High Heels at Work Debate Westminster Hall

Order, order. Please move the motion. It is a great pleasure to

see you in the chair this afternoon and I beg to move that the house has

considered eve petition number 129823 on high heels and workplace

dress codes, along with the joint report on the select committee on

petitions and on winning inequalities on the same subject. --

women inequalities. I think members will remember how this petition came

about. Nicola Thorpe who created the petition worked for an agency called

portico. In December 2015 she was sent for a job as a temporary

receptionist at PWC headquarters in London. When she arrived she was

told that the smart black shoes she was wearing, were not acceptable

because they were flat and portico's dress code at the time specified a

heel height of between two and four inches. For women that is. But for

men. She was offered the opportunity to go out and buy a pair of high

heels, and when she refused she was sent home without pay. Now two

things struck me immediately about this story, first of all, there was

no suggestion ever, that Miss Thorpe was not smartly dressed, in fact

anyone who knows her knows that she is impeccably turned out at all

times. And secondly, that it was clear that this was a requirement

that impacted far more on women, bad men. In fact -- ban on men. In fact

most of portico's dress code at the time, was all about how women should

look. Not only must they wear high heels but they were compelled to

wear make up. And it was specified that they should wear a minimum of

foundation, powder, light blusher I'm not sure whether that referred

to the colour or the application, mascara, eye shadow, and lipstick or

tinted lip gloss. Not just any old lip gloss. Tinted lip gloss. It must

be regularly reapplied throughout the day, and women were excused from

wearing make up only if they had a medical condition. They also had to

wear what were described as skin coloured tights. Skin coloured being

really, the sort of tights we would wear like tope and natural tan, not

at all suitable for women of colour. In fact at one time a black woman

who turned up in black tights was told that she should change them,

for a flesh coloured pair. Which of course were not the colour of her

flesh at all. Portico even specified the shades of nail varnish which

were acceptable. There was a colour chart. So he decided, to investigate

these issues and asked the women and equality is committed to join us in

this investigation and I'm very grateful to them for their help and

support in this. We took evidence from employees and from portico.

From the TUC and from the Institute of recruiters, the CBI declined to

give us evidence, which is an attitude that they might want to

rethink in the future when dealing with my committee. And we also heard

from barristers who specialised in employment law, and most importantly

from women themselves. We set up a web forum where they could tell us

their experiences. It is fair to say that what we found shocked us. We

found aptitudes that belonged more I was going to say in the 1950s but

probably the 1850s might be more accurate, than in the 21st-century.

And we found women especially young women in invulnerable employment --

vulnerable employment. Were exploited at work, threatened with

dismissal if they complained, they were forced to bear pain all day or

two wear clothing that was totally unsuitable for the tasks that they

were asked to perform or to dress in a way that they felt sexualised

their appearance and was demeaning. But they had to put up with this, if

they needed a job. And for that reason I'm very grateful to the

women who came forward to give evidence to us in public. Because I

think it took a great deal of courage, courage that I possibly

would not have had as their rage. Let media with high heels first,

people don't think we should have been investigating with this at all.

In fact they think this is a bit of a joke. Well yes it is true that

women sometimes wear high heels. But there is plenty of evidence that the

damage from wearing heels long-term, is well known and has been known for

some time. We received written evidence from the College of the

dietary and individual podiatrists on our web form setting out just

what that damages. Wearing high heels, over the long term alters the

balance, it reduces flexion in the ankle and it weakens the calf

muscles. Over time, that can make women much more prone to a number of

problems including stress fractures, Mortons neuroma, ankle sprains,

bunions, and it gives a reduction in balance that actually last into old

age putting people more at risk of falls. Most importantly though we

heard from women themselves, women who told us that they were forced to

wear high heels even during pregnancy. Who told us that at the

end of the day, their feet hurt so much they could not walk, who told

us that their feet bled while they were working and when they tried to

raise these issues, they were dismissed. Nicola Thorpe told us,

she said, girls would be in tears because their feet were bleeding.

And they were just laughed at. So it isn't a joke for any woman, it is

particularly not a joke for older women. They may not be able to wear

heels, or women with disabilities. In fact we were given evidence by

many of these women that they were put off applying certain kinds of

jobs, because of the dress codes. Evidence that was confirmed by the

director-general of the Institute of recruiters who told us that

definitely, such dress codes reduced the pool of women applying for jobs.

But we also heard how unsuitable this was, for the tasks that women

were expected to perform at work. Tasks like moving furniture. Walking

long distances. He particularly heard from people who are cabin

distances are had to walk long distances in airports. Standing all

day, even climbing ladders. So it wasn't funny, yet few employers

carried out a health and safety assessment. Portico told us they

hadn't done so and they are not alone. We heard evidence both from

the TUC and the Institute of recruiters, that there is very

little information available to employers about this kind of

footwear problem. If you look online, there is plenty of

information about where people should wear steel toe capped boots

and so on, but there is in so much about the health and well-being

attitude, issues surrounding footwear. But stress codes that

impact more on women go much further than making them wear high heels. We

heard from women who could not even travel to work without wearing full

make up or they would be disciplined. We heard from cabin

crew, who were all forced to wear the same shade of lipstick.

We were told of women who were told to unbutton their blouses a bit to

appeal to male clients. We were told of a woman being told to Di her hair

blonde. The problem is that these issues are not just discriminatory

and impact more on women, but they both stem from and feed into an

attitude to women in the work place, which is totally reprehensible,

which consown twrats on a stier -- concentrates on a stereotypical

appearance rather than on the skills women can bring to the job.

Witnesses told us how demeaning they found. This One woman who had worked

as cabin crew member told us that she thought that her appearance was

sexualised for the sake of the business. And that was both

dehumanising and humiliating, given that male cabin crew were simply

expected to look smart and I think those of us who fly regularly will

know exactly what she means by that. Another woman who worked in retail

and was told near Christmas to unbutton her blouse a bit and wear

shorter skirts to sell to male customers told us she felt that

devalued her skills as a saleswoman and her knowledge of the products.

But it gets worse than that. Frequently, these issues go hand in

hand with a work environment in which women are harassed, where

women particularly younger women, have to put up with daily comments

about their bodies from managers, where they are exposed to unwanted

attention from customers. We heard, for instance, of women who are asked

when they're finishing work, of women who received unwanted

attention online, really amounting to harassment. Of people trying to

find out where they lived or if they were abroad, what hotel they were

staying in, even of women being followed home from work by

customers. All of that is unacceptable in the 21st century. It

degrades women. Now the Government thinks that the law is fairly clear

on this. Their answer to the petition, they were clear that the

requirement that Nicola Thorpe experienced to wear high he's is --

high heels, is illegal under the equalities act. We received some

legal evidence which would suggest that the law is not quite as clear

as that. The legal opinions that we had suggested that what you might

call a conventional dress code, for want of a better word, might not

constitute direct discrimination under the equalities act because men

and women do tend to dress differently. But if it impacted more

on one sex than another, it was likely to be indirect

discrimination. Now the problem is that indirect discrimination can be

justified if it is reasonably necessary in pursuit of a legitimate

end. There isn't a proper definition of legitimate end. But more

importantly, not only can tribunals decide cases differently in

different parts of the country, but actually, very few cases are getting

to tribunal at all. We heard that there is very little case law or

advice for employers on this. So the Managing Director of Portico when

asked whether it had occurred to him whether the dress code was

discriminatory, no, it hadn't at all. That's why we are suggesting

that the Government needs to provide much more information to employers

not only about the health and safety aspects of their dress code, but

about what may constitute discrimination too. That is

particularly true for smaller employers, who do not have in-house

solicitors and HR departments. I give way to my honourable friend. I

thank you for giving way. She's making a very powerful case. The

evidence we saw over the hearings was pretty shocking, to be

completely honest with you, particularly as a man, seeing this

on a day-to-day basis. The question for the honourable lady is around

not just the information provided for about business, but information

for pro-vieded for the individuals. We're not seeing enough cases come

forwards. Where can information come available for the women affected by

this? I think the honourable gentleman is quite right. I will be

coming onto that later in my speech. It is very important that people

have information about their rights. But information by itself is not

enough. We nouned that there were real issues about -- we found there

were real issues about enforcement and access to justice in this. Women

told us when they raised these concerns, they were belittled. One

said, "I was told that I would be fired straight away if I chose to

put flats on. Another was told that she'd have plenty of time to rest

her feet when she was unemployed. And women don't take these matters

further for several reasons. Many of them are in insecure employment.

They may be on fixed term contracts or in zero hours contracts. They may

not have worked for long enough to bring a claim against their

employer. But awards in this area are fairly low. We were given

ballpark figure of about ?250 to ?1,000, that is less than the cost

of going to tribunal nowadays. That is not good enough. A right that

can't be enforced isn't a right at all. Yet we found that these cases

were not getting as far as a tribunal all the time. That's why

we're calling on the Government to look at increasing the penalties on

employers for breach of the law. They should be set at a level which

doesn't discourage people from bringing the claim but which

disincentivises employers to break the law. As one of our witnesses

says, in the current climate employers take a punt that no-one

will bring a claim. We have a situation where not only do we have

this happening in an insecure workforce, but also because the

budget for the equalities and Human Rights Commission has been cut, they

are no longer bringing as many test cases to test out the law. We are in

the position with the equalities act which, I think we were many years

ago with the Equal Pay Act. The equalities act sets out general

principles. Because English law proceeds by an accumulation of case

law it needs to be fleshed out by people taking cases. Now, we all --

we also think that if the Government gave to tribunals the power to issue

injunctions to stop the use of discriminatory dress codes, these

cases could be drelt with more quickly. But funding and access to

justice is a key issue. We are very grateful that since our report was

issued, the equality and Human Rights Commission has told the

equality advisory and support service to notify it of any cases

involving dress code so they can decide whether litigation is

necessary and whether enforcement action is required. We are also

grateful that they have now started a campaign on social media to inform

women of their rights. As the honourable gentleman said, much more

needs to be done, we are calling on the Government to start campaign,

particularly targeted at areas where people are most vulnerable, like in

hospitality, frerchl, to inform both employees of their rights and

employers of their obligations in this. I give way to the honourable

gentleman. Does she not agrow with me, this is building on a point

she's made, it's one thing informing people of their rights, but it's

critically important that the issue fees are set at a level where they

are affordable and people can exercise their rights and seek a

remedy in the courts. Indeed. I absolutely agree with the honourable

gentleman. What we have seen since these fees were raised in 2013 is

these cases are falling off a cliff. They are not being brought any more.

We have to remember that many of these women work in non-unionised

work places. So a union cannot bring a claim. The Equal Pay Act was

extended by unions actually bringing test cases on behalf of their

workforce. Now that is not happening any more. Ultimately, women must be

able to enforce their rights. If only those who are well paid and in

secure jobs can enforce their rights, not those who are low paid

and in insecure employment, then we don't have equality. If older women

or women with disabilities are deterred from applying for jobs

because of the dress code, we don't have' quult. -- equality. If women

are forced to bear pain all day at work or put up with what is really a

toxic working environment, we don't have equality. If young women are

subject all the time to comments about their bodies, we don't have

equality. So what began for us as what we thought would be a nice,

limited inquiry, exposed a whole number of issues in the work place,

which are going to need further study and further action by the

Government. I will give way once more before I wind up. One of the

issues that have come up time and again not just in relation to this

report, but from the women's equalities perspective,

descriptation isn't inscribed in the act currentsly. She makes a powerful

point to age and gender as well. Does she agree with me it would be

appropriate for the Government to look at dual discrimination to bring

the cases to trial? I couldn't agree more with the honourable gentleman.

He's quite right about this. One of the things that we also say is that

if the existing law is not shown to be working, then the Government will

need to take action to clarify the law. But as I say, we thought at the

beginning, this would be a short inquiry. But it's exposed a whole

number of issues in the work place. It has exposed widespread

discrimination against women. It stereotypical views of what women

should dress like and behave like. It's shown up outdated attitudes

towards women in the work place. It has shown that constantly women are

belittled when they try to challenge those attitudes. So the conclusion I

think that I come to is that we have a long way to go to solve these

problems. But I hope that the Government will take them seriously.

Because women in the work place, everybody in the work place deserves

better than that. Better than this stereotyping, better than the pain

and inappropriate clothing they are forced to put up with. And better

than the attitudes that women encounter every day. I think as a

member of Parliament, we have had a long struggle for women to be

accepted in this place. But actually, our life is a bed of roses

compared to those women in low paid and insecure employment and what

they are having to put up with every day to keep their jobs. I hope that

the minister, when she replies, will see this is not a trivial issue. It

is a very serious issue that affects women every day at work and the

Government must now take it seriously.

The question is that this House has considered e-petition number 1298923

relating to high heels and work place dress codes. I call jil

Furness. Thank you, it's a pleasure to serve under your chairman sop.

I'm pleased to be speak -- chairmanship. I'm pleased to speak

on this Dee bait with women and discrimination with regards to work

place dress codes. I'm calling on the Government to tighten the rules

so this is no longer prevalent in the work place. This debate is

happening because of a petition signed by over 150,000 people in the

United Kingdom, showing the real and serious concern many people have

about the fact that in 2017 women are still subject to unreasonable

footwear requirements at work. On the same week as international

women's day, when we are celebrating the success of women across the

world, whom for the past searchingery have made huge strides

in an attempt to secure economic, political and social parity, we must

pay great attention to the fact that there is still some way to go.

Indeed as recent studies have shown, none men in terms of equal pay, with

median hourly rates ?12 82 an hour, compared to ?14 16 for males.

However, as this debate highlights, parity in the workplace does not

only related economic parity. As of attrition has rightly pointed out,

that despite the introduction of equality laws, women continue to

face discrimination in the workplace. Manifesting in various

ways including high heels in the workplace. But let me assure the

house that in workplaces across the country, women are often instructed

to wear a full face of make up and even told which shade of red to wear

on their lips. In evidence provided to the petitions committee and

women's inequalities committee joint report, women admitted they found

the dress codes, though, to wear high heels to be humiliating and

degrading. While some of us felt sexualised by the employer 's

insistence. It is this effect on the psychological well-being of female

workers is deeply worrying. The evidence is clear, there is no real

practical function and I challenge anybody in this house to provide

evidence otherwise that wearing high heels in the workplace should be

mandate three, and forced upon women employees. In the case of high

heels, evidence from the College of the dietary reveals that there is a

strong body of clinical evidence against wearing high heels for a

prolonged period of time. We know that in some professions standing in

high heels for a period of an eight-hour shift is the norm.

Wearing heels in this way often causes foot pain, bunions, skin

lesion, low Olympus ology and other related discomforts for the seal

wearer. In fact my and daughter suffered from a metatarsal fracture

which is more commonly affiliated with sports injuries when she was

forced to wear high heels. Quite literally adding insult to injury

she was tonight any compensation or sick pay and she wasn't on the

payroll for long enough. Needless to say, she did not return to this type

of work but not everyone has that choice. In my view, all of this

disqualifies any practical argument being forced to wear high heels in

the workplace. It is my view that dress codes in all workplaces should

serve a practical purpose and should be neutral. Targeting men and women

in the same way, indeed, this is compatible with what the law states.

Equality act 2010 is clear in principle and aims to harmonise

discrimination law. And aims to strengthen the law to promote

equality in the UK. Section 39 and 41 of the equality act prohibit

direct discrimination, and as the government put to the petitions

committee and women and equality is joint report, and I quote, it

specifically states that employers must not discriminate as to the

terms of employment, or indeed by subjecting an employee to any

detriment at work. However, we are here debating this today because the

law is not working in practice and it is particularly advantageous to

women in the workforce or disadvantages to women in the

workforce, who often feel vulnerable for calling out these injustices. In

order to be effective the law must be understood both by employers and

employees and employers must take such discrimination seriously. If

they do not then appropriate punishments should be set out

clearly. Today's job market is fragile, record numbers of people

working in zero our contracts. Often the zero our contracts are in the

retail and hospitality sectors. There have been many cases of women

in particular being sent home because they have not complied with

certain dress codes, such as wearing high heels or putting on the wrong

shade of lipstick. In conclusion I support the calls for the government

to take urgent action to improve the effectiveness of the equality act as

well as clearer guidelines on these issues, so that the laws already in

existence are properly functional and effective, thank you. Thank you

Mr Hansen and it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. I

wanted to speak in this debate for three reasons. The first one is,

that I have personally never quite fathom the fashion for cripplingly

high heels. I have only ever owned one pair of really high heels, they

were bought for a wedding, they were worn once and then they were

consigned for the charity shop. I have always been a fan for a comfy

shoe and nothing gladdens my heart more for a sensible shoe and a glad

fitting. The second reason, is that I was a workplace trade union red

for Unite the union before I was elected in this place and I have

spent many hours discussing dress codes with HR advisors and managers

I would advise against it if it can I would advise against it if it can

possibly be avoided of course. I was one of these people who she would be

discussing, although I suspect it may not have been a thankless task

if the discussion had been between us. Could I ask if she ever

discussed the requirement to wear high heels as part of any of these

negotiations? I thank the honourable lady for that intervention and I am

happy to say that I didn't because I worked for the NHS and our dress

code was very much along health safety lines, and protecting people

at work rather than forcing them into a unsuitable garments for the

workplace. The third reason I wanted to speak in this debate is because

I'm a feminist. Particularly ones that are uncomfortable, they ability

to walk properly, stand for long periods of time at even run away. I

find that quite a borrowed. And I find the idea that an employer might

make the wearing of such items a prerequisite for the job, even more

abhorrent still. And I can well remember when the NHS Trust I used

to work for, reduced a 30 page document, outlining what staff could

and could not wear. From the contents page containing such

headings as "Acrylic nails, make up, hair, jewellery, tattooed,

piercings," Judy extremely -- to the extremely prescriptive details that

followed. I was so interested to hear about the flesh coloured tights

dilemma. I can run the long conversations we had about what

exactly was meant by the requirement to wear flesh coloured tights? Given

the diversity of our workforce, exactly what colour of flesh did the

management have in mind? After much discussion management finally agreed

to drop this requirement. And piercings and tattooed were the

source of much agitation. I do recall I worked in the laboratory.

Had interviewed for a lab assistant, he pointed to a young man who turned

up for his first date with his face resplendent with various piercings.

Which it hadn't worn to the interview. And I can remember the

anguished cry of our laboratory manager, "We have taken on metal

Mickey. " And he appeared to feel he had been duped in some way. Yet this

young man proved to be conscientious, good at his job, and

given that his role involves minimal contact with the public on his

too much of a problem. And of course too much of a problem. And of course

a lot of the dress code issues in the NHS are necessary because of

health and safety at work and the need to wear personal protective

equipment. And I certainly don't think there was any emphasis at all

on making women to conform to some of standard stereotypically

attractiveness that this petition concentrates on. However I mention

these details just to emphasise that dress codes do not have two B 30

page document stipulating what can and cannot be worn down to the

tiniest detail. And I do recall the horrible phrase in our code

"Underwear must not be visible". I was wondering if that also apply to

my boss 's string vest, always clearly visible through his white

shirt. I'm on trees Ake where you buy these things from. But a good

dress code only has to be a fuel lines and I think my own counsel

Rochdale Council, has an exemplary policy which is very brief but

covers all eventualities and health and safety and comments. It simply

states "First impressions count, and there is a general expectation that

employees dress appropriately to the nature of their duties and

responsibilities. The Council values and welcomes the ethnic diversity of

its workforce, and therefore expects all employees to recognise and

respect those in terms of dress. Where there is a clear business,

service or health and safety reason, appropriate dress codes may be

introduced following consultation, to suit the service needs and meet

public expectations. Uniforms must be worn where required and provided.

Personal protective equipment must be worn where it is appropriate to

do so or if directed by the manager or the health and safety advisor.

The Honourable may did give way. It was very interested, read it out,

saying uniforms must be worn when provided. The issue however is

whether the uniforms that are required are indeed appropriate

adult -- and ultimately, the key to side

must be a court. Does she agree with me that the key is to make sure that

people can access those courts to establish where those boundaries lie

and to achieve justice on case law to apply for future circumstances?

Layla I thank the honourable gentleman for that intervention and

I do agree, that every worker should have access to the courts.

Unfortunately, the tribunal fees that had been introduced have

restricted this access. I think I'm right in saying that no employee, of

Rochdale Council has had to do that. I appreciate the point that he

honourable gentleman is making, but the uniforms are provided by

Rochdale Council and they do tend to be very practical and appropriate to

the job. But I do think that brief dress code is really all that is

needed. And any attempt to be prescriptive and to go into further

detail about particular items of clothing is really a waste of

everyone's time. And given the vagaries of fashion, is likely to be

superseded very quickly by some new fad or trend. I personally think

that high heels hobble and restrict women, and hamper our ability to

move freely and even run away if necessary. But I recognise that some

women will choose to wear high heels of their own volition and I will not

criticise them for that, we should all be free to wear what we like. At

what I cannot tolerate his employers trying to force women into an ideal

of what constitutes professionalism or power dressing, by insisting that

particular items such as cripplingly high heels must be worn. And I am

reminded of Ginger Rogers famous response when she was asked about

dancing with Fred Astaire and she said it is easy, I just do

everything that Fred does. And then she added, just backwards and in the

high heels. That is all the dress code stipulations are, and attempt

to hobble and restrict women for us to have two perform as well as

better than men while be held back by quaint stereotypical notions of

what constitutions femininity and a professional appearance. So I say to

women everywhere, let's have no more going backwards in high heels, let's

go forwards had an sensible shoes. -- and in sensible shoes. It is a

pleasure, I'm very pleased to follow such an interesting and

thought-provoking contribution. I must also commend Nicola Thorpe, who

brought this to our attention. I thought the ball member for

Warrington North spoke very passionately, for some of the

depressing realities of working life for many of the young women that she

and her committee spoke to. Like her I commend these young women who came

forward to give evidence in public. I think putting a head above the

parapet could be daunting, and in this case it did attract some

comment and that will have made it more so. I did follow the case, that

led to the petition and the subsequent committing quarry with

some interest because as I have already said today, -- committee

Inquiry. Because I did have to write the dress code policy for my

organisation and work with the staff and trade unions to arrive at a

sensible policy and I can recall us having lots of discussion but I have

to say very little disagreement about how things might be expressed.

I think I heard very sensible words about people being attired

appropriately for the task in hand and I think that is a reasonable

summary of where I would expect most organisations to arrive at. I had to

say there was precious little discussion about shoes and there was

none whatsoever about some of the other quite astonishing requirements

that we have heard about today being placed upon women. Women required to

dye their hair blonde?! Revealing outfits, and to constantly reapply

make-ups. As for flesh coloured tights, I do despair. I would fare

on every single one of these accounted the overall topic, if what

is said about women in the workplace and on wider society was not so

depressingly serious. I would have remembered if there had been any

discussion group, because unlike the honourable lady, I'm quite partial

to a pair of high heels. They don't really do in the House of Commons.

Sensible boots are smart enough and thankfully they add a number of

inches to my height, I am sure they would fall foul of the dress code we

have heard today because they're simply too sensible. Interestingly

the only discussion I can remember about footwear and dress codes was

in relation to safety footwear that. Was the only area where we felt it

was appropriate at all for us to be specific. For most staff smart was

clarity enough. For those people working in environments where things

could cause injury, there was the unbreakable rule that safety

footwear must be worn, which seems eminently sensible to me and it

seems to be in line in the century in which we are having this

discussion. I'm a member of the Chartered Institute of Personnel and

development I thought they would probably have a view worth

considering on this issue. So they did. They say dress codes are

lawful, provided they're reasonable and provide equivalent requirements

for both sexes. This suggests key points that employers should

consider when implementing or amending a dress code. They should

always avoid any form of discrimination. They should remember

that imposing certain standards of dress for health and safety reasons

is acceptable. I would go further and say it is vital. This should

apply -- they should apply dress codes equally to men and women. The

difficulty arises here, because men and women do not generally wear

similar shoes or clothing and most men do not wear make up. But it is

surely possible in this day and age for us to agree, for instance, that

both sexes need to look smart, without having to enter areas where

women are clearly treated less favourably than men. For instance,

this requirement to wear make up would surely amount to

discrimination. As would a requirement to wear revealing

clothing and certainly dying your hair blonde. I can see age

discrimination that would follow some of these extremely unhelpful

gender-related suggestions too. The CIPD advise that employers should

make sure there's a sound business reason for imposing personal

appearance criteria on staff and a clear written policy, that's clear,

has been implemented and widely communicated. They conclude today

was important to avoid the pit fall of believing that clients would

automatically take offence at an employee's personal appearance. I

don't know about anyone in this chamber today, but the sight of a

woman in flat shoes does not usually send me reaching for the smelling

salts. LAUGHTER

I imagine that clients coming to meetings will be spectacularly

unbothered by the heel height of anyone in attendance and rather more

focussed on the business at manned. -- hand. Unless their meetings is

being held in the 1970s. Clearly the key thing we should be looking at is

safety. It is vital everyone is kept safe at work and that all health and

safety requirements are met. Nobody should be expected to work in an

environment that damages their health unless perhaps you're someone

who works in a company where high heels are required. We've heard only

too clearly from the honourable member for Warrington north about

the real health impacts, to say nothing of pain, which these dress

codes can cause. Also very worryingly about the fact that women

were put off applying for jobs because of these criteria. I have

admitted to owning a number of high heeled shoes, some of them very

high, but that is my choice. There is absolutely no compulsion on me to

wear these to work. If I did, according to research I'm in a

little bit of trouble. Because women over 40 and sadly, that is me, are

particularly affected because their balance is apparently affected by

age. So quite seriously, there are more potential issues of

discrimination here on the grounds of age and potentially disability.

The report of the women in equalities committee was very

helpful in clarifying the relationship between the equality

act provisions and work place dress codes isn't as widely understood as

it should be. And the fact that the current approach is not working.

With ewelcome the report and the calls that it makes for new

legislation, new ways of tackling discrimination and stopping women

for being forced to comply with these discriminatory dress codes. I

understand that the UK Government says that the existing law is clear

and that the dress code that prompted this petition is already

unlawful. But it is obviously the case that discriminatory dress codes

remain widespread, so clearly the existing law is not yet fully

effective in protecting employees from discrimination at work. It's

wrong for someone to be expected to wear high heels, make up or

revealing outfits, if these demands are not placed on both Jen dears.

Clearly, that would be undesirable, but sadly, this type of ingrained

work place sexism continues to prevail. It is clear from the report

that many people do not feel able to challenge the dress codes that

they're required to follow. I quite agree with the recommendations that

the Government equalities office should work with ACAS and the Health

and Safety Executive to make sure that detailed guidance can be push

lawyered to help people understand -- published to help people under

equality and health and safety law and how it applies to dress codes.

Mr Is insufficient evidence in the public domain about health and

safety and risk implications in relation to wearing high heels, for

instance, and I look forward to these bodies working on that as soon

as possible. Because it really does smatter. I'm pleased that the SNP

Scottish Government is taking action to ensure women's equality in the

work place, because I think that goes right to the heart of this

issue. What we're hearing about today of women being subjected to

ridiculous requirements and far worse harassment in the work place

is completely unacceptable. In 2017, equality for women in the work place

should be at the heart of every Government's agenda and closing the

gender pay gap, dealing with maternity discrimination and looking

at how these issues can feed into economic growth are vital. But these

things can't be dealt with alone and until we can deal with the issues

which have been brought here today, then we will not make the progress

that we should. These things are key to driving forward gender equality

in the work place. We must address the issues that have been brought

here today. I would press the minister to tell us what she can do,

what she will do and when we can expect some action.

Thank you. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this

afternoon. I'm grateful to my honourable friend for the powerful

way in which she introduced this debate on behalf of not only the

be-Titians committee but on behalf of over 150 thousand people who

signed the petition. I wish to pay tribute to an incredible lady,

Nicola Thorpe, who started this petition. Nicola's actions on that

day in December 2015, when she was given the choice, and I use the word

"choice" with the loosest possible meaning, to either return to work

with a pair of high heels or leave work and forfeit a day's pay, has

the potential to change the experiences of women in the work

place. She acted not just for herself, but as we can see as a

result of the subsequent inquiry, from the petitions and from the

women and equalities committees for thousands and thousands of women up

and down and country. From the 150,000 people who signed this

petition to the over 700 responses to the inquiries web forum, it is

clear to us all that Nicola's was no isolated incident. The inquiry took

evidence on the medical effects of prolonged wearing of high heels,

which the college of Po die tridescribes as disabling. As we've

heard this afternoon, this includes severe pain, knee, hip and spine

problems and stress fractures. It places all the women or perhaps

those with disabilities, already marginalised groups, at a particular

disadvantage and impacts upon women's performance at work. As

reported by many of the respondents to the inquiry, women often find

these dress codes humiliating, degrading and demeaning, designed

not to guarantee a professionalised image of the employer but to sexual

women employees. This evidence in the committee's report highlights

just this. For me personally, it was dehumanising and humiliating to be

made to wear specific items of uniform that sexualised my

appearance or enhanced by sexuality. No aspect of the men's uniform was

designed to enhance their male sexuality. These dress codes are

based on the objectification and sexualisation of female employees.

They hinge on the requirement of someone else in the work place to

appraise the physical appearance of their staff members. Obviously,

gender-based dress codes like this, create working environments where

women are vulnerable to sexual harassment, not only from their

employers but from customers and clients as well. Further, any level

of objectification in this way based clearly on a particular

understanding of beauty and gender stereotypes may have negative

implications for women who do not conform to this. As the inquiry

heard, this may have homophobic or racist connotations for women

employees. In common with my honourable friend and unlike my

honourable friend for hayward in Middleton, I own a plethora, one

might say of high heeled shoes, perhaps more than some would

consider necessary, but I choose when I want to wear those shoes.

That is becoming increasingly rare these days, as my age increases. Now

these stereotypes... AWWW These stereotypes don't just impact women

in employment, they are pernicious, feeding down to standards young

girls and women think are combected of them. According to an attitudes

survey 36% of girls aged seven to ten say people think them believe

the most important thing about them is the way they look. 47% of girls

11 to 21 say the way they look holds them back most of the time. 86% of

seven to ten-year-old girls think girls and boys have the same chance

of success in future jobs. This falls to 35% in 17 to 21-year-olds.

Gender based dress codes are a cause and consequence of a nasty sexyism

that convey women as little more than dogs to be dressed or objects

to be presented. They see pour trails of -- little more tharn

Dolmans to be dressed -- dolls to be dressed or presented. I am rarely

lost for words as many of my honourable friends here today would

agree, having heard of the manner to make up requirements in some work

places, I am simply at a loss. We cannot underestimate the

implications for young girls on their physical and mental. The women

in equalities committees focussed on the abilities of women themselves to

challenge dress codes and made recommendations around the role of

tribunals. It is no surprise to me that sect realised for the worst

dress codes are tourism travel and retail industries. Women are

significantly overrepresented compared to men. And we heard my

honourable friend from Warrington north how many women are deterred

from applying for certain jobs due to the imposition of some of the

dress codes. These deep and corrosive barriers are at the core

of women's economic inequality and allow some companies to treat women

poorly, knowing that they do not have access to recourse. So can the

minister tell us therefore how she plans to tackle sectors that rely on

insecure working practices and how she will better support employees in

these sectors to access recourse? Since the introduction of tribunal

fees of up to ?1200 the number of people taking a claim against their

employers has dropped by 9,000 a month. This is having a direct

implications for women. Between January and March 2014 just 1,222

sex discrimination claims were made to an employment tribunal. This

compares to 6,017 in the same quarter in 2013 and this represents

a huge fall of 80%. On January 31, 2017, the Government published their

own review of employment tribunal fees admitting that the falling

claims has been significantly greater than was estimated when fees

were first introduced. As the inquiry shows, sometimes the only

ability that women have to enforce their rights at work is through

employment tribunals, how on earth can this Government claim to show

any commitment to tackling sexist and discriminatory working practices

when they have effectively priced women out of their own employment

rights? This is compounded by the failure of the equality and Human

Rights Commission to bring test cases in relation to working

practices which come as no surprise when the Government has cut their

bucket to shreds. How will the Government ensure the necessary

budget and resources needed to bring test cases to uphold

antidiscrimination laws? To conclude, I want to make this point,

Nicola Thorpe's actions and her petition are a lesson to us all

about the importance of hearing directly about women's experiences.

For many in this place it may never occur to them that women can and

regularly do have such markedly differences to men in the work

place. Expectations placed on women in the work place, whether be

written down in a dress code, hinted at by a manager or staring out at an

ad board or newspaper shape the way women are treated in the work place.

The consequences of those expectations, the humiliation, even

sometimes the physical pain can and do change the way women interact

with their work and the world around them. So ahead of the international

women's day on Wednesday, every member of this House should be doing

our most to hear directly from women and to understand what it is that

they experience. When we do hear from women, it is not enough just to

recognise their experiences of sexism and discrimination. We must

tackle it. Thank you, it's a great pleasure to

serve under your chairmanship. I'd like to thank the honourable member

for Warrington north for securing this really important debate today.

And for setting out the issues so very clearly. In some cases, very

shockingly in her opening speech. I'd like to congrape late the other

members who have taken part today. I'm very grateful to the Petitions

Committee and to the women in equalities Select Committee for

their report on high heels in work place dress kotsds. It's clearly a

concerning report, highlighting both unacceptable behaviour and the

persistent challenges faced by some women in the work place.

Most of all, I am grateful to Nicola Thorpe and other brave

whistle-blowers like her who have really shined light on this very

important issue. Let me be clear, Mr Hanson, the Government will not

tolerate any form of discrimination on any grounds, including gender. As

the honourable lady said it is International Women's Day this week

so this debate could not be more timely. The theme is be bold for

change. Our own national theme is supporting women in the workplace.

When it comes to his abortive women in the workplace, we mean to be

bold. This includes involving laws to tackle dress codes. We should

renew our efforts to be bold for change, after all, we have had

anti-discrimination laws in this area for over 40 years, yet it is a

safe bet that these sort of dress codes have existed under the radar

with female employees putting up with discrimination because that is

the way things are. Mr Hanson, shod in heels of flats, we are

collectively putting our foot down and attitudes are changing and this

petition has brought that change very clearly into the public domain.

However, this is not just about shoes. It is way bigger than that.

It is about how people are treated in the workplace and specifically

today it is about how women are treated in the workplace. We have

the highest number of women in work than ever before but it is essential

that they should feel comfortable and confident in their employers'

due regard for their very own health and well-being. They should feel

empowered to do their best and be rewarded for their hard work. They

should feel confident of their rights and that they can redress a

problem where persists. Employers must meet their legal obligations

towards their employees and we will support them to do this. Now, we are

very carefully considering the committee's reports and

recommendations and we will be issuing our response later this

month. I don't want to pre-empt that responds to match today but the

evidence sessions conducted by the committee were in valuable in

setting out the extent of the problem. They highlighted some

really quite shocking workplace dress code requirements. For

example, one requirement to reapply make up throughout the day and

dressing in a sexualised fashion, supposedly to attract customers and

clients. I don't know who should feel most insulted by that. The

person required to replace them a cup or the consumers who

intelligence is being questioned in the freshly applied lipstick would

persuade them to purchase something. The further issue is of health and

safety. If an employer requires staff to wear particular shoes or

clothes as part of the dress code, they really should consider these

implications. It is absolutely right that the committees are shining a

light on the discriminatory dress code practices. In 2017 such

outdated and sexist employment practices should not be part of the

modern workplace. I'm very proud that in this country women have a

voice and they have a way to bring this issue to Parliament and we now

have plenty of female parliamentarians, maybe not enough

yet but we have plenty to bring this to Parliament. But we also have to

assure that women have a choice. Whether they choose to wear high

heels or not, and we have heard very good cases before -- for and

against, personally I am five foot ten so I have never needed any extra

inches, but it should be up to them not some dodgy outdated 1970s

workplace diktats. I must reiterate that the Government utterly condemns

such dress code requirements where the effect is discriminatory. We

strongly support the legislation which provides protection for women

and also men who are treated less favourably because of gender in the

workplace. But it is clear that this legislation must be more widely

understood and it should be better enforced. The equality act 2010

clearly prohibits an employer from discriminating against an employee

or job applicant in to their sex when deciding for him to offer

employment or the requirements. Dress policies for men and women do

not have to be identical but the standard should be equivalent. This

means that unless similar equivalent rules are laid down for male and

female employees, that code may be directly discriminatory. For

example, a man must -- may be asked to wear a shirt and tie when a woman

doesn't but she would be asked to wear equivalent smart workwear.

Conversely, where a code leads to discomfort or expenses which a male

is not expected to follow this mail said the discriminatory. A blanket

high heel rule may be discriminatory on the grounds of disability where a

female employee has difficulty walking because of a medical

condition but is required where high heels alongside her colleagues.

Dress codes can be a legitimate part of an employer's terms and

conditions of service. We accept the important sum firms place on

presenting a smart corporate image but dress codes must apply fairly to

men and women and I was thinking that if there were any workplaces

where both men and women were required to wear high heels, and the

only one I could think of was the musical of Kinky Boots where they

all wear high heels at the end. Personally I do not see why high

heels are a byword for smart. I hope this reminds employers of their

responsibilities. However, to ensure this message is driven home,

particularly to employers, both the Government and the equalities and

Human Rights Commission are taking action and I will set out what

action we are taking now. While the Government is clear that the law is

adequate to deal with such cases of discrimination, we recognise some

employers lack awareness of the law or even choose to flout it. We are

working for a closely with the advisory and arbitration service,

with the EH RC and the Health and Safety Executive in response to the

recommendations in the committee's report. I already welcomed the work

the EHRC have done so far and I am aware of and welcome the fact that

they are looking more generally at how to sharpen and improve their

enforcement work under the equality act. I would like to commend Nicola

Thorp and encouraged other whistle-blowers to call out

employers on these outdated and potentially unlawful practices.

These kind of headlines do not show any body in a good light and people

should be calling them out. It is never easy to do that but this

action is in Bible in raising the profile of this issue, encouraging

employers to review and where necessary to revise current dress

code practices as indeed the employer in this case went on to do.

I would like to use this debate to challenge all employers with dress

codes to review them, and to consider whether they remain

relevant and indeed lawful. EHRC and ACAS do have existing guidance on

this issue and I would urge employers to consult this and our

new forthcoming guidance which will be prepared with the thought

petition and the women and equalities report in mind. Employers

must ensure the dress code is applicable to the organisation and

their staff. In particular, I expect those with sectors highlighted in

this report, hotels, tourism, airlines, temporary agencies,

corporate services, retail and hospitality to review their dress

codes where they have not already. With that in mind I have recently

written to all of the trade bodies I have mentioned representing those

sectors, and I have drawn their attention to this report, and I have

asked them to impress on their members the importance of treating

their employees, both male and female fairly indecently when

setting these codes, and I am beginning to get responses back from

these trade bodies, which so far have been very positive. The

honourable lady from Warrington North mentioned women are sometimes

afraid to take complaints against their employer 's father and I think

it is important to emphasise that the equalities act has victimised at

an protection which can give women the confidence to complain about

dress codes which may be unlawful, safe in the knowledge that their

employer cannot dismiss them for bringing a complaint, but there is

room for improvement to, especially with employees' understanding of

their rights and the Government has a role to play in this and we will

be looking at how we can improve awareness and understanding of the

protections available and how better to enforce them. To further our

ability to spot and respond to this kind of discriminatory practice, the

equalities and advisory support service has said it will any reports

of dress code issues to the EHRC to consider further action. This will

ensure that the situation is investigated, that whistle-blowers

are supported and we can assess whether further action is required

on the part of government or other bodies. With regard to test cases,

historically, the EHRC, the lack of test cases is nothing to do with

EHRC budgets, they have not taken test cases of this sort. It was

concerned with strategic cases which might extend or expand the law. A

basic dress code would not normally be part of this category. The EHRC

is now looking at strategic cases whether these can include more basic

areas of public or parliamentary concern such as this. We want UK to

lead the way in gender equality to ensure we are a true meritocracy

which harnesses the talents of everyone, making women wear

sexualised clothing is about as far as you can get from our vision of

gender parity in the workplace. I think it is also really important to

point out about the EHRC budget. This is a bit of a red herring. The

EHRC will have sufficient funds to full full their functions. The total

budget allocation for them in 2016-17 is ?25.3 million. They have

four times more staff currently than my entire government department. So

we are confident that they do have sufficient money and resources to

continue to fulfil their statutory functions. We are committed to

enhancing the role of women. We are committed to removing barriers to

equality. That includes outdated practices and attitudes by tackling

the gender paid gap, by improving the number of women on boards, by

improving childcare costs and ensuring employers are aware of

their obligations to pregnant women. A number of honourable members have

raised the issue of a tribunal phase and we are currently consulting on

proposals to extend the support available under the fees scheme and

the monthly income threshold would be increased to ?250 a month,

broadly the level of the national wage and these proposals could help

people on low incomes. So we have made great progress in tackling

gender discrimination but there are still more to do and it is the

responsibility of all of us. We will continue to work hard to make sure

women are not excluded from or held back in the workplace because of

exactly this type of outdated attitude and practice and

discriminatory dress codes we have heard about today.

Can I thank all of my colleagues who have spoken in this debate. Looking

around, I see amongst the parliamentarians here, women of

different ages, shapes, heights and we have all managed to do our job

without anyone telling us how to dress. Funnily enough, it doesn't

matter. And I think we do need to get that message over to employers

outside. My honourable friend for Sheffield Brightside who has had to

leave us talked about the impact that the wearing of high heels can

have. My honourable friend for Heywood and Middleton quite rightly

said the best dress codes are limited in scope and only do what

they have to do. My honourable friend for Dewsbury pointed out how

degrading many women find the requirements imposed on us, and the

honourable lady for East Renfrewshire brought her own

experience of working in personnel to bear on this and on what needed

to be done. I think a message, however, needs to go out rate

clearly today and I think it has been said by many, that employers

need to review their practices in this area. I was very pleased to

hear that the Minister has written to trade bodies to remind employers

about their duties under the equalities act, because there is

still too much discrimination going on in the workplace. You know,

anyone who suggests that a woman can only do her job wearing three or

four inch heels, does not understand the job or has never spent the day

in heels! Anyone who suggests we choose our

airline based on the shade of lipstick worn by the female cabin

crew needs to really wake up and smell the coffee. It is outrageous

that these things are going on still today. Equality in the work place

should be a given. It should not be something people have to constantly

fight for. It benefits employees, but it also in the long-term

benefits employers because it gives them a much more diverse workforce

with different skills and different attitudes. So I am glad the minister

has made clear today that she shares our concern about such behaviour and

knows that it is unacceptable. I look forward to the Government's

response to this report. I would however say to her that, in the end,

women do have to be able to enforce their rights. You can only get so

far with information and exhortation. At the end of the day,

people do need to go to a tribunal. I'm not sure. It's a long time since

I practiced law because I've been here nearly 20 years, but I do not

see a difference between what she calls a strategic case and a test

case. I think they're exactly the same thing. I should be glad to see

the equalities and Human Rights Commission taking on some further

cases in this area. I also want to add my thanks to Nicola Thorpe who

started this petition which has already achieved a great deal and I

hope we will achieve more in the long-term. She put her head above

the parapet, she endured a lot of abuse on social media for doing so.

As I said before, these issues are not trivial. They contribute to a

toxic atmosphere in the work place which demeans women and does not

give them equality. I hope we shall move on from our report into

ensuring that that equality becomes, not just an aspiration, but a

reality in the work place for all women, even those who're poorly paid

and in insecure jobs. All that remains for me now to put

the question, the question is that this House has considered a petition

129823 relating to high heels and work place dress codes. As many of

that opinion say aye, contrary no. The eye ayes have it, the ayes have

it. Order, order.