It's time to end London's motherhood penalty

Simply bringing the city's maternal employment rate in line with the rest of the country would mean an additional 100,000 working mothers.

It has been over a year since research by the Fawcett Society declared London the worst place to live in the UK as a woman. Eighteen months on, as the coalition cuts continue to bite further, there is little to suggest that living standards for women are improving in the capital. Inequality in the workplace is identifiable up and down the pay ladder. That the upper echelons are sparsely populated by women and that the bottom rungs are dominated by them illustrates the breadth of the issue. 

Of course, not all the factors which contribute to lower living standards for women are directly attributable to the cuts. Much of them relate to the unavoidable fact that London, like all cities, is a capital of superlatives. So while London can boast of possessing the biggest, the highest-earning and the most qualified, it is also home to the most unequal workforce in the UK. There are some obvious factors that contribute to this unwelcome statistic; the public sector, which has a strong record in employing women, has a smaller share of the workforce. A number of high paid jobs frequently dominated by men create a grotesque caricature of the existing gender gap in average salaries.

London is also the city where the motherhood penalty bites the hardest. London mothers with dependent children have an employment rate of 53%, compared to 65% for those across the UK. Reducing this gap requires understanding the motivating factors for women to return to work, and the barriers that may prevent them from doing so, as highlighted in a recent report by the Timewise Foundation, which followed the outcomes of women seeking a return to work after motherhood. The conclusion - the costs of going back to work simply do not outweigh the benefits of staying at home. Outgoing costs such as childcare, which is 24% higher than the national average, are hard to for mothers and families to justify in the face of low-paid part-time work and the lack of well-paid part-time work in administrative and professional roles.

The London premium that can be identified among other sectors of the workforce is therefore significantly lower for working mothers. Over 40% of part-time jobs are low paid, compared to just 10% of full-time jobs. As a result, a third of all low-paid jobs in London are held by women working part time. My own mother juggled two part-time jobs as this was simply the only way to fit in shifts around childcare.

I am reluctant to accept that the only solution to this form of inequality in London’s workforce is the 'critical mass' solution – that is the hope that as workplaces increasingly near a gender balance of employees, employment practice will become increasingly woman friendly. Practical interventions that stimulate structural and cultural change are required. Whether through ensuring access to Lone Parent Personal Advisors or supporting on the ground schemes, it is important that mothers are a target group of support and training.

I have seen this work in my own constituency. Twice a week, Monique Knight, herself a mother of five can be found handing out flyers at the gates of a primary school in North Tottenham, chatting with mums as they drop off their young children. Once the bell rings, it is not just the pupils who head into the classroom, but a number of their mums too, receiving training in CV writing, online applications and presentation skills. 

We must encourage businesses to increase the availability and range of part-time positions, and to ensure those taking them receive the support they need. A flexible work environment can have a doubly positive effect on women in broadening not just their own childcare options but also those of their partner through use of paternal leave and similar practices.

Simply achieving the modest target of bringing London’s maternal employment rate in line with the rest of the country would bring an additional 100,000 working mothers into London’s workforce. With the subsequent impact on the economy, household, and indeed working mothers themselves, this is certainly a goal worth striving for. 

London mothers with dependent children have an employment rate of 53%, compared to 65% for those across the UK. Photograph: Getty Images.

David Lammy is Labour MP for Tottenham

GETTY
Show Hide image

Brexit will hike energy prices - progressive campaigners should seize the opportunity

Winter is Coming. 

Friday 24th June 2016 was a beautiful day. Blue sky and highs of 22 degrees greeted Londoners as they awoke to the news that Britain had voted to leave the EU.  

Yet the sunny weather was at odds with the mood of the capital, which was largely in favour of Remain. And even more so with the prospect of an expensive, uncertain and potentially dirty energy future. 

For not only are prominent members of the Leave leadership well known climate sceptics - with Boris Johnson playing down human impact upon the weather, Nigel Farage admitting he doesn’t “have a clue” about global warming, and Owen Paterson advocating scrapping the Climate Change Act altogether - but Brexit looks set to harm more than just our plans to reduce emissions.

Far from delivering the Leave campaign’s promise of a cheaper and more secure energy supply, it is likely that the referendum’s outcome will cause bills to rise and investment in new infrastructure to delay -  regardless of whether or not we opt to stay within Europe’s internal energy market.

Here’s why: 

1. Rising cost of imports

With the UK importing around 50% of our gas supply, any fall in the value of sterling are likely to push up the wholesale price of fuel and drive up charges - offsetting Boris Johnson’s promise to remove VAT on energy bills.

2. Less funding for energy development

Pulling out of the EU will also require us to give up valuable funding. According to a Chatham House report, not only was the UK set to receive €1.9bn for climate change adaptation and risk prevention, but €1.6bn had also been earmarked to support the transition to a low carbon economy.

3.  Investment uncertainty & capital flight

EU countries currently account for over half of all foreign direct investment in UK energy infrastructure. And while the chairman of EDF energy, the French state giant that is building the planned nuclear plant at Hinkley Point, has said Brexit would have “no impact” on the project’s future, Angus Brendan MacNeil, chair of the energy and climate select committee, believes last week’s vote undermines all such certainty; “anything could happen”, he says.

4. Compromised security

According to a report by the Institute for European Environmental Policy (the IEEP), an independent UK stands less chance of securing favourable bilateral deals with non-EU countries. A situation that carries particular weight with regard to Russia, from whom the UK receives 16% of its energy imports.

5. A divided energy supply

Brexiteers have argued that leaving the EU will strengthen our indigenous energy sources. And is a belief supported by some industry officials: “leaving the EU could ultimately signal a more prosperous future for the UK North Sea”, said Peter Searle of Airswift, the global energy workforce provider, last Friday.

However, not only is North Sea oil and gas already a mature energy arena, but the renewed prospect of Scottish independence could yet throw the above optimism into free fall, with Scotland expected to secure the lion’s share of UK offshore reserves. On top of this, the prospect for protecting the UK’s nascent renewable industry is also looking rocky. “Dreadful” was the word Natalie Bennett used to describe the Conservative’s current record on green policy, while a special government audit committee agreed that UK environment policy was likely to be better off within the EU than without.

The Brexiteer’s promise to deliver, in Andrea Leadsom’s words, the “freedom to keep bills down”, thus looks likely to inflict financial pain on those least able to pay. And consumers could start to feel the effects by the Autumn, when the cold weather closes in and the Conservatives, perhaps appropriately, plan to begin Brexit negotiations in earnest.

Those pressing for full withdrawal from EU ties and trade, may write off price hikes as short term pain for long term gain. While those wishing to protect our place within EU markets may seize on them, as they did during referendum campaign, as an argument to maintain the status quo. Conservative secretary of state for energy and climate change, Amber Rudd, has already warned that leaving the internal energy market could cause energy costs “to rocket by at least half a billion pounds a year”.

But progressive forces might be able to use arguments on energy to do even more than this - to set out the case for an approach to energy policy in which economics is not automatically set against ideals.

Technological innovation could help. HSBC has predicted that plans for additional interconnectors to the continent and Ireland could lower the wholesale market price for baseload electricity by as much as 7% - a physical example of just how linked our international interests are. 

Closer to home, projects that prioritise reducing emission through tackling energy poverty -  from energy efficiency schemes to campaigns for publicly owned energy companies - may provide a means of helping heal the some of the deeper divides that the referendum campaign has exposed.

If the failure of Remain shows anything, it’s that economic arguments alone will not always win the day and that a sense of justice – or injustice – is still equally powerful. Luckily, if played right, the debate over energy and the environment might yet be able to win on both.

 

India Bourke is the New Statesman's editorial assistant.