International Women’s Day

My Lords, it is a great privilege to introduce this debate on a subject on which much of my political work has been based, and I am grateful to my party for giving me one of its valuable time slots for the debate. However, I confess that it is with some trepidation that I follow the noble Baroness, Lady Gould of Potternewton, who, with considerable persuasiveness, opened a similar debate coinciding with International Women’s Day in both 2008 and 2009—and a few times before that as well. The noble Baroness, Lady Gould, has been the chairman of the Women’s National Commission for almost the past three years and has a distinguished career in furthering women’s interests, both nationally and internationally. She and I entered your Lordships’ House in the same intake in 1993 on the nomination of the then Prime Minister, John Major. The list included four men and four women—and I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Haskel, will agree that it was a vintage year. I am sorry that the noble Baroness, Lady Gould, is not in her place today to give us the benefit of her views. I must declare some interests. First, I was one of the early members of the 300 Group, the aim of which was to get 300 women of all parties into the House of Commons and, indeed, many of our supporters have now found their way into the other place and your Lordships’ House on all sides. However, I regret to say that we failed to achieve our numerical objective, despite the Labour Party’s introduction of all-women short lists which resulted in a substantial increase in the number of women MPs in 1997. My own party is considering imposing a similar requirement. The problem is not a dearth of suitably qualified women candidates; it is often the attitude of the local selection committees. I well remember my first interview as a potential candidate. The chairman’s opening words to me were, "Before you sit down, Mrs Miller, can you tell us whether your husband is aware that you are here tonight?". Being naïve, as I was in those days, I did not realise that I was already sunk without a trace before I had begun and I started to answer him politely. It was only after a moment or two that I realised I should have replied, "No, he thinks I am out at a disco with the milkman". I and most women candidates can tell similar stories of sexist questions raised by selection committees—often, I regret to say, by women members, whose attitude seems to be that a woman’s only place is in the kitchen. It is regrettable that in the 24 Parliaments from 1918, out of a total of some 16,000 seats, only 613 women have been elected. In Rwanda, 56 per cent of Members of its Parliament are women; and the constitution of Bangladesh, a Muslim country, requires a minimum number of seats to be reserved for women, who are, nevertheless, also able to stand for the unrestricted seats. The second interest I declare is as a founder and co-chairman of the Women into Public Life campaign, in which the 300 Group, together with the Fawcett Society, sought for more women to receive more public appointments. This has achieved some success and progress continues to be made, but not enough yet to achieve the parity that both equality and recognition of the talents of over half the population deserve. In the other place, there are 19 Select Committees, each connected to a specific government department. They are intended to be powerful instruments of oversight. Of the 238 committee members, only 18.5 per cent are women—which is less than the already low proportion of women Members of the other House—and only two of the chairmen are women. The Monetary Policy Committee has had four women members compared with 22 men, and the Appraisal Committee of the National Institute of Clinical Excellence—NICE, as it is known—has had four women out of 16 members. In the judiciary, there is only one woman member of the new Supreme Court; there is no longer a woman head of a division of the High Court; and the small number of women High Court judges, circuit judges and recorders shows that there is unfulfilled scope for more women judges. The number of women civil servants is 53 per cent, which is indeed a due proportion of the population, while the proportion of women who have reached the grade of senior civil servant is 33 per cent, which is a great step forward towards the Government’s commendable target of 39 per cent within the next three years. To their credit, the Government, with full cross-party support, have in some areas consistently supported efforts to improve the status and rights of women. However, it must be noted with some regret that the number of women appointed by the Government to boards of public bodies has fallen by some 5 per cent in the past five years. If I had to mark the Government on achieving equality in public service appointments, I would say, "Doing fairly well but much more effort is required". I turn from history to the concept of International Women’s Day, and in particular to this year’s celebration of that date. It comes under the umbrella of the United Nations. It is intended, in the high-sounding words of that body, to, ""look back to a tradition that represents at least nine decades of struggle for equality, justice, peace and development"." Organisations, women’s groups and even Governments around the world choose an annual theme that reflects global and local gender issues. This year’s theme, if local and national organisations choose to adopt it, is "equal rights and opportunities and progress for all". Checking the appropriate websites, I have been able to find only 10 events scheduled for the United Kingdom, three events in the USA, three events in Canada and eight in Australia. I have not extended my search further because I am sure that my point has been made: as well-meaning as the concept of International Women’s Day is, and as worthy as its objectives undoubtedly are, the associated activities are too disparate, too diffuse, sometimes too obscure, too low-key, too transient and, above all, too unco-ordinated to achieve any realistic impact, especially when an event may not get more than a few lines in the local paper and, at the very best, a soundbite lasting just a few seconds on the early evening TV news. This is an inadequate reward for all the efforts that the organisers put into their individual events. If I have any call to make in this debate, it will be on the Government, of any complexion, to take a greater lead in arousing interest, not only on International Women’s Day but on every day in the objectives that they should be covering. I will return to this later. I want to draw attention to the numerous and serious issues that currently affect women around the world, even in so-called enlightened countries. While not in any order of significance, some of the issues, many of which overlap, are the inequality of rights and opportunities; the denial in some places of education to girls; the under-representation of women in legislatures and Governments around the world, including the European Parliament; violence against women and girls, especially in the home, and sexual violence; human trafficking; forced marriage; so-called "honour killings"—I am pleased to note that, with the help of recent legislation, the immigration service is now making some attempt to inhibit the forced marriage practised by some communities in this country—and female genital mutilation, not only that which is practised in their remote home countries but that which is also illegally forced on girls in western countries. The "glass ceiling" affects commercial and industrial boardrooms. It is a matter of great regret that the gender pay gap exists around the world. Women are used as cheap labour, not only in many third world countries but in industrialised countries, including the United Kingdom. In Britain, although legislation exists to give rights for underpaid women to seek redress via an employment tribunal, it is rarely effective. I have used the word "regret". I also regret the fact that the Government themselves are guilty of fostering underpayment in the Treasury, where there is a difference of £10,000 per annum in top positions and £20,000 per annum at Ofsted. In fact the gender pay gap has widened in many other government departments, including the Foreign Office, Defra, the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, the Borders and Immigration Agency, the Crown Prosecution Service and the Land Registry. I look to the Government, of whatever party, to remedy this injustice without delay and without all the specious excuses about "pay restraint". The UK Government have ratified the Council of Europe Convention on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings. However, there is still often a failure by the police and authorities to recognise the women as victims and not as criminals or illegal immigrants. As well as prosecuting the traffickers and the people who control the women, the prosecution of their clients would be a useful weapon. Of course, I realise that the so-called "oldest profession" is never going to be eliminated and that many women enter it with a degree of self-choice, but the coercion and the violence that often accompany it should be stamped out. In the same way, much still needs to be done to encourage police to treat women who complain of rape in a more sympathetic and less sceptical way. Here, though, I am encouraged by statements by the police authorities that they are trying to change the ethos of the detectives who deal with this particularly repulsive crime. We will need to wait and see if actions match the warm words. The fact is, however, that recorded rapes of females increased by 4,500 a year between 1999 and 2009, but there has not been a corresponding increase in convictions and in the past five years the average sentence has dropped by over nine months. The Home Office has revealed that repeat violence—I emphasise, repeat violence—accounts for 66 per cent of reported domestic violence. I welcome the experiment introduced by the Government to create specialised domestic violence courts, which fast-track cases to be heard by specially trained magistrates. Let us hope that this experiment proves to be a success and is rolled out throughout the country. I also look forward to the Government introducing the proposed new domestic violence protection orders. However, a new phenomenon has arisen in the timeless issue of domestic violence against women, and it is quite horrifying: violence by male youths—teenagers and just older than that—against girls and young women, often drink-fuelled and often after refusal of sexual favours, and sometimes to control whoever else the girl may be in contact with. Research by the NSPCC suggests that one in four girls, some as young as 13, have been hit by their boyfriends, and one in nine has been beaten up, hit by objects or strangled. This problem has escalated to such and extent that the Government have launched an advertising campaign to educate young men against this form of violence, and from next year lessons in gender equality and preventing violence in personal relationships will be included in the already overcrowded school curriculum. Commendably, the Government have invested in quality support services for women, including for victims of trafficking, of "honour"-based violence and of female genital mutilation. They have provided sexual assault referral centres and independent domestic advisers. This is an example to other Governments, but it is not necessarily the extent of what needs to be done. Today’s debate is to call attention to International Women's Day. However, that important event, celebrated as it is to varying extents around the world, is, as I said in my opening remarks, just transient. It is merely a token fig leaf covering the multiple major problems for women of being economically, socially and politically disadvantaged and the physical and mental violence endured by women around the world. All the political parties of this country can be proud of the steps that it has been taking in combating the many issues that I have referred to, but I would like the United Kingdom to do more. Last Friday, "Newsnight" reported a suggestion that the United Nations should create a new agency dedicated to women’s interests, in the same way as UNICEF works for children. I agree, even though I do not entirely relish the idea of a new expensive bureaucratic United Nations agency, but I seriously doubt if those members of the UN whose political and religious ethos actually consigns women to second-class status would support it. I would like the United Kingdom, whoever the Government are, to take the lead and remedy this situation. In concluding her speech on 6 March 2008, the noble Baroness, Lady Gould, said that creating an equal society must be our goal. I agree with her. I beg to move for Papers.