International Women’s Day

Baroness Pinnock Excerpts

Tuesday 10th March 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

I welcome the noble Baroness to her post. I am sure that she does not need any reminding that there is a lot to do to achieve equality for women everywhere—the theme of our debate today.

Living in poverty—constant, unremitting poverty—is demeaning, life-limiting and soul-destroying. I want to take as my theme for this debate the injustice faced by women in poverty in our own country.

Over 3 million women are carers; one in four women aged between 50 and 64 has a caring responsibility for an older family member; and nearly three-quarters of recipients of the carer’s allowance are women, receiving a disgracefully meagre sum of £62.10 a week for caring. Perhaps the Minister would consider whether that is a worthwhile recompense for the role that they carry out. Often, and unsurprisingly, many of these women live in poverty. There are 2.9 million single-parent households in the UK, half of whom live in poverty. They are, overwhelmingly, women. The statistics for women in employment are not that great either. Sixty per cent of those on low pay and 73% of part-time workers are women. Despite all the efforts that have been made, the gender pay gap remains at 18%.

As pensioners, women reap the consequences of their caring responsibilities, which often means taking low-paid jobs and part-time work. Nearly a quarter of women live in poverty when they become pensioners— and this is in our own country. For many, their life chances are determined by their caring responsibilities. Disproportionately, it is women who take on such responsibilities and who have to live with the consequences of narrow life opportunities. For such women it often means living in poorer quality housing, with the impact that has on health and life expectancy. Women suffer anxiety and depression, wondering how they will be able to make ends meet. Women caring for a vulnerable adult or child wonder when there will be a break from their caring responsibilities. The impact on the children in these straitened circumstances also reduces their life chances compared to the average.

Many in this Chamber will have taken on caring responsibilities for children and, perhaps, later in life for an elderly parent, as I have. These responsibilities, of course, inevitably limit individual freedom of choice, but do not force a lifetime of living in poverty. Why has society accepted that those who care for others may also be condemned to a life of grinding poverty? Why has radical change not occurred?

History often provides clues as to the way in which social change comes about. Sometimes a major shift in public attitudes has been the result of the actions of an individual. Elizabeth Fry was one such person. In the early 19th century, her crusade to improve the plight of women and their children in Newgate prison led to a series of reforms that radically changed society’s perception of both prisoners and prisons. Elizabeth Fry had a comfortable early life with parents who were bankers. Rosa Parks had a much poorer start to her life but she too sparked radical change. Her courageous refusal to give up her seat on a bus in Alabama to a white person, as were the rules in 1950s America, inspired the civil rights movement.

The match-girls’ strike in 1888 was the collective determination of a small group of girls, most of whom were teenagers. I have the badge to prove it. Part of their job making matches involved dipping the splints into phosphorous. From this practice many of them suffered phossy jaw—a type of bone cancer. Their conditions of work were appalling and their pay lower than even the norm for the time. The success of their strike action was hugely significant. It showed that unskilled workers could unite to improve their working conditions. The match girls were the forerunners of unions for unskilled workers and the laws for workers’ rights that followed.

Whether it is collective action—as in the case of the match girls—or individual courage and determination, change is possible. Why, though, has it taken such selfless acts to make change happen? One reason is that all these women were making their mark at a time when men alone were making public policy. Perhaps the strongest argument for diversity of every hue among our decision-makers is that only then is there a much better understanding of the lot of people throughout our society.

Many women who take on caring responsibilities today are not getting the recognition their dedication merits. Can this be the consequence of the gender make-up of our political decision-makers? As we have already heard, only 34% of current MPs are women. In the international league table of women in national parliaments, the UK is well down in 39th place. The picture is similar in local government, with just 36% of councillors being women and a much smaller proportion in leadership roles. It is hardly surprising, therefore, that the lot of women in poverty has not been given the prominence it deserves. Advancing the equality of women everywhere has to include tackling the grave inequality that the women I have described suffer. The question, therefore, in this debate to celebrate the role of women is: who will take up their cause? When will change come for the women in our country who are living in poverty because of what they do to care for others? Perhaps the Minister can give us a response to that big question of our time.