this, create working environments where
:48:13. > :48:15.women are vulnerable to sexual harassment, not only from their
:48:16. > :48:20.employers but from customers and clients as well. Further, any level
:48:21. > :48:24.of objectification in this way based clearly on a particular
:48:25. > :48:27.understanding of beauty and gender stereotypes may have negative
:48:28. > :48:32.implications for women who do not conform to this. As the inquiry
:48:33. > :48:37.heard, this may have homophobic or racist connotations for women
:48:38. > :48:40.employees. In common with my honourable friend and unlike my
:48:41. > :48:44.honourable friend for hayward in Middleton, I own a plethora, one
:48:45. > :48:48.might say of high heeled shoes, perhaps more than some would
:48:49. > :48:52.consider necessary, but I choose when I want to wear those shoes.
:48:53. > :49:01.That is becoming increasingly rare these days, as my age increases. Now
:49:02. > :49:04.these stereotypes... AWWW These stereotypes don't just impact women
:49:05. > :49:09.in employment, they are pernicious, feeding down to standards young
:49:10. > :49:16.girls and women think are combected of them. According to an attitudes
:49:17. > :49:19.survey 36% of girls aged seven to ten say people think them believe
:49:20. > :49:26.the most important thing about them is the way they look. 47% of girls
:49:27. > :49:32.11 to 21 say the way they look holds them back most of the time. 86% of
:49:33. > :49:37.seven to ten-year-old girls think girls and boys have the same chance
:49:38. > :49:43.of success in future jobs. This falls to 35% in 17 to 21-year-olds.
:49:44. > :49:48.Gender based dress codes are a cause and consequence of a nasty sexyism
:49:49. > :49:53.that convey women as little more than dogs to be dressed or objects
:49:54. > :50:00.to be presented. They see pour trails of -- little more tharn
:50:01. > :50:05.Dolmans to be dressed -- dolls to be dressed or presented. I am rarely
:50:06. > :50:09.lost for words as many of my honourable friends here today would
:50:10. > :50:16.agree, having heard of the manner to make up requirements in some work
:50:17. > :50:18.places, I am simply at a loss. We cannot underestimate the
:50:19. > :50:30.implications for young girls on their physical and mental. The women
:50:31. > :50:33.in equalities committees focussed on the abilities of women themselves to
:50:34. > :50:43.challenge dress codes and made recommendations around the role of
:50:44. > :50:48.tribunals. It is no surprise to me that sect realised for the worst
:50:49. > :50:51.dress codes are tourism travel and retail industries. Women are
:50:52. > :50:56.significantly overrepresented compared to men. And we heard my
:50:57. > :51:00.honourable friend from Warrington north how many women are deterred
:51:01. > :51:05.from applying for certain jobs due to the imposition of some of the
:51:06. > :51:09.dress codes. These deep and corrosive barriers are at the core
:51:10. > :51:13.of women's economic inequality and allow some companies to treat women
:51:14. > :51:17.poorly, knowing that they do not have access to recourse. So can the
:51:18. > :51:21.minister tell us therefore how she plans to tackle sectors that rely on
:51:22. > :51:27.insecure working practices and how she will better support employees in
:51:28. > :51:31.these sectors to access recourse? Since the introduction of tribunal
:51:32. > :51:36.fees of up to ?1200 the number of people taking a claim against their
:51:37. > :51:41.employers has dropped by 9,000 a month. This is having a direct
:51:42. > :51:46.implications for women. Between January and March 2014 just 1,222
:51:47. > :51:53.sex discrimination claims were made to an employment tribunal. This
:51:54. > :51:59.compares to 6,017 in the same quarter in 2013 and this represents
:52:00. > :52:03.a huge fall of 80%. On January 31, 2017, the Government published their
:52:04. > :52:06.own review of employment tribunal fees admitting that the falling
:52:07. > :52:11.claims has been significantly greater than was estimated when fees
:52:12. > :52:13.were first introduced. As the inquiry shows, sometimes the only
:52:14. > :52:17.ability that women have to enforce their rights at work is through
:52:18. > :52:21.employment tribunals, how on earth can this Government claim to show
:52:22. > :52:24.any commitment to tackling sexist and discriminatory working practices
:52:25. > :52:27.when they have effectively priced women out of their own employment
:52:28. > :52:32.rights? This is compounded by the failure of the equality and Human
:52:33. > :52:35.Rights Commission to bring test cases in relation to working
:52:36. > :52:40.practices which come as no surprise when the Government has cut their
:52:41. > :52:43.bucket to shreds. How will the Government ensure the necessary
:52:44. > :52:48.budget and resources needed to bring test cases to uphold
:52:49. > :52:52.antidiscrimination laws? To conclude, I want to make this point,
:52:53. > :52:58.Nicola Thorpe's actions and her petition are a lesson to us all
:52:59. > :53:01.about the importance of hearing directly about women's experiences.
:53:02. > :53:08.For many in this place it may never occur to them that women can and
:53:09. > :53:11.regularly do have such markedly differences to men in the work
:53:12. > :53:15.place. Expectations placed on women in the work place, whether be
:53:16. > :53:21.written down in a dress code, hinted at by a manager or staring out at an
:53:22. > :53:25.ad board or newspaper shape the way women are treated in the work place.
:53:26. > :53:28.The consequences of those expectations, the humiliation, even
:53:29. > :53:32.sometimes the physical pain can and do change the way women interact
:53:33. > :53:36.with their work and the world around them. So ahead of the international
:53:37. > :53:40.women's day on Wednesday, every member of this House should be doing
:53:41. > :53:44.our most to hear directly from women and to understand what it is that
:53:45. > :53:49.they experience. When we do hear from women, it is not enough just to
:53:50. > :53:57.recognise their experiences of sexism and discrimination. We must
:53:58. > :54:01.tackle it. Thank you, it's a great pleasure to
:54:02. > :54:04.serve under your chairmanship. I'd like to thank the honourable member
:54:05. > :54:08.for Warrington north for securing this really important debate today.
:54:09. > :54:14.And for setting out the issues so very clearly. In some cases, very
:54:15. > :54:17.shockingly in her opening speech. I'd like to congrape late the other
:54:18. > :54:20.members who have taken part today. I'm very grateful to the Petitions
:54:21. > :54:25.Committee and to the women in equalities Select Committee for
:54:26. > :54:29.their report on high heels in work place dress kotsds. It's clearly a
:54:30. > :54:32.concerning report, highlighting both unacceptable behaviour and the
:54:33. > :54:38.persistent challenges faced by some women in the work place.
:54:39. > :54:45.Most of all, I am grateful to Nicola Thorpe and other brave
:54:46. > :54:51.whistle-blowers like her who have really shined light on this very
:54:52. > :54:57.important issue. Let me be clear, Mr Hanson, the Government will not
:54:58. > :55:03.tolerate any form of discrimination on any grounds, including gender. As
:55:04. > :55:07.the honourable lady said it is International Women's Day this week
:55:08. > :55:14.so this debate could not be more timely. The theme is be bold for
:55:15. > :55:19.change. Our own national theme is supporting women in the workplace.
:55:20. > :55:27.When it comes to his abortive women in the workplace, we mean to be
:55:28. > :55:31.bold. This includes involving laws to tackle dress codes. We should
:55:32. > :55:35.renew our efforts to be bold for change, after all, we have had
:55:36. > :55:40.anti-discrimination laws in this area for over 40 years, yet it is a
:55:41. > :55:44.safe bet that these sort of dress codes have existed under the radar
:55:45. > :55:49.with female employees putting up with discrimination because that is
:55:50. > :55:55.the way things are. Mr Hanson, shod in heels of flats, we are
:55:56. > :55:59.collectively putting our foot down and attitudes are changing and this
:56:00. > :56:06.petition has brought that change very clearly into the public domain.
:56:07. > :56:11.However, this is not just about shoes. It is way bigger than that.
:56:12. > :56:14.It is about how people are treated in the workplace and specifically
:56:15. > :56:17.today it is about how women are treated in the workplace. We have
:56:18. > :56:21.the highest number of women in work than ever before but it is essential
:56:22. > :56:26.that they should feel comfortable and confident in their employers'
:56:27. > :56:29.due regard for their very own health and well-being. They should feel
:56:30. > :56:32.empowered to do their best and be rewarded for their hard work. They
:56:33. > :56:38.should feel confident of their rights and that they can redress a
:56:39. > :56:41.problem where persists. Employers must meet their legal obligations
:56:42. > :56:47.towards their employees and we will support them to do this. Now, we are
:56:48. > :56:50.very carefully considering the committee's reports and
:56:51. > :56:54.recommendations and we will be issuing our response later this
:56:55. > :56:58.month. I don't want to pre-empt that responds to match today but the
:56:59. > :57:02.evidence sessions conducted by the committee were in valuable in
:57:03. > :57:06.setting out the extent of the problem. They highlighted some
:57:07. > :57:09.really quite shocking workplace dress code requirements. For
:57:10. > :57:15.example, one requirement to reapply make up throughout the day and
:57:16. > :57:18.dressing in a sexualised fashion, supposedly to attract customers and
:57:19. > :57:22.clients. I don't know who should feel most insulted by that. The
:57:23. > :57:30.person required to replace them a cup or the consumers who
:57:31. > :57:35.intelligence is being questioned in the freshly applied lipstick would
:57:36. > :57:41.persuade them to purchase something. The further issue is of health and
:57:42. > :57:44.safety. If an employer requires staff to wear particular shoes or
:57:45. > :57:49.clothes as part of the dress code, they really should consider these
:57:50. > :57:52.implications. It is absolutely right that the committees are shining a
:57:53. > :57:57.light on the discriminatory dress code practices. In 2017 such
:57:58. > :58:01.outdated and sexist employment practices should not be part of the
:58:02. > :58:04.modern workplace. I'm very proud that in this country women have a
:58:05. > :58:09.voice and they have a way to bring this issue to Parliament and we now
:58:10. > :58:12.have plenty of female parliamentarians, maybe not enough
:58:13. > :58:15.yet but we have plenty to bring this to Parliament. But we also have to
:58:16. > :58:24.assure that women have a choice. Whether they choose to wear high
:58:25. > :58:27.heels or not, and we have heard very good cases before -- for and
:58:28. > :58:30.against, personally I am five foot ten so I have never needed any extra
:58:31. > :58:37.inches, but it should be up to them not some dodgy outdated 1970s
:58:38. > :58:41.workplace diktats. I must reiterate that the Government utterly condemns
:58:42. > :58:46.such dress code requirements where the effect is discriminatory. We
:58:47. > :58:49.strongly support the legislation which provides protection for women
:58:50. > :58:53.and also men who are treated less favourably because of gender in the
:58:54. > :58:55.workplace. But it is clear that this legislation must be more widely
:58:56. > :59:03.understood and it should be better enforced. The equality act 2010
:59:04. > :59:07.clearly prohibits an employer from discriminating against an employee
:59:08. > :59:11.or job applicant in to their sex when deciding for him to offer
:59:12. > :59:18.employment or the requirements. Dress policies for men and women do
:59:19. > :59:22.not have to be identical but the standard should be equivalent. This
:59:23. > :59:27.means that unless similar equivalent rules are laid down for male and
:59:28. > :59:30.female employees, that code may be directly discriminatory. For
:59:31. > :59:35.example, a man must -- may be asked to wear a shirt and tie when a woman
:59:36. > :59:42.doesn't but she would be asked to wear equivalent smart workwear.
:59:43. > :59:50.Conversely, where a code leads to discomfort or expenses which a male
:59:51. > :59:56.is not expected to follow this mail said the discriminatory. A blanket
:59:57. > :00:01.high heel rule may be discriminatory on the grounds of disability where a
:00:02. > :00:04.female employee has difficulty walking because of a medical
:00:05. > :00:08.condition but is required where high heels alongside her colleagues.
:00:09. > :00:17.Dress codes can be a legitimate part of an employer's terms and
:00:18. > :00:19.conditions of service. We accept the important sum firms place on
:00:20. > :00:22.presenting a smart corporate image but dress codes must apply fairly to
:00:23. > :00:25.men and women and I was thinking that if there were any workplaces
:00:26. > :00:34.where both men and women were required to wear high heels, and the
:00:35. > :00:38.only one I could think of was the musical of Kinky Boots where they
:00:39. > :00:43.all wear high heels at the end. Personally I do not see why high
:00:44. > :00:50.heels are a byword for smart. I hope this reminds employers of their
:00:51. > :00:54.responsibilities. However, to ensure this message is driven home,
:00:55. > :00:56.particularly to employers, both the Government and the equalities and
:00:57. > :01:01.Human Rights Commission are taking action and I will set out what
:01:02. > :01:05.action we are taking now. While the Government is clear that the law is
:01:06. > :01:09.adequate to deal with such cases of discrimination, we recognise some
:01:10. > :01:14.employers lack awareness of the law or even choose to flout it. We are
:01:15. > :01:19.working for a closely with the advisory and arbitration service,
:01:20. > :01:23.with the EH RC and the Health and Safety Executive in response to the
:01:24. > :01:31.recommendations in the committee's report. I already welcomed the work
:01:32. > :01:35.the EHRC have done so far and I am aware of and welcome the fact that
:01:36. > :01:39.they are looking more generally at how to sharpen and improve their
:01:40. > :01:43.enforcement work under the equality act. I would like to commend Nicola
:01:44. > :01:48.Thorp and encouraged other whistle-blowers to call out
:01:49. > :01:51.employers on these outdated and potentially unlawful practices.
:01:52. > :01:54.These kind of headlines do not show any body in a good light and people
:01:55. > :01:59.should be calling them out. It is never easy to do that but this
:02:00. > :02:02.action is in Bible in raising the profile of this issue, encouraging
:02:03. > :02:07.employers to review and where necessary to revise current dress
:02:08. > :02:11.code practices as indeed the employer in this case went on to do.
:02:12. > :02:16.I would like to use this debate to challenge all employers with dress
:02:17. > :02:23.codes to review them, and to consider whether they remain
:02:24. > :02:26.relevant and indeed lawful. EHRC and ACAS do have existing guidance on
:02:27. > :02:30.this issue and I would urge employers to consult this and our
:02:31. > :02:36.new forthcoming guidance which will be prepared with the thought
:02:37. > :02:44.petition and the women and equalities report in mind. Employers
:02:45. > :02:48.must ensure the dress code is applicable to the organisation and
:02:49. > :02:53.their staff. In particular, I expect those with sectors highlighted in
:02:54. > :02:57.this report, hotels, tourism, airlines, temporary agencies,
:02:58. > :03:00.corporate services, retail and hospitality to review their dress
:03:01. > :03:05.codes where they have not already. With that in mind I have recently
:03:06. > :03:08.written to all of the trade bodies I have mentioned representing those
:03:09. > :03:11.sectors, and I have drawn their attention to this report, and I have
:03:12. > :03:21.asked them to impress on their members the importance of treating
:03:22. > :03:22.their employees, both male and female fairly indecently when
:03:23. > :03:25.setting these codes, and I am beginning to get responses back from
:03:26. > :03:29.these trade bodies, which so far have been very positive. The
:03:30. > :03:32.honourable lady from Warrington North mentioned women are sometimes
:03:33. > :03:35.afraid to take complaints against their employer 's father and I think
:03:36. > :03:41.it is important to emphasise that the equalities act has victimised at
:03:42. > :03:44.an protection which can give women the confidence to complain about
:03:45. > :03:49.dress codes which may be unlawful, safe in the knowledge that their
:03:50. > :03:54.employer cannot dismiss them for bringing a complaint, but there is
:03:55. > :03:57.room for improvement to, especially with employees' understanding of
:03:58. > :04:02.their rights and the Government has a role to play in this and we will
:04:03. > :04:06.be looking at how we can improve awareness and understanding of the
:04:07. > :04:11.protections available and how better to enforce them. To further our
:04:12. > :04:14.ability to spot and respond to this kind of discriminatory practice, the
:04:15. > :04:21.equalities and advisory support service has said it will any reports
:04:22. > :04:26.of dress code issues to the EHRC to consider further action. This will
:04:27. > :04:28.ensure that the situation is investigated, that whistle-blowers
:04:29. > :04:31.are supported and we can assess whether further action is required
:04:32. > :04:42.on the part of government or other bodies. With regard to test cases,
:04:43. > :04:47.historically, the EHRC, the lack of test cases is nothing to do with
:04:48. > :04:52.EHRC budgets, they have not taken test cases of this sort. It was
:04:53. > :04:56.concerned with strategic cases which might extend or expand the law. A
:04:57. > :05:00.basic dress code would not normally be part of this category. The EHRC
:05:01. > :05:05.is now looking at strategic cases whether these can include more basic
:05:06. > :05:11.areas of public or parliamentary concern such as this. We want UK to
:05:12. > :05:15.lead the way in gender equality to ensure we are a true meritocracy
:05:16. > :05:18.which harnesses the talents of everyone, making women wear
:05:19. > :05:22.sexualised clothing is about as far as you can get from our vision of
:05:23. > :05:28.gender parity in the workplace. I think it is also really important to
:05:29. > :05:34.point out about the EHRC budget. This is a bit of a red herring. The
:05:35. > :05:42.EHRC will have sufficient funds to full full their functions. The total
:05:43. > :05:46.budget allocation for them in 2016-17 is ?25.3 million. They have
:05:47. > :05:54.four times more staff currently than my entire government department. So
:05:55. > :05:56.we are confident that they do have sufficient money and resources to
:05:57. > :06:03.continue to fulfil their statutory functions. We are committed to
:06:04. > :06:07.enhancing the role of women. We are committed to removing barriers to
:06:08. > :06:10.equality. That includes outdated practices and attitudes by tackling
:06:11. > :06:16.the gender paid gap, by improving the number of women on boards, by
:06:17. > :06:20.improving childcare costs and ensuring employers are aware of
:06:21. > :06:25.their obligations to pregnant women. A number of honourable members have
:06:26. > :06:30.raised the issue of a tribunal phase and we are currently consulting on
:06:31. > :06:35.proposals to extend the support available under the fees scheme and
:06:36. > :06:41.the monthly income threshold would be increased to ?250 a month,
:06:42. > :06:46.broadly the level of the national wage and these proposals could help
:06:47. > :06:48.people on low incomes. So we have made great progress in tackling
:06:49. > :06:52.gender discrimination but there are still more to do and it is the
:06:53. > :06:56.responsibility of all of us. We will continue to work hard to make sure
:06:57. > :07:00.women are not excluded from or held back in the workplace because of
:07:01. > :07:04.exactly this type of outdated attitude and practice and
:07:05. > :07:10.discriminatory dress codes we have heard about today.
:07:11. > :07:16.Can I thank all of my colleagues who have spoken in this debate. Looking
:07:17. > :07:20.around, I see amongst the parliamentarians here, women of
:07:21. > :07:25.different ages, shapes, heights and we have all managed to do our job
:07:26. > :07:31.without anyone telling us how to dress. Funnily enough, it doesn't
:07:32. > :07:38.matter. And I think we do need to get that message over to employers
:07:39. > :07:43.outside. My honourable friend for Sheffield Brightside who has had to
:07:44. > :07:47.leave us talked about the impact that the wearing of high heels can
:07:48. > :07:51.have. My honourable friend for Heywood and Middleton quite rightly
:07:52. > :07:56.said the best dress codes are limited in scope and only do what
:07:57. > :08:02.they have to do. My honourable friend for Dewsbury pointed out how
:08:03. > :08:07.degrading many women find the requirements imposed on us, and the
:08:08. > :08:10.honourable lady for East Renfrewshire brought her own
:08:11. > :08:18.experience of working in personnel to bear on this and on what needed
:08:19. > :08:21.to be done. I think a message, however, needs to go out rate
:08:22. > :08:26.clearly today and I think it has been said by many, that employers
:08:27. > :08:31.need to review their practices in this area. I was very pleased to
:08:32. > :08:36.hear that the Minister has written to trade bodies to remind employers
:08:37. > :08:41.about their duties under the equalities act, because there is
:08:42. > :08:48.still too much discrimination going on in the workplace. You know,
:08:49. > :08:53.anyone who suggests that a woman can only do her job wearing three or
:08:54. > :08:55.four inch heels, does not understand the job or has never spent the day
:08:56. > :09:04.in heels! Anyone who suggests we choose our
:09:05. > :09:08.airline based on the shade of lipstick worn by the female cabin
:09:09. > :09:13.crew needs to really wake up and smell the coffee. It is outrageous
:09:14. > :09:20.that these things are going on still today. Equality in the work place
:09:21. > :09:25.should be a given. It should not be something people have to constantly
:09:26. > :09:30.fight for. It benefits employees, but it also in the long-term
:09:31. > :09:35.benefits employers because it gives them a much more diverse workforce
:09:36. > :09:43.with different skills and different attitudes. So I am glad the minister
:09:44. > :09:48.has made clear today that she shares our concern about such behaviour and
:09:49. > :09:52.knows that it is unacceptable. I look forward to the Government's
:09:53. > :09:58.response to this report. I would however say to her that, in the end,
:09:59. > :10:04.women do have to be able to enforce their rights. You can only get so
:10:05. > :10:09.far with information and exhortation. At the end of the day,
:10:10. > :10:13.people do need to go to a tribunal. I'm not sure. It's a long time since
:10:14. > :10:17.I practiced law because I've been here nearly 20 years, but I do not
:10:18. > :10:21.see a difference between what she calls a strategic case and a test
:10:22. > :10:26.case. I think they're exactly the same thing. I should be glad to see
:10:27. > :10:31.the equalities and Human Rights Commission taking on some further
:10:32. > :10:36.cases in this area. I also want to add my thanks to Nicola Thorpe who
:10:37. > :10:40.started this petition which has already achieved a great deal and I
:10:41. > :10:47.hope we will achieve more in the long-term. She put her head above
:10:48. > :10:53.the parapet, she endured a lot of abuse on social media for doing so.
:10:54. > :10:58.As I said before, these issues are not trivial. They contribute to a
:10:59. > :11:02.toxic atmosphere in the work place which demeans women and does not
:11:03. > :11:08.give them equality. I hope we shall move on from our report into
:11:09. > :11:14.ensuring that that equality becomes, not just an aspiration, but a
:11:15. > :11:21.reality in the work place for all women, even those who're poorly paid
:11:22. > :11:24.and in insecure jobs. All that remains for me now to put
:11:25. > :11:30.the question, the question is that this House has considered a petition
:11:31. > :11:34.129823 relating to high heels and work place dress codes. As many of
:11:35. > :11:36.that opinion say aye, contrary no. The eye ayes have it, the ayes have
:11:37. > :11:47.it. Order, order.