Women’s Contribution to the Economy

Caroline Spelman Excerpts

Thursday 6th March 2014 Westminster Hall

[Mrs Caroline Spelman (Meriden) (Con)]

I thank all hon. Members who have asked to speak in this debate. It is the tradition of our Parliament to have a debate as close as possible to the date of international women’s day, which is on Saturday, so Thursday afternoon is as close as we can get. I am grateful to the Backbench Business Committee for acceding to the cross-party request to hold this debate today.

I will focus particularly on the global female economy. Women’s contribution to the economy is topical as the world digs its way out of the global financial crisis. It will be vital, if we are to consolidate economic recovery, for women around the world to participate in their economies. Research published by the Boston Consulting Group last September suggests that over the next five years, women will add $6 trillion to global earned income, which shows the size of the contribution that they already make and the scope for much more.

Both genders need to be active in the economy for GDP to grow to its full extent. An International Monetary Fund report also published last September noted the potential for macro-economic gains if women develop their full labour market potential. GDP per capita losses as a result of gender gaps in the labour market are estimated to be as high as 27% in some countries. The new Prime Minister of Japan took the World Economic Forum by storm this year when he said that if Japanese women were fully active in his economy, his country’s GDP would grow by 16%, that he sees that as absolutely key to the future of Japan, and that he intends to legislate for a target of 30% of leading positions in his country to be filled by women.

In developing countries, gender inequalities are often even greater than in developed countries. In 2013, the IMF cited studies estimating that of the 856 million women worldwide who have the potential to contribute more fully to their national economies, 812 million live in emerging and developing nations. India is one example. India has had, as role models, a famous female Prime Minister in Indira Gandhi and a female President, Pratibha Patil. However, the female participation rate in the labour force in India has stayed at around 32% since the turn of the century, and female wages in India have declined to an average of just 26% of men’s.

There are some important global initiatives to tackle such issues and realise the gains to be had from increasing female participation in labour markets. For example, Coca-Cola began its 5by20 initiative in 2010. Coca-Cola has pledged to empower 5 million female entrepreneurs around the globe by 2020 by increasing their access to business skills training courses, financial services and networks of mentors. The company employs 770,000 people directly and 10 million indirectly in its supply chain. Programmes are now running in more than 20 countries, including Haiti, Thailand, Liberia and Ethiopia, and will create a whole new generation of female entrepreneurs.

[Lorely Burt (Solihull) (LD)]

We need not look only to developing countries: the number of female entrepreneurs in this country is about half the number in America. If we are talking about growing the economy, would we not solve our economic problems at a stroke if more women were encouraged to create companies, wealth and jobs?

[Mrs Spelman]

The hon. Lady and I share a great interest in the role of female entrepreneurs in our regional economy. If she waits a short while, I will come to exactly that point.

Charities are also running initiatives, such as Oxfam’s gendered enterprise and markets programme. Oxfam works with vulnerable farmers, especially women and mothers, helping them grow and sell more by supporting them to establish producer groups. In that way, female farmers can pool their resources and sell their produce in bulk to get a better price, enabling them to increase income and gain equal status in their homes and communities.

A couple of weeks ago, during the recess, I saw another example of an initiative to empower women when I visited Bangladesh in my capacity as vice-president of Tearfund. The charity is working in partnership with other non-governmental organisations to undertake capacity-building programmes in flood and drought-prone parts of the country, as well as empowering women in village communities to take over and improve their own situation, not necessarily by giving money directly but by building capacity. I saw women there being taught to use kitchen gardens to grow vegetable crops that they would otherwise pay a great deal to buy imported from India. It was a joy to behold the light that shone out of their eyes and their pride in improving their circumstances. They might be illiterate, but their daughters will be able to get a university education, and the resources that they had secured through better farming were ploughed into the needs of their local community.

I also discovered in Bangladesh the role played by the central bank there. Its governor, Atiur Rahman, has at heart a desire to make his country more sustainable and to help the women there become more sustainable. He has granted a mobile bank account to every female garment worker in the country for next to no charge, meaning that those women can return their income directly to mum and dad back home in the village without a middleman taking a cut. Those are examples of creative ways to ensure in developing countries that women play a much more active role in their economy.

As for the UK, Office for National Statistics figures published last month show that female employment in the UK is at its highest level since records began. It now stands at 62.7%, compared with 53% in 1971. Women now account for 46% of the UK work force. Figures from January 2014 also show that 20.4% of FTSE 100 directors are female, compared with 12.5% in February 2011. Progress is being made in those areas, but there is definitely still further to go.

Turning to my regional interest, which I share with my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull (Lorely Burt), I am disturbed to read that there are serious geographic imbalances in female participation in this country. The lowest employment rates for women are in Birmingham, where the rate is 50%; Nottingham, where it is 54%; Coventry, where it is 55%; and Leicester, where it is 55%. That means that they have a higher than average proportion of women not actively employed in the economy. I fully understand that that might be linked to the ethnic make-up of those cities, but none the less, it is disappointing to find that the midlands cities, which are at the heart of the manufacturing renaissance that we are enjoying, have such low levels of female participation compared with other cities.

[Stephen Metcalfe (South Basildon and East Thurrock) (Con)]

I know all too well the importance of women in the economy, having worked in my family business for the last 25 years with my wife, my sister, and the founder of the company—my mother, who built up the business. It strikes me from what my right hon. Friend says that not enough young women are going into the workplace and aspiring to do well. Does she think that it should be incumbent on successful women to act as role models by going into schools, inspiring people and telling them that there is no limit to their aspiration and should be no barriers to it?

[Mrs Spelman]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention, and I agree that the role modelling to women needs to start really young—as early as primary school—before girls are put off entering certain professions that they somehow do not see as being open to them. I will warm to that theme.

In September 2013, the ONS published a report on women in the labour market that established that there were important gender differences between different occupations. For example, 82% of those employed in caring or leisure occupations are women; by contrast, just 10% of those in skilled trade occupations are women. Some industries have a good gender split. For example, in February figures from the General Medical Council showed that 48.8% of registered general practitioners are female. A report published by the Law Society in May 2013 showed that approximately 47% of solicitors with practising certificates are women, compared with a figure of 39% in 2002. That report stated that for the past 20 years women have accounted for more than half of new entrants to the legal profession, so the proportion of women in the profession is set to increase in the foreseeable future. According to the Institute of Practitioners in Advertising, women account for 49% of the work force in the creative advertising sector, and according to the Performing Rights Society for Music, the music licensing organisation, nearly a third of last year’s top 100 albums were by women artists or groups fronted by women.

However, one sector that has traditionally been heavily male-dominated is manufacturing and engineering. It is a sector that is very dear to my heart, as Jaguar Land Rover’s two factories are very important to constituents in both Solihull and Meriden. There is no doubt that the current manufacturing renaissance is a fantastic opportunity for more women to enter the manufacturing sector. However, the growth in manufacturing has provoked a skills shortage, which could be addressed—at least in part—by encouraging more women into manufacturing and engineering jobs.

Jaguar Land Rover, our local employer, is certainly seizing the opportunity by running a programme called “Young Women in the Know” for year 10 and 11 students, to encourage more women to consider careers in manufacturing and engineering. It is a week-long programme that enables young women to find out more about the sector. Students visit JLR’s manufacturing, design and engineering sites; they meet female apprentices, graduates and managers; and they participate in work placements. Information is also provided in all our local schools about the apprentice and graduate schemes run by JLR, and there are also workshops for job applicants and work on interview techniques, to help female applicants to understand what is required in an interview situation and to give them the confidence to go for it. By the end of 2013, 200 young women had participated in the courses, which had increased interest in engineering and design careers at JLR by 35%.

There is a parallel “Girls in the Know” programme for girls in years 5 and 6—the top of primary school. That is very important. When we had a cross-party round table of all the MPs in this House whose constituencies are affected in some way by the JLR supply chain, one of the important points that emerged is that girls are put off at an early age from thinking of going to work in the automotive industry, in manufacturing generally and in engineering specifically, despite the fact that the key qualifying subject for engineering is maths. These days, engineering is not all about heft; it is actually about being a really good mathematician.

[Mike Freer (Finchley and Golders Green) (Con)]

On that point, my partner is a maths teacher and one of the things that he struggles with is getting girls to study A-level maths, because they do not see the roles in maths as being particularly relevant to them. One thing that he has been doing is taking A-level girls to see, for example, British Airways engineering, so that they can see some of the more practical applications of maths, to make maths A-levels—and the jobs—attractive to them. Should not the Department for Education be doing more to encourage that type of activity?

[Mrs Spelman]

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend that maths is an A-level that is prized by all employers, and both men and women who are good at maths have good career prospects; there is no difference between men and women in that respect.

There was a lively event on Monday in the House of Commons, where MPs were invited to come and mentor, for 15 minutes at a time, groups of secondary school students who had come in from different London boroughs. It was interesting that, even then, I picked up among these school students that the girls did not fully appreciate the passport that is a maths A-level. I would say to them, “If you’re good at it, go for it!”

Alongside these gender disparities across economic sectors, there are, of course, income differences, which are a consequence of occupational differences in income. Men are far more likely to be in professional occupations associated with higher pay, for example software development, while more women are found in lower- paid professional occupations, including those in the caring professions. According to the 2012 annual survey of hours and earnings, programmers and software development professionals earned on average more than £20 per hour—£20.02, to be precise—excluding overtime. By comparison, nurses earned on average £16.61 per hour, according to the survey. We might reflect on that kind of disparity. The ONS report from September 2013 showed that men make up the majority of workers in the top 10% of earners among all employees.

[Mark Garnier (Wyre Forest) (Con)]

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on securing this debate. Does she share my concern about industries such as banking? Big high street banks are making great claims that they are introducing a tremendous amount of gender equality, yet below the figures there is a tremendous amount of gender imbalance; it tends to be women who have the lower-paid jobs in the banks and men who have the more senior and higher-paid jobs. That is despite the fact that there is an advantage in having women in certain areas, such as dealing rooms, where they can “de-testosterone” and therefore de-risk some of these organisations.

[Mrs Spelman]

Testosterone is far too racy a subject to start talking about mid-afternoon on a Thursday. Actually, my hon. Friend makes a good point. I applaud moves such as the one by the chief executive of Barclays, who is introducing quotas for women within his company, so that women get a really good opportunity to be represented in the higher-paid echelons of the banking business. I wish that we saw more of that.

[Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)]

I apologise in advance for having to depart; I hope to come back later, but I am on a Public Bill Committee and I think that my turn to speak will come quite shortly. One thing that various investigations of professional groups—even, for example, people teaching in universities—show is that at younger ages men and women are often quite equally paid; they seem to be on the same sort of earnings levels. However, there is a disparity later, which is closely related to family responsibilities.

[Mrs Spelman]

Absolutely. The hon. Lady makes a good point and she shows perfect timing. I have a lot of material for today’s debate, and I may not use it all, but I want to come on to the issue of the costs of child care, because it is a significant factor and it affects women’s earning potential. If they have to take a career break, it eventually has a negative impact on their earnings during their career.

The ONS report from last year showed that the age of children and the relationship status of the mother are important factors in determining the likelihood of mothers being able to go to work. Only 39% of single mothers whose youngest child is aged three or below are in work, compared with a figure of 65% for those mothers who are in a couple. That situation changes later on, with 61% of single mothers who have a youngest child of primary school age in work, because it becomes possible for the lone parent to get back into the workplace.

The cost of child care is a real challenge. There was a report only this week that showed that child care costs more than the average mortgage, which should concern us all. However, the Government have taken significant steps to try to help women with the cost of child care: introducing shared parental leave from April 2015; funding 15 hours a week of free child care for all three and four-year-olds, which will save families approximately £380 a year per child; funding 15 hours a week of free child care for disadvantaged two-year-olds, which will save the most disadvantaged families more than £2,400 a year per child; introducing tax-free child care for lone parents in work, and for families with two working parents who each earn less than £150,000; and increasing child tax credit to £3,625 a year. These are all steps in the right direction, but for a lot of women, the cost of child care remains a significant deterrent to being active in the economy.

[Paul Uppal (Wolverhampton South West) (Con)]

I am being pre-emptive in thanking my right hon. Friend for securing this debate. I should like to mention something that is not often highlighted in political circles, or generally in business circles. I used to work from home and was a stay-at-home dad, raising my two teenage children. There has been a slight role reversal. My wife is a lawyer, as my right hon. Friend is aware. We are now bringing up our third child. The role of men, and being a proper father, is crucial. Sometimes, not just politicians, but men in business and of all backgrounds need to talk about their contribution to the family.

[Mrs Spelman]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. He has been a role model to his children, who will remember the time that he spent at home with them.

[Paul Uppal]

I am not sure about that!

[Mrs Spelman]

I am optimistic that that will be so. It may take a long time before the kids say, “Thank you very much, dad,” but when they are raising their own children, it might just occur to them.

Capitalising on the contribution that women can make to the economy is vital for our economic recovery. Women’s contributions are already significant, but there is potential for much more. We need to take steps actively to encourage this, taking the global picture into account, and learning from the example of both international and domestic companies and charities that are leading the way, such as Coca-Cola, JLR, Tearfund, Oxfam and others. We need women to be actively involved in the economy for this country to achieve its full potential. The female economy is the key to a sustainable future.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Coffey]

It is an interesting idea. The hon. Lady will probably realise that I am not into legislating for every outcome, although I recognise that that might be her approach. However, the idea could be established as good practice. As we know, companies recognise that they miss out on talent when they do not provide those kinds of initiatives. If the businesses that are, dare I say it, more forward-thinking have not heard that idea before, I am sure it will ring out from the Chamber today. I am also sure that it will be mentioned to Mars when she next visits that company. It is a good idea.

In compiling our report, we looked at child care policy. I do not have children, so I do not pretend to have the same experience as others, but when I was working in the private sector I managed a team of 24 people at one stage. I think I am right in saying that 16 of those were women working part time and balancing other responsibilities. I often found that people who worked part time were the most diligent employees, partly because they valued the fact that they had a reasonably well-paid job that was part time and partly because they were very organised. I will not pretend that we came to a unanimous view on child care, but we encouraged the Government to bring forward the tax-free child care policy. The Budget is on 19 March. I will be astonished if the policy makes an early entry, but nevertheless we can say with confidence that next year we will have a new policy that will be very welcome indeed.

As for other aspects of our report, we wanted to extend the work of Lord Davies to include public sector and professional services. I thank my noble friend Viscount Younger—my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth and I were fortunate to go to present some recommendations from our report to the Professional Business Services Council, and I am conscious that Viscount Younger is keen to do something about this issue with the professional services.

More young women than young men are currently entering the legal profession—I think that these data are widely known publicly—but at the moment a man is nine times more likely to become a partner than a woman. I am sure that that will change naturally anyway—I would not expect people who have joined a law firm in the past few years to be partners by now, as that takes time—but I would like to raise the consciousness of the professional services on that, as something needs to be done. In accountancy firms it is about three times more likely at the moment that a man will become a partner than a woman. There is work to be done there.

Lord Davies has also focused significantly on non-executive directors. I know that the Government are looking at what more they can do on that issue. Although I am confident that we will reach the 25% target for board directors by next year, we need to continue working on the percentage of executives.

Another key aspect that we asked the Government to focus on was improving careers advice for girls, particularly in science, technology, engineering and mathematics, or STEM. I was pleased to see that 40% of STEM ambassadors are women. I note the comments of my right hon. Friend the Member for Meriden about maths being a key enabling subject for engineering. Interestingly, I have had quite a debate with the Minister for Universities and Science, my right hon. Friend the Member for Havant (Mr Willetts), on that matter. I am astonished that people can get on to engineering degrees without A-level physics. But my discussion with him on the issue was enlightening, and I recognise that quite a lot of young women who do triple science A-level tend to take biology, chemistry and maths, and do not focus on physics.

Last week we saw the Chancellor of Germany, Angela Merkel, during her visit here. She has a PhD in physics. She is an experienced politician and a clever lady, who did the hard sciences, as Mr Speaker pointed out. I recognise there is an issue with women taking physics, but I believe that people who can achieve grade A at maths, chemistry and biology are probably just as capable of achieving at physics. If there is some way in which we can do a physics catch-up course to get more women into engineering who might not have been successful at getting on to their first choice degree course, that will be welcome. After my initial reservations, I encouraged my right hon. Friend the Minister for Universities and Sciences to progress those kinds of schemes.

[Mrs Spelman]

My hon. Friend might find it interesting to learn that a lot of university engineering courses require maths and further maths. That combination is putting off quite a lot of aspirant engineers. They might well have physics but perhaps do not have the double maths A-level. It is important to put that on the record.

[Dr Coffey]

I thank my right hon. Friend for making that point—I was not aware of that. I could spend another 20 minutes talking about what has happened to A-levels. Sadly, almost all worthy undergraduate degrees in science and engineering have stretched to four years now, partly because the curriculum covered at A-level is not as broad as it used to be. I am not saying, by the way, that that is necessarily a bad thing, but so far those four-year courses are how universities seem to have reacted to the fact that now such breadth of knowledge is not covered by the time people are 18.

I acknowledge what my right hon. Friend has said and I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will pass on to my right hon. Friend the Minister for Universities and Sciences those thoughts on that barrier to becoming an engineer. Unless it is specifically connected to a curriculum issue, it seems a bit arbitrary.

I have skipped forward in my speech somewhat. I appreciate I have been talking for some time, Mr Robertson, but I would like to cover a few more issues. When I have discussed some of them in the past, I have been accused of being a bit nutty and thinking people are sexist. One thing we talk about in the report is implementing training about unconscious bias. That is simply a way of challenging people about their instinctive bias. We all have it, by the way: nobody can say that they are not biased at all. Training on unconscious bias is a sense check for people, so that when they are recruiting or promoting, or are discussing talent, they are not simply looking for people who are like themselves. It stops the mini-me syndrome that is evident.

[Mrs Spelman]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Dr Coffey]

I will in one moment. One of the most interesting witnesses we talked to was from British Aerospace. That company has taken unconscious bias training to quite a new level. All managers are trained in it. When it has talent reviews, it makes sure that women are represented. Indeed, with recruitment and promotion it ensures that there is at least one woman on the panel of interviewers and one on the panel of interviewees. British Aerospace has seen a significant change in its recruitment and promotion and believes that its business is better as a consequence. I pay tribute to British Aerospace for that approach.

[Mrs Spelman]

My hon. Friend is being generous in taking a further intervention. Does she agree that we ought to lead by example? Parliamentarians should have unconscious bias training, and perhaps a good time to do that is during the induction programme for new MPs. In particular, new male MPs who come from a male-dominated profession would benefit hugely from unconscious bias training.

[Dr Coffey]

I welcome my right hon. Friend’s thinking on that point. She should make that suggestion in writing to Mr Speaker and the Clerk of the House of Commons; it is a good idea.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs Hodgson]

My hon. Friend makes a very good point.

[Mrs Spelman]

rose—

[Mrs Hodgson]

I think I am just about to be intervened on by somebody who might have the answer.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs Spelman]

Just for the record, the Government achieved a 50:50 ratio of men and women in the role of permanent secretary when a female permanent secretary was appointed to my Department in 2012. Much more interesting questions are why there is such an attrition rate among those women in senior positions, and why there might have been a falling away.

[Mrs Hodgson]

I am not sure that that answers the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart), but perhaps the Minister will glean the answer before her winding-up contribution.

This point is important, because if the Government expect to inspire and/or cajole top businesses to meet the 25% target for women on boards, which is a very welcome target and we certainly should expect them to meet it, they have to show much stronger leadership on the issue. I look forward to hearing from the Minister how she will ensure that that happens.

Coming back to the PricewaterhouseCoopers report, one of the most telling graphs was on the proportion of women in full-time employment; the UK came last but two. That echoes the findings of the recent Institute for Public Policy Research report, “Childmind the gap”. In more than two thirds of the countries it surveyed, fewer than 30% of mothers worked part time—that is, for less than 30 hours. In the UK, it is more than 60%, so that is more than double the proportion of mothers working part time in this country than in the vast majority of others surveyed. We know that women are working part time either because they cannot find full-time jobs, or because they cannot afford or are unable to organise the child care, especially if they work unsociable or atypical hours. The Department for Work and Pensions’ own survey found that 43% of parents who have kids aged three to four and would like to work, or to work longer hours, cite affordability of child care as a barrier to doing so.

That is unsurprising, given that parents are being hit by what I call a triple whammy. First, child care costs are increasing way ahead of wages; according to the Family and Childcare Trust report a couple of days ago, costs for nursery care have risen by 27% since 2009 and continue to rise higher than inflation. They are now the largest family outgoing, outstripping even the average family mortgage. The right hon. Member for Meriden mentioned that, too. The second part of the triple whammy is that places are being lost; we have 1,500 fewer childminders and 900 fewer nurseries since the election, and the same report from the Family and Childcare Trust found that nearly half of local authorities—49%—do not have enough places for working parents. To round it off, the third element is that support for those on low and middle incomes through tax credits has been cut.

That is creating not only a cost of living crisis, but a cost of working crisis, which is bad for business and bad for the Treasury. The IPPR’s study suggests that a 10 percentage point increase in maternal employment rates to bring the UK more in line with our more successful European neighbours would bring a net benefit to the public purse of £1.45 billion a year. It also estimates that increasing the rate of full-time work among those mothers who already work part time by just three percentage points would generate a net benefit of £450 million a year. The study goes on to estimate that by equalising the labour force participation rates of men and women, the UK could increase its GDP per capita by 0.5% a year, with potential gains of 10% by 2030.

Because we on the Labour side of the House want to achieve those fiscal and economic gains under a future Labour Government, every working family will receive 25 hours of free, high-quality child care for their three and four-year-olds for 38 weeks a year—an increase of 10 hours a week on the current offer. That is help worth £1,500 a year per child per working family, paid for from a levy on the banks. As convenience is the key concern for parents of school-age children, our proposed primary child care guarantee will ensure that they will be able to access breakfast and after-school clubs through their school between the hours of 8 am and 6 pm.

Of course, the other side of making work pay is decent incomes for women and, certainly, parity with male colleagues in comparable jobs. In December, official figures revealed that the gender pay gap increased in 2012-13 for the first time in five years to an average of 10%. We heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Slough that for older women the figure is actually 18%. Under Labour, the gender pay gap fell by 7.7%, and it is deeply disappointing to see those gains going into reverse. Concerted effort is clearly needed to put us back on a positive course, but perhaps the most significant issue is that women are often clustered in low-wage jobs, as well as being far more likely to have poor conditions and even zero-hours contracts.

One in four women earns less than the living wage, meaning that even if she is in work and works as many hours as she can, she will still struggle to make ends meet. That cannot be right. Labour wants to make work pay for women by allowing firms to claim back one third of the cost of raising their staff’s wages to the level of the living wage, which is currently £8.80 in London. We will also strengthen the minimum wage and tackle the abuse of zero-hours contracts and agency workers, which again are a feature of the sectors in which women are over-represented.

Clearly, there is also an issue about aspirations among young women. We heard about that from a number of hon. Members. I do not think that aspirations are a problem for the young women shadowing us today, but I do know that far too many girls are still channelled down the “hair or care” path in school and further education, whereas their male counterparts will be pushed towards apprenticeships and other vocational qualifications with higher earning potential. The Government, to their credit, have recently been making a lot of positive noises on that, and particularly on the issue of driving up participation in STEM subjects—science, technology, engineering and maths—in further and higher education.

I echo comments made by a few hon. Members about maths and science subjects. I am pleased to announce that my daughter is studying for her final exams in her maths A-level, which she will take later this year, but she is one of only a handful of girls in her A-level class. On average, girls make up only about 25% of maths A-level classes across the country. That must change because, as the right hon. Member for Meriden said, maths is one of the most valuable A-levels to obtain.

The one thing that the Government could do much better is the provision of high-quality careers advice. We have these conversations with young girls, but particularly important is individual face-to-face advice, which can inspire girls to aim higher, telling them how to get to where they want to be and giving them ideas, rather than reinforcing the old stereotypes and a learned lack of aspiration, which still holds back far too many of our young people.

Of course, employers have their part to play in all this. Yes, we need women in leadership roles, but also right along the pipeline. I know that there are many great employers in the UK. At the end of January, I met representatives of a dozen or so, who were telling me about some of the great packages of support that they make available for working mums, particularly while they are on maternity leave and when they come back to work. The one that I will name today is Ford Motor Company. Ford employs more than 11,000 people in this country and it not only gives its female employees a year’s maternity leave on full pay—I imagine that applications will flood in now—but offers them parenting support and classes, as well as an on-site nursery and emergency child care for when things go wrong—for when the child is ill and cannot come into the nursery. It also has facilities for new mums to breastfeed and express milk at work. Why does Ford do that? Yes, it does it because there is value in being seen as a family-friendly company, but primarily—I asked the company—it does it because it knows that having women in positions of influence over its products and marketing gives it a competitive advantage over its rivals, because women control most of the major purchases in most households. Buying a car is a decision that most women have a big say in. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!] And rightly so.

We can see from that example why all those studies have shown that businesses with more women in positions of power outperform their less diverse counterparts. If 50% or more of a firm’s consumers are women, it makes sense to have people at the top of the organisation who know what women want—that is, women. If I may be just a little critical, perhaps that is why the coalition parties are faring so badly among female voters at the moment; there are not enough women in the top positions.

However, despite the clear common-sense case for promoting women in business, there are clearly still some bosses from the Nigel Farage school of equality. According to Maternity Action, 60,000 women are forced out of their jobs a year because they have the gall to become pregnant. To make matters worse, the Government are now forcing those women who have the energy and time, while pregnant or coping with a new baby, to take their employer to a tribunal to pay £1,200 to do so. The Minister probably believes that we are scaremongering when we talk about those fees, but we do feel that they will often put off quite vulnerable women from holding their employer to account. I do not think that those women see it that way; they do not think that we are scaremongering.

The Equality and Human Rights Commission is looking into pregnancy discrimination; that is very good. The Government have funded a report, and I sincerely hope that the Minister is pressing for the time scale for the report to be as short as possible, so that she will have the opportunity to act on its recommendations before the general election in 2015. None of us wants to take a punitive approach to equality, but given that we know how much better companies perform when women are not forced out, there is clearly as much of an economic imperative to stamp out discrimination as there is a moral one.

Of course, a successful economy needs to embrace the creative and entrepreneurial flair of its citizens in setting up their own businesses and creating new jobs and wealth. Unfortunately, as we know, fewer than one in five SMEs are wholly or majority-owned by women, which hints at specific barriers to women striking out on their own. The hon. Member for Solihull (Lorely Burt), who is no longer in her place, has done a huge amount of work in this area and chairs the all-party group on women and enterprise, which I have recently joined. However, the silver living to that statistic is that it hints at a huge untapped pool of talent and creativity that could be put to good use. That is one reason why Labour has said that, instead of the Government’s corporation tax cut for the largest firms, we will help more people to start their own business by cutting business rates in 2015 and freezing them again in 2016 for small businesses.

The economy may well be back in growth after a period of sustained malaise, but that does not lessen the importance of doing everything that we can to enable women to contribute. The twin ends of greater equality and a more productive economy are not mutually exclusive; they are intrinsically linked. Greater female participation, better pay and conditions, greater progression and greater representation of women in senior and board-level positions are not ends in themselves. They are the means by which the UK can remain at the top table of world economies over the next 20 years, or achieve a respectable position in the Prime Minister’s “global race”. I admit that the Government are doing some things, and Opposition Members warmly welcome them, but this debate has been a timely reminder that until we are making real progress on all the measures necessary, we can and must do more.

Women are ready to play their part; in fact, they have always been ready. It is the responsibility of all of us, on whatever side of the House we sit, to remove any barriers in their way. We must not pull the ladder up behind us, which I am sure none of us in this Chamber would do, but ensure that we lower it and give a helping hand up to even more women, to enable them to follow us and successful women in all sectors and, ultimately, to achieve their full potential.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs Spelman]

Thank you for allowing me to wind up the debate, Mr Sheridan. It gives me the opportunity to put on the record the fact that we have been joined by the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, my right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Maria Miller), which is a very good effort on her part and evidence of how important the Government consider the debate.

We have also been joined by the Chief Whip, my right hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire (Sir George Young). I would like to thank him for coming and encourage him to look, in the report of the debate, at the section in which we discussed progress within the House of Commons, particularly regarding unconscious bias training. There is no room for complacency, as terms and conditions for women in Parliament are not easy, with our long-hours culture and lack of maternity leave—certainly no adjustment leave, as was described. There is a good opportunity for the Chief Whip and his Opposition counterpart, the right hon. Member for Doncaster Central (Ms Winterton), to take that forward.

I would like to thank all Members for making the effort to take part in the debate. I thank the hon. Gentlemen who attended and made interventions for their support. If I may set the record straight, a detailed Library brief was indeed provided for the debate, and it was authored by two men, Feargal McGuinness and Chris Rhodes, who deserve thanks for the detailed statistics that they made available to Members. I commend that brief to other Members present.

Finally, I would like to say how much we have enjoyed the presence of many young women who have come today as part of the programme organised by my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Mary Macleod), with the encouragement of the Secretary of State. They have been allowed on this special day to see the workings of this Parliament. Shortly they will receive hospitality from Mr Speaker, and later from the Prime Minister at No. 10. We hope that they will go away as inspired as the Mars employee who went on to become the first female astronaut, as we heard today. On this special day, we celebrate her achievement, and the achievement of all women around the globe.

Question put and agreed to.