Women's Pay
Members' business this evening is a debate on motion S1M-908, in the name of Elaine Thomson, on women's pay 30 years on from the Equal Pay Act 1970. The debate will be concluded after 30 minutes without any question being put.
Would members who are leaving the chamber please do so quickly and quietly.
Motion debated,
That the Parliament notes with concern that 30 years after the introduction of the Equal Pay Act women earn only 73.3% of average male earnings; notes further that Aberdeen has the widest discrepancy between men and women's earnings in Scotland, with women in Aberdeen earning only 64.2% of men's earnings; believes that these figures clearly show that legislation in itself has failed to deliver parity in the labour market; believes that the Scottish Executive and its economic development agencies should pursue policies that would assist in the equalisation of pay between the genders, and asks the Scottish Executive, whilst pursuing the creation of a knowledge economy, to put in place adequate monitoring and evaluation to ensure that women will become equal players in the labour market.
Thank you, Presiding Officer. We have just passed the 30th anniversary of the Equal Pay Act 1970. When it was introduced I—and most young women—believed that the unequal pay that women faced would soon disappear. Most young women today believe that pay inequalities are a thing of the past until they are rudely disabused of that belief during their working lives.
The pay gap between men and women means that women earn less than 80 per cent of men's wages. Some commentators believe that that gap is widening or, at best, is static. Regrettably, Aberdeen has the widest pay gap. The narrowest is in Dundee, but that does not mean that Dundee is a haven of progressive employment policies. It simply reflects the fact that many men in Aberdeen are highly paid, while men in Dundee are not. A narrow pay gap between men and women does not mean better opportunities for women; it simply means low-pay misery for everyone.
The national minimum wage means that women in Aberdeen now earn 64 per cent of men's wages, where previously they earned only 56 per cent. The dominance of the oil and gas industry, however, means that job segregation between men and women in Aberdeen is probably more acute. A recent study found that in the big oil and gas companies, the gender split is 90 per cent men to 10 per cent women; that is even worse than in the average engineering company. What it means in Aberdeen is that a higher proportion of the highly skilled and highly paid jobs are occupied by men than would be the case elsewhere.
At the current rate of progress, it will take another 30 years to achieve parity between men's and women's pay. That is long enough for a whole new generation of women to suffer the lifelong effects of low pay.
Let us be clear what unequal pay represents. It means women being segregated into low-skill, low-pay jobs, working in a narrow range of occupational sectors, with limited access to training, combined with lack of progress within companies so that women are continually found at lower grades rather than higher up. The glass ceiling is alive and well in Scotland. Unequal pay means the loss to the economy of many women's abilities; it also means that children, particularly in single-parent families, grow up in disadvantaged households. There is also a rural aspect to the problem; women suffer more acutely in rural areas.
The Scottish Parliament can do much to improve the situation by ensuring that women have better access to training and education. For example, individual learning accounts—legislation for which is going through the Parliament at the moment—will benefit thousands of women employees.
Girls and young women consistently achieve higher grades at school and are entering higher education in larger numbers than men. I do not believe that they suddenly become low achievers through any natural means when they enter the work force.
The barriers need to be clearly identified, monitored and removed. We could encourage employers to carry out pay audits, to identify pay gaps in their own organisations. The development of the whole gamut of family-friendly employment practices is essential, from using flexitime—to stop part-time working being a ghetto for low-pay, low-skill jobs—to introducing more child care. Child care is still crucial in allowing women access to education and the labour market, and much is being done through the national child care strategy. We should move away from the long-hours culture that exists in many workplaces; that culture inevitably disadvantages women who have other obligations, for example children, older relatives or other caring responsibilities. The Scottish Parliament, in its practices, has sent clear signals about equal opportunities to the rest of Scotland. Through its adoption of family-friendly policies, the Parliament has made some progress.
Hampering the development of equal opportunities for women, particularly in the employment market, are a lack of data and the fact that existing data are not sufficiently robust. We need to ensure that better information—giving us the national and regional picture—is available. We need to consider all public bodies and programmes, and to introduce monitoring and evaluation so that progress on equal opportunities is achieved and policies are changed to tackle stubborn areas of disadvantage.
Scottish Enterprise receives nearly £0.5 billion, but it cannot break that down to tell us how much is spent by gender. Women sometimes do things differently; their businesses develop differently, in that they tend to grow more slowly. The pay-off is that their businesses are often more successful. That might tell us something. Perhaps business start-up programmes ought to take such things into consideration.
This year, Engender is publishing for the last time its highly successful gender audit, which has been an invaluable source of information. Now that we have the new equalities unit, I would welcome the minister's comments on how the work that was started by Engender will be carried forward so that we continue to have the kind of information that we really need.
Much has improved for women. Many of the policies that are now being implemented will continue to improve women's lives. The Equal Pay Act 1970, introduced 30 years ago by a Labour Government, sent a beacon of hope to many women. I look to the Parliament to light a new beacon of hope for women, as we progress towards a fair and equal society.
Elaine Thomson has covered a wide range of the issues affecting women's pay. It is a matter of great regret that, 30 years after the Equal Pay Act 1970, so little progress has been made, despite all the monitoring mechanisms that have been put in place.
It is interesting that we are taking part in a debate that covers two reserved issues. Equal opportunities legislation is dealt with at Westminster, as indeed is employment law. I welcome the fact that Elaine has chosen to bring those reserved matters to the Parliament for debate. I will be most interested to hear what the minister has to say about how she hopes to exercise influence in what can be done here and what she might achieve through the various joint committees of the Parliaments.
I was not aware that economic development or employment training were reserved matters. Those are the areas in which I am calling for changes.
As far as I can see, the motion refers to the Equal Pay Act 1970, which concerns equal opportunities, and to employment legislation, which is also a reserved matter. I do not dispute the fact that there are matters over which this Parliament may have some influence, and I hope that we can influence women's pay, because progress so far has been painfully slow.
I have two points to address. The first concerns the low-pay end of the employment market and the implications for women who are employed there. The other concerns the higher-pay end of the market. Many women are concentrated in low-paid jobs. I am not sure that we have yet been able to set up mechanisms to identify all the reasons why there is such a disparity between men and women in that respect. We may not always be able to compare like with like, but there is no doubt at all that there are some jobs in which women predominate and that those jobs tend to be lower paid.
Lower pay can have implications not only throughout someone's working life, but beyond that—low-paid women end up with low pensions. Not only do they have a problem while they are working, they have a problem in the longer term.
Elaine Thomson and I both belong to the same trade union and indeed to the same trade union branch. Our trade union—formerly the Association of Scientific, Technical and Managerial Staff, now called the Manufacturing, Science and Finance Union—has a proud record of fighting for equal pay for women. At the higher end of the pay scale, it represented speech therapists in the health service. That profession is dominated by women, who were quite rightly concerned about the disparity in pay between themselves and similarly qualified groups in the health service.
It took many years and recourse to the European courts to rectify the situation. Unfortunately, that is all too often the route that we are forced to take to rectify such problems, but success in that case has not led to significant changes elsewhere. If it had, the pay gap would have narrowed and would have continued to narrow. In that case, the employer was the Government, but I hope that public agencies and private sector companies alike will pay heed to the need for equal pay. Unless the employers take heed, we will not get the step changes that are required to make a significant impact. I hope that we can set in train a process that will be successful, not just in monitoring the situation but in changing what happens.
It may be that we will never completely close the gap. There could be a number of reasons for that. One of the reasons identified in current reports is the maternity gap. Some ladies who leave work find it difficult to get back into employment and to make progress in their careers.
One of the problems is that women's careers are often more interrupted than men's are. When they return to work, they are often asked to go to the lowest grade and start again. Does Brian Adam agree that the public sector should set an example by guaranteeing re-employment at the same level as when the woman left on maternity leave?
I accept that point. There are some examples of the civil service offering career breaks of a significant length of time and allowing re-employment at the same grade. Nevertheless, there should be better practice in both the public sector and the private sector.
Elaine Thomson is to be warmly congratulated on highlighting this issue and on securing this evening's debate. The principle of equal treatment is a fundamental right for all employees in the European Union, who should all get equal treatment.
The Equal Pay Act 1970 has and had the backing of the Conservatives. It was initially successful in closing the pay gap between men and women. Since 1979, women's average weekly earnings have risen in cash terms 300 per cent and in real terms 55 per cent faster than those of men. Although the gap is narrowing, women in the United Kingdom still earn far less for performing the same type of jobs as men, as Brian Adam said. As Elaine Thomson said, women who work full-time earn hourly only about 80 per cent of men's hourly rates—that is a source of real concern.
Women have entered the labour market in increasing numbers; they account for more than 50 per cent of the work force and have taken up 60 per cent of the 2 million jobs created in business and other services since 1970.
This issue is of enormous importance and I strongly support the case for equal pay and positive action for four reasons. First, equal pay is essential for fairness at work. Secondly, equal pay helps to avoid unfair discrimination and ensures that the skills, experience and potential of all staff are rewarded fairly, which increases an organisation's morale and competitiveness. Thirdly, equal pay is about good management; many young men and women will not work for a company that does not fairly reward women. Fourthly, equal pay makes it easier for women to make proper provision for their old age.
I am aware that the Equal Opportunities Commission is in favour of a new law to replace the present legislation on the grounds that the current laws are outdated and confused. Sex equality is a fundamental human right; that principle must include the right for the sexes to enjoy equal pay. We support that principle. We want sympathetic consideration to be given to the recommendations to be put forward by the EOC. We want to ensure that equal pay for comparable work becomes a reality.
The EOC commissioned three studies before launching its valuing women campaign. I found some of the findings of those studies very interesting.
First—and perhaps surprisingly—there is very low awareness that there is a gender pay gap. However, when the gap is brought to people's attention, most of them think that it is unfair, unreasonable and unacceptable—that at least is helpful in the attempt to eliminate the gap.
I was interested in people's views about whose responsibility it should be to achieve equal pay for men and women: 64 per cent—and slightly more women than men—thought that it should be the Government's; 45 per cent mentioned employers and companies; 29 per cent mentioned the EOC; and, surprisingly, just under 10 per cent of men and just under 20 per cent of women thought that the employee had a responsibility to tackle it. When asked which factor was most likely to change attitudes of employers, 63 per cent thought that Government legislation was the most likely, while 14 per cent preferred the option of a wide-scale media campaign. They will welcome the EOC valuing women campaign. I like its current poster, which has a smug little boy and a disgruntled little girl with the caption, "Prepare your daughter for adult life—give her less pocket money than your son."
Some of the data about views and attitudes are fascinating. Male and female managers hold differing views about the skills that each sex brings to the workplace. I liked:
"Men regard themselves very positively, whereas women have a more balanced view of male skills."
That was probably written by a woman.
Male managers accept that women have particular skills, such as greater dexterity and higher levels of concentration, but they perceive women as being less likely than men to exercise their initiative or to try something new. They extrapolate that into the assumption that many women are happy to stay in their current jobs, which means that they are reluctant to promote female staff.
I had to smile at the observation that both male and female managers agree that
"men have a greater willingness and ability than women to participate in informal networking after work".
That is so true. However, there is a serious side to that. It reflects the different impacts that family responsibilities have on men and women. A female manager observed:
"Men are seen as more committed because they don't have the child to go back to, so they are rewarded for being able to stay away from the home."
That is probably true, but it raises a whole set of other questions about how desirable it is.
Another factor is that men are generally more aggressive than women in negotiating promotion and salary increases. Both sexes agreed that women are generally more likely to accept their current pay and position than men are.
There is light on the horizon: evidence shows that attitudes are changing. Attitudes vary between managers according to age: younger managers are less likely to have a stereotypical view of women; and younger women are more likely than older women to take positive action to achieve their goals of pay and promotion.
It is appalling that it has taken 30 years to get this far. There is no way that we will accept that it will take another 30 years to achieve the target. However, we need the right tools to measure our progress. I particularly endorse Elaine Thomson's call on the Executive to develop adequate systems of monitoring and evaluation. Vive la différence—but also vive l'égalité!
I have not finished writing my speech yet, Presiding Officer, so I hope that it is all right.
I was an equal opportunities teacher at school. I spent a lot of time trying to persuade girls to go for non-traditional subjects. I used to organise seminars in which I had successful businesswomen come to the school to try to encourage girls to have confidence in their own abilities and to assure them that they did not have to go for the dead-end jobs where they could not see a career and did not have the proper qualifications.
Bright girls do well at school and do better than boys, but fewer go to university. When they qualify as doctors, teachers or lawyers, everything is all right for a year or two, but they then discover that the senior partners, directors and senior management team are predominantly men and that it is extremely difficult to break through the barrier—the glass ceiling, as Elaine Thomson put it.
The establishment wrings its hands and wonders how to appoint more women to senior positions. One answer is to appoint them when they apply. Too many interview panels are still looking for women who are like men. Women should be appointed for what they bring to a post as women, with an inclusive approach to management rather than a confrontational one, for example.
Women are barred from many high-earning professions by institutional sexism. I will give one example of gaps that will take years to fill. Judges in the Court of Session are appointed from the ranks of advocates. How many female advocates are there? Women have to be accessing such professions at the bottom in order to progress to the highest rank. Why are female lawyers not being encouraged into the profession? What is this bastion of male privilege? How can we ever have equal pay if such professions bar women through institutional sexism?
One of the big issues is indeed that of women not being able to access traditionally male jobs, but does Maureen Macmillan agree that another issue is the fact that women's work is undervalued, which is why it is low paid? Some of the most important jobs, whether in child care or in the caring professions, are low paid not because they are unimportant, but because it is traditionally women who do them.
The next sentence in my notes was, "But let us not concentrate on professional women." Professional women are far better off than past generations were. The real problem is for the vast majority of women who will never aspire to high-flying jobs but who, as Johann Lamont suggested, will be working in shops and offices, caring for children or doing cleaning jobs.
Part of the problem is what happens to girls in school—their lack of opportunity and their lack of awareness, which is brought about by a lack of proper counselling and guidance on what jobs could be open to them. The problem also arises because women are undervalued, as Johann Lamont said—what women do is not thought of as important. If someone is a hairdresser, they get paid very little, unless they are in some top-flight salon. That, however, is the sort of work that a lot of girls at school want to do. We can tell them that if they do such work, they will not get anywhere and will be poor but, because it is what they want to do, they cannot see past their creativity. Yet we do not value what they do. There is a long list of similar jobs.
I would like women to be able to progress in careers without having to worry about child care or about taking career breaks. I would like young women to be able to leave school and to have proper, well-paid jobs to go to. I would like high-flying women to be able to access any profession. There should be no professions that are no-go areas simply because of years of tradition.
I start by thanking Elaine Thomson for lodging this motion. This Executive has repeatedly given commitments to promote equality of opportunity for all, specifically gender equality.
Building a Scotland that is inclusive is a matter of real importance to us all. Women make up nearly half the work force and almost half the Parliament—I look forward to the day when they actually make up half. More women are working than ever before, which is key to our future economic success.
Reducing the gap between men and women's pay is an important part of ensuring that there is a level playing field in the economy. The pay gap in Great Britain has decreased from 20 per cent to 19 per cent in the past year. In Scotland, the pay gap is marginally lower and now stands at 18 per cent, but we recognise that a lot more needs to be done. The gap widens for weekly and annual earnings. That reflects the fact that men work on average 3.9 hours more per week than women, including 1.9 hours more overtime.
Elaine Thomson's motion rightly refers to the fact that, in Aberdeen, which has the widest pay differential, women get only 64.2 per cent of men's earnings. I suspect that one of the reasons for that is the fact that the offshore industry and the oil and gas industry in general is reliant on engineering and high-tech qualifications. Those courses tend to be male dominated at universities and in further and higher education. Does the Executive have any plans to encourage more women to study those courses to help to bridge the gap in sectors such as the oil and gas industry?
Richard Lochhead is absolutely right. There is a unique labour market in Aberdeen, which is reflected in the high wages in the male-dominated oil industry. The Careers Service across Scotland is examining how we can move away from traditional stereotypes and, starting much earlier—in primary 6 and 7—encourage more girls to go into what are perceived as traditionally male occupations. However, the figures mask the fact that the average earnings of women in Aberdeen are £13 per week higher than for Scotland as a whole. Clearly, we need to narrow the gap.
Over the past 10 years, women's earnings in real terms have risen by 24 per cent, whereas men's have risen by 14 per cent. We need to increase that gap in our favour. Manual workers have seen a 7 per cent pay rise and non-manual workers a 17 per cent rise pay rise. That kind of trend tends to favour women.
As members will know—Brian Adam mentioned this—responsibility for the Equal Pay Act 1970 rests with the Department for Education and Employment. However, there is much that we can do in Scotland. If the problem is to be addressed successfully, we need to understand the reasons behind the pay gap, which are often complex and influenced by a variety of labour market factors, whether gender stereotyping or occupational segregation.
Performance-related pay is one factor that was not around 30 years ago, which may lead to some differentiation, particularly for women who take time out to have children and then come back to work. The fact that pay levels are determined by performance-related pay rather than by annual negotiations through the union may discriminate against such women. What steps are being taken to monitor the civil service and the Scottish Parliament? I am conscious that there are a number of pregnant women working in the Parliament. I hope that, if they are on a performance-related pay system, they will not be discriminated against when they come back from maternity leave and will be given the full value, rather than a proportion, of any rise.
We are currently carrying out a review of the pay system across the Scottish Executive to ensure that it contains no discriminatory elements and that all staff are treated fairly. Clearly, the examination of performance-related pay will be part of that review. We hope to have the results shortly and I will make them available to Fiona Hyslop.
We welcome and support the Equal Opportunities Commission's drive to tackle the gender pay gap through its valuing women campaign and the work of its task force on equal pay. To complement the work of the EOC, the Executive is helping to ensure improvements in education and skills levels, enabling women to stay in or return to the labour market after having children.
The Scottish Executive is also committed to raising the educational attainment of all our young people. There is a clear link between the level of education that an individual receives and the level of income that they subsequently earn. There are targets for attainment and we have commissioned research on the relative attainment of boys and girls. As I said, the Careers Service companies are tackling stereotyped images associated with certain careers.
In lifelong learning, the Scottish Executive aims to build a new culture of learning, which cuts across traditional boundaries and reaches people of all ages, backgrounds and capabilities. As a very practical measure, we are committed to improving access to high-quality, affordable day care for children and to ensure that all three and four-year-olds have access to a part-time pre-school education place by 2002.
While I am on the subject of children and child care, I must tell Nora Radcliffe that my daughter has not yet seen the adverts to which she referred—my daughter's pocket money bargaining skills, as opposed to her pay bargaining skills, are superb. [Laughter.]
We are working with the UK Government to improve support for women who are returning to the labour market through the new deal for lone parents. We are examining how that might be used to help raise women's overall skill levels. We also need to secure a better attachment to the labour market by making work pay. That is happening through the national minimum wage and working families tax credit, including the child care credit, which help to support families on low incomes. Those measures will directly help women in the labour market. It is estimated that, of the 1.5 million people throughout Great Britain who have benefited from the minimum wage, two thirds are women.
I want to share with the Parliament the Cabinet Office report "Women's incomes over the lifetime", which was published this year. It is the first ever report quantifying the financial consequences for women as a result of gender, motherhood, the differences between mothers and fathers, educational achievement and career choice. The research reveals that there is a cost in being a woman—we know that. That is not to do with children or motherhood, but is quite simply about being a woman. As Brian Adam helpfully identified, there is also a cost in being a mother—women spending time away from work and then choosing to work shorter hours. However, I was not sure whether he was suggesting—or indeed offering—that, in future, men should have the babies.
The cost of being a woman is estimated at £241,000 over a lifetime and the motherhood gap is estimated at £140,000. There are several reasons for that, including female-dominated employment sectors, where the pay is low, an hourly pay gap and the fact that women, even when they do not have children, on average work fewer hours than men do. However, it is the level of education that has the biggest single impact on women's incomes over their lifetime.
The labour market has changed radically since the Equal Pay Act 1970. I assure Elaine Thomson that we are currently considering better disaggregated data, with a view to informing our policies and programmes. Let me cite the example of the £1 million that Henry McLeish announced for microcredit schemes, specifically aimed at women starting in business. The knowledge economy represents real opportunities for women, which we must harness. The Scottish Executive will play its part in assisting the UK Government in addressing that, not just for the current generation, but for future generations of women.
Meeting closed at 17:39