Something Has to Give

The biggest social change of the past half-century has been the dramatic transformation of the role of women, yet we rarely grasp quite the pace and scale of that change. In 1981, only 24% of mothers returned to work within a year of childbirth, while 20 years later the figure was 67%. It's only taken a generation, and not surprisingly we are still floored by the consequences: who pays who to cuddle the baby?

For government, this is dangerous policy-making territory. It is riddled with wishful thinking - daddy can pick up the slack or mummy can stay home and cook apple pie; and it is fiendishly complex as the patterns of child-rearing and employment have become highly individualised - one woman can't bear to be parted from baby at 12 months, another is gagging to get back to the office gossip.

A government that didn't have anything much to say on childcare in 1997 has been on an impressively steep learning curve ever since. It only began to get interested because of the implications for welfare to work and to facilitate women's employment. But, thanks to some persistent lobbying, Gordon Brown's speech last Thursday in the pre-budget report was laced with references to the crucial, previously missing, principle - child development. At last we are talking about children's wellbeing; topsy-turvy to have got here so belatedly, but at least we've arrived.

The most fundamental impact of the child development principle is that it underlines the importance of the twin-track approach to which this government has been committed. You can't just expand childcare without reshaping the work culture to enable mothers (and, if only, fathers) to combine work and care. Miss out the latter part of the equation and the child suffers; as everyone acknowledges, babes in 40-hour nursery care is a nightmare option. As Brown played his Father Christmas, his gifts were scrupulously even-handed; more childcare, but also more maternity leave, and more flexible working. He neutralised the charge of being intent on "warehousing children", outmanoeuvring the Confederation of British Industry and its allies who should now become the main targets of that heinous accusation (given their opposition to increased leave).

But - and, of course, there were always going to be some buts - his Father Christmas left a few guests at the party empty-handed. For example, what happens to one- and two-year-olds once mum is back at work after her new year of maternity leave, and before their super-duper four hours a day of nursery education starts on their third birthday? It was crafty to dodge this one, because it is by far the most expensive bit of childcare (staff/baby ratios have to be high), and the most controversial, given studies showing that large amounts of group-based care at this age lead to an increased incidence of anti-social behaviour. And another awkward question: what happens to those three- and four year-olds after their new extended four hours of nursery? Are they then plonked in front of the video until pick-up time?

For a 10-year strategy, it was neither 10 years nor strategic, but we've now got some idea of how we're going to muddle through to 2010 with the possibility of children's centres really turning into something big. Not bad. I'm not complaining. It takes time to shift the political consensus in such a way that radical policies are possible, and by that measure New Labour hasn't done badly in establishing childcare as part of the welfare state.

But there is one big thing to complain about. I'll take a bet that by 2010 the pay gap between men and women will have barely budged. There'll be more women in paid employment than ever by then, but no level playing field. Women will still be doing the bulk of the household chores and childcare. Leave and part-time working are crucial, but not enough. They enable women to manage this double shift, but at the cost of their ambition, creating a twin-track labour market with men (and childless women) creaming off all the top jobs.

The part still missing is the radical vision of how our work culture has to change to accommodate the dramatic shifts in women's and men's lives. So far, the deal has been to carve out the less well-paid, less well-trained part-time jobs with good maternity leave for mums; huge retailers such as Asda get a great deal out of employing part-time thousands of women who will trade better pay and career prospects for flexibility. Meanwhile, all the serious jobs go to people who are prepared to make the "choice" to work long hours. Every mother in the country knows about this "choice", we've all made it: to what extent do we scale down our ambition? How much compromise in our mothering can we stomach?

Patricia Hewitt, the secretary of state for trade and industry, grasped a long time ago the importance of flexibility - her book About Time, published in 1993, has been almost completely implemented, chapter by chapter - but the debate among the economists and sociologists has moved on, and this is the bit this government refuses to acknowledge. The issue is not just about how long you are in the office - but the degree of pressure and stress while you are there. Work intensification, it's called, and Britain topped the European league in the 90s. It was a decade that saw a marked deterioration in Britain's quality of working life. The pace of work, pressure to perform and insecurity are contributing to a work culturethat is exhausting, physically and emotionally. How many times has one heard women say that the complications of a demanding job and family have just got too much - something has to give?

The irony is that Father Christmas, Gordon Brown himself, is one of the chief villains of the piece. At a summit on how to increase women's productivity at No 11 this autumn, a presentation on how work intensification deters women prompted a revelatory moment in one civil servant as she realised the government's efficiency drives and staff cuts were fuelling the problem. It reminded me of an interview for my book Willing Slaves, in which a civil servant described how she worked "part-time" to cut a 60-hour week to 45; all that was part-time was the pay.

The only countries that have successfully managed to cut the pay gap and get women into every level of the labour market are those that have, alongside good childcare, civilised work cultures. This is by far the toughest part of the whole thing, because it is about the indefinable stuff beyond the reach of legislation, such as office politics, the "way we do things round here" and definitions of commitment and performance. Only government can kick-start the shift in culture required, but if it can't swallow even the flea of an EU directive limiting the working week to 48 hours, what hope have we?

So sisters, I hate to tell you this, but most of your daughters will still be covering up for the boss come 2020. Cheer up, though - at least your grandchildren will be in a nice nursery.

Willing Slaves. How the Overwork Culture is Ruling Our Lives, by Madeleine Bunting, is published by HarperCollins