| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mrs. Lait: There are many more matters about which I am angry, but I promise that I shall not take up much more time.
I want now to address a subject that does not speak its name--what we should do about young boys who are alienated from society. I raised the subject in this debate four or five years ago, and I hate to be repetitive, but nothing is being done. I should prefer us to spend an Adjournment debate discussing young lads and their problems rather than women, whom we discuss year after year, and about whom we say the same things again and again.
There is a problem that needs to be tackled: women do not want some chaps as fathers because they are useless--in every respect except one--and our education and parenting systems are the cause. We must somehow deal with unskilled young lads who cannot contribute to
society and who feel rejected. Nothing that the Government have done so far has addressed that issue. The emphasis on mainstreaming through education is further alienating those lads. More and more of them are excluded from school. Those who are in school refuse to learn. They do not benefit from any measures that have been taken.
We must address those concerns because if we do not create a society in which men feel responsible for a family, we will reinforce the huge problems experienced by lone parents. My hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead pointed out the sheer costs and difficulties of trying to get single mothers back into work. We are excluding and alienating those young lads from work because they need to be educated to get a decent job, and unskilled jobs have gone. As we know, they are more prone to criminality and to perpetrating acts of violence against women.
Mrs. Ann Cryer (Keighley):
I, for one, am absolutely delighted to participate in a debate about women to celebrate international women's day.
I am also very proud to be the chair of the parliamentary Labour party Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament and in that capacity, I pay tribute to the leading role played by women in the peace movement over the years. Many women who are now in this place established their political credentials through involvement with the peace camp at Greenham Common and in the wider peace movement. Many of them continue to put forward arguments for peace and disarmament in this place whenever possible.
We are well assisted by the many campaigners outside Parliament who continue to focus on arguments against Trident and the non-accountable nature of US spy stations such as Menwith Hill, which is not far from my constituency. The women at the Menwith Hill peace camp have for many years bravely questioned the reason for the existence of the US base, its legality and precisely what goes on there. Helen John, Lindis Percy and Anne Lee are among many women who have continued to oppose the existence and expansion of the base. In the early days, when the existence of the station became known, many of us attended picnics--rallies--in the adjacent fields, where we had excellent speakers such as my right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett), the Secretary of State for Education and Employment. The picnics have ended, but the arguments continue.
As a member of the Council of Europe committee on equal opportunities for women and men, I have recently been involved in a report on the equal representation of women and men in the Parliaments of the 40 member countries. In a table demonstrating the representation of women in Parliaments, the UK is 12th, Sweden is at the top and Turkey is at the bottom. Albania did not get its act together so we did not receive figures for its Parliament. Should the House need reminding,
this Chamber has at present 659 MPs, of whom 121, or 18.4 per cent., are women, and 101 of them are Labour Members. Our position on the list would have been much higher if it had not been for the overwhelming preponderance of men among hereditary peers. Perhaps next year, our position on the list will have improved.
Parliamentary selections will be made by all parties in the next year, and I am not particularly hopeful that the representation of women will be addressed by any party, including my own. Three years ago, when two male no-hopers took three constituency Labour parties, including my own, to an industrial tribunal, I felt confident that the chair would throw out the case because a prospective parliamentary candidate could in no way be described as an employee of a party. There is no wage, no contract of employment and no employer-employee relationship.
Those men would have had no chance of selection, whichever party they had applied to and whatever the shortlist. They would probably not even have made it on to an all-male shortlist, yet the tribunal chair accepted their complaint and the tribunal--amazingly, in my view--decided in the plaintiffs' favour. That decision still stands and therefore, sadly, no party can safely use an all-women shortlist as a vehicle, no matter how imperfect, to move towards equality of representation in Parliament.
The Council of Europe equal opportunities committee suggests that member states introduce a quota system--although that would be effective only where the very undemocratic system of lists operates. There are other carrot-and-stick approaches to encourage political parties to move toward the nomination of equal numbers of men and women in winnable seats too; but without constituency parties being able to opt for all-women short lists, such good intentions may result in little improvement. In fact, unless changes are made, there may be a reduction in the number of women Members of Parliament following the next election.
The Council of Europe equal opportunities committee has also been considering in detail the issue of violence against women. Last week, we decided to hold a press conference to coincide with international women's day. The committee's unanimously adopted declaration on zero tolerance of violence against women and girls reads as follows:
There is a commitment to promote family-friendly initiatives through, among other things, the "Fairness at Work" White Paper and implementation of the working time, part-time work and parental leave directives. Anything that makes life easier for women who work and have small children will be of help. There are many stresses and strains on such women. When they are at work, they feel guilty about not being with their children, and when they are with their children, they feel guilty about not being at work. Anything that helps them in any direction should be welcomed. I certainly welcome such measures.
I welcome the new deal for lone parents, to help them move from welfare to work, provided that the final decision on whether a young mother with small children goes to work is the mother's alone. She should not feel pushed into going back to work. I am very much in favour of the introduction of a national minimum wage, too. It will be very popular in Keighley, which is traditionally a very low-wage area. The hon. Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant) described the policy as one of the Barbie doll proposals or strategies. If that is so, many women on very poor wages in Keighley will say, "Long live Barbie."
Miss Anne McIntosh (Vale of York):
Here we are debating the Government's priorities for women, and progress--or lack of it--in delivering on them. In welcoming the hon. Member for Barking (Ms Hodge) to her post--this is my first opportunity to do so--I wholeheartedly endorse the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May), who eloquently set out the position of Conservative Members. I want to separate the fact from the fiction in this debate. I shall draw attention to the Government's ultimate failure to set priorities for women, and accuse them of being hopelessly remiss in delivering for women.
I am mildly surprised that no reference has been made to the United Nations action programme for women. My researchers pulled a three-page document from the internet on the programme, which I had imagined would be the core of this debate. It raises real issues for women, not just in this country but throughout the world. As we celebrate international women's day, the programme raises issues such as the contribution of women to all aspects of society, equal opportunities for women, the role of women in developing countries, and Government funding to enable women to perform such a role.
In the light of the remarks of the hon. Member for Keighley (Mrs. Cryer), I should like to refer to the number of women on the Government Benches. The Minister for
Public Health said that all-women lists for parliamentary selection at the general election were not deemed to be in breach of any rules. But as the hon. Member for Keighley said, when the matter was taken to an industrial tribunal, such lists were found to be clearly in breach of the treaty of Rome and the Sex Discrimination Act 1975, which implemented its provisions. As a result, the Labour party stopped selection from all-women lists.
I should like to share with Labour Members, especially the Minister, the following thought: the Government must learn--I am sure that they will not mind taking lectures from Opposition Members in this regard--that there must be genuinely equal opportunities for men and women. I am wholeheartedly enthusiastic about the fact that I and the other 13 women who represent the Conservative party in this House were selected on merit, and not simply to fulfil the gender quota.
I pay tribute to the previous Government, and especially my right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major) for his contribution as Prime Minister to delivering positive policies for women. He introduced and endorsed Opportunity 2000, which has put more women into public life and indirectly resulted in greater numbers of women in the professions, the boardrooms and other walks of life from which politics can draw. More work opportunities for women arise today as a result of the previous Government's commitment to flexible labour markets. As of April 1997, there were 12.3 million women in the work force. By comparison, this Government have failed miserably to deliver positive policies for women.
The Minister for Public Health referred to every stage of a woman's life, from girlhood to womanhood, as well as to those who care for elderly relatives. This Government have failed at every such stage. Women whose aspirations were raised before the election have been let down. To illustrate that point, I shall start with the example of nursery education. Nursery education vouchers were introduced nationwide in April 1997, and would have resulted in the provision of free nursery education for every four-year-old. Many mothers want the provision of such pre-school education, which gives them the opportunity to work. On being elected in May 1997, the Labour Government immediately abolished that scheme.
Equally, it was recognised that the minimum wage for au pairs would have a devastating effect on women returning to work. I understand--perhaps the Minister will put my mind at rest on this score when she winds up the debate--that that category has now been excluded under Government provisions for the minimum wage, first, because it would have led to fewer au pairs working, and secondly, because, as a result, fewer mothers would have entered the workplace.
There are probably more women teachers than men teachers; certainly there are more women heads than men heads. In North Yorkshire, and especially in the Vale of York, teachers and heads have been extremely disappointed by this year's poor standard spending assessment for north Yorkshire. Teachers are being promised a pay increase, but the Government have committed no new money to pay for it. Moreover, the Government are committed to cutting class sizes to 30, yet they have committed no new money to achieving that aim.
The Government are going even further, saying that they wish to introduce performance-related pay for teachers in two years' time without considering how that is to be achieved or the administrative burden that the achievement of that aim will impose on teachers and heads. Many of those teachers and many of those heads will be women.
The Minister with responsibility for women's issues briefly mentioned the plight of teenage girls, and especially the increasing number of teenage pregnancies. That is now an extremely pressing problem, in view of the number of teenage girls falling pregnant, many of whom are applying to take the morning-after pill before a pregnancy has been diagnosed, or--in the long term--applying to go on the contraceptive pill. However, the Minister made no mention of the higher incidence of sexually transmitted diseases among teenagers. That is an especially worrying development for young teenagers, especially girls, because as they develop and, hopefully, marry, it could have a very negative effect on their fertility and ability to give birth.
I am concerned that intrusive, old-fashioned socialist policies such as the minimum wage and maternity or paternity leave will lead to higher unemployment among women. It is believed that the working time directive and the constraints imposed by it will hit working women hardest.
I shall now discuss those choosing not to work but to stay at home to bring up children or to care for sick or elderly relatives. It has been found that the tax situation imposed by the Government is severely disadvantaging women who choose to stay at home. The only beneficiaries, under the present tax law, are couples living together and choosing not to marry, or one-parent families. That is hardly an incentive to working mothers, or carers choosing to stay at home.
I should like to discuss the equal opportunities provisions under the treaty of Rome and the implementing regulations, especially in relation to woman returners to work. That is a special category which has been recognised, especially under objective 3 training funds. There have been qualifying programmes for women such as "New Opportunities for Women"--the NOW programme. I understand that, in all probability, that programme will lapse under the Agenda 2000 reforms.
I leave the Minister with the following question. What provisions will replace those schemes, enabling woman returners to work to undertake courses to boost their chances of taking up employment, especially after leaving employment to bring up young people--their children--and to ensure that there will be new provision either under a Government programme or a future European programme?
The enduring message that I shall be left with at the end of tonight's debate is that the Government are now adopting Conservative language. They are "seeing women as mainstream" in life and they have adopted a programme of listening to women. Obviously we have coined a phrase with our Listening to Britain campaign, in which we addressed 52 per cent. of the electorate and 45 per cent. of the work force, namely women.
The Labour party's rhetoric has changed. In opposition, it claimed to want to do something to help women; now, in government, it supports the Conservative rhetoric of
developing a strategy to make women feel mainstream in society, not a hived-off special category. However, in my view the Government have consistently discriminated against women.
The Government have failed women and disappointed their aspirations--raised before the most recent general election--most in relation to family credit, which is now being paid to the mother. Family credit has been paid through the benefits system to the mother; the working families tax credit will be distributed through the tax system, and in the majority of low-income households the father, as the sole wage earner, will receive that benefit. The money will therefore be paid to him through his pay packet, and the wife and children will lose out, because scientific evidence proves that money given to the father is less likely to be spent on child care. That is a fundamental point, which the Government have failed to address and on which they have failed to deliver for women.
Incapacity benefit is changing, and is now to be available only to those who paid national insurance contributions in only one of the past two tax years--not the past five or six tax years. That will hit women especially hard, and the majority of those penalised will be those with young children who become ill, or carers for elderly relatives.
"Gender violence is a fundamental violation of the right to life, to liberty and security, to personal, mental and physical integrity, equal protection before the law, equality within the family as well as the right not to be subject to torture or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
I shall finally mention just a few of the Government's measures which will help women. The £40 billion extra for health and education will certainly be greatly welcomed by women with small children who, more than most, must visit their doctor. They will see improvements. The money will also be welcomed by many older women, who also have to use their doctors a great deal more than the average person.
Violence against women is both a serious obstacle to the achievement of women's equality, and the outcome of the inequality which persists throughout Europe. The most important way to fight violence against women consequently is the fight for equal rights and opportunities for women.
We therefore call for equality being one of the issues covered by monitoring compliance with the obligations of Council of Europe member States."
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |