Tag Archives: harriet harman

Women and the recession

Posted on by

Well – the debate in Parliament yesterday on support for women during the economic downturn went pretty much as you might expect. We all (cross party) made contributions highlighting the differential impact the recession will have on women (and it will) whilst being very careful to acknowledge the pain that will hit everyone.

From domestic violence, to bailiffs, child care, discrimination in not giving jobs to women in case they get pregnant and paying them off cheaply if they do, lack of women decision makers, the hit on the service sector and the lack of financial resilience of women – who have often not been able to put anything aside etc etc. Women’s vulnerability to the recession was very, very clear.

The problem is that when the opportunity arises to actually change the rules (i.e. the Equalities Bill – which Harriet Harman had said would be with us in April but in this debate said in a few months – what was that about?) the opportunity is not being taken.

Outside of the Prince of Darkness signaling to the media that anything that costs money to business should be scrapped – the Govenrment is being very faint-hearted in putting in the measures that would expose those companies that do discriminate.

One point I raised was about how keen some councils are to bring in the bailiffs – and less keen to talk about rescheduling debt:

It is heartbreaking and terrifying that the debt is transferred to the bailiffs so quickly, because they are relentless, and impose extra charges that deepen the debt. Would the hon. Lady agree that the local authority—in my case, Haringey—should be far more willing to sit down with the person in debt to reschedule it? People are willing to pay off such debt over time and should not be forced to deal with bailiffs immediately because the council does not have time for people in trouble.

You can read my speech itself (this was an intervention earlier in the debate) here.

Women and the recession

Posted on by

Yesterday Harriet Harman invited me and women from all over the country in key positions to 11 Downing Street for a session on ‘Women and the Recession’. My table, led by Tessa Jowell, were just fantastic – and we examined and tested and trailed ideas on what and how to help women as the recession bears down on their lives. So many good and wise voices contributing to the body of knowledge on what might be the differential impact on women; what support and information might they need and where and what the future would look like.

Tomorrow to mark International Women’s Day we have a debate on women and the recession in the House – and I will lead for the Lib Dems.

Problem is – that all the need, angst and wringing of hands which Harriet wants to be heard by the G20 (and full marks to her for that) will be as nothing if all the measures in the Equalities Bill are watered down as I fear they may be. Battle will commence in April finally – when I hope and hear that the Bill for which there has been no White Paper or Green Paper and is shrouded in secrecy (except from the media) will come forth.

Cambridge University pay continued…

Posted on by

I see the news of the Cambridge University unequal pay issue also reached the student press.

My efforts on this issue have reached Cambridge’s ears and the Director of External Affairs is seeking a meeting with me. So full marks to him for a quick approach. We will meet in a week or so. I have no doubt there are rafts of ‘reasons’ as to why there is a gender pay gap (and Cambridge is not alone in this regard). The even more depressing aspect though, is Cambridge’s response to the figures – which is basically that women are on the lower paid rungs of the greasy pole – as if that was OK!

Anyway – point is – I am not an investigator – which is why I have asked the Equalities Commission to investigate the situation. That, after all, is their job!

Over on the Spectator, Martin Bright, in his blog calls me redoubtable (love it) for unearthing this report – but ‘unearthing’ is not really how it happened. The report, as I understand it, was completed last year but only saw light of day on 18th February when the Council at Cambridge discussed its findings. Whether it was sat on until then or simply that is the way things are done at Cambridge – I have no idea. What I will say for Cambridge however, at least they have produced a document voluntarily which does look at the pay – which is more than can be said for many.

One of the underlying issues equally damaging to sorting out pay issues is the habit of gagging staff. Gagging clauses have themselves been severely criticised within the university – see the debate on the web here, especially in the speech of Dr Cowley (near the end). This is the most relevant bit:

To finish I would like to make a suggestion. While the white paper makes a great deal of academic freedom, it’s not clear that the HR Division itself is really in favour of freedom of speech. As part of my concerns over the white paper I have tried to talk to members of staff, here and elsewhere, who have been dismissed, or ‘persuaded’ to take severance or early retirement. I have found it difficult to find out what happened because of gagging clauses. In a University that believes in freedom of speech they are an affront. Even the HEFCE does not seem too keen on them, at least in the case of Senior Staff earning more than £70,000.

Institutions must not agree to confidentiality clauses within any severance agreements except where it is necessary to protect commercially sensitive information. Commercially sensitive information does not include information on the details of the severance package itself, nor generalised clauses whereby individuals undertake not to make statements that might damage the reputation of an institution. However, there may be exceptional cases not covered by commercial considerations, where it is in the public interest to include a confidentiality clause. In these circumstances the institution must consult with me as HEFCE chief executive, in my capacity as Accounting Officer, before agreeing to such a clause.

The University should have similar restrictions on confidentiality clauses, but for all staff.

Anyway – as I said – will see what the Director of External Affairs says when we meet. And then I should hear back from the Equalities Commission as to their take on this. They are already investigating the financial sector – so don’t see why they shouldn’t put our Ivy League universities on their list too.

However, when the Equalities Bill hits the Commons (predicted April-ish) the nation will find that the Government is still clinging to a voluntary code for pay audits. That will so not work. Pay audits must be mandatory. Whilst Cambridge has at least produced this document voluntarily, on the whole we have seen how well voluntary codes usually work – for example in the banking sector – not! Whenever I tackle Harriet Harman on this issue – she says basically if companies don’t improve in five years then the Government will look again at making pay audits mandatory. Always jam tomorrow for us girls – 30 years since the Equal Pay Act and we are still waiting – and it is an inequality that is totally unacceptable and compounds with many other inequalities that women still face.

I fear that much in the Bill is going to be watered down anyway. There were lots of ominous bits and pieces in the papers last week saying that any policy elements that cost will have to go! Denied of course by She Who Would be Prime Minister!

Will Harriet Harman or Peter Mandelson triumph?

Posted on by

Well – if Peter Mandelson says he wants a clampdown on any expansion of flexi-time or family friendly policies – then it makes the warning I gave on Thursday night very timely!

I warned that the recession would see business hawks targeting the very good laws that already exist and the few beneficial ones to come from the Single Equalities Bill (due in this Parliamentary session) in the name of helping the economy. But actually – giving your staff good conditions is what helps you get the very best staff – and in tough times that’s exactly what firms need! Not to mention families too needing flexible time most when times are tough and people are under pressure.

So it will be war in the cabinet as the business hawks try and strip away equality in the name of business. And in this melee – guess which side the Tories will be on.

Let’s see what Ms Harman is made of as she wades into battle with the business hawks. She clearly lost the battle to have mandatory pay audits – retreating to very weak voluntary audits. Let’s see what she manages this time…

Debating equalities

Posted on by

Have to run off slightly early from Haringey’s Youth Question Time at the Civic Centre to make it for a three-way panel – Harriet Harman, Theresa May and myself, who were invited by WIPP (Women in Public Policy) to debate the new Equalities Bill. Not that we’ve seen it yet – as the Government hasn’t published it yet. Harriet didn’t come – substitute was Emily Thornberry with whom I often appera Westminster Hour.

It was a relatively small group of women who came to the debate in my old stomping ground of London’s City Hall – but a very important and influential one for all that. Very much enjoyed talking afterwards to a woman (who turned out to be a constituent) who is CEO at the Stephen Lawrence Trust and others.

A typical Tuesday

Posted on by

Off in the morning to the Vodafone shop in Muswell Hill Broadway to join Muswell Hill Mothers Against Masts. Vodafone had gone ahead and turned on their controversial new mobile phone mast. Now – the mothers continue to protest and I support them. We need legislation which will give local authorities the power to reject applications on the ‘precautionary principle’, such as where such applications are sited near vulnerable members of society.

We do (nearly!) all use mobiles – but precaution near the most vulnerable seems a good compromise to me.

The surveyors working with Vodafone have contacted me since the meeting to say that they believe there is less danger near to masts. I will meet them. I think their argument is going to be that a mobile phone (which is much closer than a mast to an individual and so the impact of its signal on the individual is much stronger) will emit less when it is near a mast – so conversely (and counter-intuitively) the user will get less exposure if they live near a mast as the mobile phone in their hand will be emitting less – because it is nearer a mast and so having to work less hard. But of course mobile phone users have choice about whether or not to have them, switching them off etc. Someone who has a mast put in near where they live doesn’t have that choice.

Then off to Haringey Council for a briefing about school places. This was one of the main local issues I talked about in my maiden speech.

Pressure from parents who have not been able to get their children into any of the top three preferences has worked to a degree. Expansion is now taking place in the Muswell Hill and Crouch End areas – and thank goodness there was an election coming up to focus the efforts and kick the Labour-run council out of its past complacency on the issue. Without the political pressure that forces action when lost votes are looming on the horizon, it may very well not have happened.

Then a summer garden party at Kekewick House. All care homes should be like this. The garden is gorgeous – and we are celebrating the new summerhouse, which is gorgeous too and will allow residents to sit in the garden all year round protected from the weather. Tea and scones go round – and it truly is an idyll for elderly care.

Round off the day with a meeting with Harriet Harman to discuss constitutional affairs – for which she is the Minister. I believe we should be doing more to safeguard postal voting against possible fraud. During the election many people were actually scared to vote by post because of the reported level of abuse. As to the Government’s long promised ‘review’ of electoral reform – I get the feeling they want to kick it into the long grass in real terms. If there was fair voting for Westminster elections – 36% of the vote would not give them the sort of power ‘first past the post’ has just delivered. Christmas and turkeys I’m afraid.

Later am hanging around waiting for vote on the Lottery Bill second reading – when the debate fizzles out and there is no vote that night so can go home around 8.30pm – early night!

Doing Question Time

Posted on by

Off to Leeds for Question Time on Thursday, catching the 4.35pm train from Kings X. Spot Harriet Harman and assistant in queue for train and introduce myself briefly – then revert to place in queue.

On the journey have to read all the papers and need to make some notes on key issues that might come up. They give you no idea whatsoever as to the questions.

Arrive in Leeds and all five guests are gathered together and put in a people mover to the TV studios. Banter between Borris (Johnson) and Andrew (Rawnsley); boys’ stuff – who knows more about the leadership contests etc.

Up to the Green Room where banter has disappeared and everyone is shifting nervously about. Some students who have won a competition to produce a Question Time later in the year are wheeled in to meet us – but I honestly too nervous to really talk properly with them.

And suddenly – we’re off. Down to the studio where David Dimbleby is talking to the audience and we are introduced one by one. One warm up question is put (that isn’t broadcast). It is on George Galloway and the oil vouchers. I am surprised that it is used for the warm up – but given the answers, perhaps the possibility of libel meant it was better not used for real!

The Question Time music comes up – and first up is the election results. It seems an age before David comes to me – and I manage to get out a voting reform plea. Second question on ‘hoodies’. Now I know all about hoodies as my teenage daughter a) wears them b) informs me that kids in hoods are nothing compared with the ‘Rude Boys’ (different dress code).

I write down ‘dress code’ and Boris (who I am sitting next to) peers at what I have written – probably a skill learned in school exams when he didn’t know the answer! I give my view – which essentially boils down to any establishment having the right to have a dress code but that the real issue is about how people behave not how they dress. And if their behaviour is a problem – then it needs addressing properly with due attention from teachers, parents, social services etc.

Harriet, for reasons I don’t understand, launches into New Labour speak on ‘yobs’ – but went over the top. I think she was overly defensive – but it can’t be easy being a Labour Minister and – as she had said to me earlier – last time she was on she had made a dreadful faux pas (which I had watched and thought funny) by accidentally referring to ‘Prime Minister Brown’. Funny for us watching – but probably not funny if it’s you saying it.

And so the program went on. When someone suggested Boris as the new Tory leader – Boris did his charming, ruffled, bumbling persona stuff – and he is sooooooo funny and the audience do just love him. I was glad he was there as it relaxed me and just made me laugh too.

And then it was over. I lived!

Afterwards in the Green Room there was a buffet supper and as the program is taped as live about an hour and a half before – it is played on the TV screens as it goes out, but I don’t watch it.

Chatting afterwards – it is clear that I have not stuffed up! That was my horror and my dread – to cock-up Question Time as the new LibDem MP on the first one after the election would have been mortifying.

A car takes myself and the Tory writer Jo-Anne Nadler back to London. Lots of text messages which were really great to get – and lots of phone calls. Home by 2.30am and straight to bed.