| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Lorna Fitzsimons: Would the right hon. Lady support any moves towards a more civilised balance of hours--which, I believe, is what the hon. Member for Taunton (Jackie Ballard) was suggesting--rather than a reduction? Does she realise that we are not doing fewer hours because of what I hope is the permanent modification of Thursdays? We have reordered Thursdays to achieve a more civilised working environment.
Mrs. Bottomley: The difficulty is that the greater the number of days on which the Government cannot be held to account, the greater the number of opportunities they have to be ruthless and manipulative and to avoid high profile occasions. When the Government came to power
they immediately initiated the longest holiday that Parliament has ever known; there was a Government who were longing to get on with their business.
The hon. Member for Bristol, West (Valerie Davey) spoke on a subject to which I hope to return at greater length. She talked about the women's day of prayer, international women's day and Jubilee 2000. I hope that she will support the concerns of the Churches in respect of the Government excessively politicising the millennium celebrations and the dome. The Government rubbished those issues when they were in opposition and they have politicised them in government. It is extremely important that Church leaders have the opportunity to register what the millennium celebrations are about and to achieve real changes on the commitments of Jubilee 2000.
My hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield(Mr. Fabricant) made a splendid speech in which he covered many areas and identified the issue of playgroups, which has been repeatedly raised with me. Playgroups face real problems such as the loss of jobs for women as a result of the minimum wage and the loss of choices for parents. He also mentioned the possible 90,000 job losses in the hotel, retail and textiles sectors as a result of the minimum wage and the £39.3 billion tax on business resulting from the Government's actions.
The key point is that a prosperous, effective and flexible market will create jobs for women. That is why, so spectacularly in the past 20 years, women in Britain have achieved levels that they had never previously achieved and have had opportunities at work that were never previously open to them. There is more to be done, but the dramatic transformation over the past 20 years--at work and particularly in education--has been formidable.
Much of the Government's document is, in effect, a paean of praise to the steps taken by the previous Government. There has been a dramatic transformation involving women in higher education, where there are more women than men, as well as GCSE results, A-level results and achievements at every level. My hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield said that Labour Members have Barbie doll policies; one could say only that the Under-Secretary of State for International Development would be known as their Ken.
The hon. Member for Halesowen and Rowley Regis (Mrs. Heal) talked about violence against women. That area is of great importance, but she seemed unaware of the steps that were taken before 1 May 1997 such as the White Paper on protecting the public, changes in respect of sex offenders, the establishment of an interdepartmental group on domestic violence and a public awareness campaign. I looked back at "A Guide to Services for Women", which was produced in 1993 and has a great section on domestic violence. These are difficult and intractable problems, and there is no room for complacency, but the idea that words on their own can deliver change is naive and irresponsible.
My hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Mrs. Lait) made a splendid speech, and I identified with a number of elements in it. My first job was working for the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field). At the time, we were fighting bitterly to save family allowances for women. The Labour party has always been dominated by the trade unions and the "man at work", and there was a real battle. I went to the headquarters of the Transport and General Workers Union to try to persuade the union to
support the campaign. I am pleased to say that one of the most able advocates at the time was Molly Meacher. Together we campaigned long and hard.
This is a battle that is never finished, and now, with the working families tax credit, we have it again--the move from the purse to the wallet. As we await tomorrow's Budget statement, we are faced with the threat of the taxation of child benefit, which would be a deplorable and retrograde step. It would penalise couples when the wife stayed at home and the husband was earning, say,£35,000 a year, as opposed to couples both of whose members were working, earning perhaps £20,000 or £25,000 each.
More importantly, child benefit is the way in which we register the existence of children in our society. The move away from child tax allowances meant that everyone benefited in the same way. The point about child tax allowances was that the better off were given more advantage in return for their responsibilities. Turning the clock back would be an act that women would never forget, and for which they would never forgive the Government.
My hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham spoke of the increasing irrelevance of some of the debate, given the perhaps more worrying alienated group of young men. As she will know, her concern is shared. In her Green Paper, "Our Healthier Nation"--not to be confused with our White Paper, "The Health of the Nation"--the right hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Ms Jowell) spoke of anxieties about suicide. I was pleased that her ideas about the priorities for health improvement were so similar to the ideas that she had inherited. After all, imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.
The hon. Member for Keighley (Mrs. Cryer) mentioned all-women shortlists. It would take a great deal to persuade my party of their desirability, although we would certainly all agree that the party should do more to encourage more women to join us.
Given all the discussion of role models that we have heard, and the welcome tributes from many Labour Members to women in their constituencies who have played an important part, I felt that I must quote a recent newspaper headline:
Miss McIntosh:
Do you agree, Madam Speaker, that a great omission on the part of the Government has been their failure to recognise the role model that you have been to all of us, in Parliament and outside, as a very distinguished lady in politics? Perhaps the Minister will make amends in her winding-up speech.
Mrs. Bottomley:
I cannot cope with that, Madam Speaker.
Much has been made of the new deal for lone parents. My hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) dealt with that admirably: there has been a 3.8 per cent. success rate, at a cost of £200 million. I am disappointed
that the hon. Member for Keighley did not refer to some of the international human rights issues which I hope to mention, and which have been extraordinarily lacking in today's debate.
My excessively generous hon. Friend the Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh) stressed the need for a distinction between fact and fiction. How right she was. She went on to identify an issue that I am delighted to hear the Government have supported equally and that was crucial in achieving many changes for women: Opportunity 2000.
I take great pride in having led the national health service into Opportunity 2000: the Department of Health was the first Government Department to enter the initiative. Unlike the Government's documents, on joining Opportunity 2000, the NHS set explicit targets on how many more women consultants, women managers, women accountants and women on health authorities and trusts we were seeking. There was a dramatic increase in the number of women on NHS trusts and health authority boards.
Among those who we were able to use that as a springboard to great career success were Baroness Jay, Leader of the House of Lords, Baroness Hayman, Baroness Dean--all people whom I took pleasure in appointing--the Liberal Democrat colleague of the hon. Member for Taunton, Julia Neuberger, and many others.
If there has been widespread shock over the behaviour of the new Government, it has been about their particularly partisan appointments to many of the health authorities and trusts.
Mr. David Maclean (Penrith and The Border):
And regional development agencies.
Mrs. Bottomley:
And regional development agencies. Having personally been involved in the selection and appointment of so many people, particularly women who went on to great success in the Labour Government, I am qualified to comment.
I am particularly pleased to hear that Dame Rennie Fritchie has been appointed the commissioner for public appointments. She was a distinguished regional chairman and she was central to the development and unrolling of Opportunity 2000 in the NHS. She is a great advocate of family-friendly and practical employment policies. I want to register her contribution.
The point about Opportunity 2000, which was launched by my right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major), but led by the business community, was that it worked with people. It was about encouragement and setting goals. It was not coercive. It was not bullying.
The hon. Member for Stevenage (Barbara Follett) was the designer of Emily's list. I am sorry that she did not refer to advice for women through the list. Nor did she refer to her experiences in South Africa. The role of women in South Africa today is something that I want to address.
My hon. Friend the Member for Billericay(Mrs. Gorman) spoke on the important issues affecting older women. I speak not just from self-interest. I hope that hon. Members will have the opportunity to look at the university of Manchester's Pennell initiative,
again chaired by Dame Rennie Fritchie, which examined coronary heart disease, breast cancer, depression, bone disorders and social isolation among older people.
Older people are equally worried about the raiding of social service budgets, the inability to deliver a carer strategy, the fudging on the royal commission on the long-term care of the elderly, the mess and complexity over pension reform and, above all, the loss of the tax credit on dividend share income.
I regret not being able to identify all the others who have spoken admirably during the debate, but I need to speak about international women's day. We celebrate 50 years since the universal declaration of human rights. The Secretary-General's message to us all today is most important. We can look with some pride at the remarkable achievements so far. He said:
"Maggie is the boss of all role models".
Certainly, the achievements of Margaret Thatcher, as our first woman Prime Minister, and those of the first woman Leader of the House of Lords, Lady Young, are extremely important developments--although, like others, I wish that those developments had been reflected in the presence of more women in Conservative constituencies.
"We entered a century where women had the right to vote in a mere handful of countries; we leave one where the vast majority of countries have universal suffrage. We entered a century where women were practically excluded from decision-making; we leave one where the participation of women at senior levels of leadership, national and international, is no longer questioned."
But it is a world where, in Afghanistan, India, east Jerusalem, South Africa, China, Yemen, Peru, Ethiopia, Ghana and places throughout the continents, women have no human rights. There is continued bride burning, female infanticide, genital mutilation, appalling domestic violence, and a lack of participation in the political process.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |