No—I am sorry; I do not have much time left.
Why is the cabinet secretary’s target of a 40 per cent reduction far less ambitious than John Swinney’s promise of 100 per cent employment? Those figures are not even close. Have they discussed their employment strategy or their targets? Have they even chatted about that?
I welcome the recent publication of the “Working Together Review”, its agenda for progressive workplace policies and the role of the STUC in taking that agenda forward. However, I want to know how much of that agenda will be taken forward in the event of a no vote, because many of the recommendations in the document can be implemented now. I urge the Scottish Government to give us details of that in the autumn.
I move amendment S4M-10829.3, to leave out from “recognises” to end and insert:
“recognises that the UK is a deeply integrated economy, which is underpinned by sterling, and that this provides the basis for the economic opportunities for women in Scotland; believes that a world-class further education sector is key to future Scottish productivity growth and that the decline of 140,000 college places since 2007, a reduction that has disproportionately impacted on women, is incompatible with this objective; considers the proposals by the Commission for Developing Scotland’s Young Workforce to reduce youth unemployment by 40% to be insufficiently ambitious, and believes that the Scottish Government must do much more to encourage women into apprenticeships presently dominated by males, such as in construction and IT.”
15:30
I will consider that.
Board membership should be broadly representative of our society, and I am frustrated by the lack of progress towards increasing women’s representation in public life in Scotland. As I have said before, the pace of change here is glacial. Although the SNP’s apparent conversion to the cause is welcome, its bona fides must be questioned given its record of inaction.
Elsewhere, as Mary Scanlon said, Scottish Government cuts to college places have greatly restricted opportunities to learn. Colleges Scotland tells us that the number of women studying part time has halved, plunging from 200,000 in 2007 to less than 100,000 today. Thousands of women who find it impossible to study full time have missed out. They are parents, carers and those with work or financial commitments. What thought did SNP back benchers give to the ambitions of women when they voted through those budget cuts?
Strong and sustainable growth relies on our getting the best out of everyone: women and men. That is why it is so disappointing that a wealth of female talent is not retained or properly recognised, but diverted elsewhere or overlooked.
Nearly three quarters of women with science, technology, engineering and mathematics qualifications do not work in the STEM industries, but there is little evidence that the Scottish Government is providing leadership on driving the issue forward, despite the fact that the Royal Society of Edinburgh’s report on the issue is now two years old.
Regrettably, the provision of free childcare has become another pawn in the Government’s attempt to break up the UK. Liberal Democrats campaigned for 18 months for the extension of free childcare provision, as we know that it is one of the best ways to address the disadvantages that our most vulnerable children face and to enable more parents to remain in or return to work.
Again and again, ministers told us that they could not help more than 1 per cent of two-year-olds without additional powers. However, thanks to the persistence of my colleagues Willie Rennie and Liam McArthur, 8,400 extra two-year-olds from poorer backgrounds are today toddling through the doors of nurseries. That is 15 per cent, not 1 per cent, and next year it will be 27 per cent.
This is an important debate, in that it calls for greater ambition for a significant element of Scotland’s workforce and foundation of Scotland’s future economy and growth—that is, women. I support the motion.
I draw the Parliament’s attention to the significant progress that has been made, but I make no apology for saying that there is a need for a change in culture if we are to create and exploit opportunities for women. This is not just about women; there is a need for a culture change among men.
That need is epitomised by the words of the parliamentarian who said that women need to think about what they want to do
“as they do the ironing”.
The former Prime Minister of Australia, Julia Gillard, challenged such remarks by that crusader for freedom and justice, the current Prime Minister of Australia, Oxford-educated Tony Abbott, who is of course connected to the UK Prime Minister through the business relationships of the Prime Minister’s adviser. If we are in the business of securing freedom and justice and promoting fairness and gender equality, such misogyny has no place in Scotland. We will never seek advice from that source.
In many areas, women are making a greater contribution, but we can further increase that contribution only when we have full powers over welfare reform and employment law and when we can safeguard human rights in the written constitution of an independent Scotland.
I make no apology for concentrating on opportunities for women in the field of business and entrepreneurship. Sometimes we arrive at a position as a result of personal experience. In my long experience in business, I have found that women are the best managers and business facilitators, whether they work in customer service, human resources or credit control, or indeed are involved in—as a woman colleague of mine was—setting up a subsidiary in Europe. Flexibility is required in such situations, and in my experience women managers invariably outperformed their male counterparts.
Yesterday morning, I listened to a programme on Radio Scotland about opportunities for women. I heard that women must work 14 more years than men do to achieve the same aggregate income and that women in their 40s earn as much as 40 per cent less than men. The earlier retirement age does not mitigate those circumstances.
During the programme, a comparison was drawn between men’s ambitions and women’s ambitions. It appears that—and perhaps this is unsurprising—men put a higher salary and better benefits as their number 1 priority, whereas women’s work priorities are location, sociability and flexibility.
If we are to secure opportunities for women and secure fairness and equality, as I am sure we all want to do, we need a seismic culture change, not least in the context of the man’s role in the family. My stepson has been raising our twin granddaughters in the family home while his wife carries out an important international function—they live in Singapore, happily. Flexibility, fairness and equality of opportunity are paramount.
Research by the Hunter centre for entrepreneurship shows that increasing the number of women entrepreneurs to match the number of men would generate an extra £7.6 billion for the Scottish economy. That is not a small amount.
However, when we talk about setting targets such as 40 per cent female participation on boards or an equal number of women entrepreneurs, I caution against the perception that it is the norm for alpha males to take up such roles. At this morning’s meeting of the Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee, members reflected on the great success of Edinburgh’s festivals with a panel of witnesses that was 80 per cent female. Those women were the chair of the Edinburgh’s festivals forum; the director of Festivals Edinburgh; the chief executive of the Edinburgh Festival Fringe Society; and a senior adviser at Creative New Zealand. They deserved to be there because the festival is, as we know, a jewel in the Scottish branding crown.
The Government’s role is critical in establishing a level playing field for women in entrepreneurship, in establishing the women in enterprise network and in providing financial support for the women’s enterprise ambassadors and the investing women initiative. Those are stepping stones to that level playing field, as will be the outcomes of the working together review and the developing Scotland’s young workforce commission.
The culture among men must also change, so that we work towards the creation and promotion of opportunities for women—and, indeed, for men—and a wider sense of value and overall remuneration, based on merit and contribution, in more flexible working environments.
16:00
Of course, it is to be welcomed that the numbers of women in employment have increased and that the levels of female inactivity have fallen. However, it would be wrong to be complacent about the figures, and searching questions need to be asked about the detail. How many of those women are on zero-hours contracts? How many are underemployed? How many are on the minimum wage? How many are self-employed but are unable to make a living from what they earn? As recently as yesterday morning, a discussion on BBC Radio Scotland’s “Morning Call” centred on the statistic that the average woman in Scotland will have to work 14 years longer than the average man to earn the same across her working lifetime.
It is wrong—and, I think, naive—to imply that the barriers faced by women with regard to equality of opportunity are somehow the fault of Westminster and that they can be solved only by voting for Scotland to leave the UK.
Barriers such as gender segregation, whereby women are stereotypically found—as my colleague Rhoda Grant illustrated—in low-paid, so-called female occupations, and their underrepresentation in boardrooms or in senior management positions are not just a matter of constitutional responsibility; nor are the additional responsibilities that women tend to face that can interfere with their employment prospects, such as the likelihood that they will have primary caring responsibilities for children not just outwith the time that they are in nursery or at school, but when they are ill, and the fact that women are more likely to have to care for sick or elderly relatives.
Those barriers do not exist simply because the UK Government has failed to legislate. Jenny Marra described the genesis of the Equal Pay Act 1970. It was superseded by the Equality Act 2010, and the current UK Government, which I do not often have anything good to say about, included the sharing of parental leave and the right to request flexible working in the Children and Families Act 2014.
It may be that the legislation is not yet tough enough. Engender, which Mary Scanlon mentioned in her speech, noted that, over the past 20 years, UK Governments have advocated encouraging private employers to adopt best practice rather than requiring them to take action. Perhaps we need to be a bit tougher, and I would like the cabinet secretary to tell us whether, in the event of independence, the Scottish Government would take a statutory approach.
One of the contributors to yesterday’s “Morning Call” was a 27-year-old woman who argued that sexism was worse today than it had ever been. As someone who is considerably older, I would not agree—I think that sexism was even worse when I was young—but we have not made the strides that I would have thought that we might have been able to make over the past 60 years. After all, 100 years ago, women did not even have the vote and had no right to employment after marriage. The fact that we still have a fair way to go is disappointing, but I agree with those who have said that society’s attitudes to women are what matter, not who legislates and where. The issue is much deeper and more fundamental than that.
That is demonstrated in the report on women in science, technology, engineering and mathematics, “Tapping all our Talents”, which was commissioned by the Royal Society of Edinburgh in 2012 and chaired by the eminent astrophysicist Dame Jocelyn Bell Burnell. That report advises that there are 56,000 female graduates in STEM subjects of working age in Scotland—including me—but only 27 per cent of them are using their qualifications to work in STEM subjects, compared with 52 per cent of male graduates in those subjects. In 2009, some 11,000 female graduates in STEM subjects of working age in Scotland were unemployed or economically inactive. What a waste of talent—and of expensive training, because it is not cheap to educate people in the STEM subjects. If the cabinet secretary has more up-to-date information—that figure dates from five years ago—I would be interested to learn whether any progress has been made in reducing it.
The report also demonstrated—this parallels what Rhoda Grant said—that the further up the ladder in STEM subjects one looked, the less represented women were. At the top levels—I am talking about professors and heads of research institutes—women were even less represented.
The report made a number of recommendations for the Scottish Government, and I wonder whether the cabinet secretary could update us on those to which she has not already referred. At a meeting in April 2013, Shona Robison appeared to want to take on board the report’s recommendations, and I would like to know what progress is being made on that. One of them was that there should be a national strategy for Scotland to address occupational segregation and, in particular, its impact on the STEM subjects. Another was on the use of procurement to ensure that contractors and suppliers met the public sector equality duty. I do not think that we quite did that in the recent legislation on procurement.
The cabinet secretary mentioned the introduction of statutory pay audits, which the report recommended. The report also wanted public bodies and agencies to be required to produce plans to close the gender pay gap within an agreed timescale, and it wanted more gender disaggregated data to be produced. It called for adequate resourcing for initiatives that had demonstrated success in tackling occupational segregation, and it wanted all Scottish universities to be required to bring their STEM departments up to the Athena scientific women’s academic network silver standard within two years. It advocated the introduction of legislation similar to the legislation that was introduced in Spain in 2011 on gender balance, and it wanted universities and research institutions to be required to adopt a gender equality plan and the integration of gender issues into the curriculum.
All those recommendations could be taken forward now with the powers that the Government already has, so I hope that, when we return to Parliament after the referendum is over, the Government will show a determination not to blame others for the barriers that women in Scotland still face in employment, but to press ahead with the actions that we can take here and now to remove those barriers with our existing powers and with the further powers that will indubitably be devolved to the Parliament in the future. I look forward to the further devolution of those powers.
16:19
This has been an interesting debate. I have always believed that, when women come together across the chamber, we can make a huge difference. I am of course reminded, as I see Angela Constance across the chamber, that she and Shona Robison were promoted to their current posts a mere four months ago. I congratulated them at the time and they are of course very intelligent and capable women, as all women in the Parliament are, but they have always been intelligent and capable women, so one cannot help but wonder why they were not promoted before then. The suspicion at the time was that the promotions were less to do with recognising talent and more about the referendum. Some cynical people in the chamber—not me, of course, Presiding Officer—believe that the timing of today’s debate has more to do with the referendum, but I always welcome any chance to debate opportunities for women.
To be frank, however, we need to move away from debating the issues and the warm words, and towards coming up with action. That action needs to be taken on a wide range of issues that will start collectively to remove the barriers to women’s participation, whether that is in education, training, employment, family life or civic life.
Scottish Labour has always been motivated by a deep and abiding belief in gender equality. We delivered the twinning of parliamentary constituencies to ensure that equal numbers of men and women stood as candidates. That was not easy, but we have delivered 50:50 representation for men and women as Labour MSPs in almost all Scottish Parliament elections. I will work with the other parties to encourage them to achieve the same figures. It is not enough for us just to be here; it is what we do that makes a difference.
Across the United Kingdom, it was Labour’s progressive politics that delivered the Equal Pay Act 1970, the Sex Discrimination Act 1975, the Equality Act 2010 and much more besides. When we see that the gender pay gap remains persistently large, it is clear that there is more to do. However, that is not simply a constitutional issue; it takes political will.
Any progress to increase opportunities for women is absolutely welcome but, to be frank, I have been frustrated because the past few years have been characterised not by increasing opportunities but by opportunities missed. The reduction in college places represents a missed opportunity. As many people have said, the loss of 140,000 college places since 2007-08 undermines the Government’s objective of ensuring that we have the training and skills for our economy’s long-term needs. As Jenny Marra pointed out, there is no doubt that that disproportionately impacts on women; 85,000 women have been affected.
Another missed opportunity concerns payment of the living wage. The Procurement Reform (Scotland) Bill could have delivered the living wage as part of the £10 billion that is spent each and every year on public sector contracts. The living wage could have been delivered to 400,000 low-paid workers in Scotland. Of them, 64 per cent are women, which means that the SNP said no to 256,000 working women.
No action was taken on zero-hours contracts or equal pay audits, which are all things that I know that the cabinet secretary would acknowledge would make a positive difference to women. They are all things on which the SNP said to women, “No—you can’t have it.”
In all those cases, the SNP had the power to do something. The cabinet secretary and other SNP members make great play of not having the powers to do things, as if that was an excuse for not delivering progress. However, progressive politics does not need constitutional change; it needs political will.
When the suffragettes fought for votes for women, those votes were delivered by political will and not by constitutional change.
The minimum wage—the vote on which some SNP members slept through—helps low-paid women and was delivered by political will, not constitutional change. The creation of the national health service, which helps families across Scotland and the United Kingdom, was delivered by political will and not constitutional change.
Mary Scanlon raised childcare, which is an economic issue, not a women’s issue. The SNP has power over childcare now. The Government focuses on hours at the expense of quality and flexibility and it does not deliver for working families. There is an inherent dishonesty about the SNP’s policy when it gives no costings for its childcare proposals. The SNP does not appear to have done the modelling—it certainly has not published it—and it has delayed the date for providing childcare for vulnerable two-year-olds.
Further, of course, the Government relies on 104,000 mothers becoming economically active but—guess what?—there are only 64,000 mothers who fit the bill. It just does not stack up. Forty-thousand women posted missing. I look forward to the SNP policy that encourages more pregnancies to make its sums add up.
There is another area in which the Scottish Government has the power to act now. How about delivering more women in the boardrooms of Scotland’s public bodies? About five or six years ago—I will be corrected on the timescale—the Scottish Government set a target of 40 per cent of applications coming from women. It failed to meet even that target, which, again, was for applications only. Less than a third of board members in Scotland are women. Some public bodies have no women on their boards at all. All those appointments are made by the cabinet secretaries, so why have they not delivered? I am much more ambitious than just wanting 40 per cent of applications coming from women; I want to see bums on seats—I will just check with the Presiding Officer that I am allowed to say that.
No, thank you.
We need to ensure that women get their fair and rightful share of that economic growth because that is not only the right thing to do, but the smart and essential thing to do, if we are to grow our economy as much as possible. I agree with the close the gap project that women throughout Scotland are simply in the wrong jobs or the wrong level of job in terms of their skills and talents.
Of course, as well as doing more, we need to have the powers of independence. What I want in the Scotland that I seek is investment-led recovery as opposed to Westminster-led austerity.
We have responsibility for educating and training the current and future workforce, but our power has become far more limited with regard to getting people into work and how they are treated once they are in work. The UK has one of the most unequal and unbalanced economies. As I pointed out in the “Unlocking Scotland’s Full Potential” report that I published a few days ago, we must ensure that we get the right type of growth and that everyone gets access to those opportunities.
We have spent much time today talking about transformational childcare, which is the game changer. It is good to know that we have the support of leading economists who have advised previous Scottish Administrations that had different political perspectives. However, it does not take an economist to know that the biggest barrier to women getting into work and progressing once they are in work is lack of access to affordable and flexible childcare.
The women of Scotland, across the centuries, have been drivers for change. In spite of the social and economic barriers that have constantly worked against them, we have testimony of some seriously impressive heroines who have blazed a trail that we are rightly proud of.
Let us take a brief look back—further back than Christine Grahame went in her speech—at a few of our historical sisters. St Margaret of Scotland was born in exile in Hungary. She arrived, via Northumbria, in 1068, at what we now know as St Margaret’s Hope near North Queensferry, and married Malcolm III. Driven by her faith, she served the orphans and the poor every day before she ate. She established the Benedictine order’s monastery at Dunfermline, as well as the ferries between Queensferry and North Berwick. She was the power behind the restoration of the monastery at lona, too.
The opportunities for women to make an impact in Scotland in the 11th century were limited. My namesake, Christina, the sister of Robert the Bruce, moved matters along a bit a few centuries later. She commanded the garrison of Kildrummy castle and successfully held out against pro-Balliol forces led by David of Strathbogie, prior to their defeat by her husband, Sir Andrew Murray, at the battle of Culblean.
There is no lack of feistiness among our Scottish ancestors. Mary Slessor came out of the slums of Dundee and became a skilled jute worker before she decided to follow in the missionary footsteps of David Livingstone. She transformed the role of women in Nigeria, especially in her work with twins, who were regarded as an evil curse, rescuing hundreds of them. She adopted every pair that she found abandoned, taking a surviving twin—a girl—as her own daughter.
Elsie Inglis was an innovative Scottish doctor and suffragist who was not to be held back by tradition. Her dissatisfaction with the standard of medical care available to women led to her becoming politically active and playing an important role in the early years of the Scottish Federation of Women’s Suffrage Societies.
There are dozens more Scottish women worthy of mention, but I especially want to show how far forward we have moved and how much further we can travel in an independent Scotland.
Independence is about opportunity, prosperity and a mission for a sustainable economy. The word “mission” has broadened its meaning since Mary Slessor’s time but I am certain that she would understand the mission for equality that we are now striving for.
Professor Ailsa McKay, who died a few months ago at the age of only 50, taught me a lot about making a difference and about just how tenacious we need to be to succeed in making that difference.
Ailsa’s voice was crucial to the current SNP Government’s decision to commit to hugely extending childcare in Scotland in order to encourage more women to join or rejoin the workforce. She not only changed the culture at the University of Glasgow but worked very hard at helping to draw up Scottish Government policy on equality.
Westminster seems to take an entirely different view. Labour MP Austin Mitchell thinks that women prefer to discuss family and social issues rather than the big questions such as whether we should invade Iraq, and he does not think that there should be more women in Parliament because they would be preoccupied with family and social issues. Women MPs are, he says, “more leadable”, and the feminisation of Parliament will make MPs
“more preoccupied with the local rather than the international ... and small problems rather than big ideas and issues.”
If he seriously imagines that the big-ticket issues of the economy, austerity, jobs, investment, international affairs and future prosperity are of less concern to women than men, it would be a good idea for him to attend a few of the yes meetings that I have been at. Mr Mitchell is another glaring example of how Westminster is failing Scotland. More of that is what a no vote guarantees, and any woman in this chamber who does not see that is seriously kidding herself on.
Let us look at the previous and current generations of Scottish political women. I am talking about people such as Winnie Ewing, Margo MacDonald, Nicola Sturgeon, our very own Angela Constance and Roseanna Cunningham and, indeed, the rest of us MSPs—yes, I include all of us—who are determined to improve and are committed to improving the lives of our constituents and broader Scotland itself.
Earlier this week, I held in my arms a baby girl who was born in my constituency. Her name is Blair Archibald, and having been born on American independence day—4 July—she is truly an independence day girl. I especially want to commend her to our future Scotland, the one that recognises women and which, instead of seeing them as also-rans, realises that we are in there fighting for the same causes as the men. We are not that different; we are all driven by the same issues of fairness and equality and the same belief in our right to make our own decisions for ourselves. I am confident that Blair, who will be just a few months old when her parents vote on referendum day, will be an icon for our new generation of independent Scottish women.
We must put women in the space claimed by our ambassadors—the women whom I highlighted in my 1,000-year history of Scotland—but we must do it with a yes vote. It will not happen otherwise. I certainly hope that the Westminster Government answers the call that the cabinet secretary Shona Robison made yesterday to devolve equality. However, I think that we should not devolve it, but make it independent.
The Scottish Government is committed to increasing the opportunities for women to enter the workforce. With the powers that we have, we have delivered real improvements in equality outcomes, but more can and must be done. A yes vote is the greatest opportunity that we will ever have to transform women’s lives for the better through transformational expansion in childcare; improving diversity in public and private institutions and targeting female representation on company and public boards.
For Blair and all our daughters of Scotland, we must put Scotland’s future—and Blair’s future—in Scotland’s hands.
I welcome the debate. I am clear, as are the other Labour members, that increasing opportunities for women is best achieved in this Scottish Parliament within the United Kingdom. The cabinet secretary talked about the Equal Pay Act 1970. I will take the opportunity to talk a bit about the Labour minister Barbara Castle and her role in fighting for the rights of women across the UK. She was the crusader for women’s rights and opportunities in the 1960s who broke the glass ceiling not just for women in politics but for women in society more widely. She fought for the cause of equal rights for men and women.
A crusade was led by women across the UK—including many unrecognised working-class women—that resulted in the equal pay act, which was introduced by Castle. The act began life not in the House of Commons, not in a Parliament building, but in an industrial dispute in Dagenham in Essex. Most of us know the story of the female car seat machinists at the Ford plant in Dagenham who took their industrial action to Downing Street to get their work recognised as skilled and equal to the work of their male counterparts. That created the impetus that led to the equal pay legal obligation that the cabinet secretary talked about—the obligation to pay both men and women the same.
However, those women in Essex were not solely concerned about their own rights in that Ford factory. They were motivated by the idea of securing rights for women across Britain, just as the suffragettes had been years before them. Across Britain—across Scotland, England, Wales and Northern Ireland—they led that progressive movement for equal pay. Those progressive movements and the trade union movement have always joined hands and forces with their brothers and sisters in the towns and cities of Scotland and across England, Wales and Northern Ireland because their aim has always been to tear down barriers and not to erect borders.
The United Kingdom is an economic union with a deeply integrated economy in which goods and services are traded, and being part of the large and diverse UK economy provides strength and stability to Scotland’s finances, as we know from all the economic analysis over the past year. It also offers Scotland protection from unexpected economic and financial shocks, which we have seen in our own lifetimes, for both men and women.
The rest of the UK is Scotland’s biggest trading partner and at the core of the argument for economic union is the opportunity and security that it provides to women, families and businesses across this country. I do not believe that it is in Scotland’s interests for the economic union to be torn apart. In the long term, an independent Scotland could not remain part of an integrated UK economy. The economic union means that we share a currency and can pool our taxes and spending in fiscal union, which ultimately benefits women.
That fiscal integration in turn necessitates and sustains a sense of social solidarity and provides security to Scotland’s women through the sharing of risks, rewards and resources on the basis of need rather than on the basis of nationality, which the Scottish National Party posits.
It is convenient but not honest for the SNP to ignore the fact that it was a UK Labour Government, working with a Labour-led Administration in this Parliament, that made substantial inroads into expanding opportunities for women, by making work pay through the minimum wage, which SNP members were not present to vote for, and by instigating tax credits.
I am familiar with the number of children who are born. The point that is worth recognising is that the Scottish Government’s figures have not been modelled and the SPICe briefing figures have. SPICe has done a proper economic analysis, and I rest my case on those figures.
The figures that were released earlier this month on female participation in the Scottish and United Kingdom markets are very encouraging, with the unemployment rate down to 6.4 per cent for both and the employment rate up for both, as well as a reduction in the number of economically inactive women. All the indicators are moving in the right direction but, as I said earlier, there is still more to do.
To me, the issue is not just about getting women into work; it is about giving women the full career training and educational opportunities to make sure that their time at work pays and that career opportunities are open to them. I agree with the cabinet secretary’s point that it is about ensuring that work is well rewarded.
The Scottish Government’s record on women is well documented in the Colleges Scotland briefing paper for the debate. It states that, since the SNP came to power in 2007, there has been a small increase of 4,500 women in full-time courses in further education, which is welcome. That is against a background of a fall of 100,544 women in part-time courses. In total, there are 96,000 fewer women in further education than when the nationalists came to power.
The part-time courses are the type of course that I did as a single mum many years ago. My course gave me the qualifications to go to the University of Dundee and spend 20 years lecturing on economics in further and higher education, and here I am. I ask the Parliament and the Government ministers not to dismiss part-time courses. They are a way out of poverty and into a career for many women in Scotland, but that is now denied as a result of nationalist policy.
I support the motion and reject the amendments, which in short say that the union is everything good and that independence is everything bad.
As for Alison McInnes’s amendment—which I like; well, I like Alison, not the amendment—it is a bit like “War and Peace”. I never got to the end of that and I never got to the end of her amendment. I have never seen such a long one in my life.
I must start by declaring that I have had careers as a secondary teacher, a solicitor and a politician, which flows from having a privileged background. I was privileged to have enlightened parents who made it clear from the start that, although I came from a working-class family with five children living in a council house scheme, I had the same rights to opportunities as the children in the bungalows round the corner who went to Edinburgh’s fee-paying schools.
I was privileged not to pay tuition fees, and because of my family’s circumstances I had a grant. I was also privileged to have a grant to live away from home—although I attended the local university—because there was nowhere to study in a house with so many children. Thanks to the SNP, tuition fees have gone, as they should, although parental encouragement, as always, remains vital.
I welcome the progress that has been made over the decades in erasing the image of women’s place being—to put it crudely—in the home, by the kitchen sink. However, the erasing is not complete, and that progress is far too slow. I, too, admire Barbara Castle, but we have to look to the progress of Westminster in bringing in equalities to know glacial progress when we see it. I do not have as much time as Jenny Marra has.
That image is not fully erased, of course. The image of the young woman or, indeed, any woman—their shape, size, dress sense and so on—still plays too large a part compared with that of the male species. Even politicians do not escape. Who cares about kitten heels? I dress for me and me alone.
The educational choices have not changed much, either. When I was at school, a girl who studied maths, physics and chemistry—which I did—was a rarity. Biology and botany were the much more frequent and, indeed, acceptable choices. Things seem to me to be much the same now. Engineering was a female-free zone and, decades on, change is not substantial.
For example, I note from the Engender briefing that far and away the greater percentage of women in the workforce are in public administration, education and health, as has been said. That may reflect the talents of women in those areas, but there is more at work there. Not all responsibility can be placed on Governments either here or at Westminster or, indeed, on the education system. From the very start—from education onwards—opportunities for women take a certain path.
There is also the issue of the constraints that are put on careers opportunities beyond that educational path. Many of those constraints—although they are not the exclusive constraints—are children, lovely though they are. Although a potential employer cannot overtly ask a female applicant a question about having children in the future, I have no doubt that that is a consideration at the back of the mind of some employers that will influence whether to offer the job.
For those with children, it is changed days from when women—myself included—were expected to and did stop work until the children reached school age. Things are much better now. There are statutory obligations on employers and, of course, the significant importance of free childcare hours. The situation could be better, but it is much improved under this Government and would be much improved if we had full control of our revenue and tax system and gave women in particular, although not exclusively, freedom to have a life with time for work and family.
At the end of the day, if a person has happy and contented children who are growing into responsible adults, whether that person has opted for full-time or part-time work or full-time parenting, that is, for me, an achievement. That is a measure that really counts and which society will benefit from in countless ways.
The pay gap and the continuing glass ceiling on which many of us—myself included—have bumped our heads are, of course, inexcusable. I have twice changed career direction because women who were already employed told me of the limitations that were imposed on them. I am not in favour of statutory gender balance because I reject anything that approaches tokenism, but I refer to the dearth of women in high places. I really understand why many members are exasperated and feel that there must be a remedy for that.
I welcome the opportunity to discuss increasing women’s economic opportunities, and I support aspirations to improve the chances of women who may find themselves far away from the labour market or from access to education and training, but it will come as no surprise that I disagree with the conclusion that is drawn in the Scottish Government’s motion, as I believe that many of the aims that are set out therein can be achieved under the powers that we currently have through devolution.
We already have powers over education, training, employability and economic development. The levers to tackle unemployment, underemployment and lack of training and educational opportunities are already available to the Scottish Government. We should ensure that we are using them all, because the barriers faced by women entering the labour market are varied and complex, and the Scottish Government has recognised that fact. I may not agree that it needs independence to improve women’s life chances, but I agree that we must ensure that every woman has the chance to enter the labour market or education should she so wish.
For many women it is about childcare; for others it is about being able to find a place on a college course, in their local area, that will provide them with the skills that employers are looking for. The challenges to achieving that faced by women may vary depending on whether they live in an urban area or in the countryside.
Fife Gingerbread and the Poverty Alliance have carried out work on the challenges that are faced by single mothers in rural areas and I have previously highlighted their excellent report into poverty and lone parenthood. In that report, the women who were interviewed consistently referred to the challenges of finding suitable childcare and the barriers that that presented to them accessing not just employment but college courses.
Given the attention that has been given to childcare in recent months, that is not surprising news. Indeed, many of the issues that are relevant to increasing opportunities for women were explored during the passage of the Children and Young People (Scotland) Bill. However, it is clear to me from the feedback that I have had from parents and childcare providers across Mid Scotland and Fife that the number of hours of childcare is not the be all and end all of the debate. If those hours are not available at a time that suits them, families will not be able to access the support that is required to enable women to participate in education, training or employment. Many families are forced to either juggle their local authority provision with support from a childminder or family members or use a private nursery that may be more able to meet their hours.
Interestingly, the report “Growing Up in Scotland: Characteristics of pre-school provision and their association with child outcomes” picked up on that point. It noted that the use of private childcare providers increased with income and that
“just 7% of children from households in the lowest income group attended a private provider compared with 24% of children from households in the highest income group. These differences largely reflect the different childcare needs of couple families with both parents employed.”
For those who do not have an extended family network or are not in a two-parent family, it is vital that we see an increase in provision of more flexible, wraparound childcare—whether that is breakfast clubs, after-school clubs, provision during school holidays or extended opening hours.
We have seen the same old argument time and again from the Scottish Government: post-independence, all will be well. That ignores the fact that many of the issues that it focuses on can already be addressed by the Government under powers that it already has.
The importance of college provision in increasing opportunities for women, especially those from our most deprived communities, is inarguable. That is why it is hugely concerning that the Scottish Government’s cuts to college courses have disproportionately affected women. Warm words from ministers today are all very well, but in our communities the negative consequences of the Government’s choices are all too clear.
Occupational segregation in vocational training and apprenticeships has been raised by the Wood commission and in a recent report by the Equality and Human Rights Commission. The EHRC found evidence of men increasingly moving into traditionally female apprenticeship programmes but no evidence of an overall increase of women entering traditionally male apprenticeships. Women make up 3 per cent of engineering apprenticeships, which is a shockingly small figure that shows that the problems are systemic throughout society. Girls’ attitudes to STEM subjects and society’s condoning of gender-stereotyped roles for young women is a huge problem that needs challenged.
The EHRC also found that there is a significant gendered spend on apprenticeships in Scotland, with spend per male apprentice being 53 per cent higher than that for female apprentices, which is deeply concerning. The Scottish Government has the power to act on that immediately, and I urge it to do so.
We may argue about how best to improve women’s participation in non-traditional areas of education and employment and I welcome innovative ideas to target that problem. However, it is clear to me—and I hope many others—that constitutional change will not tackle the structural inequality of our society, which can hugely influence the economic opportunities open to women. It is therefore disappointing that the Scottish Government chose to bring forward this debate under its usual mantle of saying that independence will solve everything.
I fully support proposals to increase opportunities for women, but I want opportunities to increase throughout Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom. I do not want the imposition of artificial barriers between people in the United Kingdom.
15:54
This Government’s ambition—to secure sustainable economic growth—has been consistent, and the current strength of our economy and labour market reflects the strength of our commitment to that ambition. Women are key to the strength and resilience of Scotland’s economy and they have made a huge contribution to the recovery that we are seeing.
Women work in every sector of Scottish industry, but too often they do so on an unequal basis and, as reports from respected organisations such as the Fawcett Society show, they are not feeling the same financial benefits of the recovery. I and this Government are determined that women play the fullest possible role at all levels of our economy and, as they do so, I want to ensure that their valuable contribution is adequately rewarded.
Well-rewarded and sustained employment can be the best route out of poverty and the best way to tackle inequality. On Monday, I published “Unlocking Scotland’s Full Potential: boosting skills, wages, equality and growth”—a clear statement on the great value that we place on sharing our economic growth equally. Through equality of opportunity, we can create at all levels and in all areas of our economy a more diverse workforce that maximises our skills, improves the productivity of our businesses and grows our economy at an even faster rate.
We can deliver those ambitions because Scotland has great strengths and strong foundations from which to achieve progress. There are 1.25 million women employed in Scotland, which is the highest number since comparable records began, and the female inactivity rate is lower in Scotland than anywhere else in the United Kingdom. More young women than men stay on at school and are in higher and further education, and Scotland has the highest percentage in the UK of females with national vocational qualifications of at least level 3.
It is unacceptable that those strengths do not combine to create higher earnings for women in Scotland. Our gender pay gap remains unacceptably high at 7.6 per cent, and women earn 17 per cent less than men when we take hourly median earnings for full and part-time work together. Women’s average earnings are lower, with men typically earning £90 a week more than women in full-time work.
The reasons for that are many, but, in short, too many women continue to face occupational segregation, greater job insecurity, higher levels of underemployment and pay inequality. That is not the type of labour market that can deliver the more equitable shares of economic growth, prosperity and opportunity that I believe Scotland must have.
The strategic group on women and work, which I chair, has, while engaging widely across the public and private sectors, played an important role in supporting our efforts to address those challenges, and our focus will be helped in the autumn when the Council of Economic Advisers publishes its report on maximising the economic potential of women in Scotland.
However, the reality is that this Government, with limited access to macroeconomic tools and legislative powers, is constrained in its ability to fully address the challenges. Instead of being able to share the benefits of growth, maximise our talents and unlock our potential, we have a position in Scotland today in which too many households struggle to meet their bills as wages are eroded and the cost of living increases. Around half of working-age adults and more than half of children in poverty live in working households and, despite the UK Government’s stated commitment to support families, women are disproportionately affected by its welfare reforms through changes to child benefit, working tax credit and lone parent benefit conditionality, and that disparity will continue as universal credit is introduced. I believe that those inequalities create an inarguable case for Scotland becoming an independent country. Only independence can address those issues and create a Scotland that provides the opportunities to meet women’s ambitions.
Too many women work in low-paid jobs, so the minimum wage impacts disproportionately on them. We understand and know the difficulties that that can create, and I believe that women deserve better. Therefore, with independence, the minimum wage will rise at least in line with inflation every year. If that had happened over the past five years, the lowest paid would have been £600 a year better off. With responsibility for equalities legislation, we would address the scandalous inequalities in pay that persist despite the current system and 44 years of equal pay legislation.
Independence will allow us to protect women from the worst effects of welfare reform. We will develop a welfare system that is fair, personal and simple and that provides women with the same incentives to work as men. Current plans for universal credit mean that a higher level of partners’ incomes will be taken into account as income when calculating the award. In “Scotland’s Future—Your Guide to an Independent Scotland” we have committed to equalising the earnings disregard between first and second earners—who are more often women—under universal credit. It is estimated that doing so would benefit as many as 70,000 people by as much as £1,200 a year. Of course, the Government is committed to scrapping universal credit under independence.
I want women to contribute fully to the success of Scotland’s businesses and its public and third sectors and to the continued strengthening of the Scottish economy, and I want that contribution to benefit women and their families equally. A lack of affordable, flexible childcare can be a significant barrier to many women accessing opportunities in employment, education or training. We are therefore investing more than £0.25 billion in the next two years to expand the provision for three and four-year-olds and we will also extend that support to the most vulnerable and disadvantaged two-year-olds.
The commission for developing Scotland’s young workforce rightly sets out an ambitious agenda to improve access to employment for young people. Together with local government, we are working to implement the report’s recommendations. We have already made £4.5 million of funding available, which includes support that will tackle gender segregation in training and employment programmes. In the autumn, I will set out more detailed plans for how we will work with schools, colleges, training providers and employers to ensure that existing stereotypes are challenged and barriers are removed.
Improving participation is one half of the challenge that we face in maximising Scotland’s productivity; as important is creating an environment in which all of those in work, including women, can thrive and prosper more equitably than they have been able to do so far. Last week, I welcomed the recommendations of the “Working Together Review” of progressive workplace policies. The review suggests how we can, through a partnership approach, address labour market challenges and build on existing good practice in our industrial relations. We will work with businesses and trade unions in framing our joint response to that review. Together with the commission on developing Scotland’s young workforce, that will provide Scotland with the opportunity to bring the right skills into the right jobs and to transform people’s lives and our workplaces through more equal access to work and fairer treatment in work.
I will update the Parliament on progress in two important areas. The “Working Together Review” recognised the value of a fair work commission, as envisaged in “Scotland’s Future”, as a means to support sustainable employment that pays fairly. Forty-four years on from the introduction of the Equal Pay Act 1970, it is clear that the current constitutional arrangements are not delivering for women in Scotland. I want early action so, with independence, the fair work commission will as its first priority begin to work collaboratively with unions, businesses and others to progress a review of the costs and benefits of mandatory equal pay audits.
We want women to be better represented at the highest levels of public authorities. On 30 April 2014, we launched the consultation “Women on Board—Quality through Diversity” to determine how a minimum quota of 40 per cent female representation could be introduced. The consultation closed on 4 July, and we received a range of views on how to address the gender imbalance on our boards, which has helped to focus our thinking on how best to address the barriers that women face.
Our commitment in that area makes it clear that this is not an issue on which we are prepared to wait any longer. Yesterday, Shona Robison wrote to the United Kingdom Government to request the transfer of legal competence in the equality field to the Scottish Parliament. We have made it clear that we believe that those powers should rest in Scotland as quickly as possible and in advance of full independence.
We will establish a short-life working group to develop a plan for the implementation of quotas, harnessing political support together with expertise around the appointments process to deliver truly gender-diverse boards with the highest calibre of men and women.
On 18 September, we have the opportunity to create an independent Scotland: a Scotland that is unconstrained in its ambition; a Scotland that will maximise opportunities for everyone in the economy, including women; and a Scotland that fully unlocks our potential.
The plans that I have outlined demonstrate that following a vote for independence we will use those powers to deliver a fairer and more equal society.
I move,
That the Parliament welcomes the growth in women’s employment to its highest ever level of 1,250,000 and the significant reduction in female economic inactivity; believes that Scotland must have even higher ambitions to further increase the opportunities for women to enter the workforce; further believes that the Commission for Developing Scotland’s Young Workforce and the Working Together Review present important contributions to increasing opportunities for women; recognises however that significant powers to improve opportunities are currently reserved, and agrees that, with independence, these powers will give Scotland the opportunity to remove barriers to women’s ambitions and increase female economic activity, employment and living standards.
15:21
Gender inequality is in-built in Scotland and throughout most of the world. There are notable exceptions, but those countries have worked hard to create an equal society.
In Scotland, the areas where power is wielded are male dominated and, without action, that will continue, because like appoints like. People exercise the power that they wield in a way that reflects their own experience. Not deliberately but naturally we all make decisions based on our knowledge and experience. To redress the power imbalance, we need to be brave and take positive action.
We need to look at equal pay not just for the same job but for jobs requiring similar levels of skill and experience. I often compare the salaries of a police officer, which is a male-dominated career, and a nurse, which is a female-dominated career. Both careers require a public service ethos and the ability to care for and assist others, and both have in-built dangers that can be life threatening. One requires three to four years of university study and job-based training; the other requires 12 weeks of college-based training followed by 20 weeks as a probationer.
After training, the staff nurse who has studied for three or four years earns just over £21,500 whereas the probationer police officer who has not finished their training earns over £26,000 at 31 weeks. That is gender-based pay. The same thing happens more widely, as jobs that pay the minimum wage are often female-dominated occupations. We need to deal with gendered pay segregation and place equal value on the work that is carried out, regardless of the gender domination of the profession.
A child’s life chances depend on its mother’s education and pay. Only by lifting women out of poverty will we tackle child poverty. That comes at a cost, but so does the alternative. What is the cost of a child growing up in poverty—not only the cost to that child but the cost to wider society when that child becomes more dependent on services because its life chances have been curtailed, because its health has been damaged and because its own children are born into poverty? If we are serious about tackling child poverty, we must first tackle the mother’s poverty.
Sexual exploitation is also a result of gendered poverty and inequality. We can tackle sexual exploitation by giving women access to economic levers and equal pay. We can eradicate the desperation of poverty that pushes people into such exploitation. By creating a more equal society, we can make it unacceptable for people to be bought and sold because of their gender. To do that, we must have women in positions of power, and that will not happen naturally, because like appoints like. Because of that built-in imbalance, a built-in discrimination occurs. We see that in the lack of women in positions of power. We need positive discrimination to correct the imbalance in order that we can have equality going forward. It is difficult to take those steps because of vested interests. Most people would say that they believe in equality, but the reality is not so palatable if they are the one who is being asked to step aside to allow it to happen.
The Scottish Labour Party made proposals to have positive discrimination on public boards, but they were rejected by the Scottish Government, as Jenny Marra said. However, the Government has promised to do that if Scotland votes for separation. Surely that is an election bribe. People would have more confidence in the proposals had the Scottish Government not used its majority to vote down the proposals in the past. Today’s debate could have been about implementing the proposals. The Scottish Government could have said that, regardless of the result on 18 September, it will implement the policy on those boards to which it makes the appointments, taking leadership instead of passing the buck and engaging in constitutional wrangles. The Government will not do that. Actions speak louder than words. Does the Government believe that women are so gullible?
The Government has done the same with childcare but, in that case, it did not even bother to do the research or cost the policy properly. However, if we are to create opportunities for women, we need to make it easier for them to work. We need to provide affordable accessible childcare now. A pipe-dream promise is not good enough.
We must also share caring duties between the sexes. Men should have to share the responsibility for childcare, and both partners’ employers should contribute to their employees’ time off for childcare responsibilities.
Women who take career breaks to bring up children often struggle to catch up with the men in the workplace who have not had to do that. Were the role shared, it would provide equality in the workplace and create a more equal society.
We need to encourage women into male-dominated—and therefore more highly paid—professions, but we also need to value the professions and the careers pursued by women. Career choices are often hugely important to our society. Those choices include caring roles, such as looking after the young, the old and the unwell. We all depend on those roles. We have all been young, we all hope to be old and we will all experience ill health. However, we do not value the roles at all.
It is sad that we are still debating opportunities for women so many decades since the impact of inequality was recognised. We will get greater equality by changing our society, not our country. We need to tackle the difficult decisions and step up to tackle the inequalities in our society. We should do that now rather than wrangling about our constitution.
16:07
We are having this debate at a time when female employment in Scotland, at 1.25 million, is the highest that it has ever been. Probably more significantly, the employment rate is higher for women in Scotland than for women in the other countries of the UK, and the corresponding unemployment and inactivity rates are lower.
In the last year alone, female employment has gone up by about 36,000, meaning that the figures for women at work in Scotland are the best for more than 20 years. The figures are helping to push Scotland’s gross domestic product to around £28,000 per person, which is about 10 per cent higher than the figure in the UK. That is fantastic news for Scotland, despite the gloom of economic depression that has prevailed for some years now.
If we take a look at the various reasons for that, we will see that a number of policy decisions and initiatives taken in Scotland all contribute to those very positive figures. The first ever women’s employment summit, which was held in 2013 in partnership with the STUC, examined many of the barriers facing women who want to work. It is no surprise that occupational segregation, childcare and vocational routes for women into work, particularly in science and engineering, featured among the issues where some attention needed to be focused.
Funding projects such as Women Onto Work to examine progression routes and outcomes for women and extending the youth employment Scotland fund to help employers take on youngsters—particularly younger mums, who would otherwise find it difficult to get into work—are all helping.
There has been a huge jump in the number of women participating in the modern apprenticeship programme, with more than 40 per cent now being taken up by women, compared with less than 30 per cent in 2008—a very significant and positive change indeed.
Another issue that came out of the summit was that of encouraging more women to become entrepreneurs. There is quite a range of initiatives to encourage more entrepreneurship among women. According to the Hunter centre for entrepreneurship, if the number of female entrepreneurs matched the number of male entrepreneurs, another £7 billion could be added to the Scottish economy. The Scottish Government has put up £1 million towards schemes such as young EDGE—encouraging dynamic growth entrepreneurs—Power of Youth and Investing Women. Hopefully, new businesses will emerge, led by women, to give Scotland’s economy that additional boost.
Our Government is also tackling the occupational segregation that means that many younger women do not choose vocational pathways to work, particularly in engineering. In June, the cabinet secretary announced £4.5 million to help to encourage more women into the STEM subjects. We fund the Scottish resource centre for women in science, engineering and technology and careerwise Scotland, which are both aimed at attracting more young women into science. That work will be further developed by the recently announced engineering skills investment plan.
If we can intervene as early as possible, even at nursery and primary school level, to put an additional focus on encouraging younger girls’ interest in science, we will reap the rewards later. By the time that youngsters get to secondary school, it can be too late. Gender stereotyping often reinforces the belief that science and engineering are oily rag activities—only for the boys. That is difficult for young women to overcome. If we intervene earlier and show the reality and rewards of careers in science and engineering, especially for women, we stand a much better chance and all those efforts will have been worth while. The Kilmarnock Engineering and Science Society, which has been up and running for a few years, offers specifically to school pupils lectures that are often delivered by women who have reached the top in the world of science and engineering and who have never seen an oily rag once in their working lives.
Perhaps the biggest factor in getting more women into work relates to how we support childcare and make it more flexible. The welfare and benefits system that we have in place for the poorest people in our society is also an issue. We know that women who are single parents are hardest hit if Governments get those things wrong. The Scottish Government has made significant improvements to childcare since 2007. From this month, all three and four-year-olds and vulnerable two-year-olds will get 600 hours of free childcare a year. That will benefit 120,000 children and save their families about £700 a year.
Delivery of the further transformation—the major change to 1,140 hours of free childcare in Scotland, which is equivalent to a whole primary school year—will require us to have control over our own tax and revenues. Make no mistake—this is not just about upping the numbers and grafting them on to our existing system, in which many women work part time and suffer pay discrimination. This is an offer to fundamentally change how childcare works in Scotland and allow many thousands of Scottish women to fully participate in our economy on an equal footing.
We know that it is Scotland’s women who bear the brunt of the cuts to the welfare system that are being imposed by the UK. Single female households lose out the most as a result of UK welfare reforms. Child benefit has been frozen, there has been a reduction in the childcare costs that are covered by working tax credits, the baby element has been removed from child tax credits—and on the list goes. That is why it was a total disgrace when Scottish Labour MPs such as Alistair Darling and nine female Scottish Labour MPs voted with the Tories to cap welfare spending, knowing that Scotland’s women would suffer the most.
Scotland’s women deserve better than what they have had to put up with in the UK for years. The Scottish Government has made significant improvements to the lives of women in Scotland, and with the additional powers of independence we can completely transform childcare and tackle gender inequalities, we can help more women into business and industry and we can protect the poorest women in our country by making sure that our welfare system is fairer and does not impoverish our families. That is the prize that is waiting after independence, and I believe that Scotland’s women will back this positive change in Scottish society. All that they have to do is say yes on 18 September.
I have a lot to tell members.
The Liberal Democrat pensions minister Steve Webb is overseeing the introduction of the new single-tier pension in 2016. It will address historical inequalities by improving state pension income for those with little or no additional state pension, who are again predominantly women. The Liberal Democrat employment minister, Jo Swinson, has championed shared parental leave. From 2015, parents will be able to mix and match their time off with their baby. They will be able to take leave together and both will be able to be around during the precious early weeks. Going back to work for a short time to maintain skills and confidence will also be an option.
That new flexibility will help to overcome outdated stereotypes about who does what. More important, it will enable parents to decide how best to share their responsibilities and manage their careers and family life. It is great news for mums and dads and even better news for the children who will have the chance of a better start in life.
Liberal Democrats have also worked hard to increase diversity at the top of our workforce and to promote gender equality on the boards of listed companies. Women now account for 21 per cent of total directorships, up from 12 per cent in 2010. In 2001, one FTSE 100 board in five was all male. Now, 99 per cent have at least one female director. I am sure that members will agree that that is quite a turnaround in a short space of time, although there is still much to do.
We are determined to make it a legal requirement for companies that employ more than 250 people to publish the average pay of their male and female workers. That will create pressure from staff and customers for companies to afford women the same opportunities as their male colleagues and to reward them accordingly, not with 20 per cent less. That is pressure to close the gender pay gap and deliver real equality in the workplace.
Those radical and progressive income and workplace policies have already made a real difference to the lives of millions of women here in Scotland. Furthermore, they remind us that Scotland has so much more to gain by continuing to work with the rest of the UK, not least because of the economic stability that we have secured, which underpins the positive employment figures that we are discussing today. Only four years ago we were teetering on the edge of a financial precipice, but now our economy is growing, we are making real progress on reducing the deficit and the outlook for growth and jobs is positive.
Why is that hard-earned progress so important? It is because prosperity is key to unlocking opportunities and because, when economies experience difficulties, it is consistently women who are hardest hit. That is why I worry about the impact of the £6 billion in additional cuts that the Institute for Fiscal Studies anticipates an independent Scotland would have to implement.
Some interesting points have been raised in the debate. It is appropriate that, as we debate the politics of the referendum, the main focus is on the key policy issues that will not only boost the number of women in the workforce but raise the quality of their skill set and the attractiveness to them of the labour market. Those are the key things, just as much as the actual numbers that are involved. It goes without saying that women are a crucial part of the labour market because, in many cases, they bring specific skills, many of which can be offered on a more flexible basis when compared to their male counterparts.
Although there have been considerable differences of opinion, there are important areas of agreement. First, there is no question but that good-quality education and training are absolutely key. As several members have said, the value of apprenticeships is immense and many of the themes that underpin the Wood commission are important in driving forward policy. In particular, there is a growing need to address the STEM subjects. Christine Grahame, who is not in the chamber just now, and Willie Coffey both said important things about STEM subjects and the difficulties that the science and technology industries encounter in attracting sufficient women.
Notwithstanding the success of programmes such as girls in energy, which is sponsored by Shell United Kingdom, concerns remain about the Scottish Qualifications Authority returns in recent school sessions, which show a drop in numbers taking subjects such as physics, with which there has been a problem in the last five school sessions. In mathematics, the numbers remain largely unchanged for boys, but that is not the case for girls—again, there has been a significant drop in the last few sessions.
I want to flag up concerns about the Scottish baccalaureate exams, which I believe have the potential to do something about the trend. At present, the take-up rate for the baccalaureate is exceedingly low. Indeed, the figure has fallen, with only 136 entries across Scotland for the current session. The Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning said in a recent parliamentary answer to me that the Scottish baccalaureate was
“never intended to be a high uptake award”,
since it is primarily in place
“to meet the needs of ... our most able learners”.—[Official Report, Written Answers, 19 August 2014; S4W-22291.]
I question the wisdom of saying that, because the whole point about baccalaureate exams is their interdisciplinary approach, especially when it comes to the dissertation work and practical disciplines. Those are the exact skills that many employers are looking for in their STEM graduates. The whole premise of the baccalaureate discipline is to have added value on the interdisciplinary front. We need to think about that very carefully.
That fall in the take-up of the baccalaureate is happening at the same time as subjects such as geology are coming out of the SQA examination diet altogether, yet geology is one of the burgeoning disciplines when it comes to Scotland’s thriving technology industries. There are serious issues there. We need to do much more on the training aspect that we all agree is so important to women in the labour market.
Secondly, there has been common agreement that many women are looking for much greater flexibility in the labour market. That, after all, is why there is cross-party agreement about the need to provide more and better-quality childcare. Of course, it would help if the Scottish Government’s economic modelling had been factually accurate. Instead, it was based on a theoretical trend, not on the specific labour market circumstances that apply to Scotland. Rhoda Grant was quite correct to point out the problem with that.
Childcare matters in terms of availability and reasonable cost, but also in terms of flexibility. That is why it is important that we do something about that availability on the flexible level. Jayne Baxter referred to issues in Mid Scotland and Fife in that regard. A group of campaigners in Glasgow is making the point that we cannot have the Scottish Government policy on full childcare provision unless we also harness the private sector availability of the public-private partnership mixes in nurseries. That provision cannot be delivered by dependence on the state sector alone. We need to take on board the fact that some of the state-funded nursery places do not have that flexibility because the provision is for only up to three hours a day and in some cases the school holidays are not covered. There are a lot of issues that we need to look at.
The third area of relative agreement is the huge role that colleges play in tackling the problem. One of the great success stories of colleges since the changes that took place in 1992 is their ability to cater for a wide diversity of courses—full time and part time—many of which are particularly suitable for women. However, as has been made clear this afternoon, it is impossible to come to any other conclusion than that the recent college cuts have disproportionately affected women. I do not want to hear any excuses about measuring part-time places against full-time equivalents. What matters is the trend against the same measure further back and, on that basis, the Scottish Government knows that the message is not a good one.
There are a lot of areas in which we agree on the principles behind the policies that we have to develop to ensure that women are not only much more available in the labour market but are available on a flexible basis that allows their individual skills to flourish in a way that perhaps has not been possible before.
The recent employment and GDP figures make it clear that Scotland is doing very well as part of the union and is benefiting from the combined economic policies of Holyrood and Westminster, as Jenny Marra and Alison McInnes said. It is essential to have those economies of scale that are important to investment and jobs and which help to provide the economic security that allows local economies to develop.
The potential for a boost in female participation rates is huge, provided that the whole of that capacity can be stimulated. That is why we are fully supportive of the unionist amendments in the names of Jenny Marra and Alison McInnes.
16:39
Will the member give way?
I was just checking with the clerks, too. We should watch what we say in the chamber.
Given that Ms Marra is a great believer in the power of Westminster to change our lives for the better, will she tell me why, if Westminster is such a success, the Equal Pay Act 1970—despite being as old as I am; that is how old it is—is still to be fully implemented?
Will Mary Scanlon give way on that point?
Will the member take an intervention?
I should tell members that we have a little bit of time in hand for interventions.
16:13
The proportion of women on public boards in Scotland is at 38 per cent, but we need to be far more ambitious than that, and to achieve 40 per cent.
Also, this Government, unlike the UK Government, took on the public sector equality duty, applied it to the public sector—as we are able to do under the Equality Act 2010—and introduced a suite of measures. South of the border, the whole thing just remains voluntary.
We are doing what we can within our powers.
Jenny Marra rose—
Will the cabinet secretary take an intervention?
Will the member take an intervention?
They got constitutional change.
You need to wind up.
The next item of business is a debate on motion S4M-10829, in the name of Angela Constance, on increasing opportunities for women.
15:10
No.
Action from Liberal Democrats in the UK Government to boost the tax-free allowance means that 160,000 families in Scotland will receive additional help with childcare costs from next year. However, it is essential that our children do not fall behind those south of the border, where 40 per cent of two-year-olds will benefit from free childcare thanks to the Liberal Democrats. The Scottish Government has opted to hold back—
I do not have time. I am sorry.
What of the older woman and the women who are full-time carers? Some 62 per cent are unpaid. They step in, often unseen and unsung, and they often do not recognise that they are indeed carers who care for love, not the lolly. That does not exempt society from supporting them financially and physically with, for example, respite breaks.
My hope is that, with the rebirth of the Scottish nation, there will be the opportunity, whatever the results of the first Scottish general election in 2016, for Scotland to spread its compassionate wings further than it can under the current constraints. If we dispossess our young women of opportunities, we may dispossess their daughters, and if we take for granted the older women who provide support for generations on either side of them—the support in caring for grandchildren, their infirm partner or their ageing parents—we as a society fail to recognise that there are many more ways to contribute to society than by bringing home a pay packet. That is also a measure of productivity.
15:49
I worry about the implications for women, as should Mr Brodie, as they are more likely to be low paid or in part-time jobs. [Interruption.]
Labour is committed to 50:50 representation on all public boards, and we will act to deliver just that. It takes political will, not constitutional change.
I have to say that Chic Brodie is a brave man. He was one of only two men who spoke in the debate. Mr Brodie talked about the alpha male. Off camera, he was pointing to himself. I say to him, as gently as I can, that that is probably a triumph of hope over experience. However, his admiration for the achievements of women was absolutely evident. I look forward to him supporting a female First Minister, whichever party she might be from.
I say to Alison McInnes that we should look at the worst aspects of welfare reform. We should look at the £4 billion of welfare reform cuts in Scotland, £2.8 billion of which affect women. Ms McInnes should hang her head in shame before she comes into Parliament and preaches to us about protecting—
The act was an ambitious piece of legislation, which has made great inroads in equalising pay between men and women. It has a way to go, but the cabinet secretary failed to explain exactly how she would immediately create equal pay in Scotland. I would be happy to take another intervention if she would like to tell me her yearly target for that, how quickly that would be achieved and how she would achieve it.
The member is in her final minute.
Will the cabinet secretary give way on that point?
Order.
Not just now, Ms Marra.
I have 40 seconds left.
The UK Children and Families Act 2014 allows more flexible working, and the International Monetary Fund has stated that the United Kingdom will be the fastest-growing economy in the G7. Taxpayers in Scotland, including women, also benefit from the rise in the personal allowance, and public spending in Scotland is £1,600 per head higher than in England.
It is no wonder that the SNP is having problems persuading women to vote yes. Women know the differences between promises and action.
We will support the Labour and Lib Dem amendments.
I move amendment S4M-10829.2, to leave out from “and the Working Together Review” to end and insert:
“is an important contribution to increasing opportunities for women; acknowledges that women’s employment has increased to its highest ever level as a result of the UK Government’s economic and fiscal policy; notes that Scotland’s economy is much stronger as part of the UK and that the IMF estimates that the UK will have the highest GDP growth out of the G7 this year, and considers that this progress should not be undermined by the potential risks and uncertainty over Scottish independence, especially the currency.”
15:36
Will the member give way?
I will take an intervention from Liz Smith.
I think that you are finished, cabinet secretary. Thank you.
The minister has only recently arrived in the chamber, but he insists on interrupting from a sedentary position.
Will the cabinet secretary give way?
If Ms Marra had listened to my speech, she would know that the first priority of a fair work commission will be implementing mandatory equal pay audits so that we can identify and address the problem as speedily as possible and not wait until I am in my dotage or my 80s.
Will the member give way on that point?
Mr Brodie.
I am surprised, because I listened carefully to the cabinet secretary and because she failed to do exactly what she has described in the Procurement Reform (Scotland) Bill—she voted down amendments on exactly that issue. She has a commitment for the future, but why she did not implement it four weeks ago when she had the chance and the power to do so really confuses me.
It was Labour that rescued the apprenticeship system and created more than 250,000 places a year. We will expand technician-level apprenticeships to ensure that Britain has the skills that it needs for the future.
Labour believes that, to improve opportunities for women, it is essential to have a world-class further education sector to provide the training and skills that are essential to meet the economy’s long-term needs. The loss of 140,000 college places since the cabinet secretary’s Government took power in 2007 completely undermines the achievement of that objective.
Since 2007-08, the SNP has slashed 84,099 college places for young women, while 56,000 fewer men are in college. Opportunities for women have been lost as college places for women who are returning to work have completely disappeared under the SNP.
I think that I am in my final minute.
Women in Scotland are smart—I think that Chic Brodie would agree with me on that. However, we need to get beyond the warm words in order to allow them to judge how they should vote in the referendum. They will judge the Scottish Government’s record and see that it had the power to deliver for women but decided not to do so. What a missed opportunity.
Clearly, the SNP’s priority is simply to win women’s votes for the referendum. What we want to do is to win women’s votes to actually change their lives.
16:47
No. Sit down, please.
The fact is that inequality remains reserved to the Westminster Government. I hope that—
I would like to make some progress.
The Scottish Government, rather than using the powers that it already has to help more families, is withholding further childcare as a bargaining chip for voters. It has absolutely failed to use all the powers at its disposal to break down social and economic barriers.
Of course, opportunities for women are as intrinsically linked to the success of our economy as they are to confronting cultural or social challenges. As my amendment notes, the
“lack of certainty around the Scottish Government’s plan B on currency puts women’s jobs and future aspirations on the line.”
The currency choice determines our mortgage rates, levels of trade with other countries and how much we can tax and spend—in sum, it determines the stability of the entire financial system.
Yesterday, the First Minister’s chief currency adviser said that sterlingisation might only last six months. Every option that the nationalists put on the table is second best to what we have now.
I worry about the implications for women, who are more likely to be reliant on the support that the state can provide to pensioners, parents and carers. A strong Scottish Parliament within the United Kingdom gives us the best of both worlds. It enables us to spread the risks and share the rewards, and it comes with the guarantee of more powers without losing the back-up of being part of the larger UK economy.
I will end on a conciliatory note. During the referendum campaign, I have had the benefit of speaking to many women, on both sides, for whom the debate is their first foray into politics. They realise that this is the most important political decision that we will ever take—an irreversible decision. I hope that those women will continue to engage and enrich our politics and public life in future. I welcome the fact that the referendum has renewed the Parliament’s focus on dismantling the stubborn archaic barriers that women face. I just sincerely hope that, regardless of the outcome next month, we can constructively and collectively tackle those barriers with the same level of passion and determination as has been displayed this afternoon.
16:32
I would prefer it if no one interrupted from a sedentary position, please.
The cabinet secretary is quite right about the need for flexibility. However, would she agree that, on childcare, the most important thing is to deliver a policy that is predicated on accurate statistics on the number of women who will go back into the workforce? The Scottish Government’s figures are simply not accurate.
I absolutely do not agree; our figures are sound. As I explained to Liz Smith’s colleague Mary Scanlon earlier in the debate, Opposition members repeatedly misinterpret or misunderstand, or fail to notice—I am sure that they have their reasons for that—the fact that every year 50,000 children are born in Scotland. We have to take that figure into account as we progress.
As things stand, women are being lost to the labour market for ever. The labour market participation rates for women in relation to the age of their children show that, even when those children are well into their school years, the participation rate does not pick up in the way that it should.
The key point is that successive Westminster Governments, despite having control over tax, welfare and the economy, have never delivered transformational universal childcare. I know that many members on the Labour side of the chamber are sincere in their aspiration for universal childcare and have campaigned for it all their political lives.
Will the member take an intervention?
I challenge Ms Marra on that point. The Scottish Further and Higher Education Funding Council has decided not to fund very short-term courses, but all courses that involve employability or progression into work remain in our college system. I remind her that the majority of college students—particularly full-time students who are studying for recognised qualifications—are women.
In seeking to appeal to women voters, the nationalists continue to tout uncosted plans and peddle myths on the currency, childcare and most recently the national health service—anything to distract from their record of failing women across Scotland.
The Scottish Government claims that it wants the powers to ensure that 40 per cent of public board members are women, but that does not stand up favourably to scrutiny. The Government had the chance to show that it meant business from the outset, but the representation of women among its nominations to the next body that was appointed after that announcement—the fiscal commission—amounted to only 33 per cent.
Two years ago, I supported Jenny Marra’s amendment to the Police and Fire Reform (Scotland) Bill that would have required representation on national police and fire authorities to be at least 40 per cent women and 40 per cent men. The cabinet secretary’s colleague the Cabinet Secretary for Justice dismissed the proposal, and SNP colleagues on the Justice Committee voted it down. Kenny MacAskill argued that it was not necessary to be prescriptive about that in the bill and that it was micromanaging.
I also recollect the Scottish Government defeating calls to establish a 40 per cent gender quota throughout Scotland’s public bodies in a debate in the Parliament on 14 June 2012 that, again, Jenny Marra drove forward.
Order, please. Can I stop you for a moment, cabinet secretary? If members are not taking interventions, other members should sit down, but they will be told to do so by the Presiding Officers if they remain on their feet.
Will Ms McInnes lend her support to the letter that Shona Robison sent to the UK Government yesterday calling for a section 30 order under the Scotland Act 1998 giving competence to the Parliament in equalities?
I have no idea how the cabinet secretary can contend that short-term courses have no economic impact and do not help people to get back to work. She does not want to face up to the reality that 80,000 fewer women have attended college since her Government took power.
The Wood commission recommended that we need to establish parity of esteem between the further and higher education sectors to secure the skills base that Scotland needs. The Scottish Government has accepted and endorsed the commission’s recommendations. How does that square with the SNP cutting further education budgets and the disproportionate impact of that on women?
Angela Constance has committed to reducing youth unemployment—[Interruption.] I would be happy to give way if the Minister for Children and Young People wants to intervene. Angela Constance has committed to reducing youth unemployment by 40 per cent on the back of the Wood commission recommendations. What commitment can she give to ensuring that women will make up at least half of that target? Perhaps she will address that in closing.
I am still confused—I raised this with her last week—by the cabinet secretary’s commitment to reducing youth unemployment by 40 per cent when John Swinney has announced that there will be full employment in an independent Scotland and seems to have found jobs for 100 per cent of young people.
The member is in her last minute.
Will the cabinet secretary take an intervention?
Of course, Presiding Officer.
I look forward to Jackie Baillie and Jenny Marra putting their shoulders to the wheel and supporting the letter that Shona Robison has sent to the UK Government asking for it to give us the powers over equality now. It will take only six months. That would allow us to make speedy progress after a yes vote because we are ambitious and impatient. I am sorry, but for Ms Marra to say after 44 years of the Equal Pay Act 1970 that it
“has a way to go”
is the understatement of the year.
If the cabinet secretary is so committed to having women on public boards, why did her Government appoint 10 men as regional college chairs out of 12 appointments? There are only two women. It is a matter of public policy and public appointment, so why are there only two women out of 12?
No, thank you.
The issue is not just about campaigning—it is about delivering. We are committed to a managed expansion, and with the powers that we have at present, we have increased the provision of free childcare by 45 per cent. That is a good record. Of course, we will do more with independence because we will be able to pay for universal childcare, which is something that successive UK Governments have failed to prioritise and to fund.
Much of Scottish Labour’s five-point plan for women is worthy, although it is far less ambitious on childcare than what the Scottish Government has set out.
Jackie Baillie said that equality for women is about political will. That is true, but why does she insist on asking for permission from Westminster? Every point in Scottish Labour’s five-point plan for women is currently a reserved power, and she—
Will the member take an intervention?
Every option is second best to the stability that we are afforded by being part of the UK, and to being backed by one of the oldest and most successful currencies in the world.
Analysis has shown that 270,000 jobs in Scotland—approximately 10 per cent—are linked to the UK’s single integrated market. The jobs of more than 100,000 women, in sectors from mining to finance, are intrinsically connected to trade with the rest of the UK. For goodness’ sake, why would we erect an international border between Scotland and our largest trading partner, with whom our economy is so heavily integrated?
Those are the issues that will have the greatest influence in determining the opportunities for women in Scotland. As part of the United Kingdom, we can have the best of both worlds: significant decision-making powers here in this Parliament, together with the strength, stability and security that being part of the UK brings.
That is the compelling, positive case for saying no.
I move amendment S4M-10829.1, to leave out from “recognises” to end and insert:
“notes the new research that shows that 270,000 Scottish jobs are dependent on trade with the rest of the UK and that nearly 100,000 of these are held by women; believes that key issues such as the economy and the currency will determine the opportunities available to women in Scotland in the future; further believes that lack of certainty around the Scottish Government’s plan B on currency puts women’s jobs and future aspirations on the line; expresses disappointment at the Scottish Government’s continued failure to stack up its costings for its plan to increase female participation through childcare, even after the First Minister’s New Statesman lecture in March 2014, in which he asserted, without evidence, that the policy paid for itself; regrets the lack of explanation as to why the Scottish Government continues to defy the will of SNP members and ministers in the Parliament that was expressed in motion S4M-05521 on 31 January 2013, which said that child benefit should be increased for people earning more than £60,000; regrets that the Scottish Government decided to follow up its professed policy that 40% of members of public boards would, in future, be women by making nominations to the next body, the Fiscal Commission, of just 33% women; believes that overcoming gender stereotypes across the board, but particularly in science, technology, engineering and maths, is in everyone’s interest and will help Scotland thrive; further believes that the loss of highly trained women from the workforce is not only a loss of opportunity to individuals but also represents a major quantifiable loss to the economy and society; notes the report of The Royal Society of Edinburgh that concluded that the doubling of women’s high-level skill contribution to the economy would be worth as much as £170 million per annum to Scotland’s national income; welcomes the UK Government’s measures to promote equal opportunities and working practices, such as shared parental leave; further welcomes the UK Government’s increase in the income tax threshold to £10,000; considers that the increase in the threshold has supported people on low and middle incomes, many of whom are women, and believes that being part of a United Kingdom with broad economic shoulders and a stable currency is the best future for Scotland and for all of the people of Scotland.”
15:43
Will the cabinet secretary take an intervention?
Indeed. The important issue is the applications that we received from women; women outperformed men on the basis of those applications. However, I am sure that we are all united in thinking that there is much more to be done to ensure that talented women can progress, and so that they know about posts so that they can make applications and are supported in making them.
Nobody disputes that we can do more now. I am always up for a challenge and debate about what more we can do with our powers and resources now. I have no issue with that debate, but that does not preclude the need for more powers, more opportunities and more resources to come to Parliament for us to decide on our own terms how we pursue the equality agenda.
I am pleased to inform Jayne Baxter and Dr Murray that the number of Scottish universities with Athena SWAN charter membership has gone up from four to 14. They might want to examine the guidance letter from Michael Russell to the Scottish Further and Higher Education Funding Council, which challenges it about occupational segregation within courses and, indeed, within its senior workforce.
With regard to the Wood agenda, for the first time the Scottish funding council and Skills Development Scotland will have realistic but stretching targets, and will have to report annually on them. We will come back to Parliament and report more fully on that in the autumn, as we will with our consideration of the “Working Together Review”.
I thank Rhoda Grant, Christine Grahame and others for mentioning—and plugging away for—carers and their contribution to the economy. We must remember that unpaid work makes a huge contribution to our economy and that that unpaid work, as many of the briefings point out, is provided by women.
It is important that we reflect on the gains of devolution. Successive Scottish Administrations have helped to narrow the historical gap in performance with the UK across a range of economic indicators, including output, productivity and employment. Our economy is strengthening, which is good news, but we need to ensure that women—
Will the cabinet secretary give way?
No, thank you. I am running out of time.
On a point of order, Presiding Officer.
Jackie Baillie would rely on the right man being in number 10, and I no longer—
Cabinet secretary, there is a point of order, so I need to stop you.
Thank you, Presiding Officer. My point of order relates to the accuracy of what the cabinet secretary is saying. She has clearly not read the five pledges—
Ms Baillie, sit down. You are well aware, as you have been here long enough to know, that what is said in this chamber is a matter neither for a point of order nor for me.
Presiding Officer, I have examined Scottish Labour’s five-point plan carefully—
No, you have not.
I am all for political will, but I am not for asking permission from Westminster. We need to look at the lack of progress—
You need to wind up.
We need to look at the lack of progress by the Westminster Government on low pay and unequal pay. Westminster has had its chance. At best, it is holding us back; at worst, it is taking us back in time.
We now turn to closing speeches.
16:26
I ask MSPs to reflect on something for just a moment. What if the cabinet secretary had spent even a fraction of the energy that she has expended over the years in railing against the UK Government on actually challenging her Cabinet colleagues to live up to her ambitions? If only. As is so often the case, the SNP prefers posturing to progress.
I will take a moment to further compare the SNP’s dismal record on increasing opportunities for women within the powers that it already has with the positive strides that Liberal Democrats in the UK Government have made. We have given more than 2 million Scots on low and middle incomes a £700 tax cut, and 224,000 of the lowest paid, many of whom are women, have been lifted out of paying income tax altogether. The white paper revealed that taxpayers in an independent Scotland would pay £400 more each year compared with our plans to further increase the threshold to £12,500.
Will the member give way?
Will the member give way?
I thank the cabinet secretary for the opportunity to debate increasing opportunities for women, which has been a constant theme in this Parliament since 1999.
The briefing from Engender states:
“In the sectors of Construction and Agriculture, Forestry and Fishing, the percentage of women is only 17%, compared to 73% of women in Public Administration, Education and Health.”
Although the Construction Industry Training Board has outlined some of the work that is currently in hand to address those issues, we can all agree that there is much more to do.
On a consensual note, we welcome recommendations 28, 29 and 30 in the final Wood commission report, which encourage more gender balance across occupations and an action plan to address gender disparities within college education and modern apprenticeships. Those are sound policies, but it is the implementation that counts.
Engender’s briefing paper states that Scotland’s employability strategy recognises that gender is a key factor in shaping barriers to employment, but it goes on to say that
“to date, such an amalgamated policy tool has not been delivered”.
It also states that the women’s employment summit that was held in 2012 reflected the increased political will to engage with women and work but that substantial shifts in policy resulting from the summit remain to be identified.
On childcare, I can do no better than quote from the Scottish Parliament information centre’s briefing, which confirms that the Scottish Government’s figure of increased childcare bringing 104,000 women back into work is—to be polite—inaccurate. Its analysis concludes that, rather than 104,000 women coming back into work, there are 64,000 women in that group who are economically inactive, of whom 14,000 would like to work. The SPICe briefing confirms that the Scottish Government figures have been exaggerated by 90,000.
Childcare is a devolved issue. An increase in childcare entitlement is already happening, and there is nothing to prevent further increases from being implemented by this Parliament.
Would Mary Scanlon accept that around 50,000 babies are born every year in Scotland, which means that, every year, women are lost from the labour market? We do not have to be economists to know that one of the biggest barriers to women getting into work is access to childcare. Will she therefore accept that the transformational impact of childcare policy over a period of time is a point that is worth recognising?
This has been a very consensual debate. In case anyone is wondering which debate I have been listening to, I mean by that that the majority of us agree on the destination. I suppose that the difference of opinion rests on the route that we take towards achieving equality.
I have always been of the view that there is nothing inevitable about gaining equality under any political system, but I think that some arrangements are more adept at delivering equality than others, and are inherently more democratic. There is a point about who makes decisions and where those decisions are made, as well as about how those powers of independence are used.
However, I am just not pinning my hopes on the right man being in number 10. First, I am—to be frank—too old for that and, secondly, that just has not worked very well for Scotland to date, because for more than half of my lifetime, Scotland has had a Prime Minister in number 10 who has not reflected the democratic will of the people of Scotland.
That would be fine, were it not for the fact that the Scottish Government has the power to make decisions over things such as the appointment of women to public boards in Scotland. Given that it has that power and that it makes the decisions, why has the number of women in those positions not increased?
Previous
Innovation Centres (Economic Impact)Next
Business Motions