International Women’s Day

Baroness Taylor of Bolton Excerpts

Friday 8th March 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Taylor of Bolton (Lab)]

My Lords, I think the noble Baroness, Lady Owen, has united everybody in this House in terms of the concerns that she has outlined. She is quite right to say that we should all be extremely worried, especially, perhaps, in election year.

I start by adding my congratulations to my noble friend Lady Gale, not just on this debate but because she has worked so hard on these issues over so many years. It is right that, on International Women’s Day, we draw attention to the unbelievable problems that women in Afghanistan and other parts of the world are facing—but, of course, we have to look closer to home as well. I have to admit that I find myself getting angry every time this debate comes round, because I feel a great sense of frustration that the hope that many of us had that progress would have been quicker on a whole range of issues has not come to pass.

It is right that we should use this debate to celebrate the progress that has been made and the achievements that many people have outlined. When I first entered the House of Commons, admittedly many years ago, there were 26 of us women MPs. In 1997, when I was the leader in the Commons, I stood with Tony Blair welcoming 100 Labour women MPs. Now we have 35% overall, because other parties have done a little as well. But to see breakthroughs of that kind in women’s representation—having more women on boards and as vice-chancellors of universities, or having a woman as President of the Supreme Court—is not enough. We really have to look at the overall experience of ordinary women in this country and, frankly, that is still deeply disturbing.

I was recently fortunate enough to open a debate in this House on maternity services. It was prompted partly by the unbelievable fact that in Kirklees, a large metropolitan area, there are no NHS birthing facilities at all. The prestigious Brontë centre in Dewsbury, which I remember being opened, has been closed since August 2022 and the centre at Huddersfield hospital has been closed for more than 12 months, both because of a shortage of midwives. How can local women in labour be expected to believe in progress if they cannot get local services like that, which they need? Nationally, we also had the report of the Care Quality Commission, which said that almost half the maternity units that it inspected last year were rated as inadequate or in need of improvement. It was half and, as it said, it was not just a post-Covid problem but had been developing for some time.

I will mention two reports that have recently struck me as very important. The first is from the Joseph Rowntree Foundation and shows that one in 10 workers are in persistent low pay: that is, four out of five years spent earning below the living wage. It shows that very few of them—one in 20—get out of it and move on. Crucially, one particular finding is striking: of those trapped in persistent low pay, 72% are women. That highlights the structural discrimination against women in the workplace that very often exists. I think that many women will be tempted to say, “Progress? What progress?”.

The second report that I want to mention is from Scottish Widows and touches on some of the issues that the noble Lord, Lord Davies, mentioned. Its research shows that, looking forward and taking into account private pensions, savings and everything of that kind, it estimates a 39% gender gap—nearly 40%. It estimates that the average woman is set to receive an income of £12,000 a year after housing costs; the comparable figure for a man is £19,000. It is £12,000 for a woman and £19,000 for a man, and the report goes on to say that two-thirds of single women, 60% of divorced women and 75% of single mothers are not on track for a minimum pension that would sustain their lifestyle. This is 2024 and I find this immensely depressing. The noble Lord, Lord Davies, pointed out some of the different approaches needed and we really are getting to the stage where this needs absolute and urgent attention.

Finally, if all that was not enough, yesterday the headline from the Women’s Budget Group—after Wednesday’s Budget—was:

“Tax giveaways to better off men will cost worse off women”.


That is the situation we are facing; we need to take it on board and make changes.

The noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, said that we in this House have had amazing opportunities. That is true, but we are not typical and we have a responsibility to other people. So, yes, let us celebrate success, but let us have no illusions, and let us remember how much there is still to do. I am sure that the noble Baroness, Lady Casey, in her maiden speech, which is very welcome, will be able to point us in that direction.

Co-operatives, Mutuals and Friendly Societies Bill

Baroness Taylor of Bolton Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 24th March 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Taylor of Bolton (Lab)]

My Lords, it is somewhat unusual to stand up from these Benches and agree with virtually every word that has come from the Benches opposite, but that is where I find myself today. I join Members on all sides of the House in congratulating my noble friend Lord Kennedy on sponsoring this Bill, and indeed my honourable friend Sir Mark Hendrick, with whom I served in the Commons, who introduced it. It is good to see that it has had an unqualified welcome from all sides of the House.

It is, as my noble friend pointed out and has been mentioned just recently, a very straightforward Bill. Although there are regulations to be made, I do not, on this occasion, have my usual concerns about a skeleton Bill leaving the detail to later—though of course many people will want to look at that detail quite carefully.

I think that many people in the co-operative movement, and many people who deal with mutuals, would have been surprised, until quite recently, that such legislation is necessary. There have been shocks to the system—mention was made of Liverpool Victoria—that have made people look again at the framework of regulation here. Although this Bill is welcome, it is not the last word on what needs to happen going forward.

The issuing of a statutory asset lock is clearly extremely important, and that need has been highlighted by recent cases. Those who established mutuals and co-operative institutions never thought that the assets that they were creating were not protected. I think that is where the shock element comes from.

The noble Lord, Lord Bourne, gave a bit of the history of co-operatives, and I appreciate that because, as my noble friend Lord Kennedy indicated earlier, many of us were brought up in that particular culture of co-operation. Like many people, I remember going as a child to the local Co-op in Wishaw, where my granny lived, for the morning rolls. I remember to this day, “four, five, seven, six” which was the number you had to give to make sure that, at the appropriate time, the dividend came forward. In Bolton, we had a remarkable system where, when you went to the Co-op shop, you were given a thin paper ribbon with the amount spent that you then had to put on a gummed piece of paper. If I lost it on the way home, my mother was not best pleased, because that again was reflected in the dividend that was often very useful for buying shoes or whatever it was that was the particular purchase of that kind.

It was not just the financial incentive to shop at the Co-op or to have insurance with the Co-op; it was the feeling that you were not being cheated. There was a confidence factor there. The early co-operative organisations were often based on giving people confidence that they were not being cheated but also on a feeling of belonging. It was part of the culture of many working class existences. I think that the co-operation with social enterprises, which was mentioned on the Benches opposite, is something that builds on that. Those who established co-operative and mutual benefit societies and institutions would be horrified at the thought that the assets that have been built up over time could go for other purposes.

I have just one question for the Minister, and it builds on what the noble Lord, Lord Bourne, said. In the Commons, the Minister said that the Government would soon bring forward legislation to amend the Building Societies Act 1986 and are consulting on reviewing the legislative framework governing co-operatives, community ventures and friendly societies. I know Ministers cannot anticipate what might be in the King’s Speech, but I wonder whether we could have a bit of an update on the progress that I hope is being made in this particular area.

Mention has been made of sport, and I think it is important. I know my noble friend Lord Kennedy is a great football fan, although we disagree on which club we should be supporting. He will have seen the real difficulties that many clubs have gone through in recent years. We have one or two football clubs that are going down this particular pattern of trying to work together and have a community asset. I hope there is more scope there.

This is an important Bill. It is a small Bill. It is, as my noble friend said, a permissive Bill. It is not ensuring that all societies go down this route, but I hope that the voluntary powers in it will be acted upon, because that is what the originators of all these institutions would have wished.

Young People: Alternatives to University

Baroness Taylor of Bolton Excerpts

Thursday 23rd October 2014 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Taylor of Bolton (Lab)]

My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow my noble friend and I echo and endorse the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Baker, about my noble friend’s contribution. When he was speaking, I agreed with just about everything he said, although I flinched when he mentioned the word “tripartite”. However, we have moved on sufficiently, especially when we are talking about 14 to 18 year-olds, to talk about technical schools without all the horrors of the old tripartite system. We have added something that is increasingly accepted.

I, too, congratulate my noble friend Lord Monks on initiating this debate. It is very appropriate that someone with his wealth of experience should be taking a lead on this. However, like him and others who have spoken, I find it somewhat depressing that we have not made more progress on this issue in the past 20 or 30 years. I have been speaking on it, mainly in another place, for a long time and although we think that we are making progress, somehow it does not happen.

It is a long-term and, as we have heard, increasing problem. While, like my noble friend Lady Morris, I am proud of many of the things that the Labour Government achieved, I am sorry that we have not made more headway or had the breakthroughs in these areas that many of us had hoped for. We have seen other countries doing things differently and tried to learn from them and look at what they are doing but have not actually made a breakthrough, despite all the welcome initiatives.

One of the problems, which was touched on earlier, is that we are talking not just about education reforms but cultural problems as well. My noble friend Lord Monks talked about young people in the 1960s thinking that other things were more glamorous than apprenticeships. A lot of people find university life more attractive and grown up, and more of an expression of freedom, than an apprenticeship. I have looked at the proposals that our party has put forward to improve the situation. My noble friend talked about our plans for apprenticeships. We have been talking about the idea of a gold standard, technical baccalaureate for 16 to 19 year-olds and looking at how employers’ accreditation can work, the quality of work placements and how you can build them into a credit system. It is an impressive package.

We have also said—and I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Baker, would be interested in this—that we would like to transform some of the higher-achieving further education colleges into institutes of technical education to underpin the kind of education that so many people want. We also want to see new technical degrees as a pinnacle of vocational education, not just as something that people talk about as second-rate. I am very happy to support all those proposals, as I am sure my noble friends are. However, I have to say that their delivery will be extremely challenging. It is a problem, as my noble friend pointed out, and cultural factors have undermined past attempts to make progress.

That brings me to the core of the problem, which was touched on earlier—the status of different types of education. In the United Kingdom, this is far more of a problem than it is in many competitor countries, and it costs us dearly. There is a clear and unfortunate distinction, a real division of esteem, between university education at the pinnacle and absolutely everything else. That gives a false assumption about the relative importance of different sectors. This is one of the things that is so difficult to counter if we are to make real improvements. Many problems spill over from the whole issue of status. We have a hierarchy in funding as well as in status. If we are going to give young people more choice, we have to find some way in which to break this down. As I say, it may be the university image or peer-group pressure, but there is a certain snobbishness in education that says that universities are okay and everything else is second-rate. It is really difficult to counter this.

I want to mention one factor that could make a difference and help counter this problem of a lack of parity of esteem. We need a unified qualification structure, including a credit accumulation system based on modular courses, as my noble friend Lord Bhattacharyya mentioned. That could be done using the best practice of existing qualifications, whether they are academically oriented or geared to vocational skills. It could allow for credits from either sector to contribute towards a final qualification. That could help us to break down the barriers, challenge the difficulties that arise, help to meet the skills gap and give real choice for many individuals. We need individuals to have choice, which is not only in their interests but a really important issue for our whole economy.