World Menopause Day

Debate between Diana Johnson and Anna Sabine

Thursday 16th October 2025 Westminster Hall

[The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Dame Diana Johnson)]

Let me start by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Neath and Swansea East (Carolyn Harris) on securing this important debate from the Backbench Business Committee, and on her passionate and exceptional speech. I thank her for her tireless work in raising awareness of this issue over many years, and, in particular, her leadership of the APPG on menopause, which has been instrumental in making some of the changes we have seen in support for women going through menopause over the last few years.

[Gill Furniss in the Chair]

My hon. Friend the Member for Neath and Swansea East gave an interview a few years back in which she described being sent out of the room as her mother and her aunties discussed “the change”. We can all reflect on that and think, “Well yes, a small child being sent out of the room,” but what I found interesting was that my hon. Friend was actually 36 years of age!

It is fair to say that this House has not been much better in dealing with the menopause. The term menopause was coined in 1821, but a quick scan of Hansard shows that it was 1964 before it was first mentioned in the House of Commons. We had literally sent a man to space before we had started to talk about the menopause in this, the mother of Parliaments. On that occasion, the hon. Member for Willesden West argued that women could not bear the extra mental strain of giving up smoking

“with all the other changes going on”.—[Official Report, 12 February 1964; Vol. 689, c. 513.]

That was the level of the debate back in 1964. Thankfully, things have changed considerably since then, and that is due in no small part to the work of my hon. Friend the Member for Neath and Swansea East.

We have heard many passionate speeches in this debate. I will follow my hon. Friend’s use of the word flush by saying that a flush of MPs have made speeches this afternoon. In particular, the hon. Member for Frome and East Somerset (Anna Sabine) talked about the role of good information and not having to rely on Google. My hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Ms Minns) talked about an awful, painful experience at work but also referred to Cumbria Radical Birds, which I would love to hear more about.

As ever, the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) made a very thoughtful contribution. I was pleased to hear about Sandra, his wife—I had not heard about her before—as well as about his role as an employer and the support he gives to the women who work in his office.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East (Tom Hayes) said at the outset that his mum had taught him well, and from what he said today, she absolutely did. He gave a shout-out to Viv Galpin and Beat the Pause. I was also interested in the Kickass Menopause Event that is going to be held.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bathgate and Linlithgow (Kirsteen Sullivan) spoke about the need to join the dots—that is vital—and said that every woman deserves to be seen, heard and supported through this transition in their lives. My hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Aberdare (Gerald Jones) talked interestingly about the menopause bingo event that he went along to, and my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton North East (Mrs Brackenridge) talked about early medical menopause in particular.

The Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan), made a very personal speech, with which many of us can identify. The Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Dr Johnson), has a medical background and spoke with her usual thoroughness, but I have to say that some of her comments about the role of the previous Government and what they achieved were rather rose-tinted.

I am pleased that my first debate in Parliament as the new Minister for employment is about menopause. Women make up 51% of the workplace, and every woman will go through menopause. This Saturday’s World Menopause Day throws a spotlight on the challenges faced by women and the support they need and deserve. It reminds us of the need to keep raising awareness among women and men, and challenging taboos about this very natural stage of a woman’s life, so that everyone can access the help they need.

Let me underline some facts. Each year, around 400,000 women in the United Kingdom will enter menopause, and around three quarters of them will experience symptoms—that is more than the population of my home city of Hull, each and every year. Symptoms can last for years, with one in three women’s symptoms lasting for more than seven years. For one in four women, the impact can be severe, touching on every area of life, both at home and at work.

This is an issue for every one of us. When women have their symptoms minimised or cannot get the treatment they need, it is a fairness issue. It is also an economic issue: the cost to the UK economy from menopause—from sick days, lost productivity or women leaving work entirely—is estimated at £1.7 billion each year. The loss of women and their knowledge, skills and experience from the workplace is certainly not something that I am willing to tolerate.

We have heard much about the new mega-survey from Menopause Mandate, which I had the pleasure of meeting earlier this week. It reveals that more than three quarters of women going through menopause say that they have been impacted by symptoms at work, and that four in 10 even considered quitting or changing their jobs as a result, yet only one in three women—35%—say that their workplace has a menopause policy.

We need to build understanding across women and men so that everyone has the knowledge to provide the support that is required. When workplaces fail to support women, and when they lose out on women’s unique skills and experience, our whole economy suffers. I want to move on to what we are going to do to change that.

[Anna Sabine]

It seems to me that an awful lot of what we have talked about today—the impact on women, particularly in the workplace—would also apply to periods, so I wonder whether the Department of Health and Social Care might think about employers considering periods as well.

[Dame Diana Johnson]

I am not a Health Minister, but a Minister in the Department for Work and Pensions. I take the point, however, and I will raise it with my colleagues in the Department of Health and Social Care. I will also raise the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Neath and Swansea East highlighted about looking at the health of women throughout their whole career in employment, including when women have children and when they are pregnant, and how we can best fit that together. That is a very important point that I will take forward.

I want to go through a few of the things that I think it is important to refer to today. Our Employment Rights Bill marks the biggest update in employment rights for a generation. For the first time, employers with more than 250 staff will have to produce menopause action plans setting out exactly how they will support women going through the menopause. The action plans will be published, so that employers can be held to account for the actions that they take. Our experience with gender pay gap reporting shows that such things are not just treated as formalities. They have the power to drive businesses’ behaviour and bring about real change. Menopause Friendly UK has said that the provisions mark “real progress” and are a

“sign that menopause in the workplace is finally being recognised as the serious issue it is.”

It is really good to hear about the work that employers such as Tesco and trade unions such as USDAW and the GMB are already doing.

Smaller employers, which some Members are concerned about, will be given guidance on how to help women experiencing the menopause, from changing the office temperature—Westminster Hall today has certainly had the thermostat set at menopause temperature—to providing fans, making changes to uniforms, allowing regular breaks and flexible working. I also take the point about the need to evaluate the policy.

Secondly, on the last World Menopause Day almost a year ago, the Government appointed Mariella Frostrup, the broadcaster, women’s rights campaigner and menopause champion, as the Government menopause employment ambassador. Her role is to work with employers nationwide to raise awareness of menopause in the workplace and improve workplace support. She has been hard at work and has already engaged with over 300 employers to raise awareness. In April, she chaired the first meeting of the independent menopause advisory group, bringing together some amazing expertise from leaders across a range of sectors, including business, media, energy, education and the law. They will draw on their real and vast experience to create practical advice on supporting women going through menopause in the workplace. As Mariella said at the time, midlife is a time when women are often balancing many other responsibilities. It is only right that they are supported themselves when they are in work. I very much look forward to working with Mariella and to meeting her soon.

Thirdly, I agree with what my hon. Friend the Member for Neath and Swansea East said about the need for support for women in the workplace, which will be key to helping them stay in work and thrive, or return to work and thrive. Good occupational health can be a route to achieving that. However, we need to improve the scope, coverage and quality of the support offered for all in the workplace. That is why the Government commissioned the Keep Britain Working review, led by Sir Charlie Mayfield, which is exploring the employer’s role in creating healthy and inclusive workplaces, and the support that can help them achieve this. We look forward to receiving his recommendations from the review shortly. I am pleased to note that Sir Charlie spoke to Mariella and received input on the importance of considering women’s health during the engagement for that review.

Many hon. Members raised issues relating to healthcare and support, so I want to refer to some of the work going on across Government, both in health and in education. We are updating the 2022 women’s health strategy to assess the progress that has been made and to continue delivering for women. Where shortages in vital hormone replacement therapy products have occurred, we have worked extensively with suppliers to expedite deliveries and resolve supply issues, and we have issued management guidance for healthcare professionals and serious shortage protocols to make sure that patients can get alternatives quickly and easily without needing to get a new prescription.

In November last year, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence published updated guidelines on the menopause. NHS England has created a menopause self-care fact sheet, and the General Medical Council has introduced the medical licensing assessment for all doctors starting work in the UK, which includes knowledge of the menopause and building better understanding in new doctors and the profession at large.

In education, we know that taboos and stigma will end only with greater understanding. That is why the Department for Education’s revised statutory guidance, released on 15 July, on relationships, sex and health education emphasises the need for all primary and secondary pupils to have a full understanding of women’s health, including menopause.

I see that you are giving me a look, Ms Furniss. Do you want me to conclude?

Crime and Policing Bill (Fourteenth sitting)

Debate between Diana Johnson and Anna Sabine

Committee stage
Thursday 8th May 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Dame Diana Johnson]

As the hon. Member for Frome and East Somerset set out, new clause 14 would require the Government to establish a rural crime prevention taskforce. Let me first say that the Government take the issue of rural crime extremely seriously, and that rural communities matter. I want to outline some of the work going on in this area.

I take the opportunity to acknowledge the vital role that the national rural crime unit and the national wildlife crime unit play in tackling crimes affecting our rural areas, as well as helping police across the UK to tackle organised theft and disrupt serious and organised crime. Those units have delivered a range of incredible successes. The national rural crime unit co-ordinated the operational response of several forces to the theft of GPS units across the UK, which resulted in multiple arrests and the disruption of two organised crime groups. The unit has recovered over £10 million in stolen property, including agricultural machinery and vehicles, in the past 18 months alone.

The national wildlife crime unit helped disrupt nine organised crime groups, with a further nine archived as no longer active, as well as assisting in the recovery of £4.2 million in financial penalties. It also oversees the police national response to hare coursing, which has resulted in a 40% reduction in offences.

I am delighted to say that the national rural crime unit and the national wildlife crime unit will, combined, receive over £800,000 in Home Office funding this financial year to continue their work tackling rural and wildlife crime, which can pose a unique challenge for policing given the scale and isolation of rural areas. The funding for the national rural crime unit will enable it to continue to increase collaboration across police forces and harness the latest technology and data to target the serious organised crime groups involved in crimes such as equipment theft from farms. The national wildlife crime unit will strengthen its ability to disrupt criminal networks exploiting endangered species both in the UK and internationally with enhanced data analysis and financial investigation, helping the unit to track illegal wildlife profits and to ensure that offenders face justice.

The funding comes as we work together with the National Police Chiefs’ Council to deliver the new NPCC-led rural and wildlife crime strategy to ensure that the entire weight of Government is put behind tackling rural crime. That new strategy is expected to be launched by the summer. We want to ensure that the Government’s safer streets mission benefits everyone, no matter where they live, including those in rural communities. This joined-up approach between the Home Office, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and policing, as well as the confirmed funding for the national rural crime unit and the national wildlife crime unit, will help to ensure that the weight of Government is put behind tackling rural crimes such as the theft of high-value farm equipment, fly-tipping and livestock theft.

Given the work already ongoing in this area, I believe that the Liberal Democrat new clause is unnecessary, and I urge the hon. Member for Frome and East Somerset to withdraw it.

[Anna Sabine]

I want to come back on some of the questions asked by the Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for Stockton West. He asked about the resources that would be required to implement the strategy. Having spoken to the rural police force in my area, my understanding is that the issue is not necessarily one of rural officers being under-resourced, although more resource clearly would be helpful; it is actually to do with how those officers are allocated. For example, in Frome we have a rural crime team, but because of a lack of neighbourhood policing, if there is an incident in Frome on an evening—a fight outside a pub, for example—rural officers are deployed to go and deal with that rather than fighting rural crime. One of the challenges for those officers is that they are not actually allowed to do the job they are trained for, because they are covering for other areas.

The hon. Gentleman asked why the strategy was necessary when we already have various regional rural crime leads. The reason is that we need to ensure that rural crime is seen to be significant nationally—we need to have a national push and develop some strategies to tackle it. I welcome what the Minister said about that.

The shadow Minister’s third question was about defining rural areas. We are quite good at defining them now, so I am not sure why we could not continue to define rural crime areas in the way that constabularies do currently, but we could look at that.

I welcome the Minister’s comments on what is clearly a growing Government drive to take rural crime seriously. I do not doubt any of her figures about the reduction of crimes such as hare coursing. All I would say is that farmers in my constituency are really not reporting crimes, and I worry that crime figures are dropping simply because crime is not being reported, not because it is not occurring. The longer rural crime is not taken seriously, the more those numbers will drop.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dame Diana Johnson]

I hear the hon. Gentleman’s point loud and clear. All members of this Committee are concerned about crime and want to ensure that crime goes down, that victims are supported and that the police are properly funded. We can probably all agree on that in this Committee. On the particular point about the Metropolitan police, I dispute the numbers that he has given. He is right that there will be a loss of PCSOs and police officers in ’24-25, but my understanding is that it is around 1,000, not 1,700. Subject to what happens in the spending review, we will have to look at what happens in future years.

The Metropolitan police have not had the necessary funding for years, which is why they are having to make some really tough decisions. Nobody wants to see a reduction in police officer numbers—I certainly do not, as the Policing Minister. The Home Secretary and I are working to do everything that we can to support police forces and not see reductions in PCSOs and police officers.

New clauses 15 and 16 seek to legislate for minimum levels of neighbourhood policing. I certainly agree with what the hon. Member for Frome and East Somerset said about the need to address the lamentable decline in neighbourhood policing since 2010, which we can all see, but legislating in the way that she proposes is unnecessarily prescriptive and risks imposing a straitjacket on the Home Office, police and crime commissioners and chief officers.

The Government are already delivering on our commitment to restore neighbourhood policing. We have already announced that police forces will be supported to deliver a 13,000 increase in neighbourhood policing by the end of this Parliament. By April ’26, there will be 3,000 more officers and PCSOs working in neighbourhood policing than there are today. This is backed up by an additional £200 million in the current financial year, as part of the total funding for police forces of £17.6 billion, which is an increase of £1.2 billion compared with the ’24-25 police funding settlement.

Additionally, the neighbourhood policing guarantee announced by the Prime Minister on 10 April sets out our wider commitment to the public. As part of that guarantee, every neighbourhood in England and Wales will have dedicated teams spending their time on the beat, with guaranteed police patrols in town centres and other hotspot areas at peak times, such as a Friday and Saturday night. Communities will also have a named, contactable officer to tackle the issues facing their communities. There will be a dedicated antisocial behaviour lead in every force, working with residents and businesses to develop tailored action plans to tackle antisocial behaviour, which we all know has blighted communities.

Those measures will be in place from July this year, in addition to the new neighbourhood officers, whom I have already mentioned, who will all be in their roles by next April. Finally, through the Government’s new police standards and performance improvement unit, we will ensure that police performance is consistently and accurately measured. The work of the unit will reinforce our commitment to transparency through the regular reporting of workforce data and the annual police grant report.

I wholeheartedly support the sentiment behind the new clauses. We absolutely need to bolster neighbourhood policing, reverse the cuts and set clear minimum standards of policing in local communities. Working closely with the National Police Chiefs’ Council, the policing inspectorate, the College of Policing and others, we have the levers to do that. Although the new clauses are well intentioned, I do not believe that they are necessary, so I invite the hon. Member to withdraw the motion.

[Anna Sabine]

The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Stockton West, made a couple of points. The first related to who would set the levels of neighbourhood policing under the new clause. Our proposal is that it would be the Home Office, in discussion with local police forces and local councils—the people who know their area best. I can easily see that there would be a way of doing community engagement through councils as part of that discussion, which is another point that he made.

Of course it is important for local police and crime commissioners to have flexibility, but there is a problem with the lack of structure around the numbers for neighbourhood policing. In my constituency, if a big issue, event or activity happens in Bristol, a lot of the local police get taken off there, and we lose our neighbourhood policing. It is similar point to the one that was made earlier.

I welcome the Minister’s response, which was thoughtful as always, and I appreciate the commitment that the Government are making to neighbourhood policing. I hear all of that, but we will still press both new clauses in the group to a vote.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dame Diana Johnson]

I thank the hon. Member for Frome and East Somerset for explaining the intention behind new clauses 17 and 18. The Government have been clear that water companies must accelerate action to reduce pollution to the environment. Ofwat, as the independent economic regulator of the water industry, sets water companies’ performance commitments, including those on pollution incidents, in the five-yearly price review process.

Where those performance commitments are not met, companies can incur financial penalties, which are returned to customers through lower bills in the next financial year. As a result of underperformance in the 2023-24 financial year, Ofwat is requiring companies to return £165.2 million to customers. Ofwat has just expanded those performance commitments further for the 2025-2030 period to include storm overflow spills and serious pollution incidents. That means that the regulator is already punishing water companies for failing to meet their pollution commitments.

Furthermore, the Water (Special Measures) Act 2025, which received Royal Assent earlier this year, significantly strengthens the power of the regulators and delivers on the Government’s commitment to put failing water companies in special measures. The Act introduced automatic penalties on polluters, and will ban bonuses for water company executives if they fail to meet adequate standards. Before introducing secondary legislation to implement automatic penalties, the Government will consult on the specific offences that will be in scope, and on the value of the penalties.

On the subject of senior management liability, the Water (Special Measures) Act creates a statutory requirement for all water companies to publish annual pollution incident reduction plans. The plans will require companies to set out clear actions and timelines to meaningfully reduce the frequency and seriousness of pollution incidents. Both the company and the chief executive will be personally liable for ensuring a compliant plan and report is published each year. In addition, measures from the Act, which came into force on 25 April, introduce stricter penalties, including imprisonment, where senior executives in water companies obstruct investigations by the Environment Agency and the Drinking Water Inspectorate.

The new clauses would cut across the recently strengthened regulatory regime, with enhanced penalties for the water companies that fail to live up to their obligations and increased powers for the regulator. Given that, the new clauses are unnecessary; indeed, they would add complexity and uncertainty in the regulatory process. For those reasons, I ask the hon. Member to withdraw the motion.

[Anna Sabine]

I enjoyed the new clauses being called headline grabbing. They are certainly headline grabbing; the whole issue of sewage in our waters has been massively headline grabbing, because the public feel incredibly strongly that our waterways, and the rivers that we use and want to swim in, should not be full of sewage pumped out by private water companies. I think many members of the public would welcome a slightly more punitive approach than we saw under the last Government.

In terms of being unworkable, I think the new clauses are very practical and measurable—I am not sure in what way they are unworkable. Turning to the Minister’s comments, the Lib Dems have said that we welcome many of the directions taken in the Water (Special Measures) Act 2025, but we do not feel it goes far enough. Banning bosses’ bonuses is not the same as making them criminally responsible for some of the actions they are taking in terms of environmental negligence. Again, we will press both new clauses in the group to a vote.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

Crime and Policing Bill (Seventh sitting)

Debate between Diana Johnson and Anna Sabine

Committee stage
Tuesday 8th April 2025 Public Bill Committees

[The Minister for Policing, Fire and Crime Prevention (Dame Diana Johnson)]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair this morning, Ms Lewell. It might be helpful to the Committee to hear about amendment 5 before I respond.

[Anna Sabine (Frome and East Somerset) (LD)]

Cuckooing is the offence of exercising control over the dwelling of another person to carry out illegal activities. As this legislation is drafted, the person whose dwelling it is has to not have given consent for it to be an offence of cuckooing. Amendment 5 would strengthen protections for vulnerable individuals by modifying clause 33 to clarify when a person is presumed unable to give valid consent in certain situations involving potential exploitation.

Cuckooing is pervasive in our society. Last week, my hon. Friend the Member for Dorking and Horley (Chris Coghlan) was in the news discussing a young man with autism who was found dead in his flat after a criminal had moved into his flat and stabbed him. Despite attempting suicide, being a victim of theft, being rescued by the emergency services after accidentally causing a fire, and being assaulted and exploited on numerous occasions, mental capacity assessments were not carried out because the authorities assumed he had capacity. His mother visited him as often as she could, asked the police for welfare checks and urged the authorities to help. My hon. Friend is campaigning with cross-party MPs to amend the Mental Health Bill.

Given that the Crime and Policing Bill will provide a new offence for cuckooing, that case shows that we also need to strengthen the protections for vulnerable individuals who may be mentally incapacitated or in vulnerable situations, as amendment 5 would do. It would shift the burden of proof, so if someone were deemed to be in an impaired state, they would automatically be presumed unable to give informed consent unless proven otherwise. It would expand the definition of vulnerability to cover not only legal mental incapacity, but those in exploitative situations such as coercion, abuse or extreme distress.

The amendment would help to prevent the exploitation of vulnerable individuals, especially in criminal policing or safeguarding contexts. It also aligns with broader safeguarding laws and human rights protections, and would make it harder for perpetrators to claim that a victim gave valid consent when actually in a compromised state. I urge the Committee to support amendment 5.

Police Reform

Debate between Diana Johnson and Anna Sabine

Wednesday 20th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Dame Diana Johnson]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We need to support our police officers in the work that they do to keep us all safe, day in, day out. He will know that this year we accepted the recommendations of the pay review body, and that additional funding was provided to police forces to pay for an increase in salaries. It is important that we continue to ensure that our police are properly remunerated for the difficult job that they do. The Home Secretary has made that clear in her support for police officers.

[Anna Sabine (Frome and East Somerset) (LD)]

Farmers in my constituency tell me that they are often the victims of serious rural crime, including threats of physical violence, but do not usually bother to report it because they do not think our rural police forces are well enough resourced to give a full response. If that is happening across the country, presumably it means that rural crime is seriously under-reported. What more does the Minister plan to do to resource our rural crime teams, and to give farmers and others living in rural areas reassurance that they can and should report crime?

[Dame Diana Johnson]

The hon. Lady is exactly right. We need to make sure that when crime happens, it is reported. That is absolutely vital. As I said in my opening remarks, for too long people have felt that it is not worth reporting a crime because no one will come and nothing will be done. Our neighbourhood policing guarantee is not just about urban areas; it also covers rural areas, and we want rural communities to have the support that they need from police, PCSOs and specials. I am also responsible for rural crime, and I know that there is a range of issues that we need to look at again, including the theft of agricultural machinery; that is an area that I am particularly focused on.