Angela Watkinson

Conservative Party | Upminster

Carers Equal Opportunities

Angela Watkinson (Upminster) (Con): May I associate myself with the remarks of the Minister for Women about the barbaric practice of genital mutilation, which I am sure everyone in the House would deplore? I served on the Committee that considered the Female Genital Mutilation Bill, and although it had only one sitting I had the opportunity to meet some of the women who came to listen to our deliberations. I heard personal accounts that were quite horrifying.

I want to ask a fundamental question: what does equality really mean? Can it, or does it, mean equal rights with men, and, if so, in what way? It can mean equal treatment in law and education. It can mean equal access to employment, but equal access to all employment opportunities for all women—or, in some cases, any opportunities at all—is probably unattainable for a variety of reasons. Being equal in the eyes of the law will never make women the same as men because of the simple biological reasons of pregnancy and childbirth, and that is never going to change.

For women with children, family responsibilities are probably the main reason, but not the only reason, for occupational segregation and the gender pay gap. Women with children are far more likely than others to work locally, where rates of pay are lower, so that they can avoid lengthening their working day by having to travel to work. They are far more likely to have to limit their availability for work to fit in with their children's nursery or school hours, thus limiting further their earning potential.

Of course, some jobs simply do not appeal to women, especially those that require the physical strength and stamina commonly associated with men. There is nothing wrong with that. It is why the fire service, for example, is unlikely ever to increase significantly the number of women whom it employs as firefighters, despite it having an open recruitment policy. Women simply do not apply in large numbers, but it is the policy that is important because it makes that area of employment available to women if they choose it and, importantly, if they are able to carry out the job; whether they choose to apply is less important.

Employment legislation has made enormous strides since the Equal Pay Act 1970 almost half a century ago. Before that Act, women were paid at a lower rate for doing exactly the same work as their male colleagues—I know because I was one of them. I was dismayed to discover how extensive that practice still is from comments made by hon. Members on both sides of the House; I had hoped that it was largely a thing of the past. In many organisations, women employees were treated as only temporary staff because it was assumed that they would marry and leave in due course. Men with working wives were often derided by their colleagues as not being able to support their wives. Women were regarded as dependent per se. Those who did not marry were regaled with the delightful title of spinster. Even those who remained in post until they retired were still considered to be temporary staff. There was no personnel mechanism to ensure that they received equal treatment with their male colleagues, who were on the permanent payroll.

Maternity leave and pay now make it possible for women to return to their employment if they want or need to do so. It is fair to comment on behalf of employers that whereas large organisations are able to cope with the complications of staff cover for maternity leave, it can cause real difficulties for small firms that employ only a few people. For that reason, women's prospects may be affected in those organisations.

The only career advice that I ever received at the co-educational grammar school that I attended would be unthinkable today. It would probably be illegal. All the girls were assembled in the hall and told by the headmistress that there were only two respectable occupations for women—teaching and nursing. It was teachers on one side and nurses on the other. The subject was never mentioned again. I think that girls who chose neither occupation were deemed to be lost causes.

Nowadays, no doors are closed to any pupil and career choices are driven by interests and abilities. I have been surprised by some of the comments of hon. Members on both sides of the House this afternoon that some girls have limited aspirations. That is not my experience. I am a governor of two secondary schools; one is a girls' school and one is a mixed comprehensive. My experience from those two schools is that career advice is the same and that there are no restrictions. Girls' horizons are not limited and they are expected to reach for the sky and attain whatever they wish to in their coming careers. Given that approach, I hope that the traditional occupation segregation and gender pay gap will become a thing of the past quite naturally within a very few years.

It is important that the status of motherhood is not eroded in the drive to provide equal employment opportunities for women. The choice of staying at home to bring up children is not open to many women for financial reasons. However, those who exercise that choice are doing an important and demanding job that is of huge benefit to their children. I acknowledge and pay tribute to them.

Women who bring up their children single-handed have a particularly difficult role. They often face financial pressure in addition to all the practical difficulties with which they have to cope. Single motherhood arises for a range of different reasons. The rate of unplanned teenage pregnancies is alarmingly high and should be a cause of great concern to us all.

Sex education in schools has a crucial role to play. Since 1947, there has been more and more sex education for younger and younger children. Yet, at the same time, the rates of pregnancy, abortion and disease have grown. I wonder whether a complete rethink of the style of sex education, especially for girls, would be advisable. This is one area where clearly girls and boys are not equal. That is because the outcomes are so different. Girls must be warned about the likely outcome of engaging in sexual activity with boys who have no desire to become a parent, no desire to get married and have no income with which to support a child.

Life alone in a council flat for a single mother, with sole responsibility for a baby, while her friends are out either completing their education or simply enjoying themselves, is neither glamorous nor exciting. This is a real-life situation where equality flies out of the window. The woman takes full responsibility for the action of both people.

I do not know whether hon. Members have been receiving a lot of questionnaires lately from women students. I have received about five in the past fortnight from women who are taking political courses. It worries me that none of my male colleagues seems to have received any. It is clear that women Members are being targeted. It worries me also that positive discrimination, which to me is unnecessary and patronising, seems to be implicit in the style of so many of the questions. There is an assumption that gender prejudice exists, which I for one have never experienced. I always respond by stating that I did not become a woman MP. I became an MP and just happened to be a woman. We cannot demand equality on the one hand and expect special or different treatment on the other.

Last year, there was a demand to allow breastfeeding in the Chamber, which was based more on political correctness than on common sense. It probably had a negative effect on the way in which we are perceived by the world outside Westminster and was unhelpful. The hon. Member for Cardiff, North (Julie Morgan) spoke about the proportion of women in the Welsh Assembly, and I pay tribute to Stockholm city council—I visit Stockholm regularly—which has 50 women members. When I asked what it did to achieve that figure, the answer, encouragingly, was nothing at all, which tells us something about the community in Sweden and the status of women.

The historical reasons for the concentration of women in low-paid jobs are gradually being overcome by equal access to education and careers guidance. Equality of income will, in due course, overcome the problem of inadequate pensions for women, but nothing will ever change the fact that women produce children and men do not. Women will continue to have to make choices, and balance family and work commitments, which will be made easier by employment legislation. I was disappointed by some of the comments this afternoon about quotas and percentages, which suggest that women are a race apart or are different. I do not think that we do things differently, and there are few cases in which one can say, "All women do this". If we are to have true equality, we must treat everyone as an individual rather than as a member of a group, however large, which means that gender will become irrelevant.