Gender Pay Gap
The final item of business today is a members' business debate on motion S2M-1410, in the name of Sandra White, on the increasing gender pay gap. The debate will be concluded without any question being put.
Motion debated,
That the Parliament notes with concern the result of research by PayFinder.com which indicates that the gender pay gap is getting wider, that it has increased by 5 per cent in the last year and that the gap is now 29 per cent in Scotland and believes that this is an unacceptable situation and that the Scottish Executive has a duty to investigate the matter and bring forward proposals to close the gap.
I ask members who are leaving the chamber to do so with no further conversation.
Perhaps we do not just need equality of pay, but equality of manners, although that is for another debate on another day.
I am pleased to have secured a debate on my motion and I hope that the Deputy Minister for Communities will be able in her reply to assure to women in Scotland that the Government and Parliament will not tolerate inequalities of any kind, especially inequalities in earnings that are based solely on one's gender. For far too long in Scotland, in the United Kingdom as a whole and in other places throughout the world, women have been discriminated against just because of their gender. That situation cannot be tolerated and must be stopped as soon as possible.
I am sure that all members who are present know that the Equal Pay Act was passed in 1970. Even so, 34 years later most women do not have equality. Although the legislation requires parity of payment, that is still not the case. Many firms have been informed of, and warned about, the discrimination legislation, but they do not comply with it.
PayFinder.com contacted me about the gender pay gap. It produced a paper that tells us that the gender pay gap now stands at 29 per cent. That compares with the UK average of 24 per cent, which is still bad. Given everything that has happened, it is ridiculous that the pay gap is wider than it was when the Equal Pay Act 1970 was passed.
We know that women make up the majority of workers in low-pay, low-value jobs and, because most women are the principal carers in the home, they take on part-time jobs, which are especially badly paid. Sometimes working part time is the only option that such women have. That, coupled with inequality of pay, means that they get the sharp end of the stick. The situation will change for the better when the Government implements better education and child care. I hope that the Government will take over the provision of child care; that would be a good thing.
What can we say to women who have been through further education, who have good degrees, who have child care and who have a good job but who, at the end of the week, get less money than their male counterparts simply because they are women? Their gender counts against them. I believe that it is incumbent on the Executive to set a good example at all levels. I say in my motion that we should do something about the situation. The Executive should ensure that equal treatment is the norm throughout the Scottish Government. I ask it to instigate an audit of all the employees in the Government, regardless of which job they carry out, to find out whether fairness and equality are prominent.
I know that work has already been carried out on equal pay. Close the gap, a three-year campaign that was launched in 2001, received European funding. It began with the specific aims of enabling employees to carry out audits—as I have just suggested—of encouraging the development of action plans, of engaging unions in making equal pay a priority and, most important, of empowering women to challenge pay discrimination.
I agree entirely with the member's comments. One of the difficulties is in obtaining reliable data for many individual companies. In meetings in my constituency with the Low Pay Commission and the Scottish Low Pay Unit, I have discussed the reliability of data and the small amount of sample data that we have. Audits in the private sector are welcome, as they will give us more reliable data, which will allow us to campaign harder to get something done about the situation.
That is the gist of my motion. As I said, there have been initiatives such as close the gap, but only a small number of audits have been carried out. If the matter is progressed through legislation, there will be more audits, which I hope will mean that there will be shrinkage in inequality. The legislators must do that—we must go forward.
As I said, the pay gap is even wider, even though surveys have been carried out. A 61,000 person survey was carried out by the University of Aberdeen and was prompted, believe it or not, by women in the media who are concerned about what is happening to them. Professor Rita Marcella of Aberdeen business school said of women in the media that
"evidence suggests that they are still failing to achieve equity with men in terms of entry, retention and progression."
Perhaps the media in the Scottish Parliament, and the women in particular, should do their own audit so that we can see what they come up with.
Alyson Thomson of the Equal Opportunities Commission in Scotland has said that the findings that have come out of the various surveys are not surprising and that still too many women are being treated as second-class citizens—that is straightforward discrimination. Basically, they are being paid less because they are women.
A report to the Justice 1 Committee by the National Association of Official Prison Visitors states that women prisoners get lower wages than male prisoners. How is that for discrimination? Even Gordon Brown, in his speech to the Brighton Labour Party conference, criticised 50 years of the welfare state for failing in respect of equal pay for women. Patricia Hewitt, another Labour politician, set up a commission on women in work to deal with equality and pay, and she says that women are rightly demanding a better deal at work. At Westminster and here in this Parliament, we seem to have cross-party support for some form of audit and some form of legislation to stop the inequalities that women face at the moment.
I mentioned pilot schemes such as the close the gap scheme. The Minister for Communities, Margaret Curran, set up a new equality group to report on putting ideas into practice. Unfortunately, that has not happened yet, and we must make it a requirement that it does happen. It is fine to commission reports, but we need action. Women need action and they need equality. We cannot, without taking any action, go on writing reports and asking women to fill in questionnaires about how unhappy they are or about what their work time is like. That is why I say that Parliament must make it a requirement to prioritise equal pay.
As Jeremy Purvis said—I am sure that other members will agree—we must set up audits to ensure that each company conforms to legislation. We can no longer leave it voluntary; we must initiate a legislative process. Only by being bold and forward thinking in tackling inequality will we be able to put an end to the deliberate discrimination that faces many working women. I hope that the minister will take on board what I have said and perhaps come back with some answers.
Thank you, Presiding Officer, for giving me this time to speak. I also thank the members who have stayed behind to speak in the debate.
Having taken note of who is still writing, I call Carolyn Leckie first, to be followed by Nora Radcliffe.
I am awfully glad that I stopped writing. I just have notes.
I thank Sandra White for securing this evening's debate. I am sure that she knows that I have pursued the matter of equal pay vigorously—I have not counted the number of motions and questions that I have lodged on equal pay.
Equal pay is definitely an issue that is close to my heart and it is one that was rekindled during the nursery nurses' dispute, which involved 14 weeks of all-out action. It is astonishing that throughout that dispute we heard not a dickie bird from the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and not a dickie bird from the Executive about the fact that the Equal Opportunities Commission was already meeting, and had been trying to meet, COSLA and the Executive to persuade them that there was an equal pay issue and to ask them to intervene and do something about it. Unfortunately, that did not happen.
Not only did COSLA and the Executive fail to meet their moral obligations, but they did not meet their legal obligations under equal pay legislation, because that legislation puts an obligation on the Executive, on Parliament and on devolved bodies to do all that they can to eliminate unequal pay and to achieve equal pay. The Executive stands today guilty of having not done that. It is shameful that the nursery nurses were on all-out indefinite strike for more than 14 weeks and we heard not a whisper from the Executive.
I shall move on to the more general issues, and I shall use the examples of local government and the national health service to show the differences between aspiration and obligation and between talk and action.
Local government is supposed to have been implementing job evaluation free from gender barriers for five years now, but it has not. The Equal Opportunities Commission has expressed concerns that, even if the job evaluation programme were implemented, it would not be satisfied that the programme would meet its obligation to be free from gender bias. What is the Executive doing about that?
COSLA's reaction to the budget announcement yesterday was that it was a "standstill" budget, so I am concerned about how equal pay can possibly be addressed in local government. As Sandra White rightly said, the gender pay gap is now approaching 30 per cent and the gap is 50 per cent for part-time workers. How on earth can a standstill budget address that gap?
The NHS agenda for change is supposed to address inequalities in the NHS, but the gender pay gap is at 30 per cent, and is at 50 per cent for part-time workers, and the NHS work force is predominantly female. When Gordon Brown entered agenda for change negotiations, he anticipated that it would save the NHS money. How on earth can it address the problem of unequal pay?
Those negotiations have moved on and health boards and the Executive are waking up to the fact that agenda for change might cost them money. However, I say to Mary Mulligan that there are glaring failings in the agenda—unless she has good news for me today.
Some sort of solution for estate workers, who are predominantly men, has been reached; recruitment and retention premiums of up to 30 per cent have been offered in taking cognisance of that group of workers, who were set to lose under agenda for change. However, the administration and clerical workers, who are predominantly female, have as yet no such assurances and are set to lose, rather than gain, pay. How can agenda for change possibly address equal pay if estate workers get 30 per cent recruitment and retention premiums and admin and clerical workers are sitting with nothing?
I ask the Executive what involvement have Executive departments that have responsibility for equal pay and women had in the agenda for change negotiations. Other than the Health Department, who is involved and can the minister offer me any reassurances?
I commend Sandra White for securing the debate, following the recent statistics from the PayFinder.com survey.
Even if one consults the annual "New Earnings Survey", which is regarded as providing the most authoritative statistics on full-time paid employment, a 19 per cent gender pay gap is identified. Given that the Equal Pay Act 1970 has been in force since 1975, it is obvious that the measures that have been taken so far have not delivered the goods.
The most obvious and blatant direct pay discrimination has largely been dealt with, but what is left is much more subtle and intractable. It is rooted in differences in employment patterns that reflect differences in equality of opportunity. If we are to get equal pay, we will have to delve right down to the roots of those problems. We have to examine segregation in the labour market and the impact of the fact that women are usually primary carers.
We have to remember that the gender pay gap does not stop when work stops. When we consider female pensioners, the provision gap between men and women of pension age is even more glaringly inequitable. Given that women tend to live longer than men, they often live in abject poverty for much longer, which is fairly disgraceful in the 21st century.
There is no single simple answer to the problem; we have to tackle it in a range of ways. At Westminster level, Liberal Democrats would like to see a rebalancing of income tax to take lower-paid people out of income taxation. Those people are usually women. We would like to restore the link between pensions and average earnings—beginning with the over-75s, who are the most vulnerable group—as a start to tying pensions to average earnings for everyone. We would also like to integrate benefits and tax, so that we do not get that dreadful gap in the middle where a hotchpotch of benefits legislation and tax legislation do not marry and poverty gaps and anomalies arise.
One of the founding principles of the Scottish Parliament is equality. A lot of good work has been done in the five years that we have been here. We have an Equal Opportunities Committee and we have an equalities unit. We have tried to mainstream equality and we have tried to gender-proof our budgets. That we have been trying for five years to do those things and that it has been difficult show how endemic the problem is.
There is a root-and-branch job to be done in changing perceptions and assumptions, and not just those of the male section of the community, but of the female section of the community. People make assumptions about certain jobs and roles and their value, which we have to challenge at every opportunity. If we could raise the status of parenting and of caring and if we could ensure that those contributions to society, which are made largely by women, were properly recognised and funded, we would do a huge amount to address inequality and the gender pay gap.
I have no answers. All I have are a lot of questions and suggestions. We must all push ahead on the fronts that I have mentioned to try to tip the balance of a deeply rooted and intractable problem.
I sincerely congratulate Sandra White on securing this debate, but the subject is much more important than its timing as a members' business debate on a Thursday evening would suggest. I whole-heartedly agree with the motion and emphasise its points that the gender pay gap figures are completely unacceptable,
"and that the Scottish Executive has a duty to investigate the matter and"—
more important—
"bring forward proposals to close the gap."
I am conscious that hidden behind the figures is the fact that 43 per cent of all working women earn less than £5 per hour. Half of all women in full-time jobs and 80 per cent of those in part-time work earn well below the Council of Europe's decency threshold of £6.31 an hour. Work for those women is often based on the four Cs. We have such phrases for all sorts of things, such as the four Rs for zero waste. Now we have the four Cs of cleaning, caring, catering and cash register. I would add a fifth C: call centres. Those are drudgery jobs, which are mostly seen as women's work and so are undervalued and therefore underpaid.
I am conscious that in this Parliament equality of opportunity is one of our founding principles, but surely one vital part of that aspiration is the need to value each one of us and the contribution that we make to society. Does the motion indicate that we have a society that values women? The five Cs are vital for the maintenance of the fabric of our society. We need those jobs to be done so, at the very least, if we say that and make a clear statement that, as a society, we value such work, we will go some way to ensuring that there is more pay equality.
We need equal pay for work of equal value. Within that principle, we need to examine the strategies by which women are devalued in part-time contractual agreements. In many jobs the hourly rate may be high enough, but the terms of the contract mean that no sick or holiday pay is provided, and contracts can be ended with a week's notice. How can that be said to value anyone's work, whether male or female?
This week I received a copy of a report from the Equal Opportunities Commission, entitled "Tip of the iceberg: Interim report of the EOC's investigation into discrimination against new and expectant mothers in the workplace". I quote a telling sentence from the report:
"We all need the next generation to be born and to thrive. We rely on the workforce of the future for our prosperity and welfare, including our pensions."
Nora Radcliffe made a valid point about pensions.
Legislation is in place to protect pregnant women at work, but members will recall the United Kingdom Independence Party member of the European Parliament who claimed that many small businesses would not employ young women, because they might become pregnant. His statement demonstrates that although legislation can help, it cannot always change attitudes. The Equal Pay Act was passed in 1970. How many more debates will we have before the role of women in society is truly valued and appropriately rewarded?
It is important that debates on particular subjects are not left to the people whom we might classify as the beneficiaries of the subject, so even an uninspired male like me should be able to come along and indicate solidarity with our sisters who are rightly concerned—
Will the member give way?
Yes.
I thank the member for giving way, albeit that he did so reluctantly. Although we have about 50 per cent representation by women in the Scottish Parliament, today's debate is one of the few in which the vast majority of contributors will be women. Does not that represent part of the problem?
That is what I was trying to say, in my confused way.
Attitudes present a problem. Nora Radcliffe and others dealt with many of the practicalities very well. There is still evidence that women who do the same work as men do not receive as much pay. That is less of a problem than it used to be, but a glass ceiling persists and attitudes continue to prevent women from progressing in their professions and businesses as well as they should do. The problem is not universal and in some cases attitudes are more positive and women progress well, but there is still a huge residual amount of male chauvinism, at which we must keep nibbling away if we are to help women to get their fair share of promotions and better jobs.
We must also work out how to make more jobs more user friendly. Nurses often have a point when they say that there is often no flexibility in the way in which health care operates, which can be hostile to women nurses with families. We must be much more flexible and accommodating to women, who, often, continue to take on the principal share of the family responsibilities.
We must also recognise the importance of the low-paid jobs that women often do. There is a point about the failure to treat nursery nurses properly. The Executive could take practical measures. If hospitals were cleaned properly and cleaners were paid properly, the Executive would save the huge amount of money that is spent on tackling the funny bugs that people get and provide reasonably paid jobs for women and men. The Executive should show an example and ensure that the people whom we employ in low-paid jobs, who are often women, are better paid and that working arrangements are sufficiently flexible to enable them to work in a sensible fashion.
Nora Radcliffe talked about pensions. Women live longer—they are tougher than we feeble males are—and need more money. Older pensioners need more.
I have made my feeble contribution, so I will sit down.
How will I follow that?
I congratulate Sandra White on securing tonight's debate. I read the document, "Improving the position of women in Scotland: an agenda for action", which was produced by the strategic group on women that Margaret Curran set up last year. I noted in that document that Joan Stringer refers to the famous observation of the Irish author, Rebecca West, which she made in 1913 and which I think is worth quoting in the context of the debate, particularly given what has been said so far. She said:
"I have never been able to find out precisely what feminism is; I only know that people call me a feminist whenever I express sentiments that differentiate me from a doormat."
Things have improved somewhat since 1913—at least, I would certainly like to think so. Donald Gorrie touched on the possible underlying reasons for gender inequality, and the Parliament can be proud of the fact that it has debated the subject and its associated consequences many times since its foundation. However, we have not yet achieved equality with men. Sandra White's motion provides one particular example out of many.
There is little doubt that there has been an improved approach towards equality issues in Scotland since 1999. As the gender reporter for the Equal Opportunities Committee, I have met people from groups and organisations over those years who have been supported, encouraged and driven to achieve more by the new opportunities that have been afforded through devolution and by the Executive.
While the Parliament and the Scottish Executive can be commended for taking the issue of equal pay seriously, we must be realistic in recognising that we have yet to make sufficient progress in closing the gap and that much remains to be done.
Does Elaine Smith also recognise that the Parliament does not have the powers truly to promote equalities, because they are a reserved matter?
I will come on to that, but of course it is true that equalities are a reserved matter.
According to EOC research, women working full time in Scotland earn an average of £482 less per month than men. Debates such as this are crucial for reminding us that the battle is far from won and that we cannot afford to be complacent about equalities.
As Linda Fabiani said, from a legislative perspective, the matter clearly remains reserved to Westminster. I welcome the fact that the guarantee of a decent income, a rising minimum wage and equal pay between men and women was outlined as a priority by the Prime Minister this week. Sandra White quoted Gordon Brown. I hope that, in the spirit of a members' business debate, she will welcome my referring to what the Prime Minister said, too. The Parliament and the Executive have done much to improve the representation of women in public life but, to answer Linda Fabiani's point, we have a fundamental responsibility to ensure that every little bit of devolved power is utilised by us to help to close the pay gap in Scotland.
I would have liked to have talked about mainstreaming, but I do not have time. I will quickly turn to one of the ways in which the Scottish Executive can assist people in working towards equal pay, which undoubtedly involves an evaluation of those sectors of employment that continue to be undervalued, underpaid and overpopulated by women, as was touched on by Carolyn Leckie. I, too, wish to refer to the nursery nurses. I welcome the commitment that the Executive made earlier this year towards a review of that service, and I look forward to its commencement. Indeed, I would welcome any indication that the minister might be able to give me tonight as to the progress of the Scottish Executive's plans in that regard.
I again congratulate Sandra White. I share her concerns regarding the pay gap in Scotland. I feel that the Executive has taken the issue seriously and that it is aware that we face an uphill struggle. I am not sure whether the worrying statistics warrant a complete step change in the Executive's policy, because I know about the work that it is doing, but I agree that the statistics indicate an unacceptable situation. I welcome any opportunity to discuss possible solutions, and I look forward to the minister's comments.
I was going to comment on the large number of women in the chamber this evening, but Carolyn Leckie pre-empted me. I am not sure whether she is aware that the Parliament's Equal Opportunities Committee currently consists entirely of women, which is an interesting fact.
I should probably declare an interest, as I have been involved in the agenda setting for the Aberdeen survey that Sandra White mentioned, although I have not received any report or feedback as yet. I congratulate Sandra White on bringing the motion before the Parliament, as it addresses an issue that is clearly important for many women. I say at this point, as I have often said in the past, that I firmly believe in equal opportunities for everyone.
I did not manage to find the relevant paper from PayFinder.com, but I query its finding of a 29 per cent pay gap between men and women. Is it based on pay per hour of work? If so, that is absolutely shameful. However, if the 29 per cent gap is based on total pay, I would be inclined to study it more closely, because there could be reasons for it, given that a lot of women work part time.
I can clarify that the figure is per hour of work. I can get Nanette Milne a copy of the paper if she wishes.
In that case, I am appalled by the figure.
When I read the motion, I wondered whether it was competent for the Scottish Executive to investigate the issue, given that equal opportunities are reserved to Westminster—I am grateful to Linda Fabiani for keeping me right on that.
I dissent ever so slightly from what has been said. The motion appears to be predicated on the assumption that all women have the ambition to pursue full-time careers, and I am inclined to differ on that point. Many women, and an increasing number of men, do not want to work full time and instead opt for part-time work and smaller earnings in exchange for what they see as a better quality of life for themselves and their children by spending more time at home—if of course they can afford to. Flexibility in working practices allows people to choose their working pattern to suit themselves.
My Conservative colleagues and I are committed to equality in the workplace and believe that women and men should receive equal pay for equal work. However, we do not believe that parents of either sex should be forced into pursuing full-time careers in order to meet prescriptive targets.
Much Executive policy that relates to women has been created by powerful, ambitious and successful career women. Margaret Curran's strategic group on women comprises a university vice-chancellor, a chief executive of a bank and a secretary of a trade union—hardly typical, even of career women. I know that at least some members of the group are mothers. Indeed, I know one of them quite well and she has done an excellent job of combining motherhood with a highly successful career, but she is far from the norm and I certainly would not have envied her lifestyle when her children were small.
Various reports have shown that women want to be able to choose whether to work. If they choose not to, they want motherhood to be valued and respected. I heartily agree with that, because the drive to have more and more women pursue careers can make non-working mums feel guilty. That is quite wrong, because one of the most rewarding careers of all must be the successful guiding of young children to becoming responsible and happy adults.
The Institute for Fiscal Studies found that 10 per cent of part-time working women were interested in increasing their working hours and only a quarter of non-working women wanted to return to work. Various studies indicate that many women do not really want to work.
My point is that women must be free to choose how they live, even if it means that there is a serious loss to the professions, including mine. Many women opt out of work when their children are young, as I did. That has a major effect on the health service. Fortunately for me, the rate of pay for doctors has always been the same for men and women.
It seems entirely reasonable to ask the Executive to investigate discrepancies in pay between men and women, if it is competent for it to do so, but if the conclusion is that women earn less because of differences in hours and working conditions, that should not automatically be taken as negative.
It really is disgraceful that more than 30 years after the Equal Pay Act 1970 we still talk about women not having equal pay and hear that the gap is, in fact, widening.
I suspect that we have no doormats present in the debate, but we are lucky and we are the exception—many women do not have the advantages that we have.
There are ripple effects of unjust pay throughout. There are gaps between levels of individual poverty among men and women, and in 90 per cent of single-parent families, the woman is the wage earner, so children are also caught in the poverty trap. As Nora Radcliffe said, there is a knock-on, long-term effect for women pensioners. For women, interrupted work, low pay and the fact that they live longer, rarely have occupational pensions and quite often divorce and so lose rights under their husband's pension payments all mean that, as they hit 60 and apply for a pension, they find that their pension is minimal. Many women who have served a useful life working, bringing up children—I agree that choice is important—or being in and out of work because of family commitments, as has happened to many of us here, are hit by the shock of then finding themselves in poverty.
One in five of Scotland's pensioners is in poverty, and many of them are women who hide the fact that they are in poverty. A visit to some of the charity clothes shops, jumble sales and sales of work will show where the poverty is among our older people. That will happen to young women now as well. There is a huge disadvantage to women.
In addition, the quality of jobs that women are offered is terrible. In factories, many women work on the factory floor while the middle and senior management are made up of men and the occasional woman. That gives the women low self-esteem. They have no access to training and get into a trap, and there is a sense of devaluation of who they are as people. The position for black and ethnic minority women is even worse. The difference is sometimes cultural, but it is also because of the extra hurdles that they have to overcome. Women's low pay is the tip of the iceberg.
I want to offer some solutions to the minister, not all of which are within her portfolio. I would like to see young women in schools made well aware of their position in society and for them to be made the driving force for change, so that the gender gap does not continue through the generations.
Given what she says about schools, does Christine Grahame welcome the respect project that is run by the Zero Tolerance Charitable Trust?
Absolutely. My father drove all his daughters to say that there should be equal opportunities for women. He has a lot to answer for—there are another four like me, some of whom are slightly worse. It is not good enough that that happened in my family; we must ensure that it happens in society. As a former teacher, I can say that schools can do something to engender a sense of importance and confidence and a positive attitude in young women, so that they do not see their current position as being all that they are worth. I am astonished at what still happens in 2004.
I also think that it is wrong that, when someone has a problem with equal pay, their only remedy is to go to an employment tribunal. That is a terrifically frightening thing to do and we must have other ways of dealing with the issue. Perhaps the minister can suggest a way in which women who are not being paid properly do not have to go through court procedures.
Finally, what my colleague is looking for is an equal pay audit. That is not a reserved matter but is well within the remit of the Scottish Parliament.
I commend Sandra White for finding time in the Parliament to secure this important debate. In my short remarks, I wish to talk about my constituency.
When the act that we have been discussing was passed—and if we are honest we should acknowledge that we have been debating its failings—the textile industry was the major employer and the major source of income in the Borders. Traditionally, women made up the employees of the industry, working as finishers and waulkers. It was highly skilled employment, but it was low paid, although it provided the predominant source of income for women.
As implementation of the act has progressed, the textile industry has declined; however, there is a degree of tempered optimism in the Borders. Only this week, we heard that the Scottish College of Textiles will be retained in Galashiels following a welcome decision by Heriot-Watt University after a summer of campaigning by the local community, which I was able to take part in. That means that 450 female students in higher education will stay in Galashiels to study.
The optimism is tempered, because of what I have discovered as I have visited schools and spoken to high school students. For example, when I visited Earlston High School just before the summer and asked how many girl students were going to stay in the Borders, not one girl put her hand up. Out-migration from the Borders is even more acute for women. There is optimism because the Borders has the highest proportion of women starting up businesses, but that optimism is tempered because our economy has some of the biggest structural problems in supporting that. There are problems with accessing child care; there is a predominance of part-time working and shift work among women, to which Ms Baird referred; and there are problems not only with short-term contracts, but with women being unable to source employment because of the high cost or unavailability of rural transport.
In the private sector, which is mainly what I want to talk about, more than 90 per cent of businesses—not only in the Borders, but in Scotland—have fewer than 10 employees. When it is predominantly women who are starting up companies, that causes an increased problem for the productivity gap within the economy.
I end with a specific request for the minister on the intervention that I made on Ms White. The data sampling that we have is unreliable and we have only a very small amount of data. The minister will remember that I discussed that with her after my meetings with the Scottish Low Pay Unit and the Low Pay Commission. We need more reliable data and better sampling from the Office for National Statistics and the "New Earnings Survey" as well as within businesses.
I commend Sandra White and hope that the minister will find time to meet me and, I hope, representatives from the Office for National Statistics to discuss the date.
I congratulate Sandra White on securing the debate this evening.
Women fought for decades to win the right to equal pay, but 30 years on from implementation of the equal pay legislation, we still have not achieved equal pay. That is why it is crucial that we have this debate.
The gap has lessened—perhaps Christine Grahame made a slip of the tongue when she said that it had not—but the pace of change is slow and I share the concern that it is slowing still further. Therefore, I feel the frustration and anger that many women feel on a day-to-day basis in their attempts to achieve equal pay.
The motion refers to the figures in the PayFinder.com research. Members will notice that those figures differ from those used by the Executive and the Equal Opportunities Commission—that has been commented on this evening. That is because the figures used to describe the gender pay gap by Government and the EOC are generally figures for hourly earnings, not weekly earnings, and they draw statistics from the "New Earnings Survey" rather than from the self-selecting sample that PayFinder uses. I do not mean that to be a criticism. In fact, whatever the source of statistics, there is no doubt that there is a significant pay gap between men's and women's hourly earnings. That is unacceptable and needs to be addressed.
The research makes it clear that many factors contribute to the pay gap. Women are concentrated in the lowest paid occupations and in jobs that are traditionally undervalued. Jeremy Purvis's contribution confirmed that those who work in the textile industry have continuously experienced low wage rates. In most occupations, women tend to hold more junior positions, and men and women have different experiences of promotion and progression at work. There are different experiences in skills and education. As is often mentioned, having children and other family and caring responsibilities has an effect on earnings. There is discrimination at work and in pay.
Women want a better deal in the workplace. Our figures show that women's hourly pay lags 16 per cent behind men's for full-time workers and an atrocious 37 per cent behind men's for part-time workers, so women have a right to demand that action is taken.
We all know that pay legislation is a reserved matter, but I do not want to concentrate on the legislation. The issue is putting into practice the spirit and the letter of the law. Shiona Baird said that having the legislation was not the end of the matter, and we really do have to change people's attitudes and responses to the problem.
The issue is what is done to ensure that women and men are properly and equally rewarded for their work and to ensure that women can participate fully in the workplace without discrimination or disadvantage. It is also about ensuring that women do not continue to be amongst the poorest in our communities and to carry that poverty throughout their working lives into old age.
The UK Government has done much to address the issues. It has introduced the minimum wage, which benefits three quarters of a million women workers every year and which has reduced the pay gap by 2 per cent; it has introduced tax credits to support low-income families; and it has simplified the tribunal procedures. I heard what Christine Grahame said about the fact that it is often difficult for people to make claims to the tribunal. It is important that we provide a procedure that makes people feel more able to challenge the inequalities and to obtain equal pay. Finally, the UK Government has introduced flexible working rights.
Members have asked, rightly, what the Scottish Executive can contribute. Here in Scotland we have improved access to child care. We have supported lone parents, most of whom are women, in accessing higher education and returning to work. In partnership with the EOC, the Scottish Trades Union Congress, the business community and others, through the close the gap initiative, we have campaigned to reduce the pay gap in Scotland. We undertook an equal pay review of the Scottish Executive in April 2003 and required all non-departmental public bodies to do likewise. We realise that the Executive must set a good example as an employer.
On Carolyn Leckie's point about local authorities, we have introduced the statutory duty of best value, which requires public bodies to take account of equal opportunities' requirements, including the Equal Pay Act 1970. When that is audited, we will see what effect there has been and we will take action against those who have not yet sought to deal with the issue of equal pay.
I was going to ask the minister about the audits, but she has just mentioned them. Will the Executive take on board the idea of giving awards to the companies that perform best in respect of equality in accordance with the 1970 act?
I recognise the spirit in which Sandra White makes that suggestion, but I am not sure that I should reward people for doing what is right. However, we could think about whether such a scheme could encourage others.
Tackling equal pay must be a priority. It is not only right that women's work should be properly valued and that women should expect a fair deal in the workplace; it is vital for our economy. Scotland needs to be able to draw on the skills and talents of all its people; it cannot make the best of what it has when there are barriers to participation. That means recognising the needs of women in all their diversity.
We welcome the recently established UK women and work commission and we will work to ensure that the Scottish dimension is understood in its deliberations. We also welcome the UK Government's commitment to introduce a public duty to promote gender equality. That will provide a real opportunity to advance the position of women in Scotland.
From the outset, the Executive and others in the Parliament have taken the issue of women's equality seriously. We have taken action that has helped women, but we all know that there is much more to be done. I take on board the point that Sandra White and others made about doing an audit. We heard also the members who said that it is difficult to provide the statistics that would allow us to compare like with like. However, that should not necessarily deter us from doing an audit. I will consider how we can take that forward.
We are determined that the work to reduce the pay gap between men and women will continue. I assure the supporters of the motion and everybody in the chamber that we will sharpen our focus on equal pay in the coming months, in partnership with the EOC, the Parliament's Equal Opportunities Committee and others. We intend to make a difference in whatever way we can. We will take action across the Executive, but we also recognise that we need to pull together if we are to make a significant difference to the lives of many women in Scotland today.
Meeting closed at 17:59.