§ Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Nicholas Baker.]
2.34 pm§ Ms. Joan Walley (Stoke-on-Trent, North)I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for having the opportunity to raise the most important issue of women returning to work. Women throughout the country will be aware of the irony that, on the day when most hon. Members return from work to their homes, it is necessary for me to delay going home for a further day to raise the most important issue of how women can play their full part in the working environment.
It is also a timely occasion on which to raise the subject because the Prime Minister is about to make a speech—and may already have done so—on a charter for citizens. To what extent has the whole issue of women's rights been incorporated in the Prime Minister's charter?
In a week in which we have heard from an ex-Prime Minister that
Home is where you come to when you have nothing better to do",this is a timely occasion on which to raise the issue of women returning to the labour market. I suspect that many women, like myself, want to do their full duty to their children, to their families generally and to their homes and at the same time want an opportunity to continue to work or to return to work with the full rights and benefits that are achieved by our counterparts in other European countries. The issue must be given greater political priority.It is also a timely occasion on which to raise the issue because on Tuesday I had the great privilege officially to open an exhibition that was organised by the equal opportunities advisory sub-committee of Staffordshire county council in partnership with the training and enterprise council in Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent city council. It was an absolutely magnificent initiative, taken by the Labour-controlled council on behalf of women in Staffordshire. The point of the two-day exhibition, which was called "New Directions", was to encourage women to start to take back their places in the work force.
I have nothing but praise for the chair of that sub-committee, Councillor Pauline Brownless, because of the way in which she, together with her partners, organised the two-day exhibition. Just as she is asking women in Staffordshire to take on new directions, it is only right that I, as a woman representative of Staffordshire, should raise the issue. Now is the time to say that we have good representation by women in Staffordshire. I am thinking especially of my hon. Friends the Members for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mrs. Golding) and for Mid-Staffordshire (Mrs. Heal). If the county council, despite cuts in local authority services, is raising the issue, it is time that the Government gave the highest political priority to women returning to work. What is done in Staffordshire can be done only with the full backing of Government.
The issue is important in terms not only of women wanting to achieve their full potential by returning to work or to avoid living in poverty, but of the current demographic trend. We have information from the National Economic Development Office which shows that, by 1995, 80 per cent. of those returning to work will be women. There will be a net increase of 80 per cent. in 973 women returning to work. The current recession may create some slight delay to that trend. In Staffordshire, the current recession has caused many people to be thrown back on to the unemployment queues. None the less, it is important that the county council did not abandon the two-day exhibition because of the recession. The county council recognises that, despite the recession, we have to plan long term for the needs of women.
I will outline for the Minister's benefit what Staffordshire council and its partners, the TEC and the city council, did. It had a two-day exhibition which was well supported by local industry, by local businesses, by local voluntary organisations and, not least, by the services of Staffordshire county council, such as the fire services, and by the environmental health department of the city council. All those departments give women their full part in terms of higher management positions. They do not merely keep them doing menial, low-paid tasks.
Child care was available for the women who went to the exhibition, which included seminars, information and advice on training, enterprise and employment throughout the day. Flexible opening hours meant that it was possible for women to fit attending the exhibition into their schedules whether they were at home or at work. Every woman with a child at school in the city received an invitation to the event. It was advertised on a huge scale.
If more women are to become involved in public life and in the workplace, the first thing is to recognise that we must convince ourselves—and this includes female hon. Members—that we have the confidence to take the next step forward, whatever that may be. The exhibition was therefore about confidence-building for women.
It was not a two-day exhibition which, once held, would never be heard of again; there is to be a follow-up. The county council is to evaluate fully the issues that arose. Having brought together leading people from industry, local authorities and local voluntary groups, there will now be a group of people to monitor and assess the needs of women locally to improve the desperately needed facilities. That co-ordination to ensure that whatever is needed is provided does not exist at Government level.
In Staffordshire, we wish to press forward with a number of issues. We want flexible working hours, job-sharing schemes, work-break schemes and term-time contracts. Any woman who holds down a job knows that that is difficult when the children go to school because half-term holidays, school holidays and so-called "Baker days" make nonsense of any arrangements that might have been made. We want child care centres for the under-fives and—the Government referred to this some time ago but, to my knowledge, little came of it—a facility whereby children can stay in the school buildings and be properly looked after until their parents finish work. The initiative of the North Staffordshire health authority is a good example. It has a scheme for children who are on holiday which fits in with their parents' shifts in the hospitals. That makes a great difference to women who want to return to work and a great deal of economic sense bearing in mind the shortage of and the difficulties in recruiting women back to the work force.
We also wish training to be improved. Our adult training budget in Stoke-on-Trent is completely inadequate for the needs not just of the city but of the whole of 974 Staffordshire. I was distressed to receive a letter from the Staffordshire training and enterprise council, which stated that it would be failing in its responsibilities to the local community if it did not set out the implications for its adult programme of the reductions in the budget that it receives from the Government. About 600 training places have been terminated and people who had been taken on to conduct those training responsibilities have been made redundant. That is not the way to get women back to work.
I should also like to draw attention to the booklet produced by the Minister's Department, "The Government's Expenditure Plans 1991–92 to 1993–94". One has to search the document very hard to find any reference to gender. I could not find any direct reference to gender or equal opportunities or any help for women wishing to return to work.
Not only far-sighted Labour-controlled authorities and the local partners who joined in Staffordshire county council's venture have women's interests at heart. It is clear to me from my limited research that some companies assist women who wish to return to work. One such company is ICL, in Kidsgrove in my constituency, which has a large manufacturing plant producing mainframe computers. It has issued a policy statement, "Women's Employment in ICL", and it recognises that the development and retention of existing skills within the work force is important.
Many professional associations, such as the Royal Pharmaceutical Society, have published booklets and given advice and information to women to encourage them to return to work. Many trade unions, such as the Ceramic and Allied Trade Union in Stoke-on-Trent, have women's officers to encourage women who are returning to the work force.
By contrast, the Government's commitment and proven track record is worrying. There is still no woman in the Cabinet. Britain has the worst maternity pay rights in Europe. There is no reference to gender in the statement from the Department of Education and Science, or in the Government's expenditure plans for the Department of Employment. The Minister should tell us why there is no concerted, co-ordinated attempt to ensure that women's interests are properly taken into account when policies are made.
This problem applies to all Departments. The Department of Health is rightly being criticised at the moment. Rather than just giving advice on retainer schemes in the public sector, it should have required such schemes to be introduced. I tabled questions at the beginning of the week to find out the Government's view. It was inconvenient because I had to go from one Department to another, not knowing which one had responsibility for what. I wonder how we can find out who is monitoring and evaluating the introduction of retainer schemes in not only the public sector but the private sector.
Many issues need to be raised, such as part-time work, maternity rights and minimum wage protection. It is scandalous that some women work for only £1.25 per hour as contract clearners and 52p an hour as homeworkers. The Government cut training instead of planning a strategy to enable women to top up their skills and return to work. There is fragmentation and a lack of a coherent strategy.
There is still a clear distinction between girls' subjects, boys' subjects and integrated subjects in schools. 975 Discrimination, no matter how inadvertent, begins at school and may affect future career decisions and act against women.
The women in Staffordshire who sampled the huge feast of opportunity that was laid on by a partnership of local authorities need Government backing to be able to return to work. The educational and training needs of women are linked with those of the economy. A woman should not be forced to choose between the children whom she loves and the work that she would like to do. In contrast to the Government, the Labour party has a charter for working women. Only when those women who attended the New Directions fair return to work with equal rights, pay and opportunities, and help with child care and looking after dependent relatives, will we have a Government who are prepared to equal the commitment made by Staffordshire county council.
We do not want decision makers who are out of touch and who pay lip service to women's hopes of fulfilment. We want a co-ordinated strategy and a full charter for women who, as citizens, make up more than 50 per cent. of the population. In the absence of a combined Government strategy, I look forward to hearing from the Minister exactly how he believes that the hopes, aims and ambitions of women in north Staffordshire can be achieved.
§ The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Robert Jackson)I congratulate the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms. Walley) on raising this important issue. I think that she will find that there is common ground between the parties in all parts of the House about its significance. She made a wide-ranging speech. I may not succeed in doing so, but I shall try to take up all her points.
Women make a crucial contribution to this country's economic wealth. More and more women are, as we know, entering the labour market or, just as importantly—this was one of the themes to which the hon. Lady referred—rejoining it after having had families.
Let me start with a few simple facts. The hon. Lady mentioned the European Community context. Britain has the second highest participation rate for women in work in the EC, at 61.7 per cent. Only Denmark outranks us, with 75.2 per cent. of their women being economically active. There are, however, more women in employment in the United Kingdom than in any other European Community state. In fact, 44 per cent. of our labour force are women. There are 12 million women in Great Britain who are economically active, and a quarter of small business owners are women. That is a very impressive set of facts. The hon. Lady was inclined on some points to be somewhat critical of the Government's record and of our achievements in Britain, but those facts suggest that we cannot be doing so badly if we compare them with the performance of other countries.
Why has Britain done relatively well in encouraging the employment of women? The most important factors are, I believe, economic. They have to do with the operation of the market and market forces. That will be the main theme of what I have to say. In fairness to ourselves, however, we must recognise that both local and central Government have played their part in this achievement. I am very 976 happy to join the hon. Lady in congratulating Staffordshire county council on what sounds like an excellent and interesting initiative, which I wish well.
The Government's view, however, is that the most important factor in achieving progress for women's employment lies in the creation and development of a competitive economic environment that encourages job creation. That has been the main thrust of Government policy over the last 10 years. Women have taken full advantage of it. In fact, two thirds of the growth in the size of the labour force between 1984 and 1990 was accounted for by married women. We believe that one of the most important features of the past 10 years has been the growth of enterprise in the United Kingdom, which has led to a significant culture change in the role and participation of women in the economic life of the country.
We think that self-employment, which has grown enormously under this Government, has a particular appeal for women who want to combine financial independence and career satisfaction while responding—as the hon. Lady said that they should and must—to the ever-changing needs of their families. There has been a vast growth in the numbers of women choosing the self-employed option over the last 10 years. In 1979, there were 373,000 women in that category. In 1990, there were more than 800,000. Women now comprise a quarter of all self-employed people, with more than 200,000 having staff of their own.
The hon. Lady may think that this is an excessively economist interpretation of the way that progress can be made in female employment. I can assure her that the Government believe that political and legislative action has its place, though I think that there may be some difference between the parties on the importance of political and legislative action. The hon. Lady may, I believe, attach exaggerated weight to the concepts of co-ordination and strategic planning and to the development of political and governmental machinery. I am not sure that that is the way forward for women.
The hon. Lady recommended that the Government accept the concept of the minimum wage, but that would be detrimental to female employment. She must accept that if she imposes burdens on employers in relation to certain categories of employees, employers may not give them jobs. She may set out with the best of intentions, but their effect may be to damage people's opportunities.
The Government are fully committed to the principle of equal opportunities employment and to the legislation that gives effect to it. We have continued to work in that spirit. We removed, in the Sex Discrimination Act 1986 and the Employment Act 1989, the outdated restrictions on the hours that women can work and on the work that they can do. They are free to compete equally with men for higher paid jobs, including shift work.
The hon. Lady referred to training, in which it is important that Government play an active part. More than 60,000 women are being trained under employment training. The hon. Lady was fairly critical of developments in employment training. I have corresponded with her and she understands the shift that we have been trying to make between employment training measures and employment service measures to help unemployed people through the job clubs and the job interview guaranteee scheme. However, those 60,000 women being trained on ET are much more than was achieved by the previous Labour Government. In 1979, only 24,000 women were trained 977 under TOPs. Although adjustments are being made, they are from a much higher base than the Labour party achieved in government. More than 350,000 women have been trained since the launch of ET in September 1988, and a higher proportion of new trainees are women than when it began.
§ Ms. WalleyMany issues have been raised, but the Minister is overlooking my point about the importance of ensuring that women are able to participate in projects that enable them to get back to work. In 1989, Mrs. Kay Jackson, who was married with three children, was offered a place on employment training but was unable to take it because her allowance and her husband's salary would not have covered the costs of child care. The Government changed the Employment Protection Act 1975, and a case of discrimination that was upheld was subsequently reversed because of that change. That leads me to think that their commitment to equal opportunities is not as straightforward as the Minister suggests.
§ Mr. JacksonThe hon. Lady knows that there is a time limit on the debate and that responding to her intervention will make it more difficult for me to respond to her speech. I was about to deal with the role of the training and enterprise councils and their flexibility in, for example, payment of child care allowances.
One of the most important developments in training has been the creation of the training and enterprise councils. I am glad that the hon. Lady mentioned them favourably and that there is co-operation between Staffordshire county council and the TEC to which she referred. We have given TECs a clear message in our strategic guidance about the growing importance of women in the work force. The plans of TECs show awareness of that, not only in their main training programmes but in the enterprise allowance scheme, whereby more than a third of enterprise allowance scheme support is given to women, and that has doubled since 1982.
Staffordshire TEC runs a course, mainly for women, to help to inform career choices. It is running short courses for women returners, often with creches, it has contributed to returners' day exhibitions and it has applied for funds for returners from the European social fund, which is rather innovative. There are several other examples of what TECs are doing, such as the issuing of women returners' newsletters, the setting up of returners' units by Essex TEC, action in Thames Valley TEC for retraining women in sales and marketing and action by Tyneside TEC, East Lancashire TEC, the Heart of England TEC and the Hertfordshire TEC.
A great deal is being done by TECs in different ways to promote the opportunity for women to return to work. However, as I said in response to the hon. Lady's intervention, the Government are setting a flexible framework for TECs to decide the real needs of women returning to work in their areas. We are allowing for women returners to enter employment training, even though they may not have been registered as unemployed. That is an element of flexibility. We are allowing part-time training and have given TECs greater flexibility in the payment of child care allowances while retaining the 978 principle that child care allowances are mandatory for the long-term unemployed who need it under the Government's guarantee.
Another crucial subject to which the hon. Lady referred was working practices. Ultimately, the question of the opportunity for women to return to work will be largely determined by what happens in the workplace, particularly employers' policies. The hon. Lady mentioned many ways in which employers can adapt working practices to make it easier for employees—men as well as women—to combine work and family responsibilities, such as job sharing, career breaks, part-time work, using new technology, and so on. I am happy to join her in paying tribute to ICL in that context.
The Government believe that it is for employers to judge what best suits their circumstances. Many employers are taking a lead in adopting flexible working practices. For example, the civil service, which is a major employer, is setting a good example by spreading good practice. My Department will shortly publish a booklet that will illustrate working examples of innovative schemes and the benefits that they have brought to employees and their families.
I note what the hon. Lady said about child care. The Government believe that employers should be encouraged to recognise that child care assistance for their employees is an important way to recruit and retain the staff that they need. That is best done by voluntary action to ensure that employers find an appropriate way to match their needs with parents' requirements for child care. The Government's role is primarily regulatory to ensure higher standards, but we have been encouraging additional provision for good quality child care—for example, through the concession in the 1990 budget to exempt employer-provided nurseries from tax. That exemption goes wider than is often appreciated. It extends beyond the workplace—a fact which is often misunderstood—to nurseries run by employers at the workplace or elsewhere, and to nurseries run by employers jointly with other employers, voluntary bodies or local authorities. The provision is flexible and should be more widely taken up.
Comparisons are often made between this country's performance on child care and that of other countries in the European Community. We have a different pattern of child care provision, with a greater mixture of private, public and voluntary sector provision for children of all ages, and we do not do too badly. The strength of our variety is reflected in the fact that about 86 per cent. of three and four-year-olds in Britain are in education and day care, which places us near the top of the European league table of comparisons.
I hope that the hon. Lady referred to part-time work, because it is one of the most important areas of opportunity for women returners. Its growth was one of the most striking phenomena in the 1980s. It has increased by 34 per cent. since 1983 and is often a welcome form of flexible work for women who want to combine work with family responsibilities. It will be an increasingly important option in the 1990s. Research by the Confederation of British Industry suggests that 80 per cent. of women who wish to return to work in the next five years will look for part-time work. The labour force survey that my Department conducts shows that a high proportion of women who work part time do not want a full-time job. 979 Indeed, only 7 per cent. said that they did. The evidence shows that the vast majority of part-time workers work part time because they prefer to do so.
The hon. Lady did not mention the European Community's part-time and temporary work directives, which fall under the heading of some of the well-intentioned political and legislative actions that can be detrimental and damaging. They would increase the 980 financial and administrative burdens on businesses, especially small ones, which is why we are resisting those proposals—
§ The motion having been made after half-past Two o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put.
§ Adjourned at four minutes past Three o'clock.