International Women’s Day

Baroness Bottomley of Nettlestone Excerpts

Thursday 1st March 2012 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Bottomley of Nettlestone]

My Lords, I am delighted to speak in this debate and warmly congratulate my noble friend Lady Verma on her comments. For many of us in this country, our generation has been one of complete transformation in opportunities for women. It is just over 100 years since the first International Women’s Day was celebrated. In that time we have seen the first female Member of Parliament, the first woman judge and the first ordained female priest. Across the professions and business, we have seen opportunities for educated and talented women. Of course, this year we celebrate the Diamond Jubilee of our Queen, who has done a magnificent job.

For those of us who so enjoyed the recent film “The Iron Lady”, it was also the generation that saw the first woman Prime Minister. Fascinating for those who have seen that film are the comments of young women, who cannot believe the patronising attitudes towards women. As somebody who joined the House of Commons after the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman—there were 23 women when I joined—I was seriously asked, “Mrs Bottomley, if you want to vote one way and your husband wants you to vote another way, which way will you vote?”. The world has changed.

I want to identify three specific areas, including that of high-achieving women, on which I shall say more later. Women in poverty in this country is a different topic and a very important one on which many people in this House speak authentically. Many years ago when I worked with the noble Baronesses, Lady Lister and Lady Meacher, at the Child Poverty Action Group, we were only too aware of how women bear the burden of poverty. We have talked about domestic abuse and many distinguished Members of this House speak emotionally and authentically about women in prison. Then there is the international situation, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, referred. I am pleased that she spoke of Nepal, which is one of the few countries in the world where men live longer than women. Many people do not realise why that is so shocking. Life expectancy may be 86 or 84 years for women in Japan or Switzerland; in Mozambique and Swaziland it is 39 and 32 years respectively. The western world may have a female literacy rate of 100 per cent; in Burkina Faso it is 15 per cent, and 13 per cent in Chad. Therefore, we need to talk about high-achieving women mindful of women who face poverty here and around the world, and the appalling situation that applies to many women of having no rights and being subjected to forced marriage, genital mutilation and forced prostitution.

I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Davies, for his work. He is the natural successor to one of my early mentors—the noble Baroness, Lady Howe. I am afraid that it had to be a man tackling the subject of women on boards but we have seen dramatic changes. I must declare my interests. I have been on the board of Akzo Nobel for 12 years. I was “diversity”; I was the Brit; I was also the first woman. I have also been on the board of Bupa, where there were several women. People talk about the difference in environment where there are several women on a board as opposed to one, and they are right about that. I am also a trustee of the Economist.

However, over the past 12 years I have spent a lot of my time being a headhunter and I have to look for the best man for the job. I am pleased to tell noble Lords that in 2000, when I became a headhunter, 5.8 per cent of directorships were filled by women and now the figure is 14.9 per cent. However, I do not take full credit for that. I am delighted with the work that the noble Lord, Lord Davies, has done, but I think we are moving on from believing that non-executives on the board is the most important issue in corporate Britain or the most important issue in female fulfilment and participation. I am pleased that the more enlightened discussion now is about female employees in the workforce and what happens to women as they move through work. I always ask people in the commercial world to look at the public sector. Why is it that fewer than one in seven vice-chancellors are women? In saying that, I look at the distinguished academics in this House.

I have also had responsibility for the health service. We have talked a lot about careers for women in medicine. The same issues apply as regards mentoring, encouraging aspiration and teaching women the tricks of the trade. Why are there so few female heads of medical schools? I have been very involved in the Women in Academic Medicine organisation, where the issues that I have mentioned also apply. Therefore, I ask the corporate world not to look at itself in a blinkered way but to look more widely.

I am delighted that the Government have resisted quotas, and endorse that decision. I give notice that I would vote against the introduction of quotas. One of the many reasons for my doing that is that one in four primary schools have no male teachers. All our debates on social policy stress the importance of male role models in those early years. Let us have quotas for men in primary schools long before we have quotas for women on boards.

I say to the right reverend Prelate that I am passionate about the upcoming debate on women in the Church of England. As a lay canon at Guildford Cathedral, I think this is such a timely issue. Extraordinary progress has been made in this area. I did not really care about it, except theoretically, until I went to a church in New Zealand where a female priest was officiating. Ever since then I have been outraged by the situation. I ask the Roman Catholic Church, which does so much good around the world, to think again about contraception, female leadership and married priests. I tread carefully, but surely a faith with global influence should accept that women’s place is very different now.