At the heart of the strategy is a new accountability model, with plans to link women’s lived experience directly to provider funding. Under a proposed trial, patient feedback could determine whether services face financial consequences – a move designed to address long-standing concerns that women’s symptoms and pain have too often been dismissed.

Alongside this, a single referral pathway will be introduced to streamline access to care, supported by expanded digital services and community provision. The aim is to reduce delays in diagnosis and treatment, particularly for conditions such as endometriosis and fibroids, where waiting times remain significant.

Health and Social Care Secretary, Wes Streeting said: “We inherited a broken NHS…[that] too often gaslights women, treating their pain as an inconvenience and their symptoms as an overreaction…Women’s voices must be central to delivering effective, respectful and empathetic care.”

From Policy to Accountability

A main feature of the renewed strategy is the shift from policy ambition to system accountability.

For the first time, patient voice is being positioned as a mechanism for system leverage rather than mere traditional feedback – directly influencing how services are funded and improved. This marks a notable evolution in NHS reform, moving beyond traditional engagement models towards more tangible incentives for change.

As a longstanding advocate for this change, former Shadow Minister for Women and Equalities, and Shadow Minister for Mental Health and Social Care, and Curia, Health, Care, and Life Sciences Research Group Advisory Board, Paula Sherriff said: “This is a welcome and necessary step forward. For too long, women’s experiences have been overlooked in the design of our health system. Embedding women’s voices into how care is delivered and funded is a significant shift, and one we have consistently called for.

“The challenge now is ensuring these commitments are matched by sustained investment and delivered at scale across the country.”

Commenting on the reset, Chief Executive of UKHLSI, Joanne Bekis said: “The renewed Women’s Health Strategy marks an important shift from ambition to accountability. By embedding women’s lived experience into funding decisions, prioritising integrated care pathways, and backing innovation in areas such as femtech and community-based delivery, the Government is acknowledging the systemic failures that have held women back for too long.

“The challenge now is delivery at scale – with sustained investment and clear outcomes – so that better women’s health becomes not only a clinical priority, but a driver of economic growth and workforce participation. An area that UKHLSI are able to support, provide advice, help develop and deliver.”

At the same time, the strategy explicitly acknowledges systemic failures within women’s healthcare, positioning reform as both a clinical and cultural reset.

NHS England’s Clinical Director for Women’s Health, Dr Sue Mann said: “Too many women are still dismissed for serious symptoms…The renewed women’s health strategy will build significantly on the work the NHS has been doing to ensure women are heard and get the specialist care they need.”

Integrated Care and Pathway Redesign

The move towards a single point of access and integrated care pathways reflects a broader shift away from fragmented services.

Clinical pathways for heavy menstrual bleeding, menopause, and urogynaecological conditions will be redesigned to improve speed and consistency of care. Community-based provision, supported by digital tools such as NHS Online and expanded diagnostic centres, is intended to reduce pressure on hospitals while improving access closer to home.

President of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, Dr Alison Wright said: “The refreshed Women’s Health Strategy marks an important renewal…There is a clear opportunity to embed Women’s Health Hubs within the neighbourhood health model.”

Innovation, Research and the Role of Femtech

The strategy also places greater emphasis on innovation and research, including a new £1.5 million Femtech Challenge Fund to accelerate the adoption of technologies that could transform women’s healthcare.

Chief Scientific Adviser at the Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) and Chief Executive Officer of the NIHR, Professor Lucy Chappell said: “By tackling long-standing disparities…and making it easier for women to take part in clinical trials, we are ensuring that the research that we fund benefits all women in society.”

This focus reflects a growing recognition that addressing gaps in data, diagnostics, and treatment pathways is essential to improving outcomes at scale.

A Life-Course Approach to Women’s Health

The renewed strategy adopts a life-course approach, recognising that women’s health needs are interconnected and evolve over time.

Initiatives include:

• Improved menstrual health education.
• Expanded access to contraception and abortion services.
• Integration of menopause support into NHS Health Checks.
• Review of support for families experiencing baby loss.

Women’s Health Ambassador, Professor Dame Lesley Regan described the strategy as: “An opportunity to embed the voices of girls and women at the heart of the design and delivery of their healthcare…when we get it right for women, everyone benefits.”

Sector Response: Progress, but Delivery Will Define Success

Across the sector, the strategy has been broadly welcomed as a necessary and overdue intervention.

Chief Executive of Wellbeing of Women, Janet Lindsay said: “Real progress in women’s health is only possible through true collaboration… we are committed to working across the sector to ensure the refreshed strategy drives meaningful, long-term improvements.”

Chief Executive of Endometriosis UK, Emma Cox added: “Diagnosis times…are going up not down…Leadership and decisive actions will be vital to drive these times down.”

However, stakeholders have been clear that delivery, investment, and system capacity will ultimately determine whether the strategy achieves its ambitions.

Chief Executive of the British In Vitro Diagnostics Association (BIVDA), Helen Dent said:
“We are pleased that the government is making a clear commitment…but the key will be consistent implementation nationally. Without sustained and ring-fenced multiyear investment…the ability of providers to respond quickly, using the best diagnostics available in the community will be difficult. CDCs could deliver significant diagnostic testing for women, but current plans do not go far enough.”

Commenting on the strategy refresh, Former Minister of State for Health at the Department of Health and Social Care and Chair, Curia Health, Care, and Life Sciences Research Group Advisory Board, Rt Hon Andrew Stephenson CBE said: “Today’s announcement shows clear progress in recognising the structural challenges within women’s health. The focus on integrated care pathways and faster access is particularly encouraging.

“However, to fully unlock the economic and societal benefits outlined in Curia’s Women’s Health Dividend, we must go further – with long-term funding, clear delivery plans, and a stronger link to workforce participation and economic growth.”

Curia Analysis

The strategy reflects several priorities set out in Curia’s Women’s Health Dividend report:

1. Embedding women’s voices in system design
   • Curia called for co-production and accountability driven by lived experience.
   • The Government’s decision to link feedback to funding represents a direct and significant alignment.
2. Integrated, community-based care models
   • Curia emphasised the need for:
     • Women’s Health Hubs
     • Single-point triageNeighbourhood delivery models
     • The introduction of single referral pathways and community integration mirrors this approach.
3. Focus on high-impact conditions
   • Curia highlighted:
     • Heavy menstrual bleeding
     • Menopause
     • Contraception
   • Government reforms prioritise exactly these areas, particularly pathway redesign and waiting list reduction.
4. Innovation and adoption (including femtech)
   • Curia called for stronger innovation pathways and adoption frameworks.
   • The new Femtech Challenge Fund and digital services reflect this agenda.
5. Tackling inequalities and adopting a life-course approach
   • Curia’s report highlighted regional, socio-economic, and ethnic disparities and called for equitable access for all including minority ethnicities groups and BAME.
   • The strategy includes commitments to equity, education, and community provision.

Curia and UK Healthcare and Life Sciences Innovation (UKHLSI) members can read more about the strategy here (NB. Members will be sent a copy of the password).

Addressing Inequalities and Underrepresentation

The strategy explicitly acknowledges the role of inequality in shaping women’s health outcomes, particularly for marginalised communities.

Founding Chair, Caribbean & African Health Network (CAHN), Professor Faye Ruddock DL said: “The recognition of key women’s health concerns… alongside the focus on community voice, co-production, and culturally responsive care, reflects meaningful listening and genuine intent.”

Chief Executive of the British Heart Foundation, Dr Charmaine Griffiths added: “The outdated idea that heart disease is a ‘man’s disease’ has cost many women their health…Now we need sustained action right across the NHS.”

Expanding Access to Reproductive Health

Reproductive health remains a core focus of the strategy, with plans to expand access to contraception and improve service delivery across communities.

President of the College of Sexual & Reproductive Healthcare, Dr Zara Haider said: “We’re really pleased to see women’s sexual and reproductive health placed firmly at the centre…If neighbourhood health centres can replicate the success demonstrated by Women’s Health Hubs, this would be a major step forward.”

Final Thought: Direction Set – Delivery Now Critical

The renewed Women’s Health Strategy represents a positive step forward in recognising and addressing systemic failures in women’s healthcare. Its focus on accountability, integrated care, and patient voice aligns with a growing consensus across policy and industry.

However, as stakeholders across the system have highlighted, the strategy stops short of the scale of investment, delivery clarity, and economic framing required to fully transform outcomes.

The direction is now set and as Curia has highlighted for over many years, the challenge ahead is ensuring that ambition is matched by implementation, capacity, and sustained commitment – so that women across the country see tangible improvements in how care is accessed, experienced, and delivered.

Get Involved: Find Out More

Curia has been commissioned by UK Healthcare and Life Sciences Innovation (UKHLSI) in 2026 to look at enhancing women’s health commissioning pathways. Outcomes from first of the strategic innovation gateways and sprint sessions with West Yorkshire NHS Health and Care Partnership will be published shortly.

If you would like to find out more about this work, or others, please contact Partnerships Director at UKHLSI, Ben M^cDermott at bmcdermott@ukhlsi.co.uk.  

Paula Sherriff

Former MP and Founder of the All Party Parliamentary Group on Women’s Health
Advisor to Curia’s Health, Care, and Life Sciences Research Group

Following a recent Curia women’s health panel with system leaders and Parliamentarians, Paula Sherriff writes exclusively for Politics UK. Women’s health is no longer a side issue – it is shaping workforce participation, NHS capacity and economic resilience, and the cost of inaction is already being paid.

For too long, women’s health has been treated as a niche issue – something to be addressed when time, budgets and political attention allow. That approach is no longer sustainable. Women’s health is economic policy, public service reform and social justice rolled into one, and the cost of continued inaction is already being felt across the workforce, the NHS and local communities.

At Curia’s recent panel discussion, which brought together parliamentarians, clinicians, researchers, digital innovators and campaigners, there was striking consensus. We are not short of evidence. We are not short of ideas. What we are short of is delivery, accountability and the political will to treat women’s health as a core priority rather than an optional extra.

Women’s Health as Economic Infrastructure

This matters because the economic consequences are now impossible to ignore. Women aged 45 to 64 are the fastest growing segment of the UK workforce. Yet thousands are leaving work or reducing hours due to unmanaged menopause symptoms, untreated gynaecological conditions and years long waits for specialist care. That represents lost productivity for employers, reduced tax revenue for the Exchequer and increased pressure on already stretched public services.

When women cannot access timely, effective care, the impact ripples far beyond individual health. It affects family income, workplace retention, caring responsibilities and community resilience. This is not a women’s issue in isolation. It is a structural failure with national consequences.

From Fragmentation to Delivery: Fixing a System Built Around Services, Not Lives

One of the most persistent problems is fragmentation. Women’s health services are still organised around systems rather than lives. Sexual and reproductive health, general practice and gynaecology are commissioned separately, creating artificial barriers to joined up care. Clinicians described having the skills and capacity to help women quickly but being prevented from doing so by commissioning rules that make no clinical sense.

The result is duplication, delay and frustration. Women are bounced between services, conditions worsen unnecessarily and inequalities widen, particularly for those already facing barriers due to income, language or geography. This is not inefficiency by accident. It is inefficiency by design.

There are clear solutions. Women’s health hubs are one of the most promising. Where implemented properly, they bring together multidisciplinary expertise in community settings, offering a single front door for menstrual health, contraception, menopause support, cervical screening and gynaecology triage. Evidence shows they reduce waiting lists and improve patient experience, yet access remains uneven and dependent on postcode.

That patchiness is itself an inequality. As long as access depends on where a woman lives, too many will continue to put up with symptoms they should never have been expected to tolerate. Scaling women’s health hubs should be a national priority, not a local experiment reliant on short term funding or individual champions.

Digital tools also have a role to play, but only if they are treated as enablers of care rather than add ons. Well designed, evidence based digital support can reduce pressure on frontline staff and improve access for women who struggle to navigate traditional pathways. But fragmented procurement and short-term commissioning mean digital innovation is too often bolted on, then quietly dropped.

If women’s health is genuinely a priority, digital tools must be embedded into core pathways, funded sustainably and designed around real needs, not novelty or procurement convenience.

Research and economic data matter too, but evidence without implementation changes nothing. Women remain under represented in clinical trials, and conditions such as endometriosis, heavy menstrual bleeding and menopause continue to be under researched and under diagnosed. Meanwhile, stark inequalities persist in maternal outcomes, with Black women significantly more likely to die during pregnancy or shortly afterwards.

None of this is inevitable. These outcomes reflect choices about what we fund, what we measure and who we listen to. For years, women’s pain was dismissed, trivialised or normalised. Changing that has required women to speak openly and persistently about their experiences, often at personal cost. Lived experience has driven progress where policy alone did not.

But storytelling is not enough on its own. We now need leadership that turns evidence into action and pilots into policy. That means clear national direction on women’s health hubs, commissioning reform that enables joined up care, and accountability mechanisms that make women’s health outcomes visible and measurable.

For Curia’s Health, Care, and Life Sciences Research Group, the economic opportunity is clear. The task now is to help move the debate from agreement to implementation – to bring together policymakers, clinicians, industry and the third sector around delivery models that work at scale, not just in pockets.

The cost of inaction is already being paid – by women forced out of work, by an NHS dealing with avoidable complexity, and by an economy missing out on talent, productivity and potential. The question is no longer whether we can afford to prioritise women’s health. It is whether we can afford not to.

We know the problems. We know what works. What remains is the choice to do things differently.

For decades, women’s health has been sidelined in policymaking – fragmented across services, under researched and too often dismissed as an individual problem rather than a systemic one.

At a recent Curia panel bringing together parliamentarians, clinicians, researchers, digital innovators and campaigners, the message was unmistakable: women’s health sits at the heart of economic resilience, public service reform, and social justice.

As Paula Sherriff, former MP and founder of the All Party Parliamentary Group on Women’s Health, put it in opening remarks, the challenge is no longer about awareness.

“We know the problems. We know what works. What we need now is delivery – and the political will to make women’s health a core priority rather than an optional extra.”

With women aged 45 to 64 now the fastest growing segment of the UK workforce, the consequences of poor access to care are being felt well beyond individual wellbeing. Workforce exits linked to menopause, long gynaecology waiting lists and unmet reproductive health needs are reducing productivity, increasing pressure on the NHS, and widening inequalities across communities.

Women’s health and the economy: an invisible link

Despite being half the population, women’s health conditions are still routinely treated as marginal. Former Minister of State for Women and Equalities, Dame Anneliese Dodds MP reflected on how recently many issues were simply absent from parliamentary debate.

“There were decades where women’s health was never discussed at all. Even when it was mentioned, it was often trivialised or treated as embarrassing.”

That has begun to change, she argued, with greater recognition of menopause in the workplace, urinary tract infections as a patient safety issue and the need to modernise reproductive health services. But progress remains uneven and vulnerable to political drift.

“Let’s stop saying ‘it’s just’. Normalising women’s pain has normalised failure in the system.” 

Rt Hon Dame Anneliese Dodds MP

“What has made the biggest difference has been women telling their stories. The facts matter, but lived experience is what cuts through.”

Dodds urged women not to underestimate the impact of their own voices – locally, professionally, and politically – and warned against normalising poor health.

“Let’s stop saying ‘it’s just’. It’s not just pain, not just heavy bleeding, not just something to endure. It affects women’s ability to work, care, study and participate fully in society.”

Fragmented systems, fragmented care

If awareness has improved, delivery remains hampered by how services are organised. President of the College of Sexual and Reproductive Healthcare, Dr Zahra Haider described a commissioning landscape that actively blocks joined up care.

Sexual and reproductive health services, general practice, and gynaecology are often funded and managed separately, leaving women bounced between services even when the clinical expertise already exists.

“I can have the staff, the skills and the capacity to help a woman the same day – but I am not allowed to because of how services are commissioned.”

The result is long waits, unnecessary referrals and widening inequalities, particularly for women from marginalised backgrounds who find complex systems hardest to navigate.

Dr Haider highlighted post pregnancy contraception as a clear example of missed opportunity. Access after birth, pregnancy loss or termination is patchy despite strong evidence that planned pregnancies improve outcomes for both women and babies.

“This is compassionate care that also makes economic sense. But too often it only happens because clinicians find workarounds rather than because the system supports it.”

Women’s health hubs: making care fit around women

Across the panel, women’s health hubs emerged as a practical way to overcome fragmentation. By bringing together multidisciplinary expertise in community settings, hubs can offer menstrual care, contraception, menopause support, cervical screening, and gynaecology triage through a single front door.

Where they are well established, hubs have reduced gynaecology waiting lists and improved patient experience. But access remains inconsistent, with provision varying sharply by geography.

“Services need to fit around women – not force women to fit around services.”

Susan Murray MP, Liberal Democrat Spokesperson for Scotland

MP for Mid Dunbartonshire and Liberal Democrat spokesperson for Scotland, Susan Murray argued that this patchiness is itself a driver of inequality.

“As long as access depends on where you live, women will keep putting up with symptoms they should not have to tolerate.”

She also stressed the importance of physical space – health and care centres that can host specialist nurses, community organisations, and peer support without prohibitive costs.

“These hubs are not just about medicine. They are about dignity, access and making services usable in real life.”

Digital tools as enablers, not add ons

Digital innovation was another recurring theme, with Co-Founder of Essential Parent, Diana Hill cautioning against assuming all technology is equally helpful.

“Digital support works when it is designed around real needs – not when it is a novelty.”

Essential Parent’s work with NHS trusts, integrated care boards and local authorities shows how multilingual, evidence based digital tools can reduce pressure on frontline staff while improving access for families who might otherwise be excluded.

Hill emphasised the importance of accessibility – including visual content for people with low literacy – and local tailoring so that information reflects real services and pathways.

However, she warned that fragmented procurement and short-term funding make it harder to embed digital support into mainstream care.

“If women’s health is a priority, digital tools should be commissioned as part of core pathways, not treated as optional extras.”

Diana Hill, Co-Founder, Essential Parent

Closing the gender health gap

For Janet Lindsay, Chief Executive of Wellbeing of Women, the urgency lies in addressing a gender health gap that has been allowed to persist for generations.

“Women live longer than men but spend significantly more of their lives in poor health. That should concern anyone serious about prevention, productivity, and equality.”

Conditions such as endometriosis, heavy menstrual bleeding and menopause symptoms remain under recognised, while women report being dismissed when seeking help. Education, Lindsay argued, must start earlier – in schools, workplaces, and communities – so that symptoms are recognised and acted on sooner.

Waiting lists for gynaecology services continue to stretch into years, compounding harm, and frustration.

“By the time many women reach specialist care, their condition has worsened unnecessarily. That is a system failure, not a personal one.”

She also highlighted the role of charities and community organisations in reaching women who face additional barriers, from language to stigma.

From research to real world change

Vice President of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, Professor Asma Khalil focused on the gap between research evidence and everyday care.

“Evidence without implementation does not change lives.” 

Professor Asma Khalil, Vice President of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists

Recent work engaging women directly on research priorities revealed a strong emphasis on access, inclusion, and long-term wellbeing rather than narrow clinical categories.

“We need research that reflects real lives – and systems that actually use that evidence.”

Khalil warned that women remain under represented in clinical trials, leading to poorer understanding of how treatments affect them. She also highlighted stark inequalities in maternal outcomes, with Black women significantly more likely to die during pregnancy or shortly afterwards.

“No single profession can fix this alone. It requires co-ordinated action across policy, public health, and clinical care.”

A political choice

Throughout the evening, speakers returned to a shared conclusion: women’s health outcomes are not inevitable. They are shaped by political choices about funding, commissioning, accountability, and leadership.

Increasing women’s representation in elected office matters, not because women are a single bloc, but because lived experience shapes priorities. As Dodds observed, many of the advances to date have been driven by women prepared to speak openly and persistently.

“Raise your voice. Tell your story. Keep pushing. Change has happened before, and it can happen again.” 

Rt Hon Dame Anneliese Dodds MP

As Paula Sherriff closed the discussion, she offered a final challenge.

“The cost of inaction is already being paid – by women, by the NHS and by the economy. The question is whether we finally choose to do something different.”

Theo Clarke

Former MP and Chair Birth Trauma Inquiry

Theo Clarke is the former MP for Stafford and chaired the cross-party Birth Trauma Inquiry in Parliament in 2024. She is the author of Breaking the Taboo: Why We Need to Talk About Birth Trauma and hosts a popular related podcast on women’s health.

The National Maternity and Neonatal Investigation (NMNI), led by Baroness Amos, published its interim findings yesterday.

It said nothing we did not already know and only reinforced how much work there is to do to improve care for new mothers in this country.

Baroness Amos said that nothing had prepared her for the unacceptable care families currently receive. It is therefore deeply disappointing that these interim findings have been published instead of a full rapid report with concrete recommendations to tackle the national maternity scandal – a scandal that is harming women and babies and leading to unnecessary deaths right now. That full rapid report is what the Health Secretary promised in June, with a report due this December.

The failure of the Government’s so-called rapid inquiry – now due in the spring – continues to highlight the bluster and prevarication it has employed about maternity care since being elected. They have done nothing in 17 months. Wes Streeting says it keeps him up at night. Well, he must be getting used to insomnia.

The fact is that this not-so-rapid inquiry has simply kicked the can further down the road, while frustrated maternity campaigners like me look on in disbelief.

It will require a Herculean effort by the Baroness and her team to finish by spring. But what is most frustrating is that all the information the Health Secretary needs is already available – ready and waiting to be used, as Baroness Amos herself concedes.

In her reflections, she said:

“The NHS has recorded a staggering 748 recommendations relating to maternity and neonatal care, the majority of which have been made since 2015 via damning reports…This naturally raises an important question: with so many thorough and far-reaching reviews already completed, why are we in England still struggling to provide safe, reliable maternity and neonatal care everywhere in the country?”

It is a good point. However, what is alarming is that she and the Health Secretary appear to believe that yet another report, with yet more recommendations to be published who knows when, is going to make the difference and finally end the struggle for acceptable maternity care.

I find it impossible to believe this inquiry will reach any different conclusions from those of the many others going back a decade, including my own cross-party parliamentary inquiry into birth trauma in 2024.

Two of its key recommendations were to appoint a Maternity Commissioner for England and to implement a National Maternity Improvement Strategy. This person would not simply report and then move on to the next job, but work over years to implement those 748 recommendations, improve care and save lives – and not kick any cans down the road for even an extra day.

As I have said since the inquiry was announced, we already have all the information we need to stop this scandal – not in 2026 or at some undefined point in the future, but right now. What Donna Ockenden found at Shrewsbury and Telford, what other reports into maternity services have shown, and what my own inquiry co-chaired with Rosie Duffield demonstrated are all too common and tragic failures in NHS care. They speak of a systemic failure to follow guidelines, poor technical competence, dismissive and uncaring attitudes, and cover-ups. They speak of cultural and structural dysfunction: severe understaffing; misogynistic and dysfunctional hierarchical care models; and persistently poorer outcomes for Black, Asian and disadvantaged mothers that are costing lives.

Simply acting on the recommendations of our birth trauma inquiry report would be a huge step forward. Set our work alongside the abundant evidence we already have of terrible tragedies across the country and it is clear: we do not need another report – we need to get on with saving lives and preventing harm.

I am afraid we do not need another investigation from this Government. We need a Maternity Commissioner to implement the findings of existing inquiries, which already set out very clearly what change needs to happen in order to improve maternity safety now.

Breaking the Taboo: Why we need to talk about birth trauma is available at Biteback Publishing: www.bitebackpublishing.com/books/breaking-the-taboo

Ask Her to Stand Day

50:50 Parliament celebrated their annual ‘Ask Her To Stand’ event on 18th November in the House of Commons. The 50:50 Parliament movement serves women who are looking to get involved with local or national politics, offering tailored support to get women into positions of authority.

The ‘Ask Her To Stand’ event brought together a panel of cross-party MPs and other feminist voices to discuss equal representation in Parliament and why it matters. With a roster of speakers including Stella Creasy MP, Helen Maguire MP, Mims Davies MP and Melissa Keveren (founder of Girls Who Talk Politics), the evening was lively and optimistic, packed with powerful speeches advocating women’s involvement in politics.

The event formed part of the lead-up to Ask Her to Stand Day, held annually on 21 November to commemorate the passing of the Qualification of Women Act 1918. The groundbreaking legislation first allowed women over 21 to stand for election. Each year, the event – a powerful reminder of how far women’s rights has progressed in the UK – sees leaders from the political sphere and community come together to support the campaign. Because of this, Ask Her to Stand Day is also a crucial reminder of how much work needs to be done to achieve equity in parliament.

The work of 50:50 Parliament

Ultimately, the 50:50 Parliament movement has encouraged more than 3,000 women to sign up through the campaign’s Sign Up to Stand initiative. During the 2024 General Election, 101 women from the community stood to be elected, with 25 winning their constituency seats; and 9,000 members support the charity, with online membership figures reaching 30,000.

During the event, the audience heard from a range of campaigners, 50:50 Parliament ambassadors and spokespeople. 50:50 Parliament CEO Lyanne Nicholl celebrated the success of the movement thus far: “there are a lot of people talking about this”. But she was also keen to emphasise what still needs to happen: that an increased “level of education among the electorate will be crucial for progress”.

Mims Davies: advice to women in politics

Mims Davies MP followed up on her words, insisting that “it is incumbent on all of us to be honest about how resilient we need to be”. She described the peril of reticence on the part of women afraid to push themselves into roles of responsibility – “the most dangerous thing facing us”. More women, she argued, are “saying they don’t want to come forward”; this is something we need to “acknowledge: because that is how progress can come about”.

Mims Davies MP provided advice to women during the early days of their involvement in politics, aiming her words at prospective elective candidates getting used to life in Parliament. The first of her two key tips involved “getting lost!”. She explained that “looking and learning”, exploring your surroundings once you have built up a rhythm and “got into the flow”, will best equip you to achieve, knowing the facilities and connections you have on offer.

Her second piece of wisdom involved engagement in “cross party conversations”. Talking to a diverse range of politicians and case-workers of vastly different backgrounds will provide you with the collaborative discussions so vital for politics – broadening your perspectives, building your network and enriching your political and personal experience.

A “Jurassic” current political climate

“Not only should we be asking her to stand, but we need to ask him to stand aside” ~ Stella Creasy MP.

Stella Creasy MP agreed, with a powerful indictment of the current order: “not only should we be asking her to stand, but we need to ask him to stand aside”. She insisted that “too often we’re being judged by an out-of-date conception of what a politician should look like”. Creasy went on to describe the status quo in Parliament as “jurassic” – women are forced to fight against an atavistic model which is stuck in binary, inflexible modes of thinking about gender and power.

Shakira Akabusi: “Everyone has to start somewhere”

50:50 Parliament ambassador Shakira Akabusi compared women’s fight for political visibility to running: “regardless of speed, stamina and strength, you are a runner: everyone has to start somewhere”. She insisted that Ask Her to Stand “isn’t just for women who are already knowledgeable about politics; it is for every single woman who believes that her voice matters”. Akabusi also drew attention to the damning statistics – that last year’s historic high of 40.5 per cent of female MPs is already waning: “we can not let that momentum slide”.

Hope for continued progress

Ultimately the evening concluded on a positive note, but the abiding message still presents a challenge. With the numbers of women involved in politics dropping, everyone needs to work on creating an environment which nurtures female political talent, instead of intimidating, bullying or harassing them out of positions of responsibility.

In a culture where 2 in 3 young women have experienced sexual harassment, bullying or verbal abuse at work, partly because managers and companies are under increasing levels of pressure, it is no surprise that they are increasingly reluctant to propel themselves forward into positions of responsibility. The work of 50:50 Parliament aims to work with compassion for accessibility, and the Ask Her to Stand event was a hopeful harbinger of change yet to come.

This article has been sponsored by Bayer (full declaration of Bayer’s sponsorship can be found at the end of this article).

Improving women’s health is not only a moral or clinical imperative, it is an economic growth strategy. Looking at the recent publication of Curia’s latest report, The Women’s Health Dividend: The Economic Case for Action in the UK, the data are now irrefutable. Targeted investment in women’s health yields a benefit-cost ratio of 2.52:1, generating a net economic benefit of £4.47 million across the illustrative interventions modelled. For every £1 spent, the UK gains £2.52 in discounted benefits through higher productivity, lower NHS demand, and stronger labour-market participation.[1]

The findings could not be timelier. As the Chancellor looks for credible routes to expand labour supply and boost productivity ahead of the 2025 Budget, the evidence points squarely to women’s health as a major, underused lever for growth.

Women’s Health Hubs: the Local Engine of Change

Chaired by former Shadow Minister for Women and Equalities Paula Sherriff, Curia’s inquiry heard from clinicians, data scientists, and digital providers across the country. Its most persuasive case study came from a mature Women’s Health Hub model[2] – where leadership is shared between sexual and reproductive health, gynaecology, and general practice.

These hubs route women to the right clinician the first time, cutting waiting lists and keeping more activity in the community. They also enable rapid onward referral to secondary care when necessary, reducing unnecessary procedures and hospital pressures.

Yet, replication is inconsistent. Administrative frictions – incompatible data systems, payroll silos, and split commissioning – stall progress. The report calls for a standardised national hub specification, mandatory tri-leadership, and quarterly ICB dashboards reporting waits, access, and equity. The logic is clear: where governance is aligned, hubs flourish; where it is not, inequality deepens.

The Cost of Inaction and the Dividend of Reform

The report’s economic modelling quantifies what inaction costs the UK each year:

• £11 billion in lost work and healthcare from gynaecological and menstrual conditions[3],
• £1.5 billion from menopause-related workforce exits[4]
• £193 million in direct NHS costs from unplanned pregnancies[5]

Together, these represent an enormous, preventable drag on growth.

By contrast, practical interventions – menopause workplace support, pharmacy contraception services, long-acting reversible contraception (LARC), and early treatment for heavy menstrual bleeding (HMB) – offer exceptional returns. Menopause workplace support alone delivers a 10.4:1 benefit-cost ratio, largely through retention and reduced absence.

Crucially, the Inquiry adds a missing dimension: equity-weighted returns. Hyper-local analysis shows “HRT deserts” and unexpected patterns of unplanned pregnancy concentrated in deprived communities. Targeting investment by place – not national average – delivers greater marginal gains and narrows inequalities that blunt the wider economic impact.

Digital Inclusion as Core Infrastructure

Digital exclusion remains a hidden determinant of inequality. Commissioned, multilingual digital tools – such as the Essential Parent[6] model cited in the Inquiry – make evidence-based guidance available in more than 100 languages, covering contraception, menopause, heavy menstrual bleeding, and domestic abuse.

Evaluations show workflow savings worth tens of thousands of pounds per borough and a four-to-one return on investment, even before factoring in behavioural benefits.[7] For commissioners, the message is simple: digital inclusion pays for itself and should be written into every hub specification as standard, not as an optional extra.

Policy Priorities for Treasury and the NHS

The new report outlines an achievable policy roadmap:

1. Restore and standardise Women’s Health Hubs
   – Tri-leadership across sexual health, gynaecology, and general practice
   – One front door, multidisciplinary team, and real-time triage linked to elective recovery
2. Guarantee 48-hour access to effective contraception
   – Expand the Pharmacy Contraception Service and fast-track LARC fittings through hubs
3. Mandate menopause action plans in workplaces
   – Apply in the public sector and incentivise adoption across large employers, particularly in areas with low HRT access
4. Commission multilingual digital support
   – Integrate proven inclusion tools into Women’s Health Hubs and family-hub networks
5. Build a national accountability loop
   – Task the ONS and NHS England to co-publish a women’s-health-and-productivity dashboard tracking access, equity, and labour-market impact

These are not abstract reforms but immediate steps that align with Treasury priorities on growth and fiscal sustainability.

Why Women’s Health Is an Economic Imperative

Women make up just over half the workforce, and midlife women are its fastest-growing segment. Poor access to contraception, untreated heavy bleeding, and unmanaged menopause symptoms drive absence, presenteeism, and premature workforce exits – outcomes that depress productivity and tax revenues alike.

Conversely, timely intervention keeps experienced women in work, sustaining income, pensions, and economic output. Better women’s health also reduces public spending on acute care, social security, and emergency services.

As the Curia report notes, “Strategic investment in women’s health is one of the highest-return opportunities available to government – advancing growth, fiscal sustainability, and fairness at once.”

This conclusion has wide backing across the policy community, including support from the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, the Faculty of Sexual and Reproductive Healthcare, and local system leaders now delivering hub models in Liverpool, Tower Hamlets, and Birmingham.

Final Thought: Capturing the Dividend

Women’s-health policy has long oscillated between slogans and siloed debates. The combined evidence from the Curia Inquiry and The Women’s Health Dividend report cuts through that noise.

We now have the numbers, the models, and the roadmap. The question is no longer whether women’s health drives growth, but whether policymakers will treat it as the economic infrastructure it is.

If government, employers, and ICBs act together – standardising hubs, funding access, and measuring what matters – the UK can convert one of its largest untapped social challenges into a source of national renewal.

This article has been developed by Chamber UK and funded through a sponsorship agreement by Bayer Public Limited Company which has supported the logistics and materials for this webinar/report. Bayer has had no editorial control over the final content of the material but have provided data to Chamber UK, for their consideration, to support with the development of this material and medicolegally reviewed the document for compliance in accordance to the ABPI Code of Practice. Chamber UK have maintained complete editorial control for the reports and outputs.

PP-PF-WHC-GB-1763

October 2025

[1] Request access to full report: The Women’s Health Dividend: the Economic Case for Action in the UK www.chamberuk.com/publications

[2] Request access to full report: The Women’s Health Dividend: the Economic Case for Action in the UK www.chamberuk.com/publications

[3] Request access to full report: The Women’s Health Dividend: the Economic Case for Action in the UK www.chamberuk.com/publications

[4] Request access to full report: The Women’s Health Dividend: the Economic Case for Action in the UK www.chamberuk.com/publications

[5] Request access to full report: The Women’s Health Dividend: the Economic Case for Action in the UK www.chamberuk.com/publications

[6] https://essentialparent.com/

[7] Request access to full report: The Women’s Health Dividend: the Economic Case for Action in the UK www.chamberuk.com/publications

Ruth Jones’s Early Career

Ruth Jones is a rare figure in politics, having opened her career not in policy or business, but in public health; she was a physiotherapist for 32 years before becoming a trade union full time officer. But, as she explained, this is not as great a discrepancy as it may at first seem: “in both roles, you’re advocating for people; you’re representing patients or clients or staff”.

She repeatedly draws on her NHS experience during the webinar, testament to the fundamental, formative training she garnered from her work: although not centred in public policy, clearly of invaluable worth for human skills, team leadership and unified values.

She explained that “as a member of staff, I was always part of a team”; regardless of status or role, as a manager of a team of 50, she “could never have done that job without the cooperation of the team” – a constantly evolving and diverse team of “admin, support workers, cleaners, porters”. Her work gave her a deep understanding of the “spirit of teamwork”: “everybody had to work together to make sure we got the best for the patient or the client that we were working with”.

“Health is a massive issue. The NHS is a national health service, but at the moment it seems to be a national sick service” ~ Ruth Jones MP

Ruth Jones’ entry into politics

Frustrated by her limited power to affect real, tangible change during her time as a trade union officer, Jones swiftly learnt that “you need to get higher up the food chain to actually make a difference”. From campaigning in unwinnable seats to winning her home seat in 2019, Jones’ political career saw her return to her homeland, having lived in her victorious constituency for most of her life, and having been a Labour member for over 20 years.

Ruth Jones’ loyalty to, and firm sense of, the importance of Welsh identity spans back to her political inspirations. She cited Nye Bevan and Neil Kinnock – “brilliant orators, passionate, powerful and really strong advocates for their local community”. She endeavours, through her roles as constituency MP and Welsh Select Committee chair, to emulate their sincerity; to serve as a “passionate representative of her patch”.

‘Nye Bevan and Neil Kinnock were brilliant orators, passionate, powerful and really strong advocates for their local community’ ~ Ruth Jones MP

Welsh Affairs Committee Operations

As Chair of the Welsh Affairs Select Committee, Ruth Jones outlined the Committee’s cross-party remit to examine how Westminster policy affects Wales and to scrutinise the UK Government’s engagement with devolved institutions.

“We work together – Labour, Plaid Cymru, the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats – to get the best outcomes for Wales“, she explained, highlighting the difference between a Select Committee’s modelling on collaboration and balance, and the often adversarial nature of Prime Minister’s Questions.

The Committee focuses on issues effecting people in Wales, specifically retained powers such as justice, immigration, and defense. Its current inquiries include prisons, probation and rehabilitation; the economic regeneration of coalfields and the steel industry; and the impact of trade and inheritance tax on Welsh farmers. The Committee questions the Secretary of State for Wales twice a year and invites the First Minister from the Senedd, a partnership crucial for avoiding overlap and ensuring comprehensive coverage of issues, particularly regarding devolved powers like health and education.

Cross-Border Health and Social Care

Upon Fatima Kamara’s questioning on the most important areas of healthcare reform facing the UK Government, Jones’ response was immediately impassioned: “Health is a massive issue. The NHS is a national health service, but at the moment it seems to be a national sick service”. She insisted that Government should be looking at “far more” preventative health promotion and ill health prevention in order for “people to live long, happy and healthy lives”: “it’s no good living to the age of 90 if you’re bedbound for 10 years”.

Another crucial point made, and one clearly influenced by Jones’ career in healthcare, was that the UK needs “to have a long term view on health”. She referred to the Smoking White Paper of the 1970s to 1990s which linked cancer to nicotine – but highlighted that it “didn’t actually show results for 30 years because people were still smoking”, resulting in no decrease in cancers for 20 years. Healthcare developments, she insisted, happen far outside the parliamentary terms, which is why they prove so challenging to push through – but are all the more vital for their comparative ostensible lack of urgency, when pitted against more short-term solvable issues.

Ruth Jones praised the teamwork that underpins the NHS at every level and urged closer integration between hospitals, community care, and local authorities to reduce pressure on services. However, she feels, health and social care systems must increasingly operate together if hospital backlogs and patient flow are going to be better handled.

With heightened focus on Wales, Jones expressed how the country faces the challenges of an older, sicker population and the emigration of younger generations, leading to a shortage of care staff. She explained how “we need young people, at the very basic level to look after our older people”.

Although the Welsh Government has legislated Wales as a country of sanctuary, welcoming skilled immigrants to fill vacancies, particularly in the NHS, delays in processing legislative papers for refugees and asylum seekers prevent them from working. Such issues exacerbate staffing shortages and negatively impact both their and patients’ well-being.

“We need young people, at the very basic level to look after our older people” ~ Ruth Jones MP

Skills, Migration and the Welsh Workforce

Ruth Jones’ positive, welcoming stance on immigration is clear, albeit, self-admittedly, “going against the rhetoric that’s out there in terms of England in quite a strong way”. Jones describes how her mother, recently in hospital, was treated by a “brilliant” network of staff whose “vast majority were from overseas”: “they were non-white, from overseas, and they were absolutely superb”.

“Well, I’m not being funny, you’ve been retired 20 years. They’re not taking your job, they are filling a vacancy which is not your job and they don’t want your job because to be honest, they’re very highly qualified as a lawyer, a barrister, whatever. They want to come in and give to the country that has taken them in’’ ~ Ruth Jones MP

Jones expressed her frustration, empathising with foreign workers who struggle to attain their right to remain and legislative papers dealt with – “during that time, you’re not working, you’re existing on a pittance, you’re dealing with your family, you’ve got nothing. It’s bad for your mental health, it’s bad for your physical health, it’s bad for your family”.

She emphasised how the Government should prioritise getting such people into work: we can do that, “it’s not that difficult” – but political, social pressures and red-tape are debarring Labour from swifter action.

“We need to ensure that working people have hope, because you can have all the stability and all the talk about growth, but if you haven’t got hope, then people just do lose heart” ~ Ruth Jones MP

On the sorts of arguments espoused by right wing spokespeople such as Robert Jenrick and Nigel Farage, she is scathing and blunt: “somebody said, in my constituency, “oh, they’re coming, they’re taking my job”. And I said, “Well, I’m not being funny, you’ve been retired 20 years. They’re not taking your job, they are filling a vacancy which is not your job and they don’t want your job because to be honest, they’re very highly qualified as a lawyer, a barrister, whatever. They want to come in and give to the country that has taken them in””.

Jones wants to dismantle the “right wing rhetoric which says they’re freeloaders, they’re coming in to get the benefit”. They don’t want the benefit, she argues; “they want to give back”. She describes the result of proper integration as a powerful tool for enhancing the community: they become a family, paying taxes, being involved in the community: “So do you know what? I think we should welcome them with open arms”.

‘I think we should welcome them with open arms’ ~ Ruth Jones MP

Energy Transition and Economic Growth in Wales

Ruth Jones emphasises how Wales is well-positioned to capitalize on natural energy resources due to its geography: “we’ve got wind, we’ve got solar and we’ve also got tidal”. She expressed her keenness to establish a reliable and secure energy system independent of external geopolitical influences.

Jones also set out the key challenges for renewable energy in Wales, which will increasingly include connecting renewable sources to the national electricity grid, especially in mid-Wales, and developing battery storage solutions to capture and release energy as needed.

She celebrated Newport’s innovative clean energy transformation: a city boasting the largest semiconductor cluster in the UK, as well as multiple data centers, which are power-hungry and require robust renewable energy infrastructure.

Future Priorities

Ruth Jones explained the Government’s heavy emphasis on ‘growth and stability’, but has a more human message to deliver: ‘But what we do need to do is ensure that working people have hope, because you can have all the stability and all the talk about growth, but if you haven’t got hope, then people just do lose heart’.

She continued, expanding on the Government’s focus on apprenticeships, training and increased employment levels: ‘Jobs, jobs, jobs, yes, of course, but not just jobs at any cost. We want decent jobs which are well paid’.

And permanence: Jones believes in creating jobs for good, and for the long term – jobs still existent for the next half century – also something that she feels will prove crucial for communities.

‘Jobs, jobs, jobs, yes, of course, but not just jobs at any cost. We want decent jobs which are well paid’ ~ Ruth Jones MP

Ruth Jones’ overarching values rest on a celebration of both small-scale community togetherness, and cooperation on a national level; in short, unity. It is a value which has guided her from before her political journey even began, when she became aware of the power of a healthy and supportive hospital team. And it is a value which, in today’s climate of social entropy, is more apt than ever.

Ruth Jones’ words on immigration were refreshingly honest; Labour continue to remain circumspect about their rhetoric on the issue given the UK’s immense public backlash, but Jones’ support of an ‘open-armed welcome’ is a bold gambit, promising and hoping for deeper community integration for both Brits, and people from around the world.

The conversation began with Butler retelling her childhood, sharing formative moments from her East London upbringing that moulded her political worldview.

One such moment was when a teacher wrongfully accused her of lying, after she told classmates that she had seen a flying cockroach during a trip to Jamaica, and sent her out of the room. Rather than accept the charge, Butler ran home, climbed a fence, and fetched her father to back her up.

“Standing in your truth is important,” she told the audience, explaining that the episode informed her later willingness to call out dishonesty in politics—most famously in 2021 when she was ordered to leave the House of Commons after calling Boris Johnson a liar. Butler added that in the immediate aftermath of this incident, the Labour Party and her fellow MPs offered very little support, claiming that it was only after the clip went viral that they took her side, even launching a fundraising campaign off the back of it, something Butler branded ‘disgraceful.’

Butler, a self-proclaimed ‘daddy’s girl,’ then discussed how her ‘socialist’ father impacted her political leanings. When Margaret Thatcher cut free school milk, a move that delighted Butler at the time because she disliked it, her father reprimanded her. “It’s not about you,” he told her, reminding her that for many children, that milk might have been their only source of nutrition. “Those little incidents moulded who I am today,” she said.

However, despite these childhood events, Butler admitted that growing up she didn’t actually want to become a politician, saying politics was ‘never really (her) thing.’ Instead she pursued a career as a computer programmer, before moving on to working as a trade union official.

Part of her hesitance to get involved in politics was a lack of black, working class, female representation in Westminster. Butler says she assumed that one had to be ‘male, pale and stale’ to be a politician. Whilst she recognised the presence of Dianne Abbot, Britain’s first black female MP, Butler said that she did not feel Abbott represented her, because she was ‘posher’ than her.

However, eventually Butler was persuaded that there was a place in politics for a ‘rebel’ like her, and in 2005 was elected MP for Brent South, becoming the third black woman ever to be elected as an MP in the UK.

Later on in the discussion, Butler was asked by co-host Jovan Owusu-Nepaul, who was the Labour candidate for Clacton in last year’s general election, about her future political ambitions, specifically whether she would be standing in the Labour Party’s ongoing deputy leadership election, triggered after Angela Rayner’s resignation last month amidst a tax scandal.

Butler said that she will not be standing, saying that she has her ‘eyes on the prize of London Mayor’ instead, and does not want to be distracted from that goal in anyway. A group of MPs told Butler that they intended to vote for her, thus she had to inform them that she was not standing, much to their disbelief.

Artificial intelligence (AI) also featured prominently in the discussion—an area Butler follows closely as a member of both Speaker of the House of Commons Lindsay Hoyle’s AI Steering Group and an all-party parliamentary group on the subject.

Event co-host Amanda Ludlow, Global Practice Head of Ashurst’s Digital Economy team, spoke enthusiastically about AI’s potential. She noted that more than 70% of Ashurst’s staff already use the technology in their daily work and expressed pride in the firm’s role as an early adopter within the legal sector.

Butler, however, struck a more cautious tone. She warned of the dangers AI poses to politicians and voters alike, particularly the threat of deepfake videos and audio clips that could misrepresent a politician’s words. Safeguarding against such misuse, she said, is a challenge that lawmakers are “grappling with” right now in the UK and beyond.

Another issue Butler touched upon was gambling and its impact on high streets in towns and cities across Britain. Recently Butler has launched a campaign to reform the laws around bookmakers and gambling venues, which currently require councils to ‘aim to permit’ gambling presences in their area, even when locals are opposed to them.

Butler’s campaign is calling for this legal duty to be scrapped and for the government to increase their support for gambling addiction services. She said it is her aim to see high streets in areas where people are most financially vulnerable rid of excess gambling establishments. According to Butler and her fellow campaigns, ‘high streets should serve communities – not harm them.’

Such an outlook is more than just a policy position – it’s a direct inheritance from her father’s values, and provides us with a hint as to what a Dawn Butler London mayoralty might look like. His insistence that “it’s not about you” clearly drives her conviction that high streets and local government must serve and protect vulnerable communities rather than profit from their struggles.

To begin, Laura Anne Jones insisted that Reform UK is “a meritocracy,” where background, gender, and religion don’t matter, instead only competence and love for the country. Jones’ claim was presented as a neat rebuttal to accusations of blokiness, yet it collapses under scrutiny. The party’s own figures have undercut that message: Sarah Pochin, for example, has made openly discriminatory remarks about Islamic women in burqas, hardly the language of equal opportunity. The stagecraft of the conference itself deepened the contradiction. If merit truly dictated airtime, why were Reform’s leading women grouped together on a single panel, while their male counterparts enjoyed solo slots?

Likewise, Leila Cunningham compared leaving the Conservatives to leaving a broken marriage, saying the final straw was the resurfacing of grooming gang scandals, which she blamed on the inaction of both Labour and the Tories. The grooming gang scandals are yet another racist jab disguised behind the façade of feminist fear. The reality is that these failures were systemic and non-partisan: police, schools, and care systems all failed, not simply the government of the day. To suggest otherwise is to wilfully misdiagnose the problem. What is required is a redesign of the systems themselves, not partisan point-scoring, and, in truth, members of Reform in positions of power have also let victims down, however much they now depict themselves as righteous defenders.

Laura Anne Jones defended the Pink Lady protests, saying the women outside migrant hotels were mothers and daughters unfairly smeared as fascists, while Sienna Church added defiantly, “Bring it on. We know we’re on the right side of history.” Arguably however, the women outside migrant hotels are not political actors in any serious sense; they are fuelled by hate, not policy. To present them as “mothers and daughters” standing bravely against injustice is to romanticise something corrosive. These gatherings risk creating chasmic divides across Britain, not healing them. This is not protest born of principle, but an outgrowth of misinformation. When minority communities are made to fear leaving their homes, it ceases to be activism and becomes pure xenophobic cruelty.

On national pride, Laura Anne Jones insisted the Raise the Colours campaign is simply about celebrating the country, with St George’s and Welsh flags going up across Britain. Perhaps it has been misconstrued as harmless patriotism, but the Raise the Colours campaign cannot be divorced from its origins. It was begun by far-right groups such as Britain First and supporters of Tommy Robinson, with funds raised explicitly for this spectacle of flags. It is not a celebration of nationhood but a coded statement of xenophobia, crafted to provoke fear and unrest. Far from embodying British or Welsh values, it distorts them, turning symbols of shared heritage into weapons of exclusion. It is undignified, and it belongs firmly in the past.

All three women repeatedly framed Reform as the only party that genuinely protects women. Church contrasted this with Labour, saying: “We stand to protect women; Labour does the opposite.” This was clearly an opportunistic use of women’s safety to score political points. Church’s line collapses under inspection, for the panel’s rhetoric was narrow and selective. Again and again, they invoked grooming gangs and the rape of white girls, yet made no acknowledgement of the countless cases where white offenders attack women. Nor was there any real engagement with the broader issues that affect women’s lives, as safety was not discussed as a holistic social concern but weaponised as a political cudgel.

In reality, women are often silenced within Reform UK. At a local level, there are reports of women being ignored or harassed in party branches, while men dominate the higher roles. What appears as female elevation is often selective, designed to showcase diversity without actually addressing systemic inequality, a striking contradiction given Reform’s consistent denunciation of “diversity hires.” Zia Yusuf’s treatment of Sarah Pochin, particularly during her first speech in the Commons, further underscores the party’s misogynistic undercurrents, revealing that the promise of a “home” for women is largely performative.

It would be horrifically incorrect to suggest that the Women for Reform Panel was truly about women. Rather, Reform women were deployed as a symbolic shield in a wider culture war that has little to do with their lived realities.

Featured image via Reform UK on YouTube

The Supreme Court’s judgment in For Women Scotland v The Scottish Government has triggered significant concern across trans communities and among organisations working to uphold inclusive practices across all areas of public, private, and third sectors.

While the ruling focused on a narrow legal question – how the term “sex” is defined under the Equality Act 2010 – it is already having a broader impact. In response, the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) issued an interim update and launched a public consultation on its statutory Code of Practice.

Over the last decade, the legal uncertainty, heightened media scrutiny, and shifting institutional responses have been combining to create a landscape of deep anxiety for trans communities.

But trans people are not passive in this moment in history, and neither are our cis allies – our friends, family members, and colleagues.

We are working hard to have our voices heard, exercising our democratic rights by talking to our MPs and other parliamentarians, engaging with public sector services and the systems of service user voice – raising the issues and telling our stories.

So much of this is about humanising who we are as trans folk and myth-busting around the demonisation and stereotyping that is reinforced by mainstream media and some individuals who are in positions of leadership.

At Gendered Intelligence, we’ve also been working with organisations across all sectors to support them to communicate their commitments to inclusion – especially through two recent resources: Our EHRC Consultation Response Guide and Maximising Trans Inclusion Guide.

From these tools, and our ongoing engagement with trans communities, three core priorities emerge: maintaining inclusive practice, ensuring dignity in everyday life, and ensuring trans voices are heard.

Trans-inclusive Practice Must be Defended

Our primary concern is that the EHRC’s proposed changes will lead to more exclusionary policies being introduced – not because the law demands it, but because public bodies feel uncertain, cautious, or under pressure from litigation.

For instance, the Supreme Court ruling confirmed that the Equality Act’s protected characteristic of “sex” refers to certificated sex at birth. But crucially, there are legal views out there that stipulate that this does not mean that trans people can or should be excluded from single-sex services. 

When organisations are responding to both the Supreme Court Judgment and the EHRC interim update to exclude trans people categorically, this is deeply damaging for trans people, as well as others.

That’s why our Maximising Trans Inclusion Guide sets out how organisations can continue to offer inclusive services within the law.

Many services have been operating effectively with trans-inclusive policies for years, with no untoward incidents. These services do not want to retract these good practices now.

So, we urge all organisations – especially public services – to reaffirm their commitment to trans inclusion.

This means clearly stating your values, reviewing internal guidance with expert support, and ensuring frontline staff are confident in inclusive delivery.

Dignity and Safety in Daily Life are Non-negotiable

Trans people want what everyone else wants from public life: to feel safe and respected and to be treated fairly. But in the wake of this ruling and the consultation that followed, many trans individuals now feel less certain that they will be able to access spaces and services safely.

Every day, trans people navigate decisions that most never have to think twice about. Which GP practice will treat them with respect?

Will they be safe in a leisure centre changing room?

Will a housing provider make assumptions that put them at risk?

These are not theoretical concerns. They shape whether people access services at all.

Our EHRC Consultation Response Guide outlines why the Commission’s proposed changes are likely to undermine the basic dignity and wellbeing of trans service users.

The draft proposals of the Code of Practice offer no support to organisations who want to include trans people whilst being compliant with the Supreme Court Judgement ruling. 

Trans People Must be Heard

Too often, decisions that affect trans communities are made in rooms where no trans people are present. We see this across sectors – from healthcare and education to sport and local government.

This exclusion isn’t just disempowering – it leads to policies that don’t work in practice and fail to account for the lived realities of those they’re meant to serve.

Trans people have expertise. They understand what works. Public institutions must do more to engage them meaningfully – not just in consultations, but as partners in co-producing services and shaping policy.

We call on all public bodies to respond to the proposed changes to the Code of Practice – and to actively seek out and amplify trans voices in the process

Final Thought

Trans people’s priorities are clear: To be safe, to be included, and to be heard. We invite all decision-makers to reject fear-based narratives and stand with trans people in building a fairer, more inclusive public life.

Featured image via  JessicaGirvan / Shutterstock.

Political dissidents and civil rights groups have warned that a ban on face coverings at protests would put them and their families at risk.

The Crime and Policing Bill is in its second reading in the House of Lords, amid widespread controversy over proposals including a facial recognition database that would give police access to driving licence records.

One lesser-known aspect of the bill is a proposed ban on face coverings at protests. It would make it a criminal offence to wear a face covering in areas designated by police, carrying a maximum penalty of one month in prison, a £1,000 fine, or both.

Civil rights group Liberty has warned that the measure would infringe on the privacy of all UK protesters and put political dissidents from abroad at particular risk.

Lyle Barker, Liberty policy and campaigns officer, said: “Face coverings help people challenge injustice safely, without fear of negative consequences for themselves and their loved ones.

“This is particularly important for political dissidents who wear face coverings to protect their anonymity in the face of heightened risks of surveillance, harassment, and wider retaliation from the states they are protesting against.

“Anti-protest laws are already criminalising people for taking to the streets for causes they believe in. Any plan to ban face coverings at protests must safeguard the rights of marginalised communities – including political dissidents, religious minorities, and disabled people – to choose face coverings when they need them, so that everyone can speak out safely on issues that matter.”

Mohammad, 34, is a taxi driver from Leeds and a member of DAKOK, a Kurdish civil rights and diaspora advocacy group.

The organisation runs campaigns including litter picks and protests across the UK, highlighting issues such as police brutality, attacks on journalists, and corruption in the Kurdistan Region of Iraq.

He warns that if this part of the bill is passed in its current form, it would pose a serious threat to the safety of DAKOK members and their families living in Kurdistan, as many members attend protests wearing face coverings.

Mohammad said: “This law will pose a very serious risk to the lives of activists and protesters. Some people in the United Kingdom may one day return to the region, or face deportation. This could seriously endanger their safety.

“Activists from America and Europe who have returned to Kurdistan have faced repercussions.

“Last year, one of our members attended a protest in London. Footage of him at the demonstration was shared on social media, and the very same day, members of his family were arrested by security forces.

“They were threatened that if he continued protesting in Britain, his family would face harsh consequences.”

‘Protest face covering ban’

Muhanad, 23, is a student involved with Manchester4Sudan, a group that raises awareness of the conflict in Sudan.

He said: “This will discourage people from protesting. Earlier this year, a member of our community from Newcastle was posting online criticising the Saudi Arabian government. When he travelled to Saudi Arabia for pilgrimage, he was arrested.

“We’ve seen similar cases involving Sudanese nationals who have spoken out against the against the United Arab Emirates’ involvement in the Sudan conflict — they too have faced arrest.

“If members of our community already face risks like this, we can only imagine what would happen if no one were allowed to wear a mask.

“If masks and face coverings are banned at demonstrations, it would pose a real threat to democracy and people’s participation in politics and political movements.”

Soran, 37, is an interpreter living in London. He is an ethnic Kurd from Iran and claimed asylum in the UK 18 years ago.

He regularly attends demonstrations against the Iranian regime. His name has been changed to protect his identity.

He said banning face coverings at protests poses real risks to the lives of Iranians and Kurds living in the UK.

“Some people come to the United Kingdom on a student visa. While they are here, they may join demonstrations against the regime. If they are filmed at a protest without a face covering, they risk being imprisoned by the regime when they return.

“During the Women, Life, Freedom protests in 2022, many people covered their faces due to the reprisals they or their families could have faced if the regime identified them.”

The Home Office was approached for comment on the concerns raised by activists and dissidents.

While it did not specifically address the proposed ban on face coverings at protests, it shared the following statement from Security Minister Dan Jarvis: “Instances of transnational repression are a threat to our national security and sovereignty, and seek to undermine the principles of democracy, human rights, and the rule of law. This is unacceptable and will not be tolerated, irrespective of the perpetrating country.”

“The College of Policing has launched training and guidance for all 45 territorial police forces to help frontline officers identify state-directed crimes and support those affected by state threats.”

Joining Baroness Barker were three remarkable authors whose work captures different aspects of LGBT+ history, advocacy, and legal battles: 

• Lisa Power, author of No Bath But Plenty of Bubbles: An Oral History of the Gay Liberation Front, a foundational work documenting the radical activism of the 1970s that laid the groundwork for modern LGBT+ rights 

• Marc Thompson, co-author of Our Stories Told By Us, a powerful anthology amplifying the voices of Black and Black African people affected by the HIV/AIDS crisis in the UK 

• Robin Moira White, barrister and co-author of A Practical Guide to Transgender Law, a crucial legal resource advocating for trans rights and protections 

LGBT+ Activism: A Legacy of Resistance and Resilience 

The conversation opened with reflections on the significance of Gay’s the Word. For Baroness Barker, the bookshop had been a sanctuary in her early years – “a haven” for young LGBT+ people navigating their identities. This sentiment was echoed throughout the discussion, with all three authors emphasising the importance of community spaces in fostering activism and solidarity. 

Lisa Power, a pioneering activist, shared the origins of the Gay Liberation Front (GLF) and how its radical, unapologetic approach challenged societal norms in the 1970s. She highlighted the importance of preserving authentic queer history and resisting efforts to sanitise the past, saying: “One of the things that infuriates me about queer history is how often it’s rewritten to suit current politics. We need to remember the actual voices of those who were there.” 

Marc Thompson brought a different perspective, shedding light on the erasure of Black queer experiences from mainstream LGBT+ narratives. He spoke about the impact of HIV/AIDS on his community and the need for greater intersectionality in activism, saying: “We were all thrown into the same pot, but our experiences were not the same. Black queer men were missing from the mainstream narrative, and that’s why telling our own stories is so vital.” 

For Robin Moira White, the battleground is the legal system. She outlined her work on key legal cases and emphasised the role of the courts in safeguarding rights, especially in the face of increasing attacks on trans people.

She explained: “We lawyers are either your best friend or your worst enemy. Right now, we’re on the frontlines, defending rights that others want to take away.” 

Lessons for the Future 

As the discussion turned towards the future of activism, the authors shared their insights on how today’s generation can continue the fight for equality. Lisa Power stressed the need for optimism and creative resistance,  saying: “A central part of activism is mischief-making – challenging absurdity with humour. We are going to need that more than ever in the years ahead.” 

Marc Thompson underscored the importance of unity: “If one part of our community is under attack, we are all under attack. We have to stop thinking the fight is over just because some of us have won certain rights.” 

Robin Moira White reinforced the need to stay vigilant against the erosion of human rights, stating: “The narrative that trans rights are in conflict with women’s rights is simply wrong. We must focus on what unites us, not what divides us.” 

Books That Inspire Change 

The discussion ended with book recommendations for those looking to learn from history and be inspired to take action: 

• Let the Record Show by Sarah Schulman – an oral history of ACT UP and its bold HIV/AIDS activism 

• Revolutionary Acts by Jason Okundaye – a celebration of Black queer lives in the UK 

• Trans by Shon Faye – an essential read on the realities of trans lives today 

• The Mayor of Castro Street by Randy Shilts – the story of Harvey Milk and his enduring legacy in LGBT+ activism 

Whether you’re new to activism or have been fighting for equality for years, this episode of Baroness Barker’s Book Club is a powerful reminder of the work that has been done – and the work that still lies ahead. 

Baroness Elizabeth Barker

Designation