|
"Bouquet for Ann" Hansard - Oct 24th 2001 Column 353 Miss Ann Widdecombe (Maidstone and
The Weald): As ever, it is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member
for Lewisham, Deptford (Joan Ruddock), who has spoken with much feeling and
made a significant contribution to the debate. She will not be surprised to
hear that I do not entirely agree with her. I have
always advocated greater numbers of women in Parliament. I have always wanted
to see more women succeeding, not only in getting into this House but in
holding positions of responsibility. I earnestly look forward to the day when
we have a second woman Prime Minister. Virginia Bottomley: A Tory. Miss Widdecombe: Quite right. The
Bill is fundamentally wrong. I must ask this question; are all the men in
this place sound asleep? Do they realise what the Bill means for them? Have
they thought that positive discrimination for women can entail negative
discrimination for men? I am often quite sorry for men. There are lots of
injustices with which they have to put up. For example, they do not live as
long as we do, but they have to work longer in order to get a pension. That
will not be put right for some time. Some 50 per cent. of young men getting married today will not be able
to see their children through to maturity in the same household. Whereas in the past women have had it
very hard, there are now a few injustices for men. This Bill will create one
more. The
Bill says that it will be permitted, that one could have - apparently we
should be grateful that we are not being coerced into it - out of all the
methods that could be chosen, an all-women shortlist. What
would that mean for a man in that constituency who had given to his local
council the same life-long service that the hon. Member for Sheffield,
Hillsborough (Helen Jackson) gave to hers, and who had lived in the
constituency all his life? Let us say that the man had worked there and
escaped from there, and that he wanted to apply for the seat when it fell
vacant. He would not be able to represent the constituency if all-women short
lists were in operation. That
would be the reality for men under this pernicious Bill, yet hon. Gentlemen
welcome it as a great step forward. It is a massive step towards inequality for men, and the
poor souls just let the women walk all over them. They do not appear to care
what will happen to them. Mrs. Fitzsimons: Does the right hon. Lady accept that some of the
hon. Gentlemen may be intelligent enough to realise that that has been the
experience of women over the 700 years for which our alleged parliamentary
democracy has existed? Miss Widdecombe: Women have been able to apply for seats anywhere in
the country, but the Bill would mean that no man could apply for some seats,
no matter how strong his claim to consideration. Dr. Evan Harris (Oxford, West and Abingdon): Will the right hon. Lady give way? Miss Widdecombe: Yes, I shall be equal and give way to a man this
time. Dr. Evan Harris: I am grateful in many ways to the right hon. Lady,
and take her admonitions to heart. However, does she accept that the
justification for affrmative action and positive discrimination is that it
would remedy the effects of the negative discrimination that exists in the
selection process? Is she prepared to condemn the special discriminatory
treatment meted out by some parties to some women when they tell those women
that they should not put themselves forward--and that they will not be
selected--unless they have sorted out their child care responsibilities? Such
questions are not to men with children who apply for selection. Miss Widdecombe: I can tell the hon. Gentleman that when I entered a
constituency selection committee and saw that most of the people there were
women, my heart used to sink. We should not get the idea that discrimination
against women is performed solely by men. It is not. I do not believe that
the Bill will do little more than deny some deserving men their basic human
rights. The
hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Glenda Jackson) said that there was a
bet about when the word "patronising" would first be used. It is
now 8.3 pm, and the time has come. If I
had been in a selection committee anteroom with two men who had got there by
beating off all the competition yet I was only there because a place had been
reserved for a woman on the shortlist, I would not feel helped. I would feel
humiliated, insulted and patronised. I am glad to say that my party never did
that to me. I do
not believe that the proposal behind the Bill is what was intended by the
equal opportunities legislation of the mid-1970s. I remember that
legislation, because I belonged to that minority in my party that believed it
was necessary. However, feminists in the 70s said, "Give us equality of
opportunity and we will show you that we are as good as, if not better, than
most of the men." Now, a quarter of a century later, we whinge and whine
and demand special treatment because we cannot make it otherwise. If that
is not an insult to women, I do not know what is. Positive discrimination is
always negative discrimination against someone. I want every woman in this
House to be able to look every man, from the Prime Minister down - or up - in
the eye and know that she got here on exactly the same basis as he did. She
must know that she has defeated all the competition, and that her path was
not artificially smoothed by the removal of inconvenient male competition. That is
the sort of Parliament that I want, and an example of the sort of women's
rights for which I have always stood. I firmly believe that the Bill would
create two groups of women in the House. One group would be here on the same
basis as everyone else, but the other group would be patronised, helped along
and specially provided for. That would create two classes of woman MP--and
that would be just about the biggest danger to the standing of women in the
House. Mrs. Fitzsimons: Would not it be a bigger insult if we had to wait
another century for equality? That is how long it would take if the current
rate of change in the Conservative party were applied to the House. Miss Widdecombe: There is no reason for the House to wait another
century. There are other ways in which women can be encouraged to come
forward. In the Conservative party, they will not want to do so on the basis
that they will be second-class citizens in the House. With
great respect to my hon. Friends on the Front Bench, I am afraid that I
oppose the Bill. I think that it is misconceived and an insult to women. It would also be terrible for the
future of men, and the poor souls just cannot see it. They need to wake up. |
|
x |
|
x |