 The next item of business is a debate on motion 4 4 4 0 in the name of Angela Constance on International Women's Day. Can I ask those who wish to participate in the debate to press the request to speak buttons now? I call on Angela Constance to speak to and move the motion up to 13 minutes, please, Cabinet Secretary. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. It is a stark fact that in 2017 nowhere in the world can women claim to have the same rights and opportunities as men. No country has eradicated violence against women and girls or eliminated pay inequality or erased discrimination and prejudice. According to the World Economic Forum, the gender gap won't close until 2186. That's 169 years from now. Of course, this is a deeply pessimistic forecast, but we should not allow it to become a foregone conclusion. The theme for this year's International Women's Day is Women in the Changing World of Work, plan at 5050 x 2030. We will of course celebrate success and progress, but we will also look ahead with steely determination to the journey that we have yet to travel. Given that women have waited long enough for true equality, I am sure that the chamber will agree that 2030 is somewhat more palatable than 2186. Today, we have the opportunity as a Parliament to unite, to reaffirm our collective commitment to protecting, upholding and advancing the rights of women, and to say, as Hilary Clinton did, that human rights are women's rights and women's rights are human rights. Today, we will also acknowledge and appraise progress made in Scotland. We will reflect on the opportunities and, indeed, the challenges that lie ahead. Most of all, I hope that we will all increase our own resolve to act on advancing women's equality both at home and abroad. It is in this vein that I lead today's debate and I move the motion in my name. Given the theme of women in the changing world of work, it is apt to reflect that International Women's Day originated from one of the first organised actions by working women anywhere in the world. On 8 March 1857, hundreds of women workers in garment and textile factories in New York staged a strike against low wages, long working hours and inhumane working conditions. Their struggle has been replicated across the years and, indeed, across the globe. Fast forward to 8 March 2017 and, tomorrow, in New York, Washington DC and in 35 countries in total, we will see the day without a women marches with some women withdrawing their paid and unpaid labour. I am reminded somewhat of the quote from Gloria Steinham, which says, no man can call himself liberal or radical or even a conservative advocate of fair play if his work depends in any way on the unpaid or underpaid labour of women at home or in the office. In the roots of this mobilisation is the international movement of women's marches combining struggles against male violence, opposition to the casualisation of the labour market and wage inequality and campaigning against homophobia, transphobia and xenophobic immigration policies. As well as looking at paid and unpaid work by women, we must not consider women's economic disadvantage in isolation from the broader social injustice associated or that can be associated with class, race, disability, sexuality and gender-based violence. Our work to support women to take their rightful place in the economy has to co-exist with, for example, the Fairer Scotland action plan, the disability delivery plan and the race equality framework equally safe, as well as three-year funding for voluntary organisations that are supported through the £20 million equality budget. We need to ensure that our work is informed by the best expertise available and tackles the systemic issues that women and girls face, such as gender stereotyping, violence against women and occupational segregation. That is why the First Minister is establishing an advisory council on women and girls with Louise MacDonald of Young Scot as its chair. The advisory council will bring together champions for the rights and advancement of women and girls, and I know that Louise and other council members will be fantastic advocates for women and I very much look forward to working with them. I want to reflect on women's experience in the workplace and in the labour market. The gap between male and female employment rates is 5.5 per cent, whereas across the UK, as a whole, it is 9.3 per cent. In comparison to the UK, Scotland has a higher female employment rate, but more interestingly, Scotland has the sixth highest female employment rate across the 28 EU countries. Again, cast in our eyes across the EU, Scotland has the second lowest female employment rate at 4.7 per cent, behind Germany at 3.7 per cent. Of course, it is not just the numbers of women in work that is important. We must always be prepared to look beneath the headlined figures to see the true picture and to understand it, and that is particularly pertinent when it comes to the pay gap. The long-term trend in relation to the gender pay gap is positive. The full-time pay gap has fallen from 16.7 per cent in 1999 to 6.2 per cent in 2015, and the overall pay gap, which includes part-time as well as full-time work, has fallen from 24.6 per cent in 1999 to 15.6 per cent in 2016. However, the fact that we still have a pay gap is utterly unacceptable. Members will be aware that the Scottish Government has lowered the threshold for listed public authorities to publish their gender pay gap and equal pay statements, from those with more than 150 employees to now those with more than 20 employees. The pay gap is driven in part by occupational segregation and gender stereotyping, which underlines the importance of the consultation on the STEM strategy led by the Minister for Further and Higher Education. As a Government, we are committed to continuing to challenge the drivers of the gender pay gap. We recognise that the gender pay gap widens with age and is felt most by women over 40. The number of older people who choose to work continues to increase and we conducted research into pension and employment last year and are currently completing a second stage of research with over 50s regarding a range of employment concerns. This research will be published in May of this year. Policies and actions that support women over 40 in the workplace include our commitment to deliver returner-to-work programmes, support for the real living wage and the promotion of flexible working. Family Friendly Working Scotland is a partnership between Scottish Government and various third sector organisations. A key principle of all that work is to recognise the importance of enabling women to play a full part in the economy as addressing the gender pay gap is about both equality and economic necessity. The gender pay gap, as we know, is especially prevalent after pregnancy and discrimination is still too often experienced by new and expectant mothers. The equality and human rights commission in 2015 reported that 54,000 women across the UK had been dismissed, made compulsory redundant or felt that they had to leave their jobs when pregnant or on maternity leave. Again, utterly unacceptable. The Minister for Employability and Training responded by establishing the pregnancy and maternity working group, which he chairs, the second meeting of which took place earlier today. The working group has been tasked with improving access to advice for both employees and employers and to creating new guidelines for employers. For those new mothers, the next hurdle that they often face is access in high quality and affordable childcare. Our plan to nearly double three early learning childcare entitlement for all three and four-year-olds and eligible two-year-olds by 2020 remains, in my view, our single-most transformative infrastructure project. Both the OECD and the EU have stressed the importance of childcare in removing barriers for women's wish to work. We know that women typically spend disproportionately more of their time on unpaid care work. Society still tends to view caring for children or elderly relatives as women's work. That cuts across all countries, classes and cultures. 59 per cent of carers are women and women of working age are far more likely to be carers than men, creating that double burden of work for women. Later this year, we will publish the gender index and, as part of that work, we will begin to bring together evidence of the significant economic contribution that women make to the economy as a result of unpaid caring work. We want to do more to support carers at home and at work. The Carers Scotland Act 2018 will commence on 1 April 2018, and we will increase the use of the carer positive scheme with the aim of signing up at least 30 per cent of employers. Employers need to be aware of the growing numbers of carers and, crucially, the business case for supporting those who juggle paid work with unpaid caring. Elaine Smith I thank the minister for taking an intervention, and I wonder if she would agree with me on this important point that there are also women carers in the Parliament, and therefore, extending the working day at very short notice is not something that should become a matter of course in this Parliament. Angela Constance That, of course, would be a matter for the parliamentary authorities and the parliamentary bureau. I, as a minister, do not set the parliamentary timetable for good reason, and of course the history of this Parliament was indeed to have different working practices in comparison to those that take place in Westminster. Although we will all have to accept that from time to time, particularly as we broach the unknown of Brexit, we may well indeed see extended business hours. Of course, we will have to consider those with caring responsibilities, but my responsibility in my job is not necessarily to reflect the caring responsibilities of women in this chamber. Actually, it is to represent the hundreds of thousands and millions of women in Scotland who are far less privileged than the women who sit in this chamber with the caring struggles and the employment struggles that they carry on a day-to-day basis. Ban Ki-moon said that countries with higher levels of gender equality have higher economic growth, companies with more women on their boards have higher returns, peace agreements that include women are more successful, and parliaments with more women take up a wider range of issues, including health, education, anti-discrimination and child support. We cannot escape the importance of women's representation in public life. This year's Sex and Power shows that we still have a very long way to go. The report highlights that, in 2017, women still have unequal access to power, decision making and participation throughout all areas of public life, with men holding 73 per cent of the estimated 3,029 positions of power and authority identified. We are doing all that we can to change those figures. Members will be aware that the Government launched the 50-50 by 2020 voluntary campaign to encourage gender balance in boardrooms across the public, private and third sectors. New figures on public board appointments made in 2016 show that the proportion and numbers of women continues to increase. 43 per cent of applicants and 59 per cent of those appointed were women. The overall percentage of women on public boards is now 45 per cent. Of course, 45 per cent is not 51 per cent, and there is still more to do. That is why the Gender Representation and Public Board Scotland Bill will help to build on and cement those gains. We are currently consulting on the bill and it is due to be introduced to Parliament before summer recess. Today, I have mentioned some of the achievements for Scotland's women, some of the work that is in hand, but also that we need to be vigilant so that the gains that we have made are not rolled back. We must protect the rights that women have fought for and the rights that women have gained. As Zeddy Smith, the writer said, progress is never permanent, will always be threatened, must be redoubled and reimagined if it is to survive. That is the challenge for all of us, as we approach international women's day. I move the motion in my name. I call Annie Wells to speak to and move amendment 440.1. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I would say that I am pleased to speak today, but my voice might not last long. I am extremely pleased to have the opportunity to speak today ahead of international women's day tomorrow, and I am grateful for Angela Constance for securing the debate today. I want to first speak a little about the economic empowerment of women across the world. United Nations statistics show that, globally, just 50 per cent of women are represented in the labour market compared to three quarters of men. Not only are women less likely to be able to support themselves financially through work outside the domestic setting, when they do work, it is more likely to be within lower paid, lower skilled occupations devoid of workers' rights. I have spoken before in the chamber on the investment that the UK Government has made in trying to prevent violence against women and girls globally. The Department for International Development has allocated £184 million to a number of programmes tackling gender violence issues such as FGM, forced marriage and female infanticide. Recognising education as key to economic equality, foreign secretary Boris Johnson announced last month a new drive into making sure that the 61 million girls deprived of an education across the world would get a chance to go to school. Those are just some of the initiatives that are taking place. Aside from that, I was pleased to see that Dr White for his private member's bill concerning violence against women has now passed in the House of Lords for consideration. In the UK, we have a lot to celebrate. In the past few years, we have seen a lot of progress for women in the UK in leading the way and pushing for equality for women in the workplace. Although less extreme than the disparities that we see globally, progress must still be made within the UK. Many of us have seen in the newspaper over the weekend reports that Scotland's women are being denied top jobs. I think that it is right to highlight a tendency by some men and women that, because of the UK women's relatively good position in the global context, to downplay what still needs to be done. Of the top 3,000-odd leadership positions across the spectrum of industries and job sectors, almost 27 per cent are filled by women. None of Scotland's foots of 100 companies have a female CEO and none of the big newspapers are edited by a woman. Something many of us will touch on today, I am sure. In my amendment, I made a specific reference to the work that was done by the UK Government on improving women's equality in the workplace and how it should be commended. When it comes to top leadership positions since 2011, of course. Tom Arthur. I thank the member for giving way, and I recognise the remarks that she is making. Annie Wells praises the UK Government, but I am curious to hear what her response is to recent analysis by the independent women's budget group that shows that tax and benefit changes that have been made by the UK Government since 2010 will have hit women's incomes twice as hard as men's by 2020. Annie Wells, the reasons why we are here today is to make sure that we get a quality for everyone. We might all want to go to it in different ways, but we want to see a quality, I certainly do. The percentage of women on the foots of 100 boards has doubled from more than 12.5 per cent to nearly 27 per cent. In response to the improvements, the UK Government commissioned a report by Lord Davies in 2015, which recommended a new target of 33 per cent extended to the foots to 300 by 2020, something that I am pleased to the Government has supported. Another measure to come into force as of next month will mean that larger employers will now have to publish information about their gender pay gap and gender bonus gap. When it comes to the gender pay gap, the UK has reached its lowest level ever. It is currently sitting at 17 per cent down from over 19 per cent in 2015 and represents the biggest year-on-year drop since 2010. In Scotland, I am a rather statistic show a 2 per cent gap between the gender pay gap in Scotland and the rest of the UK, but I would like to point out that when it comes to top jobs and senior positions, it is flagging behind. While 25 per cent of boardroom seats of Scotland's listed companies are taken by women, that remains a lower proportion than across the UK as a whole. According to a study by the Chartered Management Institute, the gender pay gap in Scotland for managerial positions is the highest in the UK at nearly 10,900, as compared to the UK average of just under 9,000. The Scottish Government, as we will know, is planning to implement this year its gender representation on public boards bill, but it is still not clear how organisations that fail to comply will be sanctioned nor how the Scottish Government seeks to provide measures to encourage equal board membership within private companies. In so far, only a limited number of Scotland's 360,000-plus private firms have signed the Scottish Government's pledge to make boards 50-50 by 2020. It concerns me that, without measures that properly address underlying structural issues, real progress shall not be made. Yesterday, it was really enlightening to visit a Glasgow-based professional tech services provider FDM to learn more about the initiatives that it has introduced and introducing to encourage more women and ex-military personnel into its employment ranks. Interestingly, the private company, which has won a raft of awards for its progress and employment diversity, does not use gender quotas and yet both some management board made up of 50 per cent men and women. FDM does this off its own back without mandatory Government legislation because it recognises that encouraging equality amongst its workforce creates an energy and enthusiasm that in turn benefits business. When it comes to the political word, I will never get tired of my party's record when it comes to our leadership. We are the only party in the UK history to have returned to female prime ministers and we are the only party to have a female leader at both Westminster and in this place. I know that there is more work to be done, and I know that within the Scottish Parliament women represent only a fifth of my party. I know that, in spite of that, I still have a firm belief that gender quotas are not the best way of empowering women long-term. I have spoken a lot on the issue before and I do not seek to belittle the achievements of those here today who benefited from all-women shortlists and quotas, but I should be allowed to voice my belief that, in an ideal world, if we are to see long-term meaningful changes with regards to getting more women into politics, change should be organic. That is why I am delighted to say that, last week, I was able to launch Women to Win Scotland alongside the Prime Minister Theresa May. This is an organisation that endeavours to inspire and support women into our party by addressing underlying structural issues in the long term. We want to encourage and support the brightest and best women in our party to come forward and make a difference by providing mentoring, training and networking opportunities. Far from burring your heads on the sand, as other parties would like to portray, we are working to improve women's representation in the Scottish Conservatives. I know that I am running out of time, so to close today, I would like to reiterate my support for International Women's Day and to express my commitment to improving women's equality in the workplace, as well as reducing the gender pay gap. We all want to see women playing their fair part in Britain's top jobs and we all want to see women having access to the same economic opportunities that are meant. However, as we shall all agree today, we should never be complacent when it comes to picking up the pace on this issue. There is a lot more to be done and I am grateful to have the opportunity in making that happen. I move the amendment in my name. I call Monica Lennon to speak to and move amendment 440.2 up to seven minutes. Thank you, Presiding Officer. It is an honour to be opening this debate on behalf of Scottish Labour and to speak to the amendment in my name. We welcome the Government's motion and the opportunity for Parliament to mark International Women's Day 2017. Scottish Labour will vote for the Government's motion, but in our speeches we will set out why we believe that our amendment is necessary. International Women's Day is not a day for blandness, nor is it a day for full consensus. Women's rights are political. That is why we cannot support the Tory amendment, which would have us believe that the UK Government is improving women's lives. In fact, it is doing the exact opposite. International Women's Day enables feminists around the world to unite and, yes, to celebrate the progress that has already been made, but more importantly, to voice our concerns about the work that is still left to do and to organise for the future. Harmful gender stereotypes limit the potential of women, so I am pleased that the focus of this year's International Women's Day is women in the changing world of work. In this country, we are almost half a century on from the passage of the First Equal Pay Act in 1970 and the Sex Discrimination Act in 1975, legislation that has been refreshed over the years. Yet, despite the legal strides that have been made for women's rights at work, from maternity leave rights, protection from sexual harassment, the right to equal pay for work of equal value, rights hard fought for and won by the trade union and labour movement over the last few decades, we are still a far cry from achieving equality. I am really pushed for time because the debate has been cut short, but I will take an intervention. I want to have Monica Lennon can tell us, as a councillor at South Lanarkshire, that it was appropriate for £200,000 worth of taxpayers' money fighting against the legal challenge to ensure that those 3,000 women in South Lanarkshire Council, which she is responsible, got to the equal pay that they deserved. Monica Lennon. I want all women to get their equal pay came settled and I do not think that any local authority without equal pay claims is covered in any glory, but Christina McKelvie knows my position on that. Legal equality, as we have just heard, does not always mean substantive change throughout our society because women continue to do the majority of caring for dependents in household work and earn on average £175 less per week than men. This unequal division of labour means that the majority of women's work can be invisible, it is worth to the economy not captured. It means reduced opportunity for women and girls to succeed, less educational opportunities, less leisure time and, at the most basic level, less economic power. So we must challenge those stereotypes from the ground up, ensuring that handful ideas about differences between boys and girls are challenged at the earliest stages. That is how real change will be achieved in the long term. Last year, the EIS launched Get It Right for Girls. If acted upon, this guidance is an important step forward in how we as a nation can start to tackle misogynistic attitudes among children and young people. Misogyny and outdated ideas about what a women's role should be has no place in 21st century Scotland in tackling this must begin in childhoods, because it is the prevalence of those misogynistic ideas throughout our society, which means that women, for the most part, are locked out of leadership. The Sex and Power report by Ingender, which made the front page of the Sunday Herald at the weekend, revealed that non-disabled white men hold the majority of power in Scotland, taking up 73 per cent of the leadership roles in Scotland right across politics, the media sport and business. For those of us in the chamber who are well versed in the unfairness of gender representation, those figures will not come as a surprise, but it should make us more determined than ever to make a meaningful change. The overrepresentation of white men in Scotland's positions of power is completely unacceptable, and those who perpetuate the myth that they all got there on merit need to give themselves a shake. We have regressed in terms of women's representation in the Scottish Parliament since 2003, and despite having female leaders of the main three parties, female MSPs in this place make up only 35 per cent of members. It is unacceptable that, in the history of the Scottish Parliament since 1999, there has never been a single BME women MSP. It is ridiculous that women make up less than a quarter of councillors in local authorities that control billions of pounds of public money. That might go some way to explaining the problems that we have had around equal pay. Women are underrepresented at almost every level of power in Scotland. In locking out the experience and talent of 52 per cent of the population, we are putting limits on Scotland's potential. I do not believe that we should ever be accepting of a situation that will see gender equality continue to move at a glacial pace. That is why, on those benches, we passionately support the women's 50-50 campaign and its evidence-based calls for legislative gender quotas, because quotas work. Quotas are not about promoting people who are not qualified, far from it. They are about ensuring that those who deserve to be there have an equal chance to take their rightful place. Women's representation does matter, for when women are left out of the decision-making process, our needs are too easily ignored. It is why 86 per cent of the cuts to social security between 2010 and 2020, proposed by the Conservative Government, will have come from women's incomes. It is why £1.5 million has been cut from maternity benefits. It is why persistent issues about women's health, such as period poverty, continue to be left off of the agenda. When I first raised the issue of period poverty with the Scottish Government last year, I was taken aback to discover that there had only ever been one mention of time points before in this Parliament's official report history during a 2004 debate on Scotland's beaches. As a proudly feminist MSP, I have been glad to have the chance to raise women's issues in Parliament and highlight gender inequality at every opportunity. It is also why I am pleased to be able to announce today that it is my intention to bring forward a private member's bill in the coming months that will direct address the issue of access of statutory products for women and girls across the country. For too long in politics, issues affecting women have not been high on the agenda. Too often, women have been told not just yet or now is not the time or there are other issues that we need to deal with first, but do not worry, we will get to that next. This year's international women's day should be this Parliament's opportunity to state that no longer will we accept the status of women and girls as second class. The campaign theme of international women's day 2017 is to be bold for change. We may be few in numbers, but I know that there are bold feminists in this Parliament and many more across our country. To the women and girls of Scotland, I say, stop being patient, we can't wait, recognise your own power and demand your rights. So, in moving the debate or moving the amendment in my name, I wish all women and girls a right across the world, but particularly here in Scotland, a very happy and powerful international women's day. We now move to the open debate, speeches of up to six minutes and I call Ruth Maguire to be followed by Rachel Hamilton. It's a privilege to celebrate international women's day 2017 by joining colleagues across the chamber in today's debate. This can be a time to reflect on the many great achievements that have already been made across many continents, centuries and cultures and by so many inspirational women, everyday heroines and national figureheads alike, but it's also a time to reflect on how much there remains to be achieved. Although here in Scotland women undoubtedly have it better than some other places across the world, we still have a very long way to go. In this, I'm reminded of the procession for women's suffrage that took place here in Edinburgh in 1909. Known as the great procession and women's demonstration, its theme was what women have done and can and will do, a theme that I'm sure we can all agree that is just as pertinent today as it was in 1909. The procession was organised by the suffragette Flora Drummond, who grew up on the Isle of Arran in Ayrshire. Flora was dubbed the general, in part for her efficiency as an organiser, but perhaps more so for her striking habit of leading women's rights marches in full military style uniform atop a large horse. Flora, like many suffragettes, was also arrested and imprisoned many times for her campaigning. If the theme of this year's international women's day is to be bold for change, I can think a few better examples than Flora Drummond. Women such as Flora dedicated their lives and put themselves at great personal risk, arguing for what to us today is self-evident, that women are equal citizens to men and should thus have the same right to vote. Those women who campaigned for our right to vote also paved the way for women to sit in this chamber and lead our country today. I feel proud that here in Scotland our Parliament has a female First Minister, a gender-balanced Cabinet and, of course, the three main political parties have women leading them. In this sense, you might say that the glass ceiling has been smashed, but with women making up 52 per cent of the population and only 35 per cent of MSPs, 25 per cent of local councillors and 16 per cent of council leaders, it is quite fair to say that simply there are not enough of us even in the room. Although women's right to participate is no longer questioned, there is no doubt that women in the political workplace have distinct and serious issues to contend with, whether it is the media focusing more on their outfits than the content of their speeches or the more overt and demeaning sexism that is still far too common. Elaine Smith I thank the member for taking an intervention, but I wonder if she would also agree with me that one of those issues is her caring responsibilities and to say that that is not an issue in the Parliament isn't true, because it does nothing to encourage carers into the Parliament. My colleague Elaine Smith always makes her point well and persistently in these debates. In the case of women's right to vote, the reality matches the legislation. When it comes to women's rights to equal pay and freedom from discrimination, however, though the legislation is there, the reality for women and their day-to-day lives does not always accord with that. The legislation is for now more aspiration than reality. Legislation is one thing, but changing attitudes is quite another. Legislation can only ever be a step, albeit a very important step, on the road to fundamentally changing attitudes and culture. Further still, there remain crucial areas where we do not yet have legislation in place to underpin the cultural shift that we must ensure follows. The SNP Government is taking positive steps to rectify that, a key example being the domestic abuse bill, which will come before Parliament this term. As well as ensuring that coercive and controlling behaviour can be dealt with more effectively, the proposed bill will also help to shape public attitudes by explicitly acknowledging that psychological abuse is unacceptable and criminal. That is important because preventing and addressing violence against women demands that fundamental change in societal attitudes. The Scottish Government's current definition of prostitution is also important in sending a strong message with the equally safe strategy describing it unambiguously as a form of violence against women. Under the current law in Scotland, however, the buying and selling of sexual access to women's bodies for profit remains legal. As we all celebrate our campaign for gender equality, I have to question what sort of message that that sends. In conclusion, I want to see more women in positions of power in our political institutions, in our public sector, our media and cultural bodies and in businesses. I commend all the work that goes into achieving that. However, on this international women's day, where we are being asked to be bold for change, I say that as long as women and girls can be bought and sold like objects, there can be no equality and no social justice. Equality must be about all women, not just privileged and powerful ones. I look forward to working with colleagues across the chamber bold enough to make our shared aspiration of a fair and equal Scotland a reality. I welcome this debate ahead of international women's day. I am very pleased to share a platform today with both male and female colleagues. Last week, I helped to launch Women to Win with my friends and fellow MSPs Annie Wells and Alison Harris, an event at which Ruth Davidson and Theresa May spoke passionately about empowering women into politics. Those women have much in common. Both women are role models, help to lead the Conservative Party north and south of the border and make a positive contribution to public life. They come from diverse backgrounds and trod different paths to the door of politics, but they both got to where they are today, on merit, on being the best at what they can do. It is important that women are empowered not only here in the UK but further afield on a national and international level. Yes, I will. Gillian Martin. I am in this Parliament as a result of an all-female shortlist. Would you say that I do not have a right to be here and that I am not here on merit? Rachael Hamilton. I think that we need to address the issues that are underlying within business and organisations that drive that kind of behaviour. I am glad that Gillian Martin is here on that result, and I am different because we did not have a gender selection process. I am here on my own merit, too. I am lost my trail now. The United Nations theme for International Women's Day is women in changing world of work, planet 5050 by 2030. That addresses the implications of the changing world of work for women. It includes issues such as globalisation and technology, as well as the growing informality of labour and the environmental impact of fiscal and trade policy. As members will know, only 50 per cent of working-age women are represented in the Labour force globally, compared to 76 per cent of men. Most women work part-time or are the designated carer. What is more, an overwhelming majority of women are in the informal economy. 61.5 per cent of women are in services, whereas only 23 per cent of women make up seats in Parliament, and four per cent of women are CEOs of fortune 500 companies. On an international scale, there is much more to do to provide the opportunities for women and a lot of work to break down barriers that are constructed by gender to resolve. Can I make some progress, please? Last year, I welcomed a parliamentary delegation from Kenya with David Stewart MSP. I received a letter from one of the women representatives. I would like to read you part of the letter, which may give an insight into the difficulties faced by women in emerging economies. I was delighted to hear that you are well represented by females in the Scottish Parliament. Here in Kenya, we hope that the same will become a reality one day. In our country, we still have a long way to go to achieve gender equality. Most women in universities and college here tend to shy away from taking up courses that will open their way to achieving gender equality. We as women in parliamentarians try our best to reach to those still in learning institutions to get them to take up courses leading to leadership roles. In that respect, Conservative Pierre Baroness Jenking, alongside Prime Minister Theresa May, has worked tirelessly to improve the number of women in the UK Parliament. That has been a success by seeing a doubling of female Conservative MPs since 2005, the latest recruit being the historic victory achieved in the Copeland by-election by Trudy Harrison MP, who decided to stand after being inspired by the PM's conference speech. We still fight inequality at home here in Scotland, and Annie Wells touched upon the recent study that found that of the 3,029 top leadership positions in Scotland across politics, business, the public sector, the media, culture and sport, only 27 per cent or 812 are filled by women. In Scotland, women are at the forefront of cross-party leadership in politics, but in business women continue to be underrepresented in senior management roles. It is at grass-root levels where businesses need to encourage more females by creating modern apprenticeships, work experience and sponsorships, so that women are nurtured and supported through their careers. A good example is Paula Nicholls, who joined John Lewis as a graduate trainee in 1994 and is now its first female managing director. Of course, we do not only see inequality within the workplace, fewer women work in high-paid sectors such as engineering, IT and tech. A key element that we must strive for is to reduce the gender pay gap that many have spoken about today. Unfortunately, Scotland, in this regard, is falling behind the rest of the UK. The gender pay gap in Scotland for managerial positions is the highest in the UK at £10,862, compared to the UK average of £8,964, according to the Chartered Management Institute. The medium-gross pay for female workers has grown at the lowest rate in Scotland than any UK nation, rising by only 1.5 per cent, compared with an average of 3.1 per cent. Ending the gender pay gap matter is so important not just for equality reasons but also for economic reasons. Ending the pay gap would add £17 billion to the economy. Providing equality makes economic sense. The UK Government recognises that and so does the Scottish Government, and we are working hard on all fronts to tackle gender inequality. That is why we have seen the gender pay gap falling to 18.1 per cent this year in the UK. It has experienced its biggest year-on-year drop since 2010. There is more to do. Nobody says that there is not. That is why we need to work together in this chamber to see more women. To get to 50-50 in politics and in business in every walk of life, I am confident that, with women at the wheel, helping to drive that message forward, we will get to the point where gender equality will eventually become obsolete. Gillian Martin, followed by Alison Johnstone. I am fed up with the types of things that we still have to do on International Women's Day, and I cannot be the only one who wants to see it change. I cannot wait until a day where women do not have to use this day, or tomorrow, to draw attention to things that should have stopped decades ago. Where we do not have to rage against a world where female-gender mutilation exists, or girls are captured from a village and taken away to be sex slaves for Boko Haram and are never heard of again, or women still learn less than men over their lifetime, or benefits sanctions are put in place that adversely affect women significantly more than men, or women are still victims of domestic abuse both mental and physical, or when universal credit is paid to only one person in a partnership in a household, which means that women in abusive relationships have no financial independence, or when a woman is attacked in a night out and people still think that it is important to know what she was wearing, how much alcohol she had to drink, and what her sexual history is. That was a factor in determining whether she really was a victim or just a daff lassi that had it coming, or the waspy women that have to take to the streets to get their pension that they are entitled to and work for all their lives. I would also like to not have to join my Catalan sisters, as I did two years ago in Barcelona on International Women's Day, to protest about the constant threat of abortion being made illegal by right-leaning Governments. I would like to stop holding placards proclaiming that making abortion illegal only makes abortion deadly. It does not stop abortion. I would like to stop having conversations with women who are genuinely frightened that such a law could be brought back in at any time and put the health and rights of women back decades in that country. I would also like to stop pressing for the economy committee to take evidence from the gender pay gap as we started to this very morning. In hearing evidence such as financial services industry, men earn 83 per cent more in bonuses than their female counterparts. I would really like to stop having to explain on Twitter to people from all over the country that pay inequality did not end with the Equal Pay Act in 1970, so everything is all right now and you can stop bleeding on about it. Whilst I am on about Twitter, I would like to see my female political friends and colleagues being challenged on their political ideas rather than being subjected to misogynist abuse because someone disagrees with them. I would also like to see First Ministers or Prime Ministers not reduced to shoes by the media or Miley Cyrus impersonators or Darmation-loving Disney cartoon characters for that matter. I would like to say with utter conviction to my daughter that if she studies and works hard, she will not have to worry about reaching the very top of her profession. Even if she falls in love with someone and has kids with them, because caring will be everyone's responsibility and no one will ever assume that it is just her job, that no boss will ever say to her that it is a shame that she is off to have a baby because he was under the impression that she was interested in her career, just like my former boss said to me when I had her older brother 18 years ago. I would also like to see an end to the UK Government rape clause, which penalises women financially if they have more than two children, unless she can prove that she has been raped. Let's get rid of the marches happening in March all over the world this year that will be full of pussy-hatted women waving placards condemning pussy-grabbing presidents. One of my favourite placards is the one that says, I can't believe we still have to protest this or more sweary variations. That's how I feel. Let's replace those marches with a carnival celebrating the fact that we've educated people that it's not okay to force yourself on a woman no matter who you are and that no one ever suggesting such a thing would get within an inch of power ever. Let's turn international women's day into a celebration of the achievements of women, like my friend and colleague Ruth Maguire has advocated in her speech so eloquently. Achievements that we study in our history classes in school. Lessons that will have as much winnie-ywing in them as they do Winston Churchill, that have Elsie Ingalls been celebrated as a war hero alongside Field Marshal Montgomery. That rightly paint Flora MacDonald as the type of strong woman a prince in distress needs to get him out of dodge when the going gets too tough for the lad, rather than any kind of silly love interest. And where we don't ever answer Watson and Crick in a pub quiz to the question who discovered DNA, we answer Watson, Crick and Roslyn Franklin. I'd like to point out if I ever do a quiz and that's a question and you give the former answer, you're getting half a point. Yes, let's look forward to an international women's day that's wholly about celebration and doesn't have to be about all the things that we thought that we'd be done, banging on about long before now. Thank you very much. I will begin by saying that I'll be very pleased to support the Labour amendment this evening. I cannot support the Conservatives as I do believe that conservative austerity perpetuates gender equality. On the eve of international women's day 2017, this is a good day to talk about sex and power. Women, as we've heard, make up 52 per cent of the Scottish population, but we don't see that reflected in our own Parliament and we see even less so in council chambers across the country. Yes, three of our major parties are led by women and they are fantastic role models for young and old alike. Yes, we have a First Minister who helped to deliver Scotland's first gender balance cabinet and yes, many parties, including my own, operate a gender balancing system to select candidates with the SNP using all women short lists in the 2016 Hollywood elections for the first time. When people suggest that women should be there on merit, they are asserting that women are less able than men and that is why fewer of them are elected. Yet women are just 35 per cent of MSPs, 25 per cent of local councillors and 17 per cent of MEPs. That is why I, along with Kezia Dugdale, founded Women 50 50, the campaign for at least 50 per cent representation of women in our Parliament, in our councils and on public boards. It is not just that we have a long way to go to be a diverse and inclusive Parliament, it is that we are going backwards. At the time of the Parliament's inception in 1999, 37 per cent of MSPs were women. That has now dropped, not a lot, but we are down at 35 per cent. That is no coincidence. Across the world, voluntary approaches have seen progress stall or regress at a saturation point of around 35 per cent in recent years. That means that the time for voluntary approaches is over. That is why Women 50 50 wants legislation, which would mean that all parties have to put forward at least 50 per cent women candidates in the Scottish Parliament and council elections, and we want the same legislation for public boards. The theme of this year's international women's day, as you know, is be bold for change. On Saturday, I sat in the public lateral gallery and every seat in this chamber was full of women. I heard from Linda from Ghana who spoke about the impact fair trade has made on her life. I heard heartfelt emotional plea from African women who asked us at the Scottish Parliament to do all that we can to end female genital mutilation. We really need to take bold, decisive action now to secure proper representation in our workforce for women, for those who are disabled and for our BME community. Women should be equally represented in civil and political life, and it is not just the Parliament that is lagging behind. You will be aware of those figures, but they bear repetition. Women make up 28 per cent of public body chief execs, 26 per cent of university principals, 7 per cent of senior police officers, women are 63 per cent of secondary school teachers but only 41 per cent of head teachers, women are 19 per cent of major museums and art galleries directors and just 14 per cent of national sports bodies chief execs. Most shockingly of all, women are not per cent of CEOs of top businesses and, as Annie Wells, I believe, suggested, there are no women who are major newspaper editors. It really is no wonder that when you are reading the papers you would think that women in Scotland simply did not play sport. Laura Muir, for example, has to break a European record and win two gold medals to find herself gaining coverage, but it is quite normal to report at length on a lower league football match that men happen to be taking part in. White, non-disabled men hold the most power in Scotland and they will continue to do so unless we take deliberate action to change our attitudes and cultural expectations about leadership and authority and to break down the real barriers women face. Those include structural issues like a lack of flexible work, unlawful harassment and discrimination, through to the insidious assumption that women just do not belong around decision making tables. One of the biggest barriers to gender equality is the economic inequality between women and men in Scotland. If you are struggling to buy your tea or pay your bus fares, you are less likely to become involved in politics. That exists in the formal economy where the gender pay gap and lack of access to sustainable jobs means that women earn less and they have less influence than men. To understand the full story of women and work and Elaine Smith focused on the issue, we need to look beyond paid work and consider the invisible work carried out largely by women. We know that women devote twice as much time to household work as men—at least 62 per cent of unpaid carers are women. Unpaid work props up our economy, but it is not included in the calculations of Governments and international financial institutions. All that unpaid caring that women and some men do for children, sick and disabled people and older people goes uncounted, despite its enormous contribution to our economy and social wellbeing. I am pleased to support in gender's call today. They are working to make work visible by gathering women's accounts of days in which they work in the formal labour market, but they plan meals by groceries, do laundry, collect medicines, provide personal care for children and older people, cook, clean, manage their households. I acknowledge that there are exceptions, but how many men in this chamber can say the same. Presiding Officer, the World Economic Forum predicts that the gender gap won't close entirely until 2186. That is too long to wait. We need to be bold for change, and until we see at least 50 per cent of women in Parliament and at every level of government, until there's a complete reduction in violence against women, we won't see the change that we need. Can I just say in closing that International Women's Day was called International Working Women's Day, and I certainly believe that that was a more appropriate name for this celebration. Thank you. Thank you very much. I call Mary Fee to be followed by Marie Todd, Ms Fee, please. Thank you, Presiding Officer. March 8 each year is an important day for women around the world, whether in the first world or the third world, in developed or developing countries and whether they are rich or poor. It's a day where we remind ourselves of the struggle to achieve equality that so many women have fought and died for over the decades and the centuries, and it's also a very stark reminder of how far we still have to go. No matter the issue, equal pay, employment opportunities, gender-based violence or respect and recognition for achievements and roles in society, women are still fighting for equality and for parity. That's why we must be bold for change, and that's the defining theme of International Women's Day for 2017. To be bold, women must be seen and be heard. To be bold, we must act on our beliefs and our promises, and to be bold, we must lead. Improving female representation in the workplace is a challenge for any Government unless they are bold. In the Scottish Government's partnership for change 50-50 by 2020 is a step in the right direction, but I don't believe that it's enough when we see the stats around female representation on boards of public and private organisations. There are no female chief executive officers of any of Scotland's top companies. Only one in four company directors are female, and in the public sector only 28 per cent are chief executives. When you compare those figures to the fact that women make up 52 per cent of Scotland's population, then we should all be embarrassed as a nation that women are not offered the same opportunities as men. The reasons for that are social and economic and go back decades if not centuries. It's less than 100 years since women won the right to vote, and still we are underrepresented in public and political life. The engender briefing ahead of today's debate shows that, while there has been an increase in the proportion of female Government ministers, MPs and local authority chief executives, the total of each is no more than 25 per cent. We know that there is still a lot of work ahead. Regardless of party affiliation, political or religious beliefs, we should all work together as one to overcome the social and economic problems that leave many women behind. As we have heard, the global gender pay gap is not expected to close until 2186, in 169 years. That tells us that our daughters, their daughters, their daughters and possibly even their daughters will still be paid less than men for the same work. In the UK research tells us that the gender pay gap will close by the year 2069. The gender pay gap does not reveal the many other ways that women lose out in the workplace. Women are more likely than men to be employed in part-time roles and tend to be socialised into taking unpaid roles such as caring for children and for elderly relatives. Globally, women are estimated to spend an average of four and a half hours per day on unpaid work, with the difference even greater in the developing world. In India, for example, women are thought to undertake six hours of unpaid work each day, with men carrying out less than one hour. Where women do participate in the world of work, they tend to be concentrated in low-paid and lower-skilled roles, which are often referred to as the five Cs—cleaning, catering, clerical, cash-earing and caring work. Research also shows that only one in five people working in science, technology, engineering and maths are women. Occupational segregation is unfair not only to women who find opportunities close to them but to all. It is damaging to our cultures and to our societies that women cannot express themselves wholeheartedly or aim to achieve better for themselves or for their children. I would like to take this opportunity to highlight some fantastic female role models in my home area of Renfrewshire. In Renfrewshire, we have women running our airport, our college, our council and taking on the most daring of challenges to raise money for charity. To close, I would like to praise Amanda MacMillan of Glasgow Airport, Audrey Cumberford of West Scotland and Renfrewshire councils Sandra Black and Provost Ann Hall. I am worried for a minute, Mr Cole-Hamilton. I am absolutely delighted to participate in today's debate ahead of International Women's Day. International Women's Day is an opportunity to celebrate women's economic, social, cultural and political achievements, and it is worth celebrating our progress, but let's not, for a moment, imagine that the job is done. One of the themes of this year's International Women's Day is to be bold for change. We have made some bold changes already, but let's not be complacent or take progress for granted. We do need concerted, deliberate action if we are going to achieve gender equality. One obvious thing in this chamber that we should celebrate is that 60 per cent of our leaders of political parties represented in this chamber are women. Our first minister and the leader of the two largest opposition parties are women. We may well have different political beliefs, but each one of those leaders is a fantastic role model and their success should be celebrated. That is great progress, but do not let those headline figures mislead you. Many women are still not making it to the top. Although women make up 52 per cent of the population, anyone will be forgiven for thinking that we are a minority group, considering how poorly women are represented in political life. Others have said that women are only 35 per cent of MSPs, 25 per cent of local councillors, 16 per cent of council leaders and 17 per cent of MEPs. We know that women face persistent barriers to achieving leadership roles throughout their lives. Some of those are structural issues such as the lack of flexible work. If I think about local authorities being the training ground for politicians, in Highland, where I come from, the huge distances and overnight stays needed make it difficult for young parents of either gender to get involved. However, I think that the most insidious barrier is the cultural assumption that women just do not belong in certain roles. In gender, we talk about the insidious cultural assumption that women do not belong around decision-making tables. Since I have become a politician, there have been indeed many occasions where I have been the only woman at the table. On one occasion, memorably, I was the only woman at a table of 20, something that the organisers could not apologise enough about to me. It is absolutely clear that there are not enough women in politics. When I was a brownie leader for many years—I have to say that Girlguiding is a fantastic organisation, which definitely puts girls in the lead—a couple of years ago, I was helping the local guide unit with a politics badge or a go for it, as we call it. The go for it was called Be the Change, and I asked the girls to name powerful women. They were unusually quiet for a long time, and a wee girl, who I think was about 10 years old, piped up. That would be much easier if it was men that you asked us to think of. If I achieve nothing else in my time as a politician, I hope that perhaps just by seeing me here, this might inspire and empower other young girls growing up in the highlands to think that I can do that. When I was a teenager, when we were talking about STEM, when I was a teenager, I was such a serious science geek. I got good hires in maths, physics, chemistry and biology, but when it came to choosing my university course, I chose to study pharmacy and I became a health professional, not an engineer. I have reflected a lot on that choice. I have no regrets, do not get me wrong. Nobody told me that I could not be an engineer, but, nonetheless, it never crossed my mind that I could. The final point that I want to make today is about the gender pay gap. The progress on this issue is painfully slow. Women working full-time in Scotland still earn 6.2 per cent less than men on average, and equalising women's productivity could add almost £600 billion to the economy, so it makes great business sense to close the gap. The legislation on women's equal pay was introduced before I was born, and at the rate that it is going, I will be nearly 100 years old by the time the gap closes. Even with legislation, that is the slow pace of organic change as advocated by my Conservative colleagues. Women should not have to wait this long for equality. We deserve it now. One of the themes for this year's international women's day is to be bold for change. We should be bold. We should put ourselves forward. When we get involved in men's jobs, we do them well. I want all of us here in this chamber to encourage young girls to realise that there are no limits to what we can achieve. I say this to all the women in Scotland. Be bold. Be the change that you want to see in society. Speak up. Move out of your comfort zone. Ask for a pay rise. Ask for a promotion, and, as we said in the girl guides, go for it. I rise to offer my voice to the many excellent speeches that we have had in this debate this afternoon. I congratulate the Government on a consensual motion, the Labour Party on an excellent amendment that we will be supporting today. On the night of Tuesday 8 November, speaking from a hotel in San Francisco, newly elected Democratic Senator Kamala Harris invoked the memory of a great champion for equality when, in a victory speech tinged with grief at the dawning realisation of a Trump presidency. She said that it is important to remember what Coretta Scott King taught us, that the fight for civil rights, the fight for justice and equality must be fought in one with each generation. It is the very nature of this fight that whatever gains we make, they will not always be permanent. The intervening weeks have shown in stark relief the measure of the challenge that befalls our generation in the struggle that we now face for equality in general, but women's rights in particular. This international women's day carries an import far deeper than in years previous because a cold patriarchal misogyny has swept the democratic institutions of the United States and is in policies defined by an administration that passes off things like sexual molestation as locker room talk. A commander-in-chief who is on public record in stating his belief that women who seek to terminate their pregnancy for whatever reason should face some sort of sanction or punishment for that intensely private decision, if only we were all now witness to a woman in that particular workplace. However, as we unite in justified condemnation of that emergence overseas, we do well to remember our journey—the journey that our own nation is still on in terms of realising women's rights and the delivery of equality here at home—in violence against women, in everyday sexism, in body-shaming. However, as we have heard so many times this afternoon, nowhere are those frontiers more evident than in the workplace. Now, it's not fair to pick favourites among your constituents, but I'm sure that the chamber will indulge me as I do just that. Her name is Darcy. She is two years old and she runs my family. She is every bit as switched on and determined as her older brothers. She has a keen sense of justice—oh boy, has she got a keen sense of justice. However, I'm quite determined that, as she progresses through education and into the workplace of her choosing, she will do so with the same opportunities and the expectation of fair treatment as her brothers. In 2030, the year that we have identified in this international women's day as the year for 50-50 parity in the workplace, Darcy will turn 16. Like her peers, she will be sitting life-qualifying exams and looking with bright optimism towards a new career. We will, in this place, have failed her and the millions of little girls like her if we take on the same job as her brothers, if she takes on the same job as her brothers but is expected to be valued less or bring home a smaller pay packet. We will have failed her if we don't ensure that the governance of the company or organisation that she seeks to join is made up of a balance of men and women. We will have failed her if her employer insists that, because of her gender, she must wear a certain type of heel or length of dress on pain of dismissal. It is astonishing that, in our enlightened time, we should, in this Parliament, still number off the battle lines where prejudice, underrepresentation and under-employment still hold sway in respect of women in the workplace. However, it is around the issue of maternity discrimination that I want to focus. Towards the end of last year, I was visited by a constituent who, until the birth of her first child, had been the chief executive officer of a major national organisation. Overnight, her board seemed to turn against her and manage her out very swiftly. She fought for three years for justice in many ways that she is fighting still today. She opened my eyes to an astonishing reality that, in our country, 77 per cent of mothers in paid work still face at some point some kind of discrimination as a result of their motherhood, while only 3 per cent ever challenge it internally. Many lack the energy for the fight, many are not aware of their rights, and many simply no longer have faith in the system that did that to them. My party took a step to a UK level to bring a shared parental leave into the consideration of maternity to begin a turn in cultural expectations around parenthood, but we have still so far to travel in that regard. Delivering gender equality is not always straightforward and it is not always comfortable. It may often jar against our long-held views of fairness and what is right. Monica Lennon, in what was an excellent speech, one of the finest of her career that I have heard her say, explained the difficulties that we face in making it happen in politics. My own party grappled with it for many years, hoping that it would happen organically, but it took the strength of our party leader Willie Rennie to deliver a change at our party's conference that led to our first ever all-women shortlist. I am proud that our next Westminster candidate for Edinburgh West will be a woman as a result of it. Whether it is a regressive assault on reproductive rights in America or the arcane structures and expectations of the workplace in this country, it is these frontiers that a theme emerges, that the decision of men in positions of power to shape the lives of women. It is a point that brought home to me with real clarity when, in 2000, I spent the afternoon with Dr Carl Jurassic, who was an American scientist, who invented the contraceptive pill. He was a passionate feminist himself, and he described to me the pressure that he came under in 1950s America to focus his research, funnily enough, on a contraceptive pill for men. His response to that pressure was as elegant as it was brave. He explained to me that to develop a pill for men would have done nothing about the nature of male control over the female reproductive system, and in the early days of his research, he saw the liberation that that reversal of control could bring. He died last year, but I will seek to carry that spirit and emulate his commitment in all that I do in the time that I have afforded to me as a legislator, and, with that spirit, I will seek to build a better society for my daughter. When are we going to live in a world where we do not need to have international women's day? Why do we need to? In this futuristic 21st century, still fight for equality, parity and recognition? The reason we need to stand together is because, for many women, there is no equality, no parity and no recognition at mission. We live in a world where a girl with a book who seeks an education gets a bullet in her head because men are afraid of her femininity. The power of an educated woman terrifies the patriarchy, and Malala Yousafie tells us that we cannot all succeed if half of us are held back. She is correct. A world that still thinks that it is okay to use physical punishment and coercive control on wives and partners and not so honourable, honour-based violence, forced marriage and FGM. Today, 63 million girls of school age do not get an education in this modern world. Not very modern, is it? Unicef tells us that girls' education is an intrinsic right and a critical lever to reaching other development objectives. Providing girls with an education helps to break the cycle of poverty. Educated women are less likely to marry early and against their will and less likely to die in childbirth, more likely to have healthy babies and are more likely to send their children to school. When all children have access to equality education, rooted in human rights and gender equality, it creates a ripple effect of opportunity that influences generations to come. Again, I ask the question why we, in this digital futuristic world, still have gender imbalance and inequality. Why do we have in this modern United Kingdom welfare reforms that have a catastrophic detrimental effect on 86 per cent of all female claimants? Why do we have a South Lanarkshire Labour-controlled council and many more councils the shame of them spending millions of pounds fighting against giving women equal pay? Why? Because, for all of the talk, some of the politicians in this place, not all of them, that's all it is, is talk and that needs to change. Presiding Officer, I didn't hear any of them talk up when Philip Davis MP attempted to filly buster Ailey Whiteford's bill on domestic violence, or when he described women as militant feminists. I heard no voices against him, and how very dare we seek that equality. So spare me the fake indignation when it comes to some of the things that people have got to say. Why is it important that we stand, that we raise our voices, become activists, march and campaign? Presiding Officer, I agree with Martina and Avrilatilova when she says that the key for women is not to set any limits. I'd add that we should not let other set limits for us. That's why it's important. It's been important because those of us who have some success have a duty to not pull up the ladder but to give a hand up to those other women. Madeleine Albright also reminds us that there is a special place in hell for women who don't help other women. Again, Presiding Officer, I ask why it's important because we have such a long, long way to go and it feels that in some senses we are going backwards, especially when we have male MPs, barking at female MPs and the so-called mother of all parliaments. When we have a leader of the free world, freely admit to physical, sexual assault on women and passing it off is just locker room banter, that's why it's important. His actions and, frankly, misogynistic talk has given permission to many in the patriarchy to huck back to what we thought was a bygone age when assaulting, insulting and body-shaming women was just a bit of fun or some locker room talk. It's not acceptable and it's not tolerable and we're not going to put up with it. To highlight Trump's disgusting remarks, women across the world are taking part in the Pussyhat global project. They want to share, declare and wear their feminism and why shouldn't they? They intend to show that feminism and solidarity across the globe by wearing pink knitted hats. Only with solidarity, resilience, commitment and passion will we make this nation, this UK and yes this world a better place for women and girls where they feel safe, educated, valued and most importantly of all equal. That's why we need this annual UN International Women's Day. That's why we must continue to fight. That's why we should never stand down or shut up or not take the positions that we take. We need to raise our voice and that's why I stand to you today, Presiding Officer, wearing my Pussyhat with your indulgence, with my many sisters around the world to declare my oath that I will always stand for that equality, parity and recognition that we all deserve. Presiding Officer, indulge me to be bold for change. I will share, declare and wear my feminism. I will share and declare and wear my feminism. I'm done. I'm done. Naughty, naughty. Props are not allowed in the chamber. This occasion is passing by, but I do not encourage any props in the chamber from anyone. I now move on please to Alison Harris, be followed by Claire Adamson. Ms Harris, please. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I'm delighted to speak in this debate. International Women's Day, a day that is not of the recent origin that so many people assume, but a day that has marked the progress of the rights of women for over 100 years. Let me talk for a few moments on the origin of the day. The start of the 20th century was a time of agitation for women's rights in a number of European countries, as well as in North America. In the UK, suffragettes such as Mrs Pankhurst and Emily Davidson were campaigning for the right to vote, a right that would come in 1918, but only after women had shown through their work in the munitions factories and on the farms that they could take up the roles traditionally held by men. Even then, it was not until 1928 that women had the vote on equal terms. In 1911, the first international women's day was celebrated in a small number of countries, and in 1913 the day was fixed as the 8th of March. In 1975, the United Nations celebrated the event for the first time, giving the day an immediate boost in both status and recognition, and in 1996 the UN gave further support by adopting an annual theme to focus on a particular aspect to advance the role of women. In the 106 years since we first celebrated international women's day, much has been done to progress the rights and standings of women, but, as we have heard from previous speakers, much remains to be done. Yes, there has been a huge shift for the better in attitudes towards women, in property rights, in voting, access to university, jobs, childcare and health. They are all in the vast majority of countries, including our own, far better than in 1911. In the Scottish Parliament, all three of the main party leaders are women, but we still have too few female MSPs. We have heard from Annie Wales what my party is doing to address that. In many areas, glass ceilings have been broken. Talented women have won through on merit. Twenty years ago, women's sports presenters were unheard of. Not at the moment, please, let me just continue. I am old enough to remember just when a woman would take your bus fare but was never the driver, and when a woman airline pilot caused more than a few comments. So yes, let us not forget the progress that women here in the UK have made, but nor should we forget what still needs to be done to create equality for women. As well as the lack of women making the laws, a concern should also be of the lack of women in the upkeep of the law. Only 7 per cent of senior police officers are female, 13 per cent are QCs and 23 per cent are sheriffs. I personally believe that we do not need quotas and all women short lists, but we do need to do far more to encourage women to apply for senior posts, whether it be in law. No, I am going to continue, if you do not mind, whether it be in law, business, science, technology and academia. The Conservative Government will continue to seek to eradicate anything that causes anyone to feel that the work of a woman doing the same job as a man is less worthy of reward and respect. I am proud that my party, as we have already heard, has given our country to female Prime Ministers and that the present and immediate past leader of the Scottish Conservatives have been women. I also highlight another reason why I am so proud of my party. I have talked of the advances that are made by women in the UK while acknowledging that there is still a lot more needing to be done to continue to make progress. Let me now turn to the improvements in the lives of women in the poorest countries on earth as a result of UK aid. As a nation, we meet our target of devoting 0.7 per cent of GDP to overseas aid. It is a not always popular with many voters, but, Deputy Presiding Officer, it is the right thing to do. It is used to ensure that children, girls as well as boys in poor countries from Afghanistan to Zimbabwe get a chance to make more of their lives through better health and education. It provides money for training. Women like Fatima in Ghana, who wanted to be a woman in the poorest countries on earth, support their children by sewing clothes. She now has a start-up loan enabling her to buy a sewing machine. Rima from Bangladesh faced disaster when falling pregnant and her employer refused to give her maternity pay. UK aid provided the funds for a local agency to go to court to force the employer to pay up. Winning, not only for the poor, but also for the poor. The UK aid provided the funds to force the employer to pay up. Winning, not only for Rima but for a number of other employees. Two stories, but there are millions of other women in the third world whose lives have been changed for the better by UK aid. I do not know if Mrs Pankhurst and Emily Davidson would be surprised at the extent of the progress that women have made or be disdenhearted by the lack of it. Perhaps, as Ms Davidson was a schoolteacher, the report card might say, good progress but must try harder. I look forward to celebrating International Women's Day tomorrow. Thank you very much. Clare Adamson, to be followed by Elaine Smith. Ms Adamson, please. I have spoken many of those debates over the years and I tend to focus on my own background in science and technology. Today is no different. Like many of the contributors this afternoon, I would like to highlight some of my heroes from that world. If we think of astronomy and the stars, and you mentioned the name Cox, many people will think of Brian Cox, but not for me. I immediately think of Nagyne Cox, who was an American air force pilot who went on to join the Jet Propulsion Laboratory at NASA and has worked on both the Mars rover and the Galileo missions and is now one of the senior managers in the Curiosity rover projects at NASA and absolutely inspiring women. We can look to the past as well. In NASA, Valerie Thomas was a NASA inventor who was inspired as a young woman in picking up in her local library the boys' first book of electronics. Unfortunately, I am old enough to remember those boys' books and the girls' books, which tend to be about things such as flour pressing and the way that we discriminated at such an early age with young people about what their ambitions and their prospects could be. Thankfully, Valerie Thomas did not heed her teachers or her parents who dissuaded her from a career in physics. Her inventions include the illusion transmitter, which is currently being used in 3D television technology. Although the rights of women merit some attention in Holyrood today, Hollywood has also turned to this area with the recent blockbuster movie Hidden Figures. It is a biopic that tells the story of Katherine Johnson, Mary Jackson and Dorothy Vaughan, who were collectively known as computers in skirts. They worked in the Redstone, Mercury and Apollo space programmes for NASA. Although their contribution has until now been widely unknown in the larger world, NASA has been very good at celebrating its women scientists. It is based on a book, and the title of that book is The American Dream, the Untold Story of the Black Women Mathematicians, who helped to win the space race. If I had a magic wand today, I would want to change the name of that book. That is because I vividly remember Maya Angelou, take James Nocti, on the book shown on Radio 4, to task for describing her as one of America's greatest black authors, to which she replied, and I wish I had her voice, but I don't. I am one of America's greatest authors, James. I just happen to be black. Katherine Johnson, Mary Jackson and Dorothy Vaughan were the mathematicians who helped to win the space race. They just happened to be women and black. I think that today, of all days, it is incumbent on us to reflect on our use of language. On international women's day of all days, we reflect whether our language seeks to pigeonhole, diminish, contain or categorise the achievements of women, because if so and in doing so, it would all be complicit in unconscious bias. The area of unconscious bias is one of the new areas, the new research areas, that helps us to understand why it is so difficult for women to achieve their full potential. It is implicit and unconscious that happens in our brains incredibly quickly to make quick judgments and assessments of people and situations where we do not even realise that we are doing it. It is influenced by our backgrounds, our cultural experiences, our education and the people with whom we mix and make contact with. The equality challenge unit of the ECU, which works to further support equality and diversity for staff and students across the UK in our higher education institutes, has done some recent research on that. It made evidence-based using research to identify change practices that unfairly exclude marginalised or disadvantaged people, and the evidence supports that removing barriers to progression will bring greater success for all students, women and men. The research found that unconscious bias heavily influences recruitment and selection decisions. It used several experiments using CV short-listing, and it showed that male candidates were rated as better qualified than females. They wanted to hire males more often, and that male candidates were given a higher starting salary, and they were willing to invest more in the male candidates in the selection process. We need to change that. We need to look, we need to understand unconscious bias and recognise it in every single one of us and look to screenings that make it anonymous. I could just finish with a quote from Maya Angelou who said that it is impossible to struggle for civil rights, equal rights for blacks without including whites, because equal rights, fair play, justice are all like the air. We all have it or none of us have it. As has been mentioned, this year's international women's day campaign theme is to be bold for change with the specific UN theme of women in the changing world of work. The world economic forum predicts that the global gender gap won't close entirely until 2186, so being bold and taking action is undoubtedly needed. International Women's Day provides the opportunity to celebrate the social, economic, cultural and political achievements of women in the past and present in helping to progress the gender agenda to tackle inequality and fight back against poverty. If we look at the landscape around us, we see a great many statues and memorials, but very few celebrating women. Indeed, the majority of statues are of slave-only men, wealthy landowners and military figures, reminding us of a cruel and perilous capitalist history. Many famous working-class women in the past, women like Janet Hamilton, Jenny Lee, Mary Barber, challenged poverty and justice and inequality, and they epitomised the idea of being bold for change. That's the point that was made earlier very well by Ruth Maguire and Gillian Martin, so I would like to see more statues and memorials of women in this country. International Working Women's Day was first declared by the German socialist Clara Zeck in 1910 and 8 March was chosen in tribute to Manhattan's women's textile workers on strike for decent working conditions. However, going back further, the early struggles for women's rights went entwined with workers' rights. The mill girl's strikes of the 1840s and the match girl's strikes of 1888 are examples of heroic struggles against barbaric working conditions, low pay and long hours. The action of women and trade unions led to the Labour Government introducing the Equal Pay Act 1970, but, as we know, those equal pay battles are still being fought. Looking specifically at the UN theme women in the changing world of work, I want to consider some of the barriers to work for women here in 21st century Scotland. Adding to the issue of the gender pay gap, we know that women are underrepresented in senior roles across Scotland, and that must be addressed. However, there are other barriers for women entering and progressing in the workplace, and the most obvious of those is education. Only 18% of computing students and only 16% of engineering students are women in Scotland, and those are subjects that are identified as key to our economic future. That was a point that was made very well by Mary Fee and, indeed, Marie Todd earlier in the debate. Then, of course, affordable childcare remains a barrier. Many women are trying to fit part-time hours around their partner's work as they simply cannot afford nursery fees. The three hours do not cover a working day, or they are relying on their own mothers. Women parliamentarians work long hours, and they might be privileged, as a point that was made by the cabinet secretary at the start of the debate, but they still have caring responsibilities and non-family-friendly practices that will not encourage other women to join us in this place. I now want to specifically mention women's health issues that are barriers to women being economically active. I want to mention some modern-day women campaigners in this field. The mesh implants have left many women with appalling injuries and unable to work, and in Scotland we could have led the way in protecting women from this health scandal. Instead, inquiry has had campaigners Elaine Holmes and Olive McElroy resign saying that they have been betrayed. They believe that it is a whitewash, ignoring evidence and focused on an agenda led by pro-mesh surgeons, most of whom probably are men, so I do hope that the Government will look at this issue seriously. Another women's health scandal, since the vast majority affected a female, is the way thyroid sufferers are treated. Until the 1970s, desiccated thyroid hormone was used to treat women with an underactive thyroid, and it contains everything that you need, including T4 and T3. Then synthetic thyroxine, T4 only, was invented and big pharma could make money out of it. Putting aside the women who are not diagnosed or shockingly told the borderline by GPs, we know that at least 10 per cent of patients do not do well on T4 alone. Symptoms include severe fatigue, fibromyalgia and depression, which can all impact on women's ability to work. Laryne Cleaver is taking this forward and has been petitioning this Parliament for over four years now for proper diagnosis and treatment. Currently, women are suffering on T4, are those lucky enough to be on T3, are fighting to keep it due to the rocketing costs or their buying desiccated thyroid hormone on the internet. I make a plea today to the Scottish Government to take this women's issue seriously, to commission proper research and to support an inquiry. This issue also has a serious economic impact for women and the NHS. A related issue to this is pain sufferers. Many of them are women, and it has taken Dorothy Grace Elder to uncover the scandal of waiting-time failures for chronic pain sufferers as outlined in yesterday's Herald. On the issue of waiting times, there are many women currently in Lanarkshire waiting up to 24 weeks for initial appointments for joint replacements. That is unacceptable. Many of them are older women, caring for husbands or grandchildren, and the pain that they are in is shocking, but even from a purely economic perspective it would suggest that these waits cannot continue. All of those cases need bold action, and all of the impact on women in the workplace and indeed the invisible work done to support our society, as outlined extremely well in an excellent speech by Alison Johnston earlier. There are many women campaigning in Scotland for women's rights for improved conditions, some that I have mentioned and many others fighting through their trade unions with specific campaigns such as Better Than Zero being done by many young women. As members of Parliament, we are in a position and have a duty to take action to demand that the Scottish Government delivers for women. Let's be bold and fight for change that builds on the past achievements of all the brave women who went before, stop the discrimination and remove the barriers that hold women back in the workplace and deliver a fairer, more equal and prosperous 21st century Scotland. Thank you. Paul-Alexander Burnett, followed by Stuart Stevenson. Stuart Stevenson will be the last speaker in the open debate. Mr Burnett, please. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I am delighted to have been given the opportunity to celebrate international women's day and to support the amendment of Annie Wells. Now, whilst it is vital to be looking at how to empower women in Scotland, I think that it is also important to reflect upon where this celebration first started. An international women's day originated with sporadic celebrations as early as 1909, with the Soviet Union playing a major role. After living myself in Azerbaijan for nine years, international women's day is something I have had the fortune of celebrating both here and abroad, with Azerbaijan being one of only 30 countries in the world, which recognise it with a non-labour holiday. Now, created out of the fall of the Russian Empire in 1918, Azerbaijan was arguably the first successful attempt to establish a democratic state in the Muslim world. Now, we often find ourselves looking towards the Middle East, Russia and the Far East, criticising them for their lack of progress on inequalities, and rightly so in many cases. But I feel that we should not just criticise, we should celebrate their achievements too, and encourage these countries to go further in our universal quest for equality. Now, as we know, women in the UK did not gain equal voting rights until 1930. However, Azerbaijan granted women equal political rights in 1919, making it the first Muslim-majority country to enfranchise women. In 1934, Azerbaijan had their first female Cabinet Minister, just five years after our own Margaret Bonfield Minister of Labour. This was reversed in 2009, which saw Azerbaijan appoint its first female major general a full six years before the UK promoted Susan Ridge. And in Meriban, Elieva, the current vice president of Azerbaijan, they have a candidate to emulate our own proud record of female leaders. A matriarch in my own family, my late grandmother Gina Phillips, was chief president of the St John's Ambulance Brigade, a role that took her around the world, championing not just health but women too. And through her, I was lucky enough to meet someone who is not only an icon to those in Russia, but women across the world. Valentina Tereshkova, who holds the momentous title as the first woman to ever go into space, was an amazing person, and I was honoured to spend a day with her at Star City outside Moscow, seeing the difficult circumstances in which she literally showed women they could reach for stars. But let us look closer to home and what we are doing to help women in our own communities. Just last week at FMQ, I asked the First Minister if she was as disappointed as me to hear that a nursery in my constituency will be hit with a business rate hike of 65%. That means that inevitable cost increases for parents and prevents parents but predominantly mothers from returning to work. And the First Minister's response, sorry, yes. Gillian Martin. Thank you, Mr Burnett. I'm really great if you're taking an intervention. I get that there's issues around certain businesses having increased business rates and I'm pleased to hear that you're so concerned about it. Does that mean that the Conservative members of the local government, Aberdeenshire Council, are going to vote alongside my colleagues in the SNP to propose the rates relief scheme that we've got in place on 9 March? Mr Burnett. I think that my Conservative colleagues in Aberdeenshire Council, like councillors all across Scotland, will be having to vote for rates relief with the limited funds that they have because of the Scottish Government's cutbacks. But to continue, the First Minister's response to my question was to attack these colleagues. But what relief does this give to the mothers who are not able to go back to work? And what relief does this give to parents who are trying to give their children early education? And the answer is simple, it's not giving them any. So with International Women's Day this year focusing on increasing women in the workplace, I hope the First Minister will reconsider her response. So many times we have heard from the SNP that we should introduce gender quotas and I'm pleased that my fellow Scottish Conservative colleagues and I are arguing against these because they do not help the root cause of the issue of getting women into work. Yeah, certainly. Ruth Maguire. Thanks to Alexander Burnett for taking the intervention. Many of your speakers have acknowledged that we do all, some of us more than others, have a problem with female representation in the Parliament. How long are you prepared to wait to have equal representation? How long is acceptable to wait? Alexander Burnett. I think all women would want to be here on ability and I think when you enter a race and 50% of the opposition are removed from that race that can only diminish your achievement. Now helping women, yeah, certainly. I think you've stirred things up a bit Mr Burnett. Alison Johnstone. Is the member suggesting that there are far more able men than women in the Conservative party? Are you asserting that women are less able than men? Mr Burnett, be brief. Absolutely not. This is what the purpose of, certainly my speeches here and I think many other people have been saying, but it's not about the ability, it's about how we're getting people to that point, and it's for factors in women's lives before they get to that point of competing to be a candidate for this place, but it is holding them back. So it's not about ability and it's not a question about certainly people in this chamber. It's a question about how we're helping people and helping women to have that opportunity to put themselves in a position to make that step. So helping into women into work and into positions of power, which is exactly the point, comes from making the playing field as level as possible. This can be as simple as keeping nursery thieves down, so that it pays for a mother to return to work. Because who knows what these women would achieve if they weren't being trapped by policy. And the women in Azerbaijan, Russia and the UK who achieved equal political rights did not need a gender coiter and nobody wants to get a job just because they tick a box, thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer, and it's a great pleasure to have the opportunity to talk about Women's Day. Perhaps say a few words about legislative issues. We currently have the great reform bill before the Parliament at Westminster. It may be as well to remind ourselves that, in 1832, the previous great reform bill was the bill that removed the right of women to vote. Now the electorate in those days was very small, it was a property qualification, but women who met the property qualification and who were not married, or were head of household, could then vote. That danger exists with the great reform bill today, as it takes away rights and equalities for a wide range of people potentially. 1893 was an important year in legislative terms. Firstly in New Zealand, which was the first jurisdiction in the world, to allow equal voting for men and women, leading the way. In the UK things were making some progress, but not very much, with the passage of the married women's property act, the fifth such act since 1870, which for the first time allowed women to own, in their own right, property, rather than being the property of their husbands. 1917, and in particular tomorrow 100 years ago, was a strike in a protest by the women of Russia on the bread and peace strike and protest, which led only four days later to the fall of the Tsar, the white Russian revolution, which later in the year, of course, led to the red Russian revolution. So women have influenced politics for a long time. The cabinet secretary referred to Ban Ki-moon, where the United Nations Charter, which was adopted in 1945, was the first international agreement that included within it the fundamental principle of equality between men and women. So the United Nations had to be commended for their early action on this subject. Now the first of January 1975 was the day that the Equal Pay Act came into operation. My wife rejoiced because that was the first time in her career that she was able to enter her company's pension plan. Right to the point of her retirement, the problem of her entering that plan late affected her pension. It's some 20 per cent lower than it might have been. So even in 1975, something that happened then continues to have effects to this day. My wife, who worked in the finance industry, was pretty much on her own. There was one other woman at a senior level. She specialised in investment trusts, used to go to the Association of Investment Trust annual dinners. She was one of only two women who used to go to the three or four hundred people who went that dinner. She was very fortunate that Joe Gormley, the general secretary of the National Union of Mine workers, who was one of the biggest investors as the chair of the pension fund for the miners, insisted that my wife always sat next to her and he always bought the drink. He was a sexist but sometimes it worked in some people's favourites. My wife also, and I'm slightly surprised that we're saying no serious business people, my wife also was a mentor to Audrey Baxter, who's the executive chairman of Baxter's Foods. So there are exceptionally some women at senior levels in some businesses in Scotland. In a personal level, I point to my aunt Daisy, who was one of those who worked in the numerations factory in the First World War. In doing so, she lost one of her fingers in an industrial accident. She was one of very many. My mother, when she first voted, had two votes curiously enough because she was a university graduate and you got an additional vote then. But there are some female heroes it's worth having a wee think about. My professional career, starting in the 1960s, was in computers. Ada Lovelace, who was Charles Babbage's programmer in the 1860s and 70s, was the person who invented, looked it up, algorithmic approach to programming, which underpins the way we do things today. Rear Admiral Grace Hopper, who programmed the Mark 1 computer in 1944 in the United States, was the real founder of the way that we do programming this day. It was her bug, actually the American word, for a moth that we carry as a word for an error in a computer programme to this day. Marie Curie, tomorrow is Daffodil Day. We stand in the parliament here from the Marie Curie nurses. She was the first and the only person to have won two Nobel prizes in two different scientific disciplines. Isn't that a hero to aspire to? An example of how things were not so good. Steve Shirley, who was the founder and chief executive of a consultancy company, called the Fi in the 1970s. Steve would think it was a man's name. She intended that you think it was a man's name. She was actually Stephanie, but she used the word Steve so that until she appeared up eventually before her prospects, they didn't even know that she was a woman, very successful she was indeed. Today, a climate justice, a real woman's issue, Mary Robinson, former president of Ireland, is leading the way in making sure that we do the right things. Fairness for women in no way diminishes men, rather it rewards all of us in society, because equality for all is a necessary prerequisite to fairness for all. Thank you. We have to close in speeches. I call Paul McNeill to close for Labour. Six minutes, please, Ms McNeill. Presiding Officer, it has been a pleasure to take part in this debate on International Women's Day and to have a debate mainly conducted by the women in this parliament. I thank you to the men for joining us on this important day. We are 52 per cent of the population, and that is a majority. The only majority will probably be here in this debate this evening. I sit by others in gender. I calculated that at this rate, to close the gender gap, will take 169 years, six or seven generations depending on how you want to count it. No major newspaper editors are women. There are no women chief executive officers in the FTSE 100. As others have said, there are pitiful numbers in our senior police force. As Monica Lennon said, no black women are Asian ethnic minority women represented in this parliament. As I said in a previous debate, lesbian women were not even acknowledged by the law until recent times when the UK Parliament legislated to equalise the age of consent at 16. It is a wee bit alarming that some of the sisters across the chamber, for today's purposes, will say that the Annie Wells and others, who are proud of the two women prime ministers, are fair enough, but they have not even attempted to answer Tom Arthur's question about the impact on women of benefit cuts, and probably it will be women who will face fair worst under Brexit and continuing benefit cuts. I will do you. Julian Martin One of the things that has been in my mind as well is that we are talking about Margaret Thatcher in a way that would be proud about a women's achievement, but has she only ever promoted one female MP in her entire time as Prime Minister to the cabinet? Well, there are very few feminists that I know that would agree that just because you have a woman at the top means that, therefore, we have become emancipated, so I would agree with that. But women have always faced prejudice, we have faced it through the ages, and many others have talked about women actually paying with their lives for campaigning for the right to vote. Staggeringly, women in France did not receive the vote until 1944, and we probably know for those of us who have watched the movie that Saudi Arabia did not have women voting until 2011. So we know that internationally, as many members have said, that women and girls have faced abhorrent discrimination. So you cannot always legislate those attitudes away, but we know that sexism is inherent. So I want to address the question of quotas for that reason. Quotas and positive action can force important changes. It can skip generations. This Parliament would be the poorer if we did not have members like Gillian Martin and Rachel Hamilton, but Alison Johnstone is absolutely right. If it is only left to voluntary action, if it is only left to accident, we will never get there. The party that is opposed to 50-50 women's representation only has 19 per cent of women on its benches. Like Gillian Martin, I arrived in this Parliament because the Labour Party had 50-50. I was selected along with Donald Dure in 1999. If I had not the chance to fight my selection against seven other women in Glasgow-Kelvin, I would not be here today. It is up to the sisters who believe in the feminist movement to champion change. If they think that quotas has no role, they tell me that they are prepared to wait 169 years. I will take the intervention. Would the member acknowledge that, in the last Parliament, the Scottish Conservatives had 40 per cent of the parliamentary party as women? What happened to Elizabeth Smith? I would like to know that we were third in the world—Scotland was third in the world—of women's representation. Is it good enough that we are into double figures? I do not think so. I want to address a point that was very abily made by Ruth Maguire in this debate. She said that there are not enough of us in the room while we know that, but most women will say that, in every meeting that they go to, they are pretty much always in the minority. Any woman or any man for that matter who does not realise that it is men who put up the barriers to women—I am sorry, but that has to be said—very often, that is why women lose the confidence and they see that maybe there is no future. I think that quotas definitely has its place. Even in today's world, you might expect that, in 1819—her interesting history lessons from Stuart Stevenson—here is another one that we know that George Elliot wrote as Mary Ann Evans in that year. Only recently, we have learned that publishers advise J.K. Rowling that young male leaders might be deterred by a female author, and that is why she adopted the initials that she did. There are many firsts of women in history. I just wanted to mention one, and that is because when I was 11, I played football. I wanted to be a referee, and my father said that there will never be a referee at Celtic Park. I believe that there will be, and I just like to praise Kylie McMillan, who made history in 2014 as the first Scottish women referee. Yes, any man can challenge me on the offside drill, and I know what that is. In closing, I may just say this. The minister in her opening remarks talked about discrimination on the grounds of being pregnant. That is the area that we must tackle the most. I just wanted to recount a story very briefly of a woman who said that because she was a high-risk pregnancy, she could not apply to a tribunal in time of the three months application, because she had to leave her job before the three months was up. It is time to recognise that cases like this mean that employment law must be appropriate for women in those circumstances. I wonder if the minister would support an extension to six months rather than the three months, which I know is a reserved issue, but it is certainly something that this Parliament could comment on. I reaffirm our very strong commitment to our support for International Women's Day tomorrow, and I am very grateful to the cabinet secretary for bringing forward this debate this afternoon. Gillian Martin and Claire Adamson have given us quite a bit of important information about what we should do to celebrate women who have made their way in the world. I am very grateful to them for that, as has Stuart Stevenson with his fairly traditional history lesson that we get, but, nonetheless, some very important points that he raised. So, too, did Alison Johnstone. She raised the tremendous feats of Laura Muir. I hope that Alison Johnstone will, along with some other members, sign the motion that I put down in Parliament to support the remarkable attributes of one of our best female athletes. As Stuart Stevenstone rightly said, we should be celebrating the visitors that we have in Parliament this week, who have been showcasing the work of Mary Curie. Stuart Stevenson has said exactly why she is a prime example of an inspirational woman on whom we can base our approach for the future. Whether it is Mary Curie or Florence Nightingale, women such as Joan of Arc or Emmeline Pankhurst, Eleanor Roosevelt, we need to recognise that they were all instrumental in standing up against the orthodoxy of their time, and that they each made untold sacrifices in their efforts to change the world for the better. They had that very special mix of courage and bravery and determination to prove that women had a very key role to play in a world where, obviously, it was very male-dominated and where they found themselves confronted by so many barriers. In Emmeline Pankhurst's words, we have to free half of the human race, the women, so that we can help free the other half. Wise words indeed, if we consider very carefully exactly what she meant. Of course, in those days, the discrimination in which they faced was so painfully obvious. Writing the wrongs was a matter about which, in today's world, we would have had no second thoughts. We have come a very long way since these days, but that does not mean that we have solved the problem, indeed, very far from it. However, I think that the biggest challenge for us is to deal with the hidden discrimination of which goes unnoticed. The Scottish Government's motion references research showing that increasing female leadership and gender equality in the workforce can benefit the workflows, society and, indeed, the economy. On that note, I am sure that members noticed yesterday in The Herald a very interesting interview with Trisha Nelson. Ms Nelson is an equity partner in the professional services EYs at Glasgow office that heads up the transport section alongside her role as the head of talent for the UK's advisory division. She is very keen advocate of driving equality and diversity in the workplace and believes that addressing issues of gender parity will be critically important for Scottish businesses, pointing to the empirical evidence around increased financial performance and share price in a stronger economy. She notes in her interview that the more diverse the team, the better the business outcome. I strongly agree with her on that point. However, she then went on to develop some analysis about the barriers in the way, including what she described as the unconscious bias. I think that that is a very important point that she makes and one that makes the solution all the more hard to achieve. Several members have highlighted the gloomy research that has been cited by the Economy, Fair Work and Jobs Committee during its inquiry. As Mary Fee rightly pointed out, that if we wait until 2069, we might actually get somewhere. That is an appalling state of affairs and that is something that all of us have to be concerned about. I note that there have been lots of... Yes, of course. Clare Adamson. The member has talked about how long things might take to change and mentioned unconscious bias, but the research into unconscious bias tells us that there are things that we can do in organisations. We can increase the variability of presenters. We can invite diverse people along to speak to organisations. We can do things such as anonymise recruitment processes. Would she agree that there are things that we can do to tackle that? I think that there are some good suggestions coming from down south with the actual gap. Still a gap, but that gap has been reduced over the last few years. I think that one of the reasons why that gap has been reduced actually quicker than it has in Scotland is because of some of those groundbreaking new initiatives, so I think that the member is absolutely right to highlight them. Can I come to the point about gender equality in the 50-50 situation? I hear what Members say about that. I cannot support that, but the reason is not because I have any prejudices about special targets, etc. The reason is that I think that if you do adopt those targets, you are actually preventing some very strong people coming in on either the all-female list or the all-male list, and that is a point that I worry about greatly. I understand where you are coming from, but I certainly want a situation where we feel that the merit is a very extensive merit and that we do not, by definition, through targets. I thank Liz Smith for taking the intervention. I represent Central Scotland for the Conservatives. I have two colleagues, Alison Harris and Margaret Mitchell. Two females, one male. Would Liz Smith agree with me that those two very talented females got their entirely on merit and had no requirement at all for any artificial system? Yes, absolutely, I would, just as I am sure that you were part of that on a talent basis as well, but I come back to the point that I was talking about. If we go for very strict target-based applications, you are, by definition, missing out some who might have got in because they have got that talent to get there. I am openish, because I am pretty sure that I am in my last minute. The cabinet secretary wants to come back, and I know that some members want the cabinet secretary to deal with specific issues. When we make those calls, we have to be very clear in our own mind exactly what the implications would be. That is something that I think has tremendous resonance, particularly for people. It comes in job applications too. If you are going to be in politically correct the whole time, just be aware of some of the consequences that that might have. I am very happy, obviously, to support the amendment in the name of Annie Wells. We have had many and varied interesting contributions this afternoon, ranging from the historical to the more contemporary, ranging from a very domestic focus to a more international outlook. Of course, there have been some personal reflections on our hopes and dreams for our sons and daughters of the future. I am perhaps the wrong person to agree with Gillian Martin. I say this with my tongue somewhat in my cheek. I agree with Gillian Martin when she says that women politicians should not be reduced to the shoes that they wear. On Alexander Burnett, Mr Burnett is perhaps a somewhat unwise man, and it is interesting that no-one ever asks if the men are here on their merit. Pauline McNeill's point is very specific about employment tribunals and employment law. I agree with that. I would, of course, like to be doing more than expressing an opinion, and I regret that we do not have the full reign of employment and equality legislation. I am pleased that the Government has said that it will not introduce fees to employment tribunals, because what we have seen with the introduction of fees for employment tribunals is a 75 per cent reduction in cases that are brought to the tribunals, specifically on pregnancy and maternity. I just wanted to put on record—you will know this—that the fees that you refer to for employment tribunals are £250 to make an application, but £900 for a hearing. Obviously, that is a widespread issue for men and women, but it is absolutely prohibitive. I thank Ms McNeill for that factual point. Annie Wells said that she has the right—for her voice to be heard—and she absolutely does, and that she and her party have the right to express their opposition to what they call quotas. Again, she is absolutely right. I also have the right and would contend the responsibility to point to the rights of those women—those women who are missing from positions of power and who are missing from positions of influence—as actually identified by the sex and power report published by Engender a few days ago. If we take, for example, public sector boards, the decision that those 74 public sector boards make in Scotland will affect every aspect of our lives and women's voices should be heard and active participants. We know that the evidence in and around gender balance demonstrates that where boards are balanced or where boards have more women, they perform better and make better decisions. There is overwhelming international evidence on that point that increasing the participation of women at senior levels in public or private sector boards is not just the right thing to do, it is actually the smart thing to do. In terms of some of the specifics around the gender representation public board draft bill, it is indeed about positive action to redress a current imbalance, and that is the underrepresentation of women. I want to be clear about a few points. Positive action and appointment on merit are not mutually exclusive, because in terms of EU law, you can only use positive action where a gender—and in this case women—are underrepresented and you can only appoint women on merit. Let us dispel with the myths. The other myth that we need to dispel is that it is somehow positive action versus earlier action or systemic action or voluntary action. Actually, we have to be the business of doing all of these actions. The gender representation bill, which we will debate at length in the weeks and months ahead, and a nutshell will do two things. It will set a duty, it will set that objective of 50-50 gender balance, but it will also require public sector boards to take action to encourage the underrepresented gender, in this case women, to apply. There will be no folding of arms saying that, act well, no women applied. In terms of Annie Wells' interests in sanctions, I do not know of any legislation in the Scottish Parliament that has a system of sanctions built into the legislation, but I very much look forward to any amendments that she wishes to propose on the bill. We really have to learn from the voluntary work that has resulted in 45 per cent of public sector non-executive board members now being women. That is at a record high, but that has been achieved by doing things differently in terms of recruitment, assessment and always appointing on merit. Although we now have 45 per cent of public sector board members as women, there is more to do, and the reason that we need the bill is to build in and lock in those gains for the future. Surely the history of this Parliament tells us that 18 years on into this Parliament and we are barely climbing back to where we were, we now have 35 per cent representation of women in this chamber. In 1999 it was 37 per cent, in 2003 it was 40 per cent and a point that was well made by Alison Johnstone. I will support the Labour amendment tonight, if they do not mind me saying that it is an excellent amendment that primarily focuses on the gender pay gap. I say to Rachael Hamilton that Scotland outperforms the UK on any measurement of the pay gap, whether it is full-time pay gap, the overall pay gap or the public sector payback. However, we can agree that the pay gap is entirely unacceptable, no matter what size it is. It is unacceptable that it exists at all. Of course, the Equal Pay Act is of great lament to me, but the Equal Pay Act is as old as I am. We know that the pay gap is driven by lack of affordable childcare, pregnancy and maternity discrimination, the experience of women over 40 in the workplace and occupational segregation and the Scottish Government is, as I hope that myself and other members have demonstrated this afternoon, taking action on all of those areas. I do not suppose that it will be a surprise to many, Presiding Officer, that those of us in the Government benches will not be supporting the Tory amendment. The amendment talks about the UK Government's endeavours to increase women's equality. I urge them with respect to tell that to the waspy women who will be demonstrating in Westminster tomorrow. Women who have had to live with the shifting of goalposts, retirement plans shattered and forced to return or remain in the workplace. The second reason that I will not be supporting the Conservative motion tonight is that the UK Government has ignored key recommendations from its own House of Commons committee, the Women and Equalities Committee, who have had an inquiry into the gender pay gap and have made key recommendations on flexible working, sharing unpaid caring responsibilities and supporting women over 40 back into the workplace. Thirdly, and probably the main reason why I and other members will not be supporting the Tory amendment tonight, is the impact on women of austerity and social security cuts. Women are as twice as dependent on social security as men, and we know that, in terms of the work done by the UK women's budget group, the cumulative spending cuts and tax increases from 2010 amount to £16 billion, that £12 billion of that, 75 per cent of that total, has come directly from the pockets of women. That is not about advancing. No, because you did not oblige me. One of my final points—no thanks—is the child poverty action group highlighted that the cuts to universal credit to the working allowance will mean that a single parent already working full-time on the national living wage will have to work 46 extra days each year, and we all know that 92 per cent of lone parents are women. My final point is that Ruth Maguire and Pauline McNeill, among others, made the point that having a woman Prime Minister, a woman First Minister, a gender-balanced Cabinet does not mean by any stretch of the imagination that the glass ceiling has been shattered. Although I am confident of one point, Presiding Officer, and it is this, I am absolutely confident that Scotland's first woman First Minister will do far more to advance the equality of women and girls in this country than the first woman Prime Minister. That concludes our debate on International Women's Day. Point of order, Claire Hawkey. Thank you, Presiding Officer. During this afternoon's ministerial statement on named persons, Monica Lennon asked a question of the Cabinet Secretary relating to council finances. Monica Lennon is a sitting councillor with South Lanarkshire Council, a fact that she failed to disclose when asking the question, despite the fact that it is on her register of interests. I believe that Monica Lennon has breached section 3.4 of the member's code of conduct for MSPs and seek the Presiding Officer's view on that. Thank you, Ms Hawkey, for a point of order. In this case, it is entirely up to every member, each member, individually to decide whether or not an interest is declarable or not. Without further commenting on this particular point of order, I am aware that some members, including members of the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee, are concerned about the application of the rule. I thought that it might be helpful to clarify some clarification for members. If a member has a registerable interest in a matter, they must declare that before taking part in any parliamentary proceedings relating to that matter. That is the requirement of the code of conduct for MSPs and the interests of members of the Scottish Parliament Act 2006. Each member is required to judge whether an interest is sufficiently relevant to particular proceedings to require a declaration. It is not my role to determine whether or not a member should have declared an interest. Instead, complaints about whether members have followed the rules on declaring interests are initially investigated by the Commissioner for Ethical Standards and Public Life in Scotland. If Ms Hawkey or any other member wishes to pursue that further, the clerks to the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee will be able to advise on the most appropriate course of action. I hope that that is helpful. We now proceed to decision time. There are three questions today. The first question is that amendment 440.1, in the name of Annie Wells, who seeks to amend the motion in the name of Angela Constance on International Women's Day, be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. We will move to vote and members may cast their votes now. The result of the vote on amendment 440.1, in the name of Annie Wells, is yes, 27, no, 81. There were no abstentions and the amendment is therefore not agreed. The next question is that amendment 440.2, in the name of Monica Lennon, which seeks to amend the motion in the name of Angela Constance, be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. We will move to vote and members may cast their votes now. The result of the vote on the amendment in the name of Monica Lennon is yes, 82, no, 27, there were no abstentions, the amendment is therefore agreed. Our final question is that the motion in the name of Angela Constance on International Women's Day, as amended, be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. We will move to vote and members may cast their votes now. The result of the vote on the motion in the name of Angela Constance, as amended, is yes, 82, no, 27, there were no abstentions, the motion as amended, is therefore agreed. The decision time will now move to members' business in the name of Alec Rowley, and we'll just take a moment to change seats.