Plenary, 18 Mar 2004

Meeting date: Thursday, March 18, 2004

Official Report 767KB pdf

---

Action to Promote Women

The next item of business is a debate on motion S2M-1052, in the name of Margaret Curran, on action to promote women in Scotland, and one amendment to the motion.

Thank you, Presiding Officer. [Interruption.] Are we all sitting comfortably? Shall I begin?

I am delighted to move this motion this afternoon. Throughout the world, we take the opportunity afforded by international women's day to celebrate women's achievements, recognise the many challenges that so many of them still face and reaffirm our commitment to the equality of women and men.

Since its inception, this Parliament has recognised the significance of the event and properly acknowledged that the equality of women is a defining characteristic of any modern democracy. We are justly proud that 40 per cent of the MSPs in our young legislature are women, which places us fourth in the league table of women's representation. Many of us know that that outcome was made possible by strong campaigning and positive action. We also know that in order to deliver we must ensure that equality is reflected in the policies, priorities and actions of the Parliament. That is what the Scottish Executive has done. As I will argue this afternoon, in doing so, we have taken the Scottish Executive into a leading position in tackling inequality.

There are four clear strands to our work: partnership and engagement; work with the UK Government; developing the Scottish agenda; and future ambitions for women.

Is the minister aware that Highlands and Islands Enterprise has recently announced that it will cease to fund the Workers Education Association Scotland's women at work project, which encourages women into management, business and public life? The sudden loss of funding means that the network will probably collapse. Does she agree that HIE's decision goes against the spirit of her motion?

I will need to double-check the details and my familiarity with that decision. I am hesitant because I want to ensure that we have those details. In principle, I acknowledge Maureen Macmillan's argument that such a decision appears to run counter to the policies that we are trying to develop and I give her a commitment that I will examine the matter and check the details of the decision with her. I am about to argue that we are allocating substantial funding to develop the very policies that she has highlighted. Perhaps that is partly an answer to her question; I will come back to her on the details.

A key plank of our approach has been to listen to and work with the key organisations that represent women's interests in Scotland. From the Equal Opportunities Commission to Engender, the Executive has taken an approach that facilitates the analysis of and dialogue about the position of women in Scotland. For example, the proposal for the women's convention emerged from our partnership with the Scottish Trades Union Congress's women's committee. The STUC properly argued for an independent body to inform and influence policy and I was happy to agree to the suggestion to ensure that when we say that we want to involve and influence women, we mean it.

We are also determined that our conversation with women goes beyond those who traditionally have influence. We want to see contact with and support for local organisations. That aim has been accomplished partly through the women's fund and the investment of £450,000 over three years. So far, the fund has supported a range of organisations and projects that, for example, help women with alcohol issues, provide help with language translation and provide support to women who are homeless. It is important that women who work in local communities have a voice, have influence and are heard.

Partnership working also extends to the UK Government, and that has been particularly important in the current discussions about establishing a commission for equality and human rights. We are determined that the new body should be properly structured, resourced and organised to ensure that it engages with Scottish institutions, including the Executive and this Parliament, and that it is effective in delivering equality. We want a body that will have a strong presence in Scotland and which will be tuned to specific approaches, particularly mainstreaming, that we have adopted to advance equality.

We will continue to work with the UK Government on other fronts, particularly on tackling the pay gap. Although that gap has narrowed by 3 per cent since last year, we are not complacent. We are determined to deal with the mounting problems that it poses and will continue to work with our partners in the close the gap campaign to raise awareness and encourage employers to undertake equal pay audits.

The report of the strategic group on women highlights the need to take action in some specific sectors of the economy. We acknowledge that that must be done and I will ensure that the point that Maureen Macmillan raised is followed up in that context.

I would have thought that an SNP member would have intervened by now. However, let me deal directly with its amendment.

As an aside, I note how intrigued I am by how much the SNP has been carried along on the Scottish Socialist Party's coat tails. The SNP seems to lack original thought on several matters and to pick the same topics for debate as the SSP does. In fact, I believe that the wording of the SNP's amendment is from an SSP motion from last week. However, that is a matter for them.

Does the minister agree that that is because we are on the right side?

Oh, no—it just shows the confusion that exists. One party does not know where it stands and the other has little to offer the reality of working-class people's lives.

I find it astonishing that, in a debate about gender equality, which is about low pay, the minister would deal with the nursery nurses issue in such a frivolous manner. Rather than being so frivolous, will she tell us whether she believes that, to address the gender pay gap, nursery nurses should get a fair pay settlement? If so, what will she do about it?

Oh, my goodness—my comments must have hurt. However, never mind. It is surely appropriate in a chamber such as this for one political party to criticise another party and for that party at least to have some gumption and take it.

Let me focus on nursery nurses because that is, of course, an important issue, which has properly demanded attention from the First Minister and from Parliament. The Executive's position is that we recognise the enormous contribution that a largely female work force makes to our children's development. I made my specific remarks in response to Carolyn Leckie because we debated the issue of nursery nurses last week, and it is incumbent upon me to remind members what the Parliament agreed. We emphasised the need for the nursery nurses to receive a fair pay settlement and urged negotiations to continue to achieve just that. However, Parliament went much further than the SNP seeks to do. Parliament made it clear that it wants the Executive to push forward at the national level with plans for improved work force planning, a better qualifications framework and developing clearer career pathways for early-year workers. I confirm that the Executive wants to get on and do just that with employers and trade unions as soon as we can. The First Minister made that clear during First Minister's question time today.

Will the minister give way?

No. I am running out of time.

Parliament specifically said that it wanted action to be taken in respect of nursery nurses in order to secure better opportunities and greater equality in the work place for what is a predominantly female work force.

I return to my main theme of equality for women, which is the subject of the debate. The report from the strategic group on women made it clear that many challenges remain, but it also acknowledged that much progress has been made. It is incumbent upon members who claim that they are not making party-political points to recognise the real and solid progress that the Executive has made. Where we have taken decisive action, we know that it has made a difference. By 2005-06, £40 million will have been spent on child care; in 2003-04, £21 million is being given to support carers; and in 2004-06, there will be £20 million for the working for families fund, which helps to reduce child care barriers for parents moving into training, education or employment.

We have also made significant progress with our strategy to tackle domestic abuse, as has been widely recognised. We have provided £12 million since 2000 to build new refuges and to extend and improve old ones. We have ensured coverage in every local authority area in Scotland, which was not previously possible. We have given £6 million to deliver new services to support, for example, children who have experienced domestic abuse. Further, everyone would recognise that our awareness-raising campaigns have altered the debate around domestic abuse in Scotland. We are continuing to develop that work.

I recently announced that £1.5 million would be provided over two years for direct services that work with women who have experienced rape and sexual assault, women who are adult survivors of childhood sexual abuse and women who are experiencing commercial sexual exploitation. Women from Rape Crisis and from throughout the women's movement in Scotland acknowledge that, for the first time in the UK, Government has provided funding for work on such issues. We are transforming that area of work and that should be properly recognised.

We must go further. The strategic group on women has set out a comprehensive agenda and I thank it for its hard work. We must tackle a number of issues in Scotland because we are determined, on international women's day and the period around it, to reaffirm our commitment to the promotion of women and the furtherance of equality.

I move,

That the Parliament welcomes the publication of the report of the Strategic Group on Women, Improving the Position of Women in Scotland: An Agenda for Action, and urges all individuals and organisations that have an influence on the lives of women in Scotland to work together for the benefit of the whole of Scottish society, to deliver more opportunities for all women and greater recognition of the contribution women make through paid and unpaid work to the economic and social well-being of the country.

I begin on a consensual note by paying tribute to the work of the strategic group on women. I also want to acknowledge the good work that the Parliament has carried out on domestic abuse in particular. It is commendable that that area has received a higher profile and additional resources because of the existence of this institution.

However, little progress has been made in other areas. I will focus on equal pay, on which we still have a long way to go. Women who work full-time earn 19 per cent less per hour than men; they earn even less for part-time working. Sixty per cent of employers still have no plans to have an equal pay review to check that their employees are being treated fairly. There is also a disparity between Scotland and England—Scottish women have a gross weekly income of only £371, whereas the income of their English counterparts is £401.

We have a problem, because the Parliament has no powers to address those issues. The review group's report said:

"a number of the key levers of influence in women's lives are reserved to the UK Parliament at Westminster e.g. employment and equality legislation, tax, benefits, pensions policy and minimum wage levels."

That is a compelling reason for the Parliament to have control over those key levers; having such control would allow it to deliver real change for women in Scotland.

In relation to women's pay, there is one area in which the Executive and the Parliament can lead by example. The report recommends that the Executive should have gender pay gap targets to meet and that there should be better child care provision with increased funding. I could not agree more. The Parliament could make a good start by implementing both those recommendations and ensuring that Scotland's nursery nurses get a fair settlement to their pay dispute and receive fair pay for the hard work that they do. Even if their full claim were met, nursery nurses would still receive many thousands of pounds less than the average male wage.

The debate could go in two directions. Late on a Thursday afternoon, we could have a nice, worthy debate about gender equality, in which we all dust down our pro-women credentials and talk about the need to urge for this or that, but we would end up changing nothing for Scottish women before we went home to have our tea. Alternatively, we could make the debate real for people by tackling gender equality here and now. That could be done by people putting their money where their mouths are and acting to end the inequality of the wages earned by nursery nurses—an almost exclusively female work force, which is undervalued. The Scottish National Party's Michael Russell first raised that issue in the Parliament in 2001.

Is the debate about theory or practice? Are people going to talk a good game but, when it comes to doing something about the issue, be nowhere to be seen? Members have that choice.

Through the national child care and education strategy, the Executive has given nursery nurses new responsibilities and it is about time that it awarded nursery nurses the pay adequately to carry out that work. The Executive should intervene now to ensure that there is a national resolution to what is an increasingly bitter pay dispute.

I know that the Labour Party is very sensitive about the issue—so much so that there have been two attempts, both unsuccessful, to lodge amendments to my amendment. That shows the level of Labour's sensitivity. I can understand Cathy Peattie's sensitivity, given that she is a Unison-sponsored MSP. I am sure that she came under—

I am a Unison member, not a Unison-sponsored member.

That is even better—Cathy Peattie is a Unison member who should be taking account of her fellow Unison members who are in dispute. She should show solidarity with them.

Will the member give way?

No, thank you. I have taken one intervention.

The member is not taking an intervention.

Cathy Peattie is getting a bit hot under the collar because she should have done the right thing last week by backing nursery nurses. I afford her and her colleagues another opportunity today to do the right thing.

Will the member give way?

No, thank you.

Instead of talking a good game in the Parliament, we should do the right thing. We should back a fair pay deal for nursery nurses, so that the Parliament can be taken seriously in wanting to tackle low pay and gender inequality.

I move amendment S2M-1052.2, to insert at end:

"and, in recognition of the problem of low pay for many Scottish women, agrees that Scotland's nursery nurses have a just claim for a fair, nationally negotiated settlement to their current dispute."

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. Is it the protocol that if a member attacks another member, that member should at least have the courtesy to allow the other member the right of reply?

That is entirely up to the member.

Shona Robison gave way.

Order.

This promises to be an interesting debate for international women's day. The report by the strategic group on women makes interesting reading. The strategic group's members are all high-flyers in their chosen fields and we must commend the valuable work that they have done on how opportunities for women can be improved. Not all women aspire to reach the top of their careers, but if they do, they should not be stopped by the glass ceiling that many women say prevents them from reaching the peak of their ambitions.

The minister will be pleased to know that we do not take exception to the motion, because I hope that we all want to work together for the whole of Scottish society to open up opportunities for all women and to recognise their contribution to the country's economic and social well-being.

My only problem is that the report seems to assume that, ideally, everyone of working age should be involved fully in economic activity, which is not the case. The emphasis of the Government in Westminster and here on work-centred policies is fine for those who want to work, but research by the Centre for Policy Studies—I am sure that members agree that it is hardly a right-wing institution—which was published in its paper "Choosing to be different: Women, work and the family" has shown that many women would prefer to be at home with their families if they could afford to. If we really want to promote all women, we should respect the choice of those who want career breaks, who choose to work part time or who choose not to work and who want to focus their ambitions on family rather than career.

My profession is a case in point. There are and have been for generations many career women in medicine. Such women have put everything into the care of patients, dedicated their lives to their careers and made a major contribution to society. However, there are many more—myself included—who have decided to split their lives between profession and family and who choose to work part time or not at all. That choice must be accepted as equally commendable, but the downside is that, as the number of female medical graduates is at an all-time high, that choice of lifestyle is having a significant impact on the running of the service and must be taken into account in work force planning.

As I am a Conservative, choice is important for me. Opportunity should be available to all—men and women—and Government involvement should be geared towards helping families to achieve the work-life balance that is best for them. Of course women should be respected and have equal opportunities in life, from education to career options. If they choose a working career, access to child care should not be an obstacle. If they choose a home career of bringing up their children or looking after their elderly relatives, that too should be accepted and supported.

That approach should apply to men, too. More men are opting to remain at home with their children as single parents or in the role of parent or carer while their partner pursues a career. Many of those men feel somewhat isolated. They too must be treated equitably by society.

For hundreds of years, women have made a major contribution to Scottish society in medicine, the arts, sport, politics, business and the voluntary services. Since my mother's generation, many more women have been able to develop their talents through educational opportunity, which has opened up career options that were unheard of when I was young and given women hitherto unknown independence. That is as it should be, and obstacles should not be put in women's way. However, encouragement should also be given to those who choose not to be economically active but to make their contribution to society through their families or through voluntary activities.

I suggest that the best way to help Scottish women to flourish is to help Scotland to flourish. If there are to be opportunities for all, we must have a prosperous country. The best contribution that the Scottish Executive could make would be to address the issues that are holding us back, such as high business rates and water charges, lack of choice for parents in education and patients in accessing appropriate and timely health care and the need for more police in our communities. Many of those problems could be solved if the Executive would look a bit more sympathetically at some of the policies that Conservative members are promoting.

Like other members, I think that the strategic group has produced a very interesting report and I hope that the Executive will pursue the issues that it raises. The Executive has made some progress on promoting women—I know that Margaret Curran is committed to doing that—but we could do better. We are trying to put right several centuries, if not thousands of years, of discrimination the other way.

I have a piece of paper that lists all the marvellous things in the Liberal Democrat manifesto, but I will spare members that—it has probably been read and copied by other parties already. I want to concentrate on a few specific areas in which we may be able to improve matters. We can produce the rhetoric, but let us try to make a few changes.

The first issue was raised with me earlier today by a member of a deputation. It is a reserved matter, but we should bring pressure to bear with respect to it. A few years back, married women who were working paid a lower stamp. They were promised that that would make no difference to their pension, but in practice it does. Many women of pensionable age have a piffling pension and have a real problem. It is a straight discrimination issue, as all the people in this category are women. I suggest that we give Westminster a boot up the rear and tell it to get the matter sorted out.

I have mentioned previously the next issue that I want to raise, but it is worth considering. Really good progress has been made in combating domestic violence, but at the moment domestic violence is officially defined as violence by a partner. There is often other domestic violence—either by a large son against his small mother or by other male members of the family. I suggest that any violence in the home—including against the small number of men about whom my friend Mike Rumbles always goes on—should be treated in the same way. The police should get stuck into it, just as they are beginning to get really stuck into violence by a partner.

One issue that the report raises is flexible working hours, which are very important. Like me, other members will have been lobbied on occasion by nurses, one of whose problems in many areas is the lack of flexible working hours. Some institutions are quite accommodating, but others are not at all. That drives some people out of the profession. Surely it must be possible to run organisations in a way that enables people with family or other commitments to make a good contribution but to live a reasonable life and to meet their commitments. Technically, some of these issues may be reserved to Westminster, but we could put pressure on the health service and other organisations to act in a more intelligent way and to provide greater flexibility, especially to women, who tend to be affected more by this issue.

We could also do more to develop community enterprises. We are beginning to do some work in this area, again with the involvement of the Minister for Communities. We should help small groups, including co-operatives and people who establish small companies as offshoots from charities, and individuals to set up small local businesses that may grow. That model is particularly attractive to women, as it allows them to work near home and to work hours that suit them. Many of them have a huge amount of talent that at the moment we do not value and help to develop.

Many colleges have difficulty in funding courses to get people on to the bottom rung of the ladder, so that they can get qualifications of different sorts. That situation affects women quite a lot. We should have a better system of funding to make people capable of getting into the employment stream. While I recognise that not all women want to do that, we must have a society in which there is a choice and in which work at home, whether as a mother or carer, is valued properly. I hope that the minister will pursue those suggestions to make life better for women in Scotland.

I welcome the debate a week after international women's week. It is important that the Parliament debates issues to do with women. I support the nursery nurses' campaign and we should have an independent review.

This debate, however, is about wider issues. I have fought for women's issues since I was 15. We fought the symptoms then and now we must fight the causes—that is what the report is about. We need to hold on to that idea.

I start with the good news about women in Forth Valley. The chief executives of Scottish Enterprise Forth Valley, Forth Valley NHS Board, Forth Valley Primary Care NHS Trust, Forth Valley Acute Hospitals NHS Trust and Falkirk Council are all women. At Falkirk Council, the directors of community services, law and administration, development services, housing and social work services and nine heads of service are all women. In the Parliament, more than 40 per cent of MSPs are women.

Things are changing—they have been changing since I was 15, when I tried to unionise women on a factory line. Things are changing in the public sector in particular, although the private sector has a long way to go. However, inequality between women and men in Scotland is still a common feature of our society. Women tend to have less access to income, earnings, pensions and resources such as cars and housing. As we know, women are the main users of public transport. They have less access to political power and decision making across a range of public bodies. Despite the high number of women who are active in their communities, they are still under-represented in local government.

One in five women has a chance of experiencing domestic abuse during their lives. I commend the Executive for the support that it gives to the public and voluntary sectors, including organisations such as Scottish Women's Aid and Rape Crisis, to which the minister referred earlier. We must ask for more to be done to ensure that the justice system acts as a deterrent to the perpetrators. I thank the 47 people who have already indicated that they agree with that point by signing my recent motion.

I also commend the Executive for its work on mainstreaming equality and gender proofing. That work is vital if we are to make the changes we need to achieve equality.

Does Cathy Peattie agree with the section on child care on page 9 of the report by the strategic group, which says:

"The Scottish Executive should enhance the quality and value of the childcare workforce. There should be a review of the pay and conditions of childcare workers in the public and private sectors."

Should that work be done on a national basis and should there be a national settlement for nursery nurses?

I just said that I thought that there should be an independent review of nursery nurses and I have supported the campaign, so I do not have to answer that question.

It would be helpful if the SNP were interested in equality proofing—it has shown little interest in the subject in committee.

Cathy Peattie says that she supports an independent review, but should that review take place before or after the strike is settled?

I support an independent review—

I advise Cathy Peattie that she has one minute.

It is a shame that I do not have a chance to cover those interventions.

It is important that we value the work of women in their communities, both as volunteers and as paid workers. For too long, women's work has been seen as a source of cheap labour. We need to value women and not see them as hidden heroines; their contribution should be recognised.

We need to look at occupational segregation, which has been identified as one of the five primary causes of the pay gap. Industry is experiencing major skills shortages at the same time as training in the labour markets has characterised occupational segregation. The sectors that employ the lowest number of women are among those that are experiencing the most skills shortages. In my constituency of Falkirk East, there is a genuine skills shortage, but few girls come forward as apprentices and trainees. We need to make disciplines such as engineering and other professions an option for women and girls.

We need to be proactive in education. We must raise young women's aspirations, improve their health and build their self-esteem. Bright young women should not be pigeonholed in supposedly female, low-paid jobs.

I welcome the close the gap partnership project, which has been established by the Scottish Trades Union Congress and the Equal Opportunities Commission Scotland. I support Rowena Arshad when she said that we should forget about sex and politics, because

"pay is the new taboo in Scotland today. The whole business of pay is shrouded in mystery … if you are a woman on a lower wage you are even more likely to be in the dark on how much you should expect. Discrimination flourishes in this culture of secrecy when people cannot be sure they are rewarded fairly."

There should be no discrimination when employers recruit and pay people. We have come a long way in 100 years, but we have a long way to go.

I have been privileged in my political career and in my previous careers as a teacher and a solicitor because, in general, I received the same pay as my male colleagues. That was certainly true of my teaching career; it was not as true of my career as a solicitor, when I was paid very nearly the same. However, my experience represents the exception rather than the rule for women in Scotland. Often careers would come to an end when they reached a glass ceiling.

I was also a teacher in the past and I accept that there is an issue of equal pay for teachers. The underlying fact is that women teachers are less likely to be promoted. We might think that we have achieved equality, but if we do not address that issue, the gap will continue to exist.

I was coming to that; the member anticipated my next point. There was indeed a glass ceiling for many women in teaching. The great concern was that if a woman took time out of teaching to be with her family—as Nanette Milne suggested that women might want to do—she would somehow come off the treadmill and find that men were ahead of her in the promotion stakes. Certainly, I would qualify what I said about equality in the teaching profession.

Of course, as politicians, we are better off, and privileged in comparison with many women who are out there in the work force. I want to focus on the position of women in general, because it is more than 30 years since the Equal Pay Act 1970 was passed—although we might not think so, when we consider what is happening out there.

Girls are bright; they do better in education than boys—I hope that Brian Monteith is not going to intervene. Some 83 per cent of the girls who are put forward for standard grades achieve grades at levels 1 to 4 compared with only 79 per cent of boys. Women comprise 56 per cent of students in higher education and account for 57 per cent of higher education graduates, yet when it comes to the work force, the position changes—it is like the difference between night and day. Some 42 per cent of female employees work part time, compared with 9 per cent of male employees. Those figures reflect not necessarily women's choices, but rather the nature of the jobs that are on offer. Women who work full time earn, on average, 19 per cent less per hour than men. For part-time workers, the average wage is £7.40 per hour, which is 41 per cent less than the average full-time wage for men. In part, that is because of the nature of the jobs that are thought to be women's jobs.

As Donald Gorrie quite rightly said, women are very disadvantaged when it comes to pensions, not just because of the reduced national insurance stamp—I think that I am coming up to the point when I will find out what happened to mine—but because women who come out of the work force have not worked for enough years to be able to build up a full state pension. When women ask for predictions of the pension that they will receive at 60, they receive a great shock when they find out what awaits them. There are serious issues of poverty among women of retirement age.

Unfortunately, we cannot escape the fact that the majority of the solutions to issues of equal pay, quality of work, status and retirement relate to reserved matters. Until we address that properly in the Parliament and get the powers that we need, we cannot really change things, even with the greatest will in the world—and there are good and sincere people sitting on the other parties' benches who have the cause at heart. What has been done to address sexual assaults against women is commendable and should not be disregarded, but the issues of women who are in poverty, downgraded and in lower-paid jobs can be addressed only when this Parliament has powers over tax, national insurance, pensions and benefits.

I had no intention of making any interjection during Christine Grahame's speech, although after hearing the end of it, I say to her that it is entirely possible for men or women to change some of the matters that she raised; they can be changed at Westminster. There is no shame in members of the Scottish National Party standing for, and becoming members of, the Westminster Parliament. Some women members of the SNP have been successful in going to Westminster to deal with those sorts of issues. Let us not pretend that the issues cannot be dealt with by Scottish men and women. The avenues are there.

When I thought of speaking in the debate, and was deciding how to approach it, the phrase "first among equals" came to my mind. I say that because, according to some in today's Scotland—and the view is held in many other countries—the only way for women to get on in professional or political life is through some form of positive discrimination. I hope that people would agree with me that that is not the route that should be taken. Indeed, as we look at the Labour benches, we are aware that Labour introduced, but has since abolished, the approach of affirmative action.

We have not abolished it.

Oh, well perhaps some more reform is still needed. Labour's approach was to make a forced attempt to ensure that equal numbers of men and women came forward in winnable seats. I am happy to give way to Rhona Brankin, who is a fine example.

Thank you—I am delighted to hear Brian Monteith say that. If the Tories believe that affirmative action is not necessary and that women of ability can get into positions in parties, why does the Conservative party patently have so few women of ability?

The point is that we should measure the ability of women as opposed to the quantity of women. I will touch on that later. I point out that I am fully aware that Rhona Brankin was selected for Midlothian, which was chosen as a woman's seat, and that Labour members such as Robert McLean—a well-known activist in the area and somebody who fought for this Parliament—found that they could not stand for selection in the place of their upbringing, which, for Robert McLean, was Bonnyrigg. The policy clearly suggests that elections were being rigged. However, I happen to believe that all the Labour women here are here on merit; surely nobody would disagree with me.

Men and women are and should be treated as equal under the law. From that point on, it is up to people to make their own life choices. If it is wrong to rule a woman out of a job on the basis of her gender, so too must it be wrong to rule a man out for the same reason.

If it is all down to choice, women are a lot cleverer than Mr Monteith gives them credit for. They are clearly not choosing to be members on the Tory benches.

An interesting aspect of this debate is the way in which so many women feel that they have to get up and say that we are all equal and should be equal, but then, in their speeches or interventions, try to argue that women are better than men.

I want to respond to some of the points that have been made, and to draw to members' attention the success of women such as Nancy Astor, the first woman member of Parliament. She represented Plymouth Sutton from 1919 to 1945. By 1922, there were two further additions—Mabel Philipson, who represented Berwick-upon-Tweed, and Scotland's first Conservative woman MP, Katharine Stewart-Murray, who represented Perth and Kinross. Of course, in the not too distant past, Margaret Thatcher became the first woman Prime Minister of the United Kingdom. She is the only woman to have achieved that position. At the same time, she had the distinction of being the only man in the Cabinet.

I close now, Presiding Officer, as I feel that members will have caught the drift of what I am saying.

To return to the subject, I very much welcome the publication of the report that we are discussing—although with a tinge of sadness. I commend the members of the strategic group on women for their dedication and hard work in producing it. The report quite rightly points to evidence that inequality between men and women is a persistent feature of contemporary Scottish society. In particular, the evidence demonstrates that women are still more likely to be in low-paid, part-time work than are men. Despite increasing involvement in paid work, women continue to be responsible for most unpaid caring and domestic work in the home.

I am sad about the length of the report, as it indicates how slow progress has been since the wonderful days in the 1960s, when the liberation of women and the rise in feminism were so exciting and stimulating. As young female students in the 1960s, we felt that the world was changing and, when the Equal Pay Act 1970 was introduced, we felt that we had arrived. However, change is so slow, as is indicated by the variety of issues in the report that still require action.

I will highlight a couple of the points. Gender budgeting, a subject that I must admit I knew nothing about until I came to the Parliament, has been investigated at great length in the Equal Opportunities Committee. It has revealed the way in which budgets, and economic policies in general, often put women at a disadvantage. We need to support the work of the Scottish women's budget group, and the Executive's equality unit, which have demonstrated a commitment to investigate the gender impact of the Scottish budget through equality proofing. Unfortunately, the Parliament has failed at the first hurdle by not ensuring nursery provision at the new Scottish Parliament building for MSPs and staff. That was dropped from the allocation of resources—a situation that is unacceptable if the Parliament is serious about mainstreaming equality. In fact, action point 5 in the report encourages employers' support for child care in workplaces and specifically mentions workplace crèches.

The report also highlights enterprise and lifelong learning as an area in which there is considerable evidence of the different needs of men and women in respect of enterprise development and training. However, there is no evident gender analysis, either in the objectives or in the resource allocation. The Scottish Executive must act upon that finding.

Valuing women's unpaid work, and rewarding their paid work equally with that of men, are important aspects of tackling gender inequalities. The report recognises that. Recent work-life balance initiatives have shown that both sexes benefit from greater involvement in caring, more flexible hours and a balance of employment throughout the lifetime. Initiatives for paid work are very much welcome, but women need to be presented with choices. For example, we need to ensure that single parents, the majority of whom are women, are not unfairly coerced into employment. We need to value the work of child rearing, in particular valuing and supporting caring for children at home. Giving either parent the choice to stay at home to care for their young children is as important as ensuring that nursery nurses are truly valued in their work. I agree with Nanette Milne that choice and flexibility are the key.

There is an extensive agenda for action in the report. Much of what is in the report is necessary to achieve a more equal and just society for all women. I hope that we can rely on a commitment from the Executive to act on the recommendations in the report. It would be a travesty and a missed opportunity if a Parliament in which almost 40 per cent of the members are women did not act on the agenda for action outlined in the report.

I welcome the opportunity to speak in the debate and the opportunity that the debate gives the Parliament to continue its high profile for equal opportunities.

The report of the strategic group on women focuses on key areas that are, unfortunately, only too familiar and, in fact, are neatly encapsulated in the nursery nurses' campaign. I welcome the decision made by Parliament on 11 March on low pay in respect of nursery nurses, but I urge the Executive to confirm that there will be an independent review, which would facilitate the settlement of the dispute.

The focus of the report includes poverty, equal pay, child care, job opportunities and the gender segregation of jobs. It underlines the pressing need for what is seen as women's work to be fully valued and rewarded, as well as supported through adequate child care provision and flexible working arrangements.

I do not have enough time to run through all the issues that the report covers, but I mention and press the recommendations for the Scottish Executive to set up a short-life working group on gender issues in schools and for more mentoring schemes. I commend the National Assembly for Wales for its scheme of apprenticeships for public bodies, which I hope the Equal Opportunities Committee will consider. I also welcome the call for the Scottish Executive to work with political parties to increase women's representation, particularly given the window of opportunity that is afforded by the Sex Discrimination (Election Candidates) Act 2002, which allows parties, if they so wish, to adopt positive measures in selecting candidates. I look forward to all parties taking such measures so that we see a difference in the Parliament.

Given that Amnesty International has this month launched its campaign to stop violence against women, I press the minister, in the words of the report, to

"maintain the momentum already achieved on tackling domestic abuse against women".

As part of the consultation on hate crime, it is essential that the Executive considers whether assaults on the basis of gender, disability, age and sexual orientation should be treated as aggravated assault. We can influence those decisions and I urge organisations to take part in the consultation.

I add an extra plea about auditing. Whether we are concerned with public appointments, elected positions, jobs or service users, a comprehensive audit is required. I urge the Executive to commit to publishing an annual digest of statistics on women and men in Scotland, which would enable us to measure progress on equal pay against low pay and on other issues of gender inequality. The Engender gender audit, which was published from 1993 to 2000, made information available in an accessible way and was a crucial tool in campaigning for gender equality. Engender stopped that work on the understanding that statistics would be produced to allow a careful measure of the progress towards gender equality. The Scottish Executive was to produce those statistics regularly as part of the equalities strategy. We need regular information that enables change in gender equality to be monitored. The report sets out clearly how that monitoring, research and evaluation can and should be done.

The report also asks the Parliament to consider the creation of a mechanism to monitor the mainstreaming of gender issues in all committee business. We urgently need to work out and put in place such a mechanism. I realise that checks are in place at present, but a letter from the convener of the Equal Opportunities Committee is not a robust enough measure and is too much like a gentle reminder to embed mainstreaming into committee business, although I know that committee conveners take such checks seriously. The report must be taken into account in the Equal Opportunities Committee's work plan. I look forward to that happening.

I understand that the equality proofing budget and policy advisory group, which has been mentioned, is working towards making the budget gender responsive. I welcome and support that work, the importance of which cannot be overestimated. However, I have a difficulty with the contrast between the urgency of the report and the more long-term and patient approach of the advisory group and the Executive. Change cannot happen overnight and neither devolution nor independence will bring change in itself. I urge the minister and the Executive to give the report careful consideration and to act on its recommendations.

The motion states that there should be

"greater recognition of the contribution women make through paid and unpaid work to the economic and social well-being of the country."

This week, like last week, we have an opportunity to make a tangible and immediate difference by supporting Shona Robison's amendment. Nursery nurses do paid and unpaid work and go above and beyond the call of duty. Fröbel, an early education pioneer, stated that the earliest age is the most important one for education because the beginning decides the manner of progress and the end. If the beginning is the most important stage, why are the people who contribute to that stage the least rewarded? The answer is that they are women. Nursery nurses work alongside teachers with the same guidelines, standards and national documents. They plan, programme and assess. Why can they not be paid nationally like teachers, with whom they work in partnership?

In her speech, Margaret Curran referred to international women's day. When we celebrate that day, we always refer to historical examples. How will history judge the happenings in the Scottish Parliament last week? Did what happened move women forward or was it a step backwards? Was it the difference between substance and aspiration?

The situation of chefs in the national health service is similar, as again they are predominantly women. The Executive is in a position to do something about the problem, but again it chooses to sit on the fence. The Executive opts out of taking a view or providing a lead in shattering what is an obvious inequality.

We are now in the third week of all-out action. I am interested and extremely confused by a quote that I found in an issue of the Wishaw Press, in which Karen Whitefield is quoted as saying:

"The Executive motion clearly states the need for a national settlement."

In fact, she is referring to the Executive's amendment to my motion in the debate on nursery nurses last week. Clearly, that was not Euan Robson's view in the response that he gave to a question from Karen Gillon. Is Margaret Curran's view that the Executive amendment to my motion last week represented the need for agreement on a national settlement? I do not believe that that is the case. The nursery nurses did not believe it. Indeed, they are still on strike, one week later.

If the Executive amendment offered a way forward, as Johann Lamont said that it did in the speech that she made, why are the nursery nurses still on strike and why are we not any further forward? Jack McConnell continues to say that it is not appropriate for him to comment during a dispute. When is it appropriate for him to do so and when will we get a resolution?

It is clear that something happened during the debate last week when Karen Gillon put Euan Robson on the spot. It is clear that there was a belief that there would be a review. I do not know whether the belief was that there would be a review before or after the strike is settled. Clearly, Euan Robson did not give Karen Gillon the right answer, which is why Johann Lamont changed her position from the one that she took during her speech, when she said that she thought that the Executive amendment offered a way forward. She later chose to vote against the Executive at decision time, which was the right decision.

The only judgment we can make of the Executive is whether we believe seriously that we are to support a situation in which it says, in effect, that the strike must end and that nursery nurses must negotiate locally on the basis of a promise that is more obscure than the most difficult of cryptic crosswords. Is the Executive seriously suggesting that the nursery nurses should go back to work on the basis of a hidden promise of a possible review, which was denied by the Deputy Minister for Education and Young People?

Will the member give way.

The member is in her last minute.

I am sorry. I would have taken the intervention, but I cannot.

I want to ask Margaret Curran a specific question. What is her position? Does she agree that the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities should sit down at national negotiations to resolve the dispute? That is the issue and we need a clear answer. Is it to be yes or no?

If the Executive amendment offered a way forward, why are we no further forward? I do not care who was the first to declare their support for the nursery nurses. I also do not care who said what, when. The opportunity exists for us to be united in support of the nursery nurses' position and to achieve a settlement to the dispute. I welcome everybody to come together—no matter when—to do the right thing.

In this week of international women's day, we recognise that the context of giving women more power and liberating women to take a full place in our society is one of the things that the way in which we organise our legislatures and the many different parts of our lives must achieve.

I was interested to read yesterday in The Herald about a big idea: to ban men from power.

Hear, hear.

Thank you, Johann—I thought that that might get a response.

I thought about intervening slightly earlier when Rob Gibson talked about "giving" women power. The reality of women's history is that women have taken power; they have been in power to make change for themselves. It is great that we have a Scottish Parliament that recognises the importance of listening to women's voices.

I hope that all of us would vote for that. In other words, I hope that all of us vote for the extra powers that are needed. As legislators, we have the power to do that—even the men among us.

In countries that have more female members in their legislatures, there is less of a propensity towards international violence. The very low level of women members in the United Kingdom and United States legislatures suggests a reason for those countries' tendency to be more violent.

I wish to focus on one aspect of the liberation of women that has allowed them to have a far greater say in all democratic processes. With the single transferable vote in multimember constituencies, which could bring many different people into local government, it will not be a committee that chooses who will be at the top of the list; it will be up to the electorate to do so, using an open list—we hope. At least, that is how I view STV and multimember seats. It is an interesting prospect. So many women who are active in organisations in local communities would then get the recognition that they cannot get when they hit the glass ceiling over the smoke-filled rooms of party organisations. Such a change is a means of freeing up the jobs that women can do for the better of society and is one of the most practical ways in which the Parliament can take things forward. I hope that members realise that a lot hangs on that.

Given the difficulties around finding child care and so on, we need also to think about the fact that people who take up representative positions, such as councillors, must be properly paid and looked after. Crèches and other facilities must be made available at councils. Those are the blocks on which a far greater percentage of women in such positions may be secured.

I hope that, when the Parliament has full powers, we will also have a far less aggressive Parliament. I think that a lot of the aggression in here relates to the fact that we have very limited powers. We end up arguing over miniscule parts of what could be changed, rather than about the whole thing. Take poverty and social exclusion. We can deal with education, training, lifelong learning, child care, economic regeneration and so on in Scotland, but taxation, pensions, benefits, the national minimum wage, employment and equal opportunities legislation are reserved. How can we possibly deal with the full picture if we continually have to refer to another place? We must get things integrated.

In the north of Scotland, where I come from, many women are involved in organisations in the arts movement, including the fèis. Many community organisations are run by women. That suggests to me that it is high time that we made it possible for many more women, be they in towns or in the countryside, to get the recognition for running housing co-operatives, food co-operatives, credit unions and so on. We need to clear the way for them to get the power and responsibility that councils and the Parliament can give. It is all very well being positively discriminatory, but there are some basic changes to the law and the democratic system that we can effect over the next three years.

I regret that the amendment lodged in my name was not accepted for debate. It is essential that we remain focused on the broader issues relating to women in Scotland, in particular the need to address low pay for women throughout Scotland.

I came to the Parliament to change Scotland for the better and to change the lives of people in my constituency for the better. I am determined not to lie to the people who sent me here by telling them that I can sort out things that do not lie within the remit or powers of this Parliament. It is not my job to do those things. It is the job of people in local government and Westminster to sort out such matters; it is my job to sort out the issues for which MSPs are responsible. We do a great disservice to low-paid women workers if we shirk our duty and tell them that, simply if we talk about their pay claims, they will get the rewards that they deserve.

Just look around the chamber. Although we are far from being low paid, there would be nowhere near as many women in the Parliament if the Labour Party had not committed itself to and implemented a policy of 50:50. Perhaps Mr Monteith should not be quite so cynical. Perhaps if the Conservatives came with us on this battle, they would get more Margaret Thatchers. We might not like that—it might mean that we would have to coalesce—but perhaps it would allow the Conservatives to get some talent into their party.

I will not take an intervention.

Shona Robison's amendment does nothing to advance the case of Scotland's nursery nurses. As the First Minister stated today, the nursery nurses' dispute must be resolved by the employers and the trade unions getting back around the table.

Will the member take an intervention?

No.

Shona Robison either was not listening or was not willing—

Will the member give way?

No. I am not going to take an intervention.

The member is not taking an intervention.

It is misleading to tell the nursery nurses that we can sort out the dispute. Yes, nursery nurses play a vital part in the education of our children and, yes, they have a strong case for greater recognition, which I am happy to support—indeed, I supported the nursery nurses in my constituency on the picket line on Friday morning. However, perhaps Shona Robison and Carolyn Leckie would do those same nursery nurses a greater service by working with them to lobby the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities.

I have been on more picket lines than Karen Whitefield has and I addressed a mass meeting of North Lanarkshire nursery nurses on Monday. Karen Whitefield has completely contradicted herself. She claims in the Wishaw Press that she is doing everything that she can to achieve a national settlement, yet she stands up here saying that there is nothing that we can do. What is her position?

That is exactly what I am not saying. Carolyn Leckie said earlier that she did not care who joined the campaign, as long as we were all campaigning. The reality is that I am on the side of the nursery nurses and so are my colleagues on the Labour benches.

Are they supporting them by voting against them?

You should not be shouting from a sedentary position, Ms Leckie.

We are not going to mislead the nursery nurses. Perhaps Carolyn Leckie would do them a greater service by giving them good advice.

As well as nursery nurses, there are many other low-paid workers throughout Scotland. In the debate today, we must also address the wider issues that are highlighted in the report of the strategic group on women. We should address the concerns of low-paid shop workers, hospital and ancillary staff, home care workers and home helps, to name just a few. The report highlights the need for all agencies—not just the Scottish Executive and the Scottish Parliament, but local government, trade unions, private employers and the Equal Opportunities Commission—to play a part in improving the position of women in Scotland.

The report shows that, although there have been major gains in the relative pay of women, much more needs to be done to redress the balance between men's pay and women's pay. It also highlights the need to challenge gender stereotyping in employment and to encourage women into jobs that have traditionally been male dominated. I particularly welcome the steps that are being taken to address gender inequalities in schools. That is the most effective place to begin to tackle the problem—at its roots.

The Executive is playing its part in driving forward the agenda of promoting women in Scotland. It is vital that the other major public sector employers work together to ensure that women are valued in the work force and that their rate of pay reflects the excellent job that they do. That should include ensuring that, to reflect Scottish society, more women serve on the boards of quangos. I urge all members to support the motion, to face up to tackling the need for gender equality throughout Scotland for all workers and to ensure that all public sector employers do everything in their power to improve the rights of women.

Given that this is a wind-up speech, I will be naming members, which I hope will not encourage them all to seek to intervene—if they do, I will have no time at all.

This is an important debate and I stress again that it is taking place in a Parliament of which 40 per cent of the members are women—an increase on the figure in 1999. However, that is still not good enough. Although we are starting from a much higher base than others are, there still needs to be progress.

Will the member take an intervention?

I will address the Liberal Democrat record in a moment—perhaps that means that Rhona Brankin will not intervene now.

When I visited Peebles High School recently, a female pupil asked me what is being done to attract people from ethnic minorities to stand for election. This Parliament has an even worse record on that matter; we have a target of a 50:50 ratio of women to men, but we must do a lot more to make it more attractive for ethnic minorities as well as women to stand for election in national politics.

As far as the Liberal Democrats are concerned, we have a better record in local government and we have touched—

Did I hear the wonderful news that the member's party has a policy of 50:50 representation in the Parliament?

No. I said that that is the ambition of this Parliament and all parties in it surely share that ambition. The differences are about the mechanism by which we bring that about.

As I said, the Liberal Democrats have a better record in local government, but we must all make national politics—including through national political reporting in the media—more attractive to women and to people from ethnic minorities.

This is an important debate for my constituency. Shona Robison challenged us about what the Parliament and the Executive are doing to make a difference. Nanette Milne argued, rightly, that women are an integral part of the economy and that economic growth provides greater opportunities for everyone in society. I am proud to say that I represent a constituency that has the highest number of business start-ups by women in Scotland. The level of entrepreneurialism by women is high, as is the educational attainment of girls in all schools in the Borders. Cathy Peattie eloquently and powerfully argued that professional opportunities must exist for women in the private sector as well as in the public sector. That is a real challenge for civil society.

After I was elected, the first question that I asked in the Parliament concerned the gender pay gap in the Borders. In countless meetings, I put pressure on Scottish Enterprise Borders to identify the reasons for that gap—there are many such reasons, some of which have been raised in this afternoon's debate—and to provide reliable and robust data on the issue.

Both Shona Robison and Christine Grahame, who has come back into the chamber, said that MSPs cannot do anything about the matter. Brian Monteith rightly suggested that MPs should take action. Of course, the most effective course is for MSPs and MPs to work together. Following the Low Pay Commission's recommendations, the UK Government raised the minimum wage and introduced a young person's minimum wage, which is welcome. As part of the inquiry, Archy Kirkwood MP, Michael Moore MP, Euan Robson and I, representing the Borders, invited the Low Pay Commission to visit the Borders—it was the first time that it had been to the south of Scotland and the Borders—and we specifically raised the gender pay gap. I have taken up the issues that came from that, such as the reliability and robustness of data, with the Deputy Minister for Communities. I hope that the Executive, working with the UK Government, will make progress in that area.

The Scottish Low Pay Unit report "Earnings and Gender in Britain and Scotland" states:

"The introduction of the national minimum wage had an extremely beneficial impact on pay equality."

It would be interesting to know whether the SNP has a view on the rate. When the SNP spokesperson sums up, perhaps we will hear not only the party's view on the national minimum wage, but what its rate would be and whether it agrees with the rate that was recommended by the Low Pay Commission and agreed by the UK Government.

In the economic history of the Borders, a high number of women have been in employment, predominantly in the textile mills, and those women were the first earners in many, if not the majority, of cases. That situation is being replaced by a reputation for entrepreneurialism and educational attainment.

I conclude by mentioning my desire, which is the same as Cathy Peattie's ambition, for women to have an equal role in the private sector as well as in the public sector. We need a public transport system that is as efficient in rural areas as it is in urban areas. Access to child care should be available in rural areas as well as in urban areas. Housing issues are as acute in rural areas as they are in urban areas. If we address those issues, we will make real progress in giving the next generation of entrepreneurs a good start.

This has been an interesting debate, with many interesting contributions. As Nanette Milne said, the Conservatives will support the Executive motion. It is perhaps a little churlish for the SNP to have lodged an amendment. We should all have been able to unite behind the motion because we all believe in equality for women. In particular, we should unite behind the motion because—and, if I may say so, this is uncharacteristic for a motion from the minister—it singularly lacks the usual self-congratulatory waffle.

I apologise for the absence of Mary Scanlon, who is our group's spokesperson on this issue—she cannot be with us as a result of family illness. Like the minister, Mary Scanlon is a typical example of women who have got on. She brought up two young children on her own, held down a responsible job in education and became an MSP. The glass ceiling did not exist for her and I think that we would wish to see everyone in such a situation.

Although there are women whom, from time to time, I would quite happily see at home looking after the weans, we must recognise that such situations should no longer be tolerated. Women must be given every encouragement.

Nanette Milne took a measured and sensible approach in the debate. She pointed out that, if we are to be successful in achieving what we are all genuinely trying to achieve, which is to ensure that women have equality of opportunity, things cannot be looked at in isolation. We must look at the wider picture of the Scottish economy and how we can change it.

Will the member take an intervention?

I am sorry, but I do not have enough time.

Donald Gorrie said that most members seem to have a little bit of paper in front of them with the good things in the Liberal manifesto. I have such a piece of paper with me—it is the size of a stamp. However, he went on to make a fair point about the inequalities that exist in relation to pensions.

Christine Grahame followed up that point. She said that many women get a bit of a shock on reaching the age of 60. That shock is not as big as the shock that one gets if one must wait until one is 65, but nevertheless there is an issue that the Westminster Government should examine.

I am sure that Bill Aitken was being deliberately provocative when he spoke about women staying at home to look after the weans. Perhaps he would like to share with members which women in the chamber he would prefer to stay at home with the weans.

For the sake of self-preservation, I will draw a discreet veil over that matter.

There were other interesting contributions to the debate. With his usual commonsense approach, Brian Monteith articulated arguments that surely could not be opposed. Carolyn Leckie was correct to point out inconsistencies in the approach of Labour members, but Rob Gibson was a bit wide of the mark. He said that countries with women in charge showed a lack of propensity for violence. Pakistan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka and Israel have been fairly violent countries with women in charge. He really went wrong in claiming that the aggression that we sometimes see in the Parliament is basically the result of Parliament's limited powers. That argument seems to me to be entirely spurious. It could just as easily be argued that the aggression in the Parliament is caused by the fact that there are so many women in it, but I would certainly never advance that argument, would I? Rob Gibson was well off the mark in that respect.

Karen Whitefield did well to underline the Parliament's powers and responsibilities. She suggested that, if we looked at our situation, we could have more Margaret Thatchers. There was some apoplexy on the front bench at that point, but her point was well made.

What are we trying to achieve in the debate? To an extent, we have achieved what we wanted to achieve because, despite what some members have said and my tongue-in-cheek approach, we are all basically aiming at the same target. Long before it became politically sexy or politically correct to be so, the Conservatives—and I in particular; I have the record to prove it—were in favour of equal opportunities for women. Such opportunities exist now and long may they exist—may we eventually end up with a state of affairs in which even those on the other political side admit that they can now be more relaxed about the situation.

I do not think so, Bill.

In general, the debate has covered three themes. The first theme relates to celebrating the achievement of women. Cathy Peattie eloquently did that, as did Rob Gibson, from a different angle. Indeed, I will clarify what Rob Gibson said. He said that legislatures with a greater proportion of women have been proven to have less propensity for violent action. That is a different matter from the aberrations that sometimes lead Governments, which we all know about in this country. The second theme is how we should move forward. That has been the main thrust of the Executive contributions to the debate. The third theme is the nursery nurses. I will concentrate on the second and third themes.

The report asks for a single equalities body and states that such a body would need as much devolution of authority as possible if it was to make any difference. I am afraid that I am of the view that, as other members have said, we will not be able to achieve much without the right levers of power. We can all try, and I have no doubt that all members want to try—I have seen evidence of that during the almost five years in which I have been in the Parliament—but that is just not enough. As proof of that, I cite the fact that, 30 years after equal pay legislation was introduced, we still have a pay gap. We still have a long way to go. If even legislation cannot enforce equal opportunity, how are we going to get on with it? All that we can do is promote it.

Notwithstanding the fact that the national minimum wage is a reserved matter, does the SNP have a view on the rate for it?

The member seems to be determined to tease that out of us—I do not know why. Yes, we have a rate: it is half the male median earnings. That raises another issue. The Scottish Parliament cannot even decide what the minimum wage will be in this country—that is exactly the point that I am making. An action point in the report calls for a strategic plan for the reduction of the gender pay gap. How on earth will we achieve that without the powers to do so? Brian Monteith says that MPs at Westminster can do that for us. I am sorry, but I have not seen them bothering their shirts about it for an awful long time.

On the third issue that has been raised today—nursery nurses—the SNP amendment very much ties in with the issues that are raised in the motion. All that our amendment asks is that,

"in recognition of the problem of low pay for many Scottish women,"

we agree

"that Scotland's nursery nurses have a just claim for a fair, nationally negotiated settlement to their current dispute."

Huge efforts were made to avoid a situation in which members might have to vote against the SNP amendment, which, after all, is only about a just claim. Labour members wanted to lodge a plethora of amendments to the amendment. I have read and reread Karen Whitefield's amendment to the SNP amendment, but I still do not know what the heck it means. It says that we should encourage

"local authorities, NHS Scotland and other public sector employers to consider specific strategies to tackle the concentration of women in the lowest paid areas of work and to ensure equal pay for work of equal value."

It does not mention the nursery nurses; it asks us to encourage people to consider things. That is a bit woolly. I would like it to tell the Parliament to get on with it and to take some action. The position is very confused.

At least I understand the amendment to the SNP amendment that Cathy Peattie wanted to be selected today. It asks the Parliament to note that the First Minister said today that

"at the right time, there will be a case for a national review".

However, when is the right time? Marlyn Glen and Cathy Peattie say that they believe in an independent review, but last week Euan Robson said that such a review would not happen. When is the right time? Surely it is when we are all here, discussing the report "Improving the Position of Women in Scotland: An Agenda for Action"—I stress that the report is about an agenda for action, not an agenda for encouraging people to consider strategies.

Today, we are banging drums for women and showing off our equality credentials. We have accepted the findings of the report. Why cannot we just agree that the nursery nurses, who play such an important part in our society and are so undervalued, have a just claim? I urge members to support the SNP amendment.

The report by the strategic group on women that we have been debating this afternoon presents a fair balance. Although it celebrates the enormous advances that women in Scotland have made over the past century, it also seeks to remind us of the gap that remains between men and women with regard to income, opportunities, power and influence. The minister and I thank those who worked so hard to produce the report, which has allowed us to have this helpful debate.

I will address a number of issues that members have raised. Maureen Macmillan, who unfortunately has left the chamber, highlighted a problem with a project in her constituency. I hope that I can reassure her by telling the chamber that, this morning, the minister announced funding for eight projects throughout Scotland, including the women at work project in the Highlands. Women in the Highlands will be celebrating that good news.

Some members put a negative spin on the issues under debate. Unfortunately, Shona Robison's amendment sought to shift our focus away from the general issue of the promotion of women to a specific matter. Although she made a pertinent point about the gender pay gap, we must all ensure that we keep up to date with our figures. In the past 12 months, the gap has narrowed by 3 percentage points to 16 per cent. However, I have to say that we are still not happy with that.

As for pay reviews, I should point out that all Scottish public sector employers who are covered by the new best-value regime—including the Executive, its agencies, many non-departmental public bodies and all local authorities—must be able to demonstrate that measures are in place to encourage observance of equal opportunities requirements, including those that relate to the Equal Pay Act 1970. The Executive intends to work with the Equal Opportunities Commission, the STUC and others to encourage the public sector and private businesses to carry out pay reviews and to address pay gap issues.

Donald Gorrie highlighted the issue of older women who paid the small stamp, which I suppose leads me into reserved areas. I suggest to Mr Gorrie that the Westminster Government's introduction of the minimum pension guarantee goes some way towards addressing the matter of income for people in that situation.

In her speech, Christine Grahame spoke as though nothing was happening just because it was happening at Westminster, not in this Parliament. In fact, just as the minimum pension guarantee was introduced to provide for older people, we must remember the introduction of the minimum wage, which was increased in yesterday's budget. I also remind members that, although the Conservatives opposed the introduction of the minimum wage, which benefits many low-paid women, the SNP did not even turn up to vote for it. That is a measure of how seriously they take the issue of low pay.

Will the minister specify the vote for which the SNP did not turn up? We certainly voted for the measure in the House of Commons at the appropriate time.

Stewart Stevenson knows as well as I do the vote to which I was referring.

The minister should check her records.

Mr Stevenson should check his own records.

Marlyn Glen referred to gender issues in schools and mentoring schemes. It is important that we continue to maintain and build on the momentum that has been established, particularly in relation to policies on violence against women. The report cannot be left to stand on its own and we will continue to consider its recommendations. The report challenged the Executive to produce, after further discussion, detailed recommendations for dealing with discrimination experienced by particular groups of women and for tackling multiple discrimination. We are happy to take up that challenge and the minister and I, with officials, intend to engage in that dialogue soon.

As the minister said in her opening speech, many of the report's recommendations relate to issues of which we are aware. They urge the Executive and others to maintain the momentum in what we are doing to improve the position of women in Scotland. Many recommendations ask us to do more, particularly in the area of employment. Those will be a greater challenge for us, particularly the ones that rely on our influencing others and persuading them to act. However, we will accept that challenge.

Will the minister take an intervention?

No. I am in my last minute.

Our debate has been an opportunity to acknowledge international women's day, which took place last week, on 8 March. The 150 women who attended the Executive-hosted event in Glasgow to celebrate the day heard from the minister about continuing and planned work to promote the women's agenda. That news was generally well received. Many said that they were inspired to go back to their organisations to do better and to get more involved. Let us hope that, at next year's event, we can reward their enthusiasm and efforts in their local communities by demonstrating a real move forward with the strategic group on women's agenda for action.