Women’s Representation (Public Sector Boards)
The first item of business is a debate on motion S4M-03289, in the name of Jenny Marra, on women’s representation.
09:15
I am delighted to be able to open a debate on equality in the Scottish Parliament in this, the United Nations year of empowering women. I note that this appears to be the first time that the Scottish Parliament has ever debated women’s representation on boards, but I hope that it will not be the last time.
Throughout Europe and the rest of the world, the debate about gender quotas has come to the fore. Now, more than ever, European nations that the Scottish Government seeks to emulate are taking action to make boardroom equality a standard practice in their businesses, public bodies and Parliaments. It can be done.
It has been almost 10 years since the Norwegian male Conservative Minister of Trade and Industry, Ansgar Gabrielsen, completed Norway’s transition from a state that operates a 40 per cent quota on public boards to one that includes the private sector in that quota system. It took just two years for Norway to reach its quota of 40 per cent female representation on its public limited company boards. Its boardrooms have equalised, both in the private sector and in its public bodies.
It took Finland six years, from 2005, to bring all of its public boardrooms from 30 per cent representation of women to up to 44 per cent. Iceland’s target of 50 per cent was achieved in just one year.
Gender quotas for public boards are in place in Denmark, South Africa, Israel, Quebec, Berlin and—at a local level—Nuremberg, and have been proposed in Belgium, Canada and Italy. They are becoming a more and more attractive choice for nations where, as is the case in Scotland, diversity strategies, leaflets, DVDs and the mentors that the Scottish Government proposes are simply not working. The attraction of quotas has grown so much that, just last week, the majority right-wing European Parliament backed a European Commission recommendation to bring gender quotas into the boardrooms of all of Europe’s companies by 2020.
Angela Merkel has called the gender composition on Germany’s boards scandalous, and even David Cameron has said he will not rule out quotas for gender representation. However, two days ago in committee, the Scottish Government rejected the amendments to the Police and Fire Reform (Scotland) Bill that would have introduced quotas. In light of all the evidence and all the progress that is being made around us, I ask the chamber this: when did the Scottish Government become less progressive on equality than a Conservative Prime Minister in London?
Labour’s motion suggests that Scotland would benefit by learning from progressive policies in other European countries that have successfully balanced their boards—a course of action that all sides of this chamber should agree upon.
At the heart of the matter is the fact that, as all sides of this chamber agree, gender should not matter, and board appointments should be made on merit and merit alone. However, what the Scottish National Party Government and the Tories fail to realise, but the Scottish Labour Party always has, is that no matter how much we will it to be irrelevant, the reality of the culture for those seeking positions at Scotland’s boardroom level is that gender matters, and that the situation is usually to the detriment of women.
Why, in the 13 years when it was in power, did the Labour Government not bring in a 40 per cent quota for public sector bodies?
We have always supported equal representation in our party and it is something that we will look towards in the future. We have been out of power for quite a few years in Scotland, but we will certainly look at the matter for the future.
We understand that, at the heart of Scotland’s public boards, there is a deep-rooted culture that ensures that the merit of a man is worth more than that of a woman. It is something that diversity strategies alone have not, and cannot, address.
Will the member take an intervention?
No, thank you. No amount of application information to highly skilled and qualified women through Government DVDs, brochures and e-mailed vacancies are changing a culture where the statistics show us that women fight an uphill battle for board positions, because they know that they will lose out to men. Pretending otherwise is simply burying our heads in the sand. Gender equality at boardroom level has not happened organically in the 13 years that the Parliament has existed, and the statistics tell us that it is unlikely to happen organically in the next 13 years either, unless we take bigger, bolder steps to make it happen.
As a solution, quotas offer us the ability to join other European nations to make a strong statement about our Government’s commitment to the equal value of women’s merit, as well as men’s, and the 40 per cent model that we have proposed does so elegantly. Let me explain it. Boards would require 40 per cent women and 40 per cent men, with flexibility of 20 per cent for boards with an uneven number of members, or in cases where there was an insufficient number of either gender. The model is taken from the highly successful Finnish equality act and it has been proven to work. For as long as we agree that the merit of a man is equal to that of a woman, we should not object to each having an entitlement to a minority 40 per cent representation on the boards that govern all our public services.
I lodged two amendments to the Police and Fire Reform (Scotland) Bill that would have introduced a 40 per cent quota on the boards of Scotland’s new police and fire service. I lodged the amendments after learning about the shocking rate of representation of women on the scrutiny boards of our police forces. Those boards hold the police to account. Officers deal with gender-based issues such as domestic abuse and prostitution every day, but the boards that scrutinise the police comprise only 18 per cent women.
Can the member indicate how the appointments to the current police boards are made? My understanding is that the majority of the appointments come from local authorities, some of which are dominated by the Labour Party.
I think that the member will find, if he looks at gender representation among councillors in Scotland, that Labour has a much better record of electing women to local authorities and to this Parliament than the Scottish National Party. He only has to look to Dundee City Council, where 16 SNP councillors were returned and only two of them were women. I think that the same happened in Glasgow City Council, but perhaps the minister will correct me on that.
The boards of Scotland’s police forces comprise only 18 per cent women. In Northern Constabulary, only two of 22 members were women. In Dumfries and Galloway, just one of 10 members was female and there were no women at all on the Central Scotland police board, which had 11 members. Where are the women’s voices to scrutinise and hold our police services to account?
When we look at other boards across Scotland, we find that the situation does not improve.
The member is concerned about gender balance and interventions. However, does she agree that the Justice Committee took the view that it is quality on the board, be it a man or a woman, that counts, and not a gender balance?
If the member had been listening to my speech, she would have found that I have already made the case that a quota enforces the idea of a meritocracy and that we should not be scared of saying that women’s merit is equal to that of men and that, as Alison McInnes MSP eloquently put it in committee a couple of weeks ago, equal representation is not happening organically so it needs a hand along.
In Shona Robison’s portfolio, sportscotland’s governing board has a gender balance of 78 per cent men to just 22 per cent women. The average percentage of women on Scotland’s public limited company boards is a shocking 11 per cent. In fact, men comprise 80 per cent or more of board members on boards such as those of the Accounts Commission, Architecture and Design Scotland, Creative Scotland, the Scottish Legal Aid Board, VisitScotland, the Scottish Law Commission, Transport Scotland, Scottish Water and the Cabinet Secretary for Health, Wellbeing and Cities Strategy’s own NHS 24. Those are just a few examples. There is not a single board on the Scottish Government’s register of public bodies in which the reverse trend can be seen.
It is therefore little wonder that the motion has gained support from the likes of Oxfam, Engender, the Scottish Trades Union Congress and the National Union of Students Scotland and that it has been further welcomed today by the Electoral Reform Society. It is timely that gender quotas have been recommended to the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning, Mike Russell, in his commissioned review of higher education governance. Professor Ferdinand von Prondzynski has recommended the 40-40-20 model because the balance in university governing bodies is 72 per cent men to 28 per cent women.
The rest of Europe has grown tired of inequality, and it is high time that Scotland balanced its boards.
I move,
That the Parliament believes that women and men play an equal role in Scotland’s public sector; notes with concern that women continue to be underrepresented on the boards of Scotland’s public sector organisations; understands that barriers continue to exist for women gaining a place on such boards; further understands that nations across Europe such as Finland, Norway, Denmark and Iceland have introduced a quota system that has been successful in promoting equality of representation on public bodies and publicly owned company boards; notes that the European Parliament voted to recommend a 40% quota on company boards throughout Europe by 2020; further notes the recommendations of Professor Ferdinand von Prondzynski in the Scottish Government’s Report of the Review of Higher Education Governance in Scotland to introduce a 40% gender quota for Scottish university courts, and believes that such measures should be replicated throughout Scotland’s public bodies to bring about equal representation.
09:26
I am delighted to have the opportunity to speak on behalf of the Scottish Government in this timely debate. I say that it is timely because, as every member will know, women are experiencing a disproportionate impact from the recession and, of course, as a result of the policies of the Westminster Government, particularly its welfare reform agenda.
We are focusing on areas in which women are disadvantaged. I welcome the chance to explore the barriers that women face and which prevent their maximising their representation in public life and in senior positions in employment across all sectors.
The tone of the debate is important. Jenny Marra and the Labour Party have had the opportunity to set the right tone for the debate and to reach out to the rest of the Parliament to help to build a consensus around this very important issue. Jenny Marra cited a number of organisations that have supported her motion, but I am not sure that they would support her tone. They want to see action and progress being made on the issue, and it is disappointing that, with Jenny Marra’s rather unfortunate party-political attack on the SNP and others, an opportunity has perhaps been missed to build that consensus.
Jenny Marra talked about Labour’s record. Its record not only in eight years in the Scottish Parliament, but in 13 years in Westminster has been pointed out in interventions. There was nothing about quotas in Labour’s manifesto last year for the Scottish Parliament elections, and there was nothing about them in its manifesto for the local government elections this year. I would like to move the debate on to where we can agree, and I hope that we will get action around the issue after the debate. I think that there is a lot of agreement across the chamber and across the parties, but consensus has to be built, and it will not be built by taking the tone and approach that Jenny Marra has taken, which is unfortunate.
I find it very sad that the minister cannot recognise that we have passion for equality. I wish that her party could show the same passion for the issue.
A person can be passionate about an issue without having to resort to the petty party-political attacks that we saw Jenny Marra making. If Jenny Marra and the Labour Party are serious about the issue, they should be reaching across the chamber to build consensus, not making party-political attacks that set the tone for the debate.
I want to move the debate on to more positive aspects. Women make up 52 per cent of the population, but we are nowhere near being represented at that level in a range of key institutions. When we look at the boards of businesses that do not have a gender balance and, more important, at those that do, we find that the latter businesses do better. That is an important point. There is also a case in relation to Government, councils, health boards, police forces and so on.
It can be suggested that talent will rise naturally and that the best person should always be selected for a position, regardless of gender. It can also be suggested that it is patronising to provide support to enable women to achieve positions. However, I think that it is patronising to assume that there are not equal numbers of equally suitable male and female candidates, and it is worse than patronising to assume that the best candidate just happened to be male on so many occasions.
Will the minister give way?
In a minute.
There has been good progress in relation to public appointments over the years, but it is not enough. Our public bodies need board members who reflect Scottish society, including not just women, but people from all walks of life, who can bring their unique skills and experience to help us to deliver for the people of Scotland. The diversity delivers strategy was launched in September 2008. In 2011-12 just over 30 per cent of applications came from women, against a target of 40 per cent, and women accounted for 34 per cent of appointments. We should recognise that progress is being made, but I am the first to acknowledge that more needs to be done.
The minister’s party regularly points to Scandinavia and to the Norwegian and Finnish Governments. Are those Governments patronising, too?
I did not say that. Perhaps the member should have listened. It is refreshing that the Labour Party has stopped denigrating small independent countries and has started to acknowledge some of the things that such countries are doing. That is positive—long may it continue.
Let us look at what we have done so far. We are building capacity, through the establishment of the public appointments and diversity centre of expertise, which advises on and administers the public appointments process across the Scottish Government. We are raising awareness, engaging with stakeholders and undertaking a range of outreach activity to promote awareness of public appointments opportunities. That work is bearing fruit, because we are attracting significant numbers of women applicants for public appointments. However, we must do more.
I have sympathy for the call for quotas and have done so throughout my political career, but we must acknowledge that there is no consensus on the issue. There is no consensus in the Parliament and there is certainly no consensus outside it. Consensus has to be built, and I for one am prepared to work with anyone in the Parliament who wants to consider what more we can do.
People must be aware of the potential restrictions in relation to the Equality Act 2010, which very much focuses on positive action but appears restrictive with regard to action beyond that. We must be clear about what can be achieved under the currently reserved legislation. If the matter was devolved, we would of course have much wider scope to act. I want to ensure that all that is clear by the time we get to the open event that I propose to hold later this year, to take the matter forward.
Does the minister acknowledge that this is perhaps the first time that a quota has been proposed in this context? She says that there is no consensus out there. That is because we have not started to talk about the issue; perhaps now we have the opportunity to start building consensus.
I could not agree more with the member. That is the tone that she should have taken from the start of the debate, because I am happy to work with her and others to do that. The initial way forward that I suggest is to have an open event, at which we can consider what has been done and where the barriers are. For example, although more women are coming forward and being appointed to boards, there are few women chairs of boards. There is much more to be done, even within the existing legislative framework. We need to be clear about what can be achieved in the current framework and what needs to change. The open event will give us the opportunity to get that clarity.
I hope that the debate can begin to build a consensus about where we might go from here to take things forward and ensure that women absolutely are equally represented throughout public life, private life and the business sector. That would be good for Scotland and good for society.
I move amendment S4M-03289.1, to leave out from “further understands” to end and insert:
“welcomes the steps that the Scottish Government has taken to address this imbalance through the Diversity Delivers strategy, including the establishment of the public appointments and diversity centre of expertise to advise on and administer the public appointments process across the Scottish Government; recognises the work that has been undertaken to increase the application and appointment rates for underrepresented groups, including women in public appointments, resulting in 34% of public appointments in 2011-12 being held by women; recognises that, while there has been progress on some strands of diversity, further work is required, and therefore agrees that there should be an open event hosted by the Scottish Government and supported by the Public Appointments Commissioner to review the progress of the Diversity Delivers strategy in relation to gender equality and to consider further actions to make sure that there is further progress toward improved women’s representation in public life.”
09:34
I shall try not to be provocative or patronising and I shall do my level best to be passionate. I thank Jenny Marra for bringing this important issue to the chamber for debate, because that is the point—there is an issue and we should try to construct a consensus around it. If we can unite in that purpose, we will do a great deal to address the concerns that Jenny Marra, absolutely rightly, is highlighting.
Women are resilient, capable, adept and determined. They are excelling in educational attainment and they are making headway—particularly in careers that were once the preserve of men. That is certainly happening in the House of Commons—perhaps not at the pace that we would like, but there is a direction of travel. Indeed, at the Scottish Parliament, 40 per cent of my party’s MSPs are women. That compares well with the other parties.
However, there are still significant issues and Jenny Marra indicated quite rightly where they lie. In particular, she highlighted the position of public boards in Scotland. I looked at the comparable situation for company boards. I noticed that in 2010, women made up only 12.5 per cent of the members of corporate boards of the FTSE 100 companies. That was up from 9.4 per cent in 2004. However, the figure for all FTSE-listed companies was only 9.6 per cent in 2010. That is why I say that there is an issue. It is not just peculiar to the corporate world. It is—as Jenny Marra indicated—also to be found in the public sector. I am interested in exploring the reasons behind that. Is there a ceiling that women cannot break through, or is it down to other factors, such as the lifestyle or career choices that women make?
In 2010, a Department for Business, Innovation and Skills report recommended that the chairmen of FTSE 350 companies should set out the percentage of women that they aim to have on their boards in 2013 and 2015. That is a way of getting the issue on the radar screen, which is where I want it to be. That approach is the best way to get this issue looked at sensibly and effectively. I say to Jenny Marra that the report went further—it also recommended that FTSE 100 boards should aim for a minimum of 25 per cent female representation by 2015. However, it is interesting that the report did not recommend the introduction of legal quotas and apparently only 11 per cent of the responses received recommended the introduction of quotas.
Will the member take an intervention?
I am very tight for time. Will the member forgive me if I try to use my five minutes as best I can?
Although I certainly broadly sympathise with the thrust of what Jenny Marra is seeking to do, my experience suggests that both men and women can provide the necessary skills for any job and sex does not somehow or other eliminate that. In my experience, where women emerge in fora that have been traditionally male dominated—whether a university court, a board of directors, a body of trustees, or even leading a political party, all of which I have done—they bring their own unique characteristics to bear.
I say to Jenny Marra that in my experience in dealing with David Cameron, I could not have found a more enthusiastic advocate for promoting the cause of women in politics. I accept that I was perhaps the first political auntie he had ever acquired and that that might have been a reason for his kind treatment.
Jenny Marra mentioned Norway. Although it has made progress, that success—and I accept that it has been a success to some extent—has not altered the fundamentals of how women progress through organisations. Non-executive director appointments account for most of the increase in representation. Quotas have not tackled the issue of women coming through their own organisation’s pipeline, because apparently in Norway women still make up only 2 per cent of chief executive officers and 10 per cent of executive committee members. It seems that the increase in the number of women board members was partly achieved by an increase in board size, rather than replacing significant numbers of existing members. That leaves me uneasy.
I want—as I think every woman in the Parliament wants—Scotland to be a place where women and men can succeed, but that has to be on the basis of skill and talent. I want that to happen in a positive, organic and incremental fashion. From my experience, I think that it can happen. That is why I am unable to support quotas, which Jenny Marra seeks to impose. However, I thank her for bringing the debate, which I welcome. What matters is that the issue does not now come off the radar screen.
We now move to open debate. Time is extremely tight and the Presiding Officers will struggle to get into the debate everybody who wants to speak, so we will be cutting speeches very short at four minutes.
09:40
I welcome the debate and agree that the lack of women’s representation at the highest level of public life—and in private industry—is a concern that everyone in the chamber should have and that all our society should share.
Our demographic profile in Scotland is such that women live longer on average than men. If our women pensioners have been less well paid throughout their careers and unable to progress as easily as their male counterparts for whatever reason—and I am sure that many of those barriers will be examined today—our society is storing a problem of pensioner poverty for women.
I am a member of the British Computer Society and I had a 20-year career in information technology before entering politics full time in 2007. I realise that that makes me one of the women who have chosen to leave that profession. However, I remain passionate about encouraging young women into rewarding careers in IT and in science, technology, engineering and mathematics—STEM subjects.
IT is a relatively new industry, and one might expect that the problems that exist in older, more traditional sectors, public bodies, and industries such as medicine, engineering and banking might not be so prevalent in IT. However, in 2008 the British Computer Society published a report, “Women in IT Scorecard”, which mapped gender imbalance in the IT workforce. It had some startling findings. Although women represent 45 per cent of the United Kingdom working population, in the IT sector women represent only 19 per cent. The representation of women in the IT sector in the UK is only two thirds that of Italy or Ireland. The report also shows that women coming into the profession outperform their male counterparts academically—as alluded to by Annabel Goldie—yet their career paths do not reflect that starting base.
Most significantly, the BCS report showed that the pay gap in IT answers many of the questions about why women leave or fail to seek advancement. The pay gap for 16 to 29-year-olds was a staggering 14 per cent, and it was shown that that gap starts from virtually day one of employment. However, by the time people get to ages 40 to 49—a point at which the board room is perhaps a natural progression for people in the profession—the pay gap between men and women is 30 per cent.
That is why I have much sympathy with the concerns and serious issues that the Labour motion raises. However, I do not believe that the problem can be tackled from the boardroom down. It is far more fundamental and must involve us all embracing a cultural change in our society. That has been identified in the Royal Society of Edinburgh report, “Tapping all our talents”, which is an investigation into women in science, technology, engineering and mathematics that looks for a strategy for Scotland. The report shows that the loss of talent of women in STEM subjects is mainly due to cultural factors. In paragraph 6 it states that change will
“require a major cultural change in attitude and approach.”
That is why I do not believe that quotas will be the answer. We need to achieve a much more fundamental change in our society.
Will the member give way?
The member does not have time.
I am in my last few minutes.
A European Commission report, “Women in economic decision-making in the EU”, looks at improved company performance evidenced by women in the boardroom. I suggest that that improvement is because women have achieved the boardroom in those companies and that their culture reflects that success.
I commend the progress that is being made by the Scottish Government.
09:44
I welcome the opportunity to speak in the debate. We have had several interesting speeches, particularly from Jenny Marra, who mentioned the international aspects, which we all agree are important. For me, the issue is about more than gender equality, as there is a clear business case for increasing the number of women in decision-making positions in Scotland, not just in the public sector, but in boardrooms in the private sector. The debate is also about how we create the conditions for women to have the skills and experience that Annabel Goldie spoke about so that they can take those into decision-making positions. That is one of the issues that we need to address. We have to think not only about quotas, but about how we support women in the workplace in non-traditional industries to gather skills and experience and then make a difference.
That highlights the real issue. The debate is not just about the glass ceiling that people talk about a lot; it is about the sticky floor that affects many women. Women have to face issues to do with bringing up a family. Many expectations are placed on them and they face a lot of challenges in life, in the workplace and elsewhere, which they have to balance. Frankly, men do not have to face those issues. As well as considering quotas, we need to address those issues.
Work by the Fawcett Society has produced some key figures that show that the case for more women in senior positions in the boardroom in the public and private sectors is undeniable. Women are estimated to be responsible for about 70 per cent of household purchasing power; they make up 46 per cent of the economically active workforce; and they provide more than half of university graduates. Companies with more women on their boards have been found to outperform their rivals, with a 42 per cent higher return in sales, a 66 per cent higher return on invested capital and a 53 per cent higher return on equity. The facts and figures exist to back up the proposal. It is the right thing to do not only to ensure that we have equality, but to ensure that we have better business practice in the boardroom.
I appreciate the warm words in the Scottish Government’s amendment. There is nothing in it with which we in the Labour Party can disagree, but a consensus is building, particularly outside the Parliament, that we need to take more radical steps and action to address the issues. The world is changing and people are asking questions about the orthodoxies that have been in the workplace and industry for many years. In this debate, we are asking serious questions about what we have always accepted as the norm.
John Wilson made a point about political representation. If it was not for the fact that the Labour Party took direct action in 1999, including through our selection processes for the regional list, it is unlikely that Jenny Marra and Kezia Dugdale would be sitting on our front bench today talking about the issue. Regardless of members’ political persuasion, that shows that such decisions can work.
09:48
I agreed with much of what John Park said, but Kezia Dugdale and Jenny Marra have quality—they are here not because they are women, but because they are good politicians. That is not patronising; it is an observation from an old hand.
May I clarify my point?
Yes.
They are good politicians, but if we had not taken decisions to ensure effective gender representation through our selection processes, it is highly unlikely that they would be here.
I am afraid that that does not help the member, so he should not dig any further.
Just last week, I attended a Penicuik high school ceremony in which 5th and 6th year pupils received awards for academic excellence. The balance on the platform was tipped in favour of the girls. That was before I started to think about what I would say in this debate, but I wondered how many of those girls would continue to outperform the boys who were receiving awards on the same day. I am pretty clear that they will not continue to do so.
For many of the reasons that Annabel Goldie and, to some extent, John Park outlined, some of them will not even reach, let alone attempt to break that glass ceiling. The fact is that certain practicalities lie in the way of women’s progress—indeed, I myself came across those very practicalities many years ago. In my time, I have been a teacher, a lawyer and a politician, but at the time I had my children I had to leave work for six years. That made a huge difference to my career progression as a teacher—although I should add that that is not why I left the profession. The same practicalities remain; indeed, men who parent children now face some of them. I do not mean this in a bad way, but the fact is that children and even elderly parents get in the way and prohibit progression.
As Jenny Marra will know, because she raised the issue at the Justice Committee, I very much sympathise with her ideas but cannot support the notion of quotas. Instead, I support the provision of support to all kinds of people who cannot progress because of certain practicalities in their lives. Let me examine the logic of the argument that Jenny Marra advanced at the Justice Committee. She argued that women should comprise 40 per cent of the membership of the Scottish police authority because they make up 50 per cent of the population and understand and deal better with “women’s issues” with regard to, for example, domestic violence, sexual assault and so on. Notwithstanding the fact that domestic violence can happen across generations, between women, between men and, indeed, in all kinds of situations, Ms Marra took the view that women as members of the Scottish police authority would be better at dealing with resource and policy issues in relation to these matters. I simply do not accept the logic of that argument. I think that there are men who can be extremely sensitive to what one might call women’s issues and women who can be extremely sensitive to what one might call men’s issues—and both can be sensitive to children’s issues. I look at the quality of the individual. At this point—and with regret to Annabel Goldie—I am going to have to say two bad words: “Margaret Thatcher”. She became Prime Minister, but I can think of no one who was less sensitive to what one might call women’s issues.
I also highlighted certain practicalities at the Justice Committee. For a start, if 40 per cent of the women coming forward were not of the same quality as 40 per cent of the men—and vice versa—we would not be picking the best people.
Jenny Marra rose—
I am sorry—I have only 20 seconds left of my four minutes.
I am concerned that we would not be picking people on the basis of quality. As I said before, Jenny Marra and Kezia Dugdale are sitting on the front bench because they have been chosen on their merits, not because they are women.
09:52
As someone who has campaigned for equality for decades, I have a great deal of sympathy with Jenny Marra’s frustration at the lack of progress in women’s representation in public life in Scotland. Although, as the only female Liberal Democrat MSP, I am particularly conscious that some might argue that if we cannot get our own house in order we should not try to engineer what happens elsewhere, I have to wonder when it will ever be the right time to tackle the issue. The older I get, the more impatient I am—not for myself, but for the next generation of women. The pace of change is glacial.
No one who takes even a cursory look at our Parliament, our council chambers, our boardrooms and our public bodies will be able to argue that Scotland has got it right. Although Scotland is a really diverse country, that diversity is not reflected in those institutions. We are short-changing everyone, not just those who are underrepresented. Our public bodies guide a range of very important services and if we are to properly meet the needs of our diverse population we should be able to draw on the full potential of all our citizens and value their individuality. Board membership should be broadly representative of our wider society.
For many years, I have reluctantly accepted the argument that soft measures such as mentoring, education, awareness, improved access to child care and so on are the way forward. The diversity delivers strategy, which was drawn up in 2008, seemed to be a reasonable attempt at improving equality in public appointments and I welcomed the Government’s commitment to tackle the matter. The vision had three strands: first, a pool of applicants as diverse as the people of Scotland; secondly, an appointments system that inspired confidence; and, thirdly, a programme of support for our future leaders. Has it worked? The latest annual report from the Office of the Commissioner for Public Appointments in Scotland says:
“The outcomes by equality group offer a mixed picture. It is encouraging to see increases in the percentage of female applicants, ... demonstrating that the awareness-raising activity undertaken as part of Diversity Delivers has made an impact. However, it is frustrating to see the decrease in the percentage of women and applicants declaring a disability who are shortlisted and to note the decline in the appointment figures.”
Indeed, back in 2008, the “Diversity Delivers” document, while arguing against the need for targets, warned that
“a strategy that results in more diversity at the application stage—but sees no change on the boards themselves—will not have succeeded.”
By its own measurement, the strategy is not delivering on the vision.
As I said, our boards perform important functions and in no way do I undervalue the commitment and service of those who currently serve on them. I am not criticising any individual male on any board, but it is time to scotch, once and for all, the old argument that keeps getting trotted out: that positive discrimination leads to mediocrity.
More women are applying but men keep getting the jobs. Do we really believe that that is because men are always the outstanding candidates? Are our boards around Scotland just fizzing with innovation, enterprise and erudition, or is it the case that perfectly acceptable, well-qualified men are displacing equally acceptable, well-qualified women? Maybe it is even worse than that—what if it is the case that perfectly acceptable men are displacing some very bright women?
Are all MSPs happy that their daughters and granddaughters should continue to be at such a disadvantage? Are they happy to accept that 52 per cent of Scots do not deserve proper representation? Are they happy to continue to give a special advantage to men and to be blind to the fact that ability comes wrapped in many guises? Is it not time that we made a step change? Is it not time to face up to the fact that some extremely difficult-to-conquer biases are operating under the radar?
Around Europe, there is a growing realisation that soft measures are not working, and here in Scotland we need to be open-minded enough to consider introducing the measures that are working elsewhere. Jenny Marra argues that it is time to take positive action. Instead, the Government’s response is to offer yet another meeting. If not quotas, what? If not now, when?
09:56
It is with a little trepidation that I rise to speak in the debate from my somewhat limited male perspective on such matters. I am glad that, as John Park has already spoken, I am not the first male speaker in the debate. I admit—also with some trepidation—that I had not been aware that this year is the UN year of empowering women. It is therefore apt that we are having the debate and, on that basis, I congratulate Jenny Marra on securing it. It is right that the Parliament considers such matters.
That said—I say this as gently as I can, not because I want to be patronising, but because I think that it is important that the debate has the right tone—I think that the manner in which Jenny Marra set out the case for more equal representation on boards was unfortunate. I do not think that the case is well served by partisan point scoring. [Interruption.] Jenny Marra suggests that I am often the first to engage in that sport, but perhaps we need to reflect on how we can best pursue the legitimate concerns that exist about the underrepresentation of women in public life. Is more equal representation best secured by suggesting that some parties have a better record than others on the representation of women in local government? The extent to which one party’s record is better than another’s is perhaps a moot point. We must consider how best we can make progress on the issue and how best we can come together and find some common ground. After all, this is an issue on which there must surely be some common ground.
I mentioned my limited male perspective. I will say a bit more about that and will explain why I wanted to speak in the debate. Alison McInnes touched on the issue. I am the father of a young daughter—she is two and a half years of age. My wife will give birth to her second child this summer. It is possible that I will be the father of two young daughters. I do not want the life chances of my daughter to be limited because of her gender, as the evidence suggests happens.
I accept entirely that it is possible for women to reach the top of their chosen profession. There are many examples of that in the Parliament—my esteemed colleague in the Presiding Officer’s chair is one such example. We have heard about other examples. In recent times, we have had a female Lord Advocate and we now have a female Solicitor General for Scotland. However, to use such examples to prove the rule would not be to tell the true story.
Does the member accept that the issue is not just about women getting to the top? It is not about their careers; it is about the people they represent and the issues that should be addressed. It is critical for our boards of public bodies in Scotland and the way in which we govern our services that that happens.
Yes, I accept that entirely, and I will come on to that point. However, it is important to ensure that women can rise to the top of their chosen profession. I was making the point that that can happen, but that, equally, that does not tell the entire story.
Despite women having so many advantages—they form a slight majority of the population and are better educated than their male counterparts—I entirely accept that they are underrepresented in both the corporate world and public life. Figures from the Commission for Ethical Standards in Public Life that show that 37.1 per cent of those appointed to public bodies in 2011 were female. That is close to the 40 per cent target, but I readily question whether it is good enough.
It is incumbent on us to consider initiatives to advance women’s representation, which should include consideration of whether the use of quotas or a fixed mechanism is a proper way to do that. Some people have spoken of their opposition to the proposal. I am not instinctively opposed to it. I am quite willing to hear the case, and I think that the minister said that she is equally willing to hear it. On that basis, I will support her amendment, and I look forward to the discussion continuing.
I call Malcolm Chisholm, to be followed by Graeme Dey. I apologise to Alison Johnstone, as I simply will not have time to allow her into the debate.
10:00
We will not get far in this debate unless we face up to two facts—first, that there is a serious problem, and, secondly, that the action that we have taken so far to deal with it has failed. I could read out the long list of boards on which there are either no women, just one woman, or just two women, but as I have only four minutes I will not do that. I say in summary, however, that in the case of executive NDPBs, which are important public bodies in Scotland, there are 261 men and 89 women, and in the case of police boards, in which context the issue was originally raised by Jenny Marra, the figures are 119 men and 27 women.
I would take seriously Christine Grahame’s argument about appointment on merit if it was true, but in the face of those figures, she cannot possibly believe that appointments are being made on merit. The fact of the matter is that the merit of a man is being regarded as of more worth than the merit of a woman.
Will the member give way?
Will the member give way?
I will give way if I have time towards the end of my speech, but I must make my four or five points first.
As I said, we have to face up to the fact that what we have tried so far has not worked. I take Humza Yousaf’s point. I was the minister with responsibility for equalities, and we did a lot in those days in relation to gender equality, but we did not do what is proposed in the motion. We have to face the fact that we have tried certain things and they have not worked. We should pay tribute to the wonderful new members around me, who are coming up with lots of new ideas. In the context of this morning’s debate, I pay particular tribute to Jenny Marra, who has run with the idea.
It seems to me that Karen Carlton is coming to a similar conclusion. She is the Public Appointments Commissioner for Scotland who for several years has headed up the work around “Diversity Delivers”—unfortunately, that is a bit of a misnomer, because we know that the strategy does not deliver. Nevertheless, she has headed up that work, which has been based on increasing the number of women who apply for positions on boards. In her latest annual update on “Diversity Delivers”, she states:
“despite an increase of nearly 4% to the application rate there has been no significant change in the percentage of women being appointed, and an actual reduction at the point of shortlisting.”
That actually refers to the figure that the minister quotes positively in her amendment. Karen Carlton is criticising the figure that Shona Robison has highlighted.
In the same report, in response to Scottish Government proposals to conduct more research into applications, Karen Carlton states:
“the research necessary now is into the barriers to women when they do apply—that is, the barriers women face in the Scottish Government’s process.”
Will the member give way?
If I have time, but I do not think that I will have.
People must be prepared to change their minds in the face of the facts. The minister talks about building consensus, but she should look at the people who are already supporting the position that we are putting forward. The report on universities has been referred to, as has support from Oxfam, Scottish Women’s Aid and the STUC.
Europe is also crucial in this area, and, to answer the point that Shona Robison made with reference to the Equality Act 2010 and positive action, Labour’s positive action in relation to candidates was tested and was found to be consistent with the act. More fundamentally, it is obvious from the European examples—it is not just Finland; I was going to talk about Norway and Denmark, but I do not have time—that the 40 per cent process is consistent with the European Union equality legislation that underpins the 2010 act.
I advise Malcolm Chisholm that it was an all-woman panel that considered the applications for the Scottish Information Commissioner, it was a woman who was appointed, and it was all done on merit.
I am sure that that happens, but I am talking about the generality of the issue. Christine Grahame has to face facts. She cannot argue with the figures that I have presented.
We have tried to make progress through encouraging more applications and so on, but that has not worked. It is time to take a bold step, although it is not that bold, because it is already done throughout Europe.
10:04
I, too, commend the Labour Party for bringing the debate, because the issue of female representation in all aspects of public life is hugely important and should transcend party politics.
I must confess that gender balance has not always been at the forefront of my consciousness. As a journalist I worked on a fairly well-balanced mixed-sex, editorial floor and, rightly or wrongly, I tended to view workmates as colleagues rather than as men or women. However, I recall now that only a small handful of women held positions of authority. Now, working in Parliament and sitting in the chamber, how much of an issue gender balance is hits home. Indeed, as I sat in the chamber a little less than a week ago, how underrepresented women are within Scottish public and business life smacked me between the eyes.
Last Thursday and Friday, a number of MSPs from all parties participated in a highly successful business in the Parliament event. I am sure that I speak for many when I say that it was a hugely informative and thought-provoking gathering. For me, the most thought-provoking moment came in the midst of the question-and-answer session towards the end, when I suddenly realised how few women were there. A quick headcount revealed that in a chamber that hosted around 140 people at the time, only 31 women were present, MSPs included. I do not doubt that a number of female participants who perhaps attended Thursday night’s dinner could not make it on Friday or left early. Nevertheless, that snapshot is indicative of the fact that we have a problem.
However, I remain to be convinced of the merits of quotas. I accept that, as a man, I can probably never fully understand the challenges and barriers that women have to overcome to forge successful careers in business or politics, or on public bodies, but I want to gain a greater understanding of what those challenges and barriers are in order to play a part in removing them. I believe that, right across Scottish society, our aspiration should be to ensure that by 2020 we are looking to go beyond 40 per cent female representation. That may be a big ask, but surely the way to go is to identify the reasons why the current imbalance exists, actively take steps to make it easier for women to come forward in greater numbers and then sustain better gender balance.
I want—we all want—even more women in our councils, Parliament and boardrooms, but not by virtue of their being favoured by their gender. I feel that that is the inherent danger of quotas. We must not only aspire to but succeed in increasing the number of women coming forward. They can then be judged on their ability as they go head-to-head with their male counterparts. Once that has carried the day, we will have in place an environment that guarantees that we have not taken two steps forward only to take one step back.
Will the member take an intervention?
I am sorry, but I have only a limited amount of time.
Jenny Marra mentioned the make-up of the ruling administration on Dundee City Council. I draw her attention to Angus Council’s new 15-strong Scottish National Party administration and to the fact that it comprises eight men and seven women—not full equality, but almost. That was achieved naturally, by selection and election, with no quotas. The only positive discrimination shown was in selecting the people who were deemed, regardless of gender, to be the most able. I do not downplay the fact that there are challenges for women in politics, but I think that that sets a good example. Further, four of the seven first-time councillors are female.
I recognise that not every council is in as strong a position in that regard. Indeed, within Angus Council we need only look across the floor to the opposition benches to see that there is only one female councillor among 14. That is not a political point but a statement of fact and a further acknowledgement that there is a problem that all of us need to commit to tackle. We can bandy statistics back and forth—for example, five of the 23 United Kingdom Cabinet members are women, whereas six of the 20 ministers in Scotland’s Government are women, so we could claim to be doing better than Westminster. However, the fact is that nowhere in Scottish society can we say that we really have fair representation of women. All of us in this chamber—MSPs of both sexes—have a responsibility to address that.
We now move to the winding-up speeches. I call Annabel Goldie, who has four minutes.
10:08
The debate has had currents of tension and passion. In some respects, that has been unfortunate, but I feel that the debate has been useful. I pay tribute to Jenny Marra for gripping an issue that has to be addressed. She has undoubtedly, to use a phrase that I used earlier, got it on to the radar screen.
Having listened to the debate, I am encouraged, because I think that there is a genuine desire across the chamber to recognise that there is an issue and to build a consensus around how we address it. To anyone who is in any doubt that there is an issue, I say that I think that the matter is self-evident. Jenny Marra, John Park, Alison McInnes, Christine Grahame and other members spoke eloquently about that.
Jenny Marra was absolutely right to focus her attention on public bodies in Scotland. I, too, looked at that area. I remind members that Quality Meat Scotland seems to have a female-free board—it has a 12-person board with not a woman on it. Who, may I ask, is likely to cook most of the meat? The Lands Tribunal for Scotland has four blokes on its board. The Water Industry Commission for Scotland has a Gordon, a David and a Charles. Jenny Marra mentioned the Scottish Police Services Authority—there is only one woman on its seven-member board.
Some of the other quangos that are low on female representation with one female board member are the Crofters Commission, VisitScotland, David MacBrayne Ltd, the Scottish Law Commission, the Local Government Boundary Commission for Scotland, Highlands and Islands Airports Ltd, Children’s Hearings Scotland—that is particularly worrying—and the Scottish Local Authorities Remuneration Committee.
The tale does not get much better. By any assessment, there are other public bodies that are, in my opinion, in a similarly deficient state of composition—in fact, one might be tempted to say decomposition. Frankly, that is a gloomy catalogue of female exclusion.
It would be tempting, in looking at the issue, to call for a cure by quota. However, I have to say to Jenny Marra that I am not convinced by that approach. There are legitimate concerns, which Christine Grahame and Graeme Dey eloquently alluded to. Although it is tempting to call for a cure by quota, getting more women is not synonymous with getting better talent. Getting more women on to a board may look good in numerical terms, but the test must always be how best representation on that board can serve the public interest.
There is no doubt that there is an issue, and there is no disagreement whatsoever that that issue must be addressed. When it comes to the boards of public bodies in Scotland, it seems to me that there is a ray of sunshine: an appointments structure over which we have collective control and input. The minister’s contribution in that regard was extremely helpful.
The most important feature of the debate is that Jenny Marra has brought the issue into the public domain. Whether we agree or disagree with her proposed solution, the issue will not now go away, and the most important consequence of the debate is the united will to do something about it.
10:13
I thank all the members who spoke in the debate. Unusually, there was increasing consensus as the debate went on, but that is no bad thing.
Clare Adamson made a thoughtful speech, in which she talked about IT, which is a challenging sector for women, with only 19 per cent female representation in it. Her point was that quotas alone will not tackle the problem—women must put themselves forward. What women have achieved in the boardroom is very important because other women see them as role models, inspiring others within that company. That was an important point.
John Park made a constructive contribution. The business case for gender balance is a strong one—I agreed with much that he had to say—especially in non-traditional industries. A real challenge is to ensure that women are able to come into those industries, never mind make their way up to the top of the organisation—the boardroom, for example. Importantly, he addressed the wider issues, such as childcare, that affect women’s ability to carry on with their career. Although we know about the legal position, there is no doubt that when women take time out, for example to have children—Christine Grahame illustrated the point well—they generally start at a different point in their career when they go back, and that is a problem.
Christine Grahame highlighted many barriers and is clearly against quotas. She made the important point that gender balance is not about having more women so that they can deal with women’s issues. Gender balance is about having more women because that is the right thing to do. Whatever walk of life they are from, or whatever board or institution they are involved in, women will be as involved in the day-to-day issues of that institution as men. They will not deal with only certain issues. It is important to be clear about that.
Alison McInnes made a good speech, a lot of which I agreed with. I thought that she was a little bit unfair about the diversity delivers strategy, because some progress has been made. We must acknowledge the fact that more women have been coming through the appointments process. I have spoken to women who, for the first time in many years, were encouraged to put themselves forward, which did not happen in the past. That is a good thing. I disagree with Alison McInnes on our ability to make progress on the issue with an open event. I thought that she dismissed that idea rather out of hand, which is unfortunate.
The minister is quite right about equality and diversity. Annabel Goldie made a good point about gender and how one’s sex should not really matter when it comes to equality and equal opportunities. Does the minister recognise the fact that visible minorities are in the same position?
That is an important point. The position of people who have disabilities or those from ethnic minority communities has not really come through in the debate. In many ways, the same principle is involved. When we open up boardrooms and boards, we encourage people from a variety of backgrounds to put themselves forward.
Malcolm Chisholm, as always, gave a very good critique of many of the issues. However, he must realise that the Equality Act 2010 permits political parties to have mechanisms that it does not expressly permit other sectors to use. We cannot dismiss that issue; we must look into it in some detail.
How long do I have left, Presiding Officer?
You have another minute and a half.
I will finish on a constructive note. In her summing up, Annabel Goldie opened the door to dialogue across the parties and outwith the chamber. She laid out the extent of the problem clearly and in strong terms, but she remains to be convinced of the solution. We should take from today the starting point that there is a huge reservoir of goodwill, while recognising that what we have done so far has not delivered what women expected in terms of being in public sector boardrooms, and that we have far more to do.
I hope that the event that I have suggested will give members across the chamber the opportunity to engage with outside organisations to work out what we can do—that should include a discussion on quotas—and what should be done, with recommendations going back to the Scottish Government. I hope that that suggestion will be taken in the spirit in which it is intended and that we can end today’s debate on the consensual note that it should have had right from the start.
I call Kezia Dugdale to close the debate.
10:19
Presiding Officer, I am slightly sorry that it is you in the chair today and not Tricia Marwick. Today’s debate has not covered the problems that working-class women face, particularly in political and civic life. We have a strong working-class woman at the top in our Parliament, and I would have liked to have been able to say that to her today. [Applause.]
I also pay tribute to my colleague and friend, Jenny Marra, who put the issue at the centre of our political discourse, to all the women who came before me, and to the women’s movement that lies at the heart of our party. This is a Labour debate—it is not just Jenny Marra’s debate—because it speaks to our values and what we stand for.
Will the member take an intervention?
I would like to make a bit more progress, please.
Quotas would be good for women’s issues. I say to Christine Grahame that I agree that they would be good for women and men—and for addressing apathy in the political process. That is at the heart of building a more progressive and equal society. I hope to go into that in some depth as I go on.
I am also pleased that Graeme Dey brought up the issue of journalism. In my view, we need to talk about not just political and civic life, but how that is reported. The number of female faces in the lobby in this building has been tiny during the five years that I have worked here, and that shows in the reporting. The news is of divisions and splits or barnstorming speeches; it rarely sees an issue in the round. I refer to what I have heard Lesley Riddoch describe as civic health. Child poverty is a good example: all aspects of it should be looked at and then reported on in the round. There is an age-old feminist adage that the personal is the political, and we need more of that in our politics if we are to turn around declining turnout figures.
Members might question the link, but I repeatedly hear two things when I am out on the doorsteps: first, that politicians are all corrupt and, secondly, that people are not very interested in politics. Part of the battle to overturn apathy is in reaffirming the relevance of the political process to people, and we can do that by making it personal. Instead of abstract fights about splits, we need more actual stories about how people live their lives and pay their bills—human voices that articulate the political ills of the day. If we change the way in which we talk about politics, we can change the audience, building one that listens. Breaking down the establishment and the political elite is crucial to achieving equality.
Lesley Riddoch has a lot to say about that issue. In fact, an article that she wrote back in 2000 has stuck with me over the years. In the article, which was entitled “In the land of cynics and numpties, let’s hear it for the Holyrood women”, she poses the question:
“What’s the point of electing women to parliament if they have to act like men to survive?”
The article points to the early trials and tribulations that leading women such as Wendy Alexander and Susan Deacon had to face in order to do things differently and, therefore, well. The article describes the bold steps that Susan Deacon took to tackle the health inequalities that women faced—to address smoking rates among young women, abortion rates and access to contraception—and how she was harangued for them. Johann Lamont, Margaret Curran and Wendy Alexander are all women who inspired and continue to inspire me. So, too, did Nicola Sturgeon, who is a fantastic role model for young women in politics, operating at the highest level of Scottish politics for more than a decade. It is important that we demonstrate solidarity with one another, as women, across political lines, in the name of progressing the case for gender equality together.
Will the member give way?
I am sorry, but I have a lot to cover and there are a few points that I want to rebut along the way.
The most powerful person in the room can be a woman, but that does not achieve a gender perspective across all decision making. It is true that things have changed for the better and that women can rise to the top, but the critical mass remains absent. I say to Clare Adamson that we need critical mass to drive cultural change, and that is what quotas are all about.
Annabel Goldie raised the issue of the glass ceiling. Yes, there is a glass ceiling. In the American presidential elections, Sarah Palin—of all people—talked about that. She said that Hillary Clinton had created 18 million cracks in it because she spoke to women Republican voters, trying to bring people together.
John Park is right to say that there is a sticky floor as well. There are things that hold women back, and we must create a critical mass to address that. We need to hear women’s voices in order to identify the problems, so that those problems are heard by the majority, which can act in response to them.
All those issues are detailed in the “Sex and Power” report that was produced by the Equality and Human Rights Commission. The report also talks about the dangers of an opt-out revolution of women who get so far—who hit that marzipan layer—and then do not go any further because they choose not to make sacrifices. They believe that they can do things differently and leave the highest levels of politics to make a life elsewhere—one that does not have the problems that they have faced every day—in which they can still be successful. We need to ensure that we do not just give up on that point.
We understand that there is a deep-rooted culture at the heart of Scotland’s public bodies that ensures that the merit of a man is worth more than that of a woman. That is something that diversity strategies have not and cannot address alone. I ask Christine Grahame whether she seriously believes that we have the best possible people serving in every one of our public bodies.
No, certainly not. I agree with everything that Kezia Dugdale says about critical mass. She heard what I said about the pupils at Penicuik high school. My personal approach would be not to have quotas, as that would be counterproductive. However, women certainly need more support in getting through, creating that critical mass and reaching—if not breaking through—the glass ceiling. There are practical things that we can do, but which are not quotas.
I thank Christine Grahame for that response. I am sure that it is a conversation that we will continue.
There is more to do on appointments to public bodies than bring in quotas alone. There is a culture around public appointments that we need to address. Even if we deliver quotas, we could still be creating jobs for the same boys and the same girls. We need to address that along the way.
I will deal briefly with Humza Yousaf’s point, to which I am afraid I took offence. Labour did not deal with the issue when we were in power because there were so many other gender equality issues that we had to address first—discrimination laws, access to maternity leave, the Equality Act 2010 and rights at work. A lot was done but there was a lot more to do. Humza Yousaf’s point was misplaced.
Will the member take an intervention?
No. I am sorry, but I do not have time.
I appeal to Annabel Goldie to change her mind. The woman I put before her is Christine Lagarde, who supports quotas. She was asked, “How can someone who believes in the free market possibly support gender quotas?” Her response was that if 1 per cent of the board of directors of major enterprises around the world are women, that is market abuse. When there is abuse in the market, we regulate it. When we have regulated that, we can continue as we were before. We are seeking to address the abuse in the market. I appeal to Annabel Goldie to consider that a bit further.
I am not instinctively a regulator. I am sorry.
The member says that she is not instinctively a regulator; I do not believe that Christine Lagarde is either, which is why I put her voice to the member. We are trying to regulate the market so that barriers can be broken down and we can build a more equal and progressive society together. That is at the heart of Labour’s motion.
The SNP Government says that it is progressive, but to make progress we have to do something, and we believe that quotas are the answer.