| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Employment Opportunities
18. Michael Fabricant (Lichfield): What steps she is taking to increase the number of women employed in service industries; and if she will make a statement. [130836]
The Deputy Minister for Women and Equality (Jacqui Smith): It is a pleasure to answer the hon. Gentleman's questions twice in one hour. Action to make work pay and to help parents balance work and family life will promote employment opportunities for women across the labour market, including service industries. For example, 70 per cent. of those benefiting from the national minimum wage are women, and we estimate that the duty on employers to consider seriously requests for flexible working will enable 55,000 mothers to return to work.
Michael Fabricant : I thank the Minister for that answer. We will probably get on better in this second session than in the first one. Does she agree that the appointment of Barbara Cassani as the chief executive of the British Olympic Association bid is a good example of how women can play an important role in service industries? What steps is the Department taking to increase the aspiration of young women going into business not to go into service industries to work at
checkouts in places like Waitrose, or even, dare I say, into hairdressing, but to go into areas such as banking and the promotion of Britain?
Jacqui Smith: I share many of the hon. Gentleman's—
Mr. Andrew Mitchell (Sutton Coldfield): —hairdressers.
Jacqui Smith: No, but I share his view that hairdressing is an important and honourable profession. We must be careful not to denigrate the areas of work that women go into, although we must make sure that they are getting proper training and proper pay. The hon. Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant) makes an important point about women in leadership positions. One of the issues that concerns us is how we can ensure that more women get into our boardrooms, where their contribution in a leadership role would be good for businesses, good for their profile, and as the hon. Gentleman points out, good for other women going into business and aspiring to the higher levels. The hon. Gentleman is right: we can certainly agree on that today.
Mrs. Anne Campbell (Cambridge): Does my hon. Friend agree that this Government's record on increasing the availability of child care as well as introducing working tax credits has done more than anything else in recent history to improve the employability of women not only in the service industries, but in higher paid jobs in professional and manufacturing industries?
Jacqui Smith: My hon. Friend makes a very important point. Of course, it is not only about aspirations for women to be able to enter the workplace, but about taking action, as this Government have been willing to do with respect to child care, the new deal for
lone parents and partners, the child tax credit and the support that we are giving to women entrepreneurs, which will make a difference for women in the choice that they can make about whether they work. That is good for those women and our economy and businesses, and our society as a whole.Women's Income
19. Hugh Bayley (City of York): What assessment she has made of the impact of the Government's tax credits and benefits changes on women's income. [130837]
The Minister for Women and Equality (Ms Patricia Hewitt): Changes in tax credits and benefits between 1997 and October 2003 will mean that, on average, men gain £1.58 a week and women gain £14.34.
Hugh Bayley : I am glad that the Government share my view that, when it comes to the welfare of children, it is important to transfer money from the wallet to the purse. What proportion of those receiving the new tax credits are women and what proportion are men? Now that we have had the opportunity to overcome the teething problems of the introduction of the new tax credits, can my right hon. Friend tell me how many men and women in the UK now receive them?
Ms Hewitt: More than 85 per cent. of child tax credit awards are being paid to women. Of course, that reflects the choices that parents themselves are making. While I agree with my hon. Friend's general point, I should add that there is a growing minority of families in which the father is the main carer of the child. It is extremely important that he should also have access to child tax credits and child benefit. We are now paying out child tax credits and other family tax credits to millions of families throughout the United Kingdom, all of whom have warmly welcomed this increase in their family incomes.
Business of the House
12.32 pm
Mr. Eric Forth (Bromley and Chislehurst): May I ask the part-time Leader of the House to give us the business for next week?
The Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Peter Hain): I am delighted to see that the prefix has returned, because it was omitted last week and I felt a little neglected.
The business for the week after the conference recess will be:
Tuesday 14 October—Remaining stages of the Crime (International Co-operation) Bill [Lords].
Wednesday 15 October—Opposition Day [18th Allotted Day]. There will be a debate on an Opposition motion. Subject to be announced.
Thursday 16 October—A debate on defence policy on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
Friday 17 October—The House will not be sitting.
The provisional business for the week after will include:
Monday 20 October—Remaining stages of the Courts Bill [Lords].
As the House will know, I informed the House yesterday of the date of the Queen's Speech. I intend to publish an annual calendar for this House for the new Session next month.
Mr. Forth: I am sure that the House will be particularly grateful for that last item.
Unusually, yesterday's Prime Minister's questions were almost completely free of porkies, obfuscations and evasions, so I think that we will leave them for another day. Following up what the part-time Leader of the House said about the date of the Queen's Speech, for which we are grateful, and given that it is relatively late this year, can he tell us how much pre-legislative scrutiny of Bills can now take place before the new Session? A great song and dance has been made about pre-legislative scrutiny. I am sure that it is welcomed in all parts of the House, but we would like a bit of substance from the Government about how much scrutiny will be conducted and which Bills we will see before the late start of the new Session.
When will the pre-Budget review take place? Is the Chancellor eager to come to the House and give us his review of the state of the economy? Perhaps we could get a date for that. Are the Government now going to set about prioritising their business ahead of 26 November to ensure that they have an appropriate amount of business, not least in another place, to honour the date of the Queen's Speech? I should be interested to get a glimpse into how the Government think that they are going to get their business through Parliament, especially through another place, while honouring that date of 26 November.
I wonder whether we could have a debate entitled, "Do Ministers care so little about MPs and Parliament that they neglect their duties in the recess?" I say that because a letter has fallen into my hands from a nice
young man called Gerry Sutcliffe MP, who appears to be Minister for Employment Relations, Competition and Consumers. On 19 August, he wrote a letter to one of my colleagues that began:
- "Thank you for your letter of 14 July".
- "During parliamentary recess, Mr Sutcliffe is out of the office and unable to answer your query. Upon his return in September, he will ensure that your query is dealt with as swiftly as possible."
Has the part-time Leader of the House seen early-day motion 1700, entitled "Portcullis pension scheme and rights of staff"?
[That this House welcomes the introduction of the Portcullis pension plan, particularly for those on the staff of honourable Members who do not have existing pension arrangements, those in new employment, and those who have established that it offers better provision than their existing arrangements; but does not wish the staff of honourable Members to be compelled to join the scheme if they assess that it is likely to be inferior to their existing pension arrangements or is otherwise against their expressed wishes.]
It has already been signed by several Members—unusually, and significantly, of all parties—and it raises a number of important issues about our staff's pension rights. I am sure that Members on both sides of the House will have received representations on that, because we are getting ourselves into a serious position.
Having given the part-time Leader of the House's office notice that I intended to raise the subject, I want to ask the following questions. On what authority are employer contributions to individual pension schemes to be terminated, as is the intention? When were staff—not Members, but staff—properly consulted and informed about what is going to happen to their pensions? What provision is to be made to enable staff who would suffer financial loss from a change of pension provider to remain with their existing scheme? To give two examples, what will happen to someone who has their mortgage guaranteed by their pension or who has paid their fees up front and therefore cannot benefit from the reduction in fees that is claimed to be one of the benefits of the new regime?
I hope that the part-time Leader of the House will be able to give full and satisfactory answers to those questions. Many Members' staff are very worried and unhappy about the matter. It has been grotesquely mishandled thus far, and I hope that it is not too late to
deal with it. At the very least, can implementation be postponed so that the situation can be properly sorted out?
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |