 The next item of business is a debate on motion number 607, in the name of Jamie Hepburn on gender and the workplace. Can I invite members who wish to speak in the debate to press their request-to-speak buttons now? I call on the minister, Jamie Hepburn, to speak and move the motion, 14 minutes, minister. Are there abouts? Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. I am very pleased to be able to open this afternoon's debate, the first occasion that I have opened a debate, as minister for employability and training on a subject as important as gender equality and the workplace. It is a subject which I think I am right in saying that, to a great extent unifies rather than divides our Scottish Parliament chamber, as it should, because, although progress has been made and is continuing to be made, women in Scotland continue to face a multitude of barriers and inequalities in relation to the labour market. Challenging those inequalities will be a priority for the Government going forward. Scotland's economy rests in the talents of our people. We, as anministration, and I am sure collectively, as a parent, would all agree that we can only really have a fully participative economy by harnessing our collective strengths and by harnessing those collective strengths we can be more productive, more innovative and more successful. To truly maximise our country's potential, Presiding Officer, we must break down the barriers that women experience in relation to work. Women, in particular, are the focus of this afternoon's debate, but this applies to other groups too, including people from ethnic minority communities, disabled people and people who have experienced economic deprivation. Indeed, there will be many individuals who fall into one or more of these groups opening them to multiple barriers. On Monday, the Scottish Government published a research paper on new perspectives on the gender pay gap. One of the key findings of the research is that the pay gap differs greatly by age group and is a particular problem for older workers. The paper also reinforces much of what we know about the causes of the gender pay gap, occupational segregation, discrimination and the inequality of unpaid care between men and women. I am pleased that you have mentioned me the reference to older workers and older women workers in particular. Of all the briefings that we have had, there is quite a big deficit in research on policy. Is the minister going to address that in relation to the next of this Parliament? I will always be open minded to, as I know that we have been meeting for a while now, this is my first opportunity to welcome Ms McNeill back to Parliament. Let me do that if it does not feel somewhat late in the day in doing so. I will always be open minded to hearing suggestions as to where we could be doing additional work to look at any gaps in terms of data that we collect and to reflect further on the point that has been made by Pauline McNeill. I will be very happy to look at that. If she wants to contact me directly about it, I would be happy to respond to her on that point as well. The paper also provides us with some reflections on the prevailing attitudes to the roles of men and women in relation to work and home. However, the first thing for us to welcome is the substantial reduction in both the full-time and overall pay gaps in Scotland over the long-term. The overall pay gap in Scotland reflects all workers. Full and part-time currently stands at 16.8 per cent, still too high, but down from 26.6 per cent in 1997 the full-time pay gap in 2015 was 7.3 per cent, some 2.4 per cent lower than the UK figure of the same year and down significantly from 18.4 per cent in 1997, so there has been considerable and positive progress. However, if there is one word used to describe the gender pay gap time and again, it is persistent. First, we welcome the progress. We are not complacent. We are clear that achieving gender equality in the workplace will require action in lots of different fronts. One such area that we must focus on is that I mentioned a few moments ago. That of occupational segregation, the concentration of men in higher-paying forms of employment and women in lower-paying job sectors and industries is arguably one of the biggest drivers of the pay gap, which is reflected in the amendment in Mr Rowley's name. Let me say at this early stage that we will be very happy to support Mr Rowley's amendment this evening. I hope that Parliament will join us in doing so. It is, of course, not an easy issue to address. The process whereby men and women are chaffed into different jobs starts early, perhaps even from birth, when gender stereotypes start to be imbued, not maliciously and not nefariously, perhaps even unconsciously. So rooted are those traditional ideas about what is gender appropriate in our society. All of us, if we are honest with ourselves, will be guilty of perpetuating in that unconscious manner. I have referred to, even in small ways, from the language that we deploy to the toys that we buy for our children. Those gender constructs start very early, and they are easily carried into and through a child's education and into adulthood. That is why challenging the gender stereotypes that lead to girls and boys feeling that they cannot study some subjects or do some forms of particular employment is vital—it is essential—to challenge such stereotypes. We are seeking to do this on a number of fronts and with the help of our partners. It is a top priority for the Government's developing the young workforce programme. We have set ambitious targets to increase the gender minority share in the most balanced, called subject groups and modern apprentice frameworks by 2021. We are also investing £1.5 million over the next three academic years through the Scottish funding council in a programme of equality projects across Scottish colleges and universities. We will continue to support third sector partners, including Equate Scotland, and close the gap to support the recruitment, retention and return of women in sectors where they are underrepresented. We encourage workplace cultures and practices that support and sustain gender equality and help young people to challenge gender stereotypes in subject choices and careers. We are also taking decisive action to combat pregnancy and maternity discrimination. That follows a report published by the Equality and Human Rights Commission last year, which revealed that one in nine new mothers are forced out of their jobs every year as a result of pregnancy and maternity discrimination. We would do well to reflect the fact that not only is that totally and utterly unacceptable, but it is against the law. I am therefore happy to announce to Parliament that I will personally chair a working group to identify action to tackle this unacceptable discrimination, including by developing guidelines for employers to ensure that they meet their legal obligations. The group will also work with NHS Health Scotland to ensure that work environments are safe and healthy for pregnant women and new mothers and to provide employment rights information for pregnant women at first contact. I will be very happy to speak with any member of this Parliament who has a particular interest in the area if they want further details and to keep Parliament informed of the work of that working group as it moves forward. Presiding Officer, the inequality of unpaid care between men and women is also a significant underlying driver of the pay gap. Women are more likely to work part-time in order to juggle caring responsibilities of children and grandchildren, but also disabled or elderly family friends or neighbours. The impact of women disproportionately shouldering those responsibilities is reinforced by a further piece of research published on Monday investigation of pensioner employment, which looks at the experience of working pensioners. That research suggests that women or female pensioners tend to work in lower-skilled jobs than their male counterparts, again as a result of balancing work with caring commitments. That is not necessarily new, but what is interesting from the new perspectives and agenda pay gap is just how ingrained traditional attitudes about the roles of women and men are in society. According to social attitudes surveys, there remains a persistent general view that women rather than men should make the compromises necessary to balance family and work a view that is shared by both women and men. I thank the minister for taking intervention. He is very interested in the contribution about unpaid care. In the legacy that has been left from the previous Parliament and the new powers that are coming to this Parliament, will we be looking at the unpaid care aspect under any new DWP proposals coming forward to Social Security's Committee with the fact that unpaid carers perhaps would be looking more favourably in regard to sanctions if they are perhaps late for appointments or anything like that? I think that we will need to remember that not all of this area will become the responsibility of the Scottish Parliament, so we would not want to give unpaid carers out there the sense that we will be able to do absolutely everything in that area. What I can say, though, and having been the minister with the responsibility for Scottish Government policy for carers, is that I think that we do have a good track record of doing what we can to support such individuals. Of course, we, as a Parliament, just passed the carers act earlier this year, and it will now be for my colleague Eileen Campbell to implement that legislation, but I think that that does indicate that, where we have control of responsibility, we will do what we can to better support Scotland's unpaid carers. On the point of making about social attitudes, the prevailing view of both women and men is that it should be women rather than men making the compromises necessary to balance family work. It has interesting consequences for how improvements in family-friendly working policies and flexible working opportunities might impact on the pay gap. For example, if it is predominantly women who take advantage of those opportunities, it is conceivable that the overall pay gap will widen rather than narrow. That does not mean that we will stop promoting family-friendly working practices and flexible working opportunities far from it. That will continue to be a priority for us. It is incredibly important that we address the pay gap experience by older female workers and female pensioners who wish to continue to work. However, I think that we should support men to access those opportunities, and encourage employers to support women and men to return to work following a break, if that is their choice. The carers act that I have just referred to should make a difference in that regard, too. We have also announced that we will try a new women returners project to help women back into work after a career break. That project aims to address the issue by working with employers to get the right processes and training in place to support women to transition back into the workplace, if that is their choice. We are using the new powers transferred through the Scotland Act 2016, an area that was just raised by Ms White. That is an example of where we are using our new powers. We are using the new powers transferred through the Scotland Act 2016 to remove the fees for employment tribunals, because a strong legal framework only protects women and all workers, if they can access it. Just as we will continue to champion the living wage, which we know helps women who account for... I think that the member should be coming in to his last minute. I know that he has taken interventions, but if it is a brief one, I have no difficulty if the minister has not. No, no, by all means. I thank Jamie Hepburn for his large S. It is just on the tribunal fees point. Is the member aware that Unison has so far made two applications for judicial review of tribunal fees, both of which have been dismissed by the High Court, as there was insufficient evidence that the drop in claim since the introduction of fees was due to an inability to pay? I am sure that the member thought that that was a tremendously clever point, but what I can and know is the answer. I was not aware of that fact, but what I am aware of through my own work with the Cymru Uncle Scython Employee Workers Centre, an important organisation based on my constituency, is the tremendously negative impact on low-paid workers that the introduction of those fees has had in terms of their ability to access justice, and we will stand by the move that we have taken going forward. As the point that I was making, Presiding Officer, we will continue to champion the living wage, which we know helps women who account for 65 per cent of employees earning less than the living wage. Right now, working with the poverty alliance, we have over 550 accredited living wage employers in Scotland. We aim to reach 1,000 such accredited employers by autumn of 2017. We pay the living wage to all those who are covered by our own pay policy, and it is probably an appropriate juncture to set out that that is the reason why we will not be supporting the amendment in the name of Ms Wells, because she refers to us who should be welcoming the UK Government's introduction of the national living wage. We know that that is anything but a contract. It is not the living wage that is set out by the living wage foundation. That is the living wage that we will stand by. That is the one that we will continue to pay so that low-paid workers, especially low-paid women, can benefit by it. We will continue to do all that we can to ensure that we take every effort and stride to reduce the gender pay gap and ensure that women have the same opportunities as men in the Scottish workplace. I move in the motion in my name. I give the minister some extra time for taking interventions and alcohol, Annie Wells, to speak to and move amendment 6 to 7.1. I welcome, as I am sure many do, Scottish politics's strong engagement with issues of gender equality. Scotland's largest tea parties are now led by women, Ruth Davidson, Nicola Sturgeon, Kezia Dugdale, and as Ruth showed last week in the televised debate, women can be as formidable as any man. I am not, however, naive in thinking that everything is hunkidori. There is much more to be done to promote gender equality in public life. Although female employment figures in Scotland are at a record high of 71 per cent, only second to Sweden, I want to look at more complex forms of inequality in the workplace. To address that, we need to look at the lack of women in STEM subjects, the gender pay gap and issues surrounding inflexible and unaffordable childcare. As it stands, women are still underrepresented in a variety of spheres. While female employment recently hit record highs in Scotland, women make up only 36 per cent of public boards, less than 35 per cent of MSPs and 24 per cent of councillors. As Equate Scotland does much to publicise and address, women continue to be underrepresented in science, technology, engineering and maths. For example, in 2014 we saw that only 3 per cent of engineering modern apprentices were female. In a recent Education Scotland report, it was found that only girls only represented a mere 20 per cent of higher computing. That is why I am pleased to see that the Scottish Conservatives support for the Royal Society of Chemistry at an endeavour to get STEM specialists into primary schools. With regard to pay, there is still a sizable pay gap between men and women. Women managers earn on average 22 per cent less than their male equivalents across the UK, and a woman earns on average £80 for every pound that is earned by a man. That is why I welcome the UK Government's proposal to push business employing more than 250 employees to publish the difference between average male and female employees. We are lucky as MSPs to work in an environment where pay is transparent and fair. Unfortunately, that does not apply everywhere. The likes of Norway, Belgium, Iceland, Italy and the Netherlands and Spain have all introduced mandatory gender quotas by supporting claims that they can speed up women's representation where it is developing too slowly, and that provides a positive counterbalance to existing discrimination. What is not to like? I believe that gender quotas are not the best tool to achieve equality and diversity for a number of reasons. Firstly, positive discrimination of this sort runs at the risk of alienating women who have achieved their position on merit. Quotas could foster attitudes that women have been successful only because of that, rather than being recognised for their achievements. Quotas tend to drive their own behaviour, fulfilling the targets but masking and ignoring underlying problems with organisational attitudes and infrastructure. Gender quotas can have an intentionally negative effects, continuing to entrench gender inequality. That is most clearly seen in Norway, where a small number of women sit on multiple public boards in order to fill the gender quota commitment of 40 per cent. That has led to a small group being nicknamed Golden Skirts. A recent study found that, over a period of four years, eight women had more than 16 directorship appointments compared to only two men. That only needs to serve a very narrow group of women, rather than securing wider benefits. It has also been shown that stock prices and asset values dropped following the introduction of quotas in Norway, and that led to younger, less experienced and less capable boards. Nor are gender quotas fully supported by British Business. A recent study by the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development found that 60 per cent thought that mandatory quotas should not be introduced. Several respondents felt that mandatory quotas could result in a numbers game, rather than addressing the real issues concerning female progression to senior roles. I share that view that quotas lead to the glossing over of structural problems once the boxes have been ticked and targets have been met. The factor that I find most convincing against quotas is that they undermine women's confidence in their own abilities, as colleagues presuming that they have reached their position only because of their gender, rather than merit. Studies by the psychologist Healman between the mid-80s and the mid-2000s found that women who were hired and explicitly identified as being hired under quotas were generally seen to be less competent in deserving of their positions. That applied even when it could be demonstrated that they were as competent and qualified as their male colleagues. The work of the UK's Davies commission has shown that a voluntary business-led approach can be successful instead of using mandatory quotas. There are now no all-male boards in the FTSE 100, and there has been no shortage of experienced capable women to fill those seats. Women in boards UK now count nearly 10,000 aspiring women in their network. An executive search companies have also adopted a second voluntary code to promote transparent and fair recruitment practices. All of that has been achieved without the need to rely on mandatory quotas. There are clear alternatives to mandatory quotas in order to boost female representation. Promoting good work-life balance is crucial to ensuring both women and men can thrive in organisations. Accessible and affordable childcare arrangements are a critical part of that, and I have referenced them in my amendment. The Scottish Government plans to double childcare for three and four-year-olds, while 30 hours a week is again, in theory, fantastic. Hours are split into blocks of three hours in 10 minutes. For the majority of living hectic lives and for anyone working 95 or shift-type patterns like I did in retail, the numbers, although high, are unworkable. Glasgow-based campaign group Fair Funding for our Kids has worked tirelessly to highlight that issue. Beginning their focus in the city, they now champion reform countrywide, arguing that families are not able to make the most of their entitlements because of the unsuitable hours offered by most council nurseries. We need innovation. Like we have seen in Sweden with the use of a child credit or voucher system, parents should be able to use their hours how they wish using a mixture of private, local authority and partnership care. That is the only way that we will be able to accommodate any increase. As it stands under the Scottish Government's proposals, doubling childcare eradicates the one-day models, made up of one morning and one afternoon sessions. A new nine-to-three model will require huge investment in childcare, something not accounted for by the Scottish Government. We estimate that 650 new nurseries will need to be built and 3,250 new nursery staff trained. The move to 30 hours of equal result in a 40 per cent reduction in available council places, with 72,000 places needing to be found. I am actually in my last minute, sorry. In Glasgow, it is estimated that there will be a shortfall of nearly 3,500 nursery places for children aged between 2 and 5, and that is echoed elsewhere in the country. What the Scottish Conservatives championed is establishing unbiased HR policies that are regularly monitored and reviewed. It is also a step in the right direction. That includes establishing a transparent recruitment process, free of bias, organisations must also do all they can to retain talented women. That can be achieved through dynamic career planning so that employees have a clear sense of direction, solid promotional opportunities for women and high levels of support, training, coaching and mentoring for all staff, regardless of gender. Closing the gender pay gap between men and women would also make for a fairer system, and providing positive female role models within an organisation sends out the message that women can get on. What all of that boils down to is that they need to have an open and supportive culture in an organisation, one that values merit and one that allows women to rise through their ranks. To conclude, rather than rigid quotas, I would like to see women's progression supported by open and supportive working cultures, transparent and unbiased recruitment processes, clear career paths and good work-life balance, achieved through flexible working and appropriate childcare provision. I will ask you to move the amendment, please. I welcome the debate. The lively interest that has been created in the debate and the number of briefs that we have seen coming in from many different organisations shows how important this issue is viewed across Scotland. What also shows is that there is a lot of expertise out there and a lot of organisations that want to see Scotland making really good progress. In the discussions that we have had so far in terms of the community's brief, we have said that to be able to create a joined up strategy across Scotland and an inclusive strategy is the only way that we will actually make real progress on so many of the issues that sit across this brief. Added to that, of course, is that we need joined up government. As we will see and as you can see through the briefings that have come forward, the many issues that are to be tackled, as the minister said, there are many actions on many different fronts. If we have to actually achieve those actions on many fronts, then we need joined up government here, working with the joined up local government, working with the dynamic third sector that we have in Scotland. That has got to be our aim if we are going to move those issues beyond simply having debates in this chamber to actually make really good progress. I accept and why I would be supportive for the motion is that progress has been made but we need to make a lot more progress. I am also pleased that the minister has said that he would accept the amendment that has come in from Labour. I will quickly say in terms of the Conservative party amendment that we need to stop confusing the increase that George Osborne brought about in the minimum wage with a real living wage. It creates confusion and the two are not the same thing. I mentioned the briefs and many of the briefs that came in. One that came in from Close the Garp talks about education and skills pipeline. Gender segregation is evident along the skills pipeline, with assumptions made about the capabilities and interests of girls and boys from preschool onwards. From a very early age, fixed ideas based on gender norms and stereotyping influence the decisions that children and young people make around subjects and career choices. That is absolutely correct. I was thinking this morning about the time that I visited the aircraft carrier project in Versaith. I went on the new aircraft carrier and came off and was in the meeting and somebody said to me, did you notice very many young women, girls out there as apprentices or as engineers on the ship? I said no. They said that if I had gone to any other major engineering project across Europe, I would not have found that same situation. There seems to be a British or a Scottish thing going on here, and we can maybe learn some of the lessons from the rest of Europe in terms of encouraging people for a young age. Indeed, most of those engineers that were on that carrier project would be earning fantastic salaries and a real bright future in front of them, but yet, in Scotland, we do not seem that to be the case. I also reflected when thinking about that my visit just a couple of weeks ago, two weeks ago, to the Kelty community centre, one of the head teachers had asked me to come along for the STEM family morning. It was a catchment of the beef catchment era, primary schools, and it was children and their parents and their guardians, their grandparents in some cases, all carrying out different exercises around STEM. One of the points that was made to me by those teachers there that day is that they actually have to involve families and encourage families to encourage children to get involved in the different subjects that they are. It would be right, of course, for me to also flag up to the former education secretary that, in terms of the STEM subjects, local authorities have a difficulty in many areas in recruiting the specialist teachers, so there are issues there. Already, I think that demonstrates the need for joined-up thinking, and at a local level, as was evidenced to me in Kelty that day, you need local strategies that are also put in place to match a national strategy. I can never stop saying enough about the need to ensure that we do have a joined-up strategy. The briefing from Engender, I thought, said to me really described exactly where we were when it said, the gender pay cut persists at 14.8 per cent with women who work part-time earning 33.5 per cent less than men working full-time. Women are 75 per cent of the part-time workforce. Women have less access to occupational expansions than men. Women are 66 per cent of the paid workforce living and poverty in Scotland. On average, women earn 175.30 per cent less per week than men. 64 per cent of those workers paid below the living wage are women. 40 per cent of low-paid workers are women working part-time. 55 per cent of workers on zero-hour contracts are women. I just thought that these statistics were quite stunning and should galvanise us all in this chamber to say that, actually, yes, we should debate this but we should start to look at what action we are actually going to take as we move forward. It was mentioned earlier when the minister spoke about social security and the powers that are coming into this Parliament in terms of social security. Again, Engender pointed out in terms of social security that the Scottish Government has the opportunity to design replacement programmes with gender equality as a central aim. New powers over employment support offer the potential to design programmes that take account of particular barriers faced by women in the labour market. Failure to do so will ensure that women are further entrenched into low-pay, low-valued and often less secure work. There is something specific moving forward using the new powers, social security powers that are coming into this Parliament that we would be able to do if we so wish. I was struck by another point that was made by Engender and that was in terms of workers' rights. They say that legislation introduced by the previous UK Government and plans by the current Government have severely restricted and will serve to further restrict trade union activity in the UK. Again, there is a lot of detail there, but there is work going on between the Scottish Government, the Scottish Trade Union, Congress and trade unions. We should ensure that we address those issues. The STUC and our recent report on women and work partnership project highlight a lot of accessible, flexible and affordable childcare that emerged as one of the main barriers for women fully participating in the labour market. I certainly know as a grandad how difficult it has been when my granddaughter was younger for my daughter to be able to find the childcare and, indeed, afford the childcare. Some of the statistics that we have been giving in terms of the cost of childcare, and if I could just one very brief because it was the poverty alliance. Mr Rowley, I hate doing this too as I have done it before. The poverty alliance really highlights some of the key areas in childcare that we should tackle. I would finish by saying, let's bring all these different people together, let's not just have a debate in here, let's look at what the strategy is to tackle those issues. We now move to the open debate speeches of six minutes or thereabouts, please. Claire Adamson to be followed by Rachel Hamilton. I was very pleased that the minister had concentrated on the pay gap in his speech this afternoon, and it is an area that I want to cover this afternoon as well. I also absolutely agree with Mr Rowley in his assessment of the confusion that has been caused by the term living wage going by George Osborne, which is not our understanding in Scotland of what the living wage is. It does occur to me, and I wonder if the minister might respond to this or have a think about this, is just as we have living wage accreditation in Scotland that we might consider equal pay accreditation with the same benefits of living wage accreditation in terms of government contracts and how we do business in this country. In my office, I have the closed gap poster of a smiling young boy and a very frowny young girl. The slogan on it is, prepare your daughter for working life, pay her less pocket money than your son. I am always amazed at the controversy that has caused when there are young school children of whatever age in my office, because they often say, do you really believe that? The irony is lost on them at that stage. The males and females young people alike say that that is just so unfair. It amazes me that what is unfair to very young people quickly becomes normalised, institutionalised and condoned in our working environments. The Equal Pay Act came into being in 1970, and yet we still have such limited progress in this area. In a Guardian article in 2014 called, Mind the Gap, when will women finally be able to celebrate equal pay, highlights the work that has to be done and that we still have a 20 per cent pay gap in the UK. I want to commend Jo Swinson MP on the work that she did in the areas of mandatory publication of gender pay differences and leak tables. The big question for all of us is why is this taking so long to tackle and why are we revisiting this time and time again in this chamber? In September of last year, the Guardian had an article on the accountancy firm Grant Thompson's report, Women in Business, The Value of Diversity. It states quite clearly that women who have companies that have at least one female executive on the board perform better. That is a study across UK, US and India. Public and traded companies with male-only executive directors missed out on £430 billion of investment returns last year, and the courtesy firm found in its report that the value of women and diversity in the workplace is damaging the economy in this country. What do we have to do? Just to appoint a woman to a board and then performance will increase when everything is solved and there are no other problems going forward. However, life, as we know, is not that simple. What is probably much more likely is that the companies who value diversity at all levels within their workplace as evidenced by a woman achieving board status perform better because diversity really matters in decision making, in innovation and in all areas of business. I would like to return to my previous employment in the IT industry. In a blog piece in 2014, Fiona Woods, who was the head of home and resources in Cognis, had a blog piece about the difference between decision making, the left and right brain difference between women. She said that what it means for the IT business is that gendered differences encourage various perspectives and ideas from individuals that foster innovation. Different voices and views lead to new ideas and the creation of new services and provide valued insight to customers. What is interesting is that, in 2014, the British Computer Society was recommended that that would be done through diversity training and embedding it into our HR departments. Only in April 2016, the BCS also decided that it would recommend a fresh look at quotas. It has done some research and shows all the things that have already been mentioned today by many speakers in the Parliament about role models being so important, about the issue of the pay gap, having to be tackled part-time working childcare recruitment processes, but they have moved away from the diversity training. What they are saying is that the three perceived barriers to preventing women from achieving senior executive positions are senior male executives recruiting in their own image, the unconscious bias issues and returning to work after a career break. It is this unconscious bias that we all suffer from. Marketers will tell us, advertisers will tell us about it, but we seem to miss out on it in the business context because you cannot feel belonging to an organisation if you cannot see yourselves in the people round about working with you. Like Sandra Pickering of Open Two for a block piece, where she says, the psychology of non-conscious influence tells us that how the most powerful people look becomes desirable and normal until diversity is clearly the responsibility of the CEO and the board and the board itself reflects that diversity, then this will not change. I think that this is one of the most important areas that we have to tackle if we are to achieve gender equality in all aspects of what we do. I think that the work that has been done by a gender is very important in this area and equates Scotland to do much in the STEM subjects, but we have a lot to think about how we tackle this in the future. It is great to observe today that female members outweigh male members by 16 to 12, but that is not normally the case. Today, the motion recognises our cross-party determination to bring about gender parity. The Scottish Conservatives understand that it is vital that we tackle the root causes to help to close the gender gap in the workplace. We have proposed common sense policies relating to childcare, apprenticeships and the participation of female pupils in STEM subjects to help to redress the balance. Looking at the motion reminded me of a number of points in my own life. Firstly, my education at school, where competition was fierce but good-natured, did not necessarily prepare me for the wider world. Observing the outcomes of my two eldest daughters, one at university and one in sixth form, made me think about what the Scottish Government has done to support women from school and into the workplace, and indeed, if we have made any progress at all. Today, although 60 per cent of new university graduates are female, women are outnumbered by men in leadership positions in the corporate sector in the UK. Perhaps this reflects on the current failings in the curriculum for excellence to promote STEM subjects to females, or indeed a much-needed collaboration between the business sector and schools to create an understanding of what qualifications and skills are really needed. Research by the Scottish Conservatives has highlighted that the Scottish Government is failing to increase the number of female pupils studying subjects in science, technology, engineering and maths. In 2015, just 47 per cent of maths exams were sat by girls compared to 49 per cent eight years ago. Over the same period, the numbers studying computing fell from 24 per cent to just 17 per cent. Physics and technology numbers remain much the same, with only 28 per cent sitting a higher physics exam in 2015. Sectors that depend on STEM graduates have long complained about a shortage in applicants from Scotland's schools and colleges, particularly females. Recent figures have shown that the number of teachers in STEM cells has dropped. For example, we have 300 less maths teachers. The 152,000 college places that are lost under this Government does not help as it is shown to particularly affect women. Let us not forget that the single mother, the women returning to work or caring for her family deserve opportunities too and benefit greatly from vocational learning opportunities. The Scottish Conservatives want to expand prospects for women and have consistently made the case for more vocational and educational skills training to be aligned with business demand. Per head of population, Scotland has only half the number of apprenticeships as England, and we believe that that must change. We want to see an additional 10,000 apprenticeship starts every year by the end of Parliament. We recognise that many women count themselves out before they ever even get to a selectional recruitment process, and my experience mirrors that. Collectively, the Scottish Government needs to address why that is and what obstacles we must overcome. Like many women, my career path was peppered with difficulties, not created by a dearth of ambition or lackluster attitude, but by a recruitment process dominated by men in suits. In 1992, girls had to be as tough as ever. I remember manning up and shifting my acquiescent manner to an attitude that allowed me to be treated as an equal or one of the boys, as they say. My own experiences have shown me the need to challenge pregnancy and maternity discrimination. Understandably, my natural instinct was to be with my first-born daughter. Many of you may remember Nicola Horlick juggling a multimillion-pound fund manager's job and five children setting an almost unachievable target for many women. After getting to grips with looking after a very new baby and guided by maternity laws at that time, I headed back to work just after 12 weeks, grappling with a full-time job that was ill-suited for motherhood. A request to my boss for flexible or part-time hours was greeted with the answer that if he allowed me to have special working hours, all the men in the organisation would have to be treated the same too. My options were to shut up or get out. The underrepresentation of women in the workplace has been a persistent issue in both public and private sectors, particularly in senior positions. However, it is worth pointing out that the latest ons labour market figures show that UK-wide employment rate for women is at 69.2 per cent and is the highest since comparable records of 1971. It is clear that when we get gender balance right, corporate success improves dramatically. The benefits of women in boardrooms brings a new way of thinking plus other elements that men are not predisposed to. In Scotland, we are fortunate to have a number of noteworthy women working in our significant public sector roles. Auditor General Caroline Gardner, Alison Derolo, recently appointed solicitor general for Scotland, Dr Catherine Calderwood, chief medical officer and Elaine Lorimer, chief executive for revenue Scotland, are all key role models. There is much more work to be done particularly in relation to the retention of women in the workplace and their progression up the career ladder, but those women set an example proving that senior board-level positions are achievable. They have earned their place through merit, just like their male colleagues. I would argue that the recruitment and selection process plays a more significant part in achieving board and senior level representation, and it is an area that we should be tackling. It is true that promotion comes at just time when women start to have families with expensive childcare and few meaningful family workplaces. I seem to have come to an end, so I am going to close there by just saying to close, Presiding Officer, that it is disappointing that we have lost college places and created more barriers and not extended more provision to childcare. I am sure that through the Parliament we can work together to overcome those challenges. Thank you very much. I hope that one day that we will not have to have this debate as gender in the workplace will be irrelevant. For me, it was not until I worked in the private sector that my gender became something that I felt was an issue. I was brought up in a household where I was never made to feel that I could not achieve anything because I was female, and then on to university where, as you know, you exist in a forward thing called liberal legality and bubble. It came as a bit of a shock to me when I encountered discrimination in the workplace, not really just because of my gender per se, but because I did what thankfully a lot of women do—I decided to have a baby. I had recently been in charge of some major projects after only being with the company for a couple of years, and there were talks of management training programmes coming my way. When I asked for a meeting with the managing director to let him know my baby news, I got the first indication that all would not be well. I thought that you were interested in your career, he said. I took only three and a half months off from maternity leave, because maternity leave and pay was not as good then as it is now. When I came back, there was no further talk of management training. My maternity cover replacement was kept on, and large projects seemed to go to them instead of me. I dared never to ask for any flexibility to any working day for fear of further discrimination that would disadvantage much like Rachel Hamilton has just said. I lasted two more years in this environment until I went into teaching, into the public sector, when, having my second baby five years later, I found out that attitudes to returning mothers were completely different, supportive, flexible and non-discriminatory. As a consequence of that and so many other things, I stayed in that job for 15 years. Which organisation got the best bang for their buck out of me as a worker? The flexible, supportive one or the one who could not go over the few months of maternity cover that had cost them? Still, I am 18 years on from that negative experience that I had, and the Government motion cites a great range of drivers towards helping women to make a substantial contribution to Scotland's economy, and I welcome every single one of them. If there is a theme to my contribution to this debate, it is that those drivers do not cost companies money, they make companies money, they are an investment. Recruiting and keeping good quality workers is key to a company's success and profitability. Annie Wells is not here just now, but she talks of the cost of childcare. I am just going to talk about the cost benefit of childcare, although I am not really going to talk about childcare. Those measures aren't just there to help parents and largely women to access the world of work. They are measures that will grow their economy. I want to stress that those drivers help fathers play an equal part in their children's care as well. I remember reading a study from the Institute of Public Policy Research a couple of years ago, which concluded that one of the main provisions that contributed to an increased female work rate was being given more control over their working schedule. If work was flexible, women tended to be able to work more hours and stay longer with an organisation. Allowing flexible working unlocks employee potential, improves productivity and, as we have seen in a lot of cases in the Nordic countries, leads the way on this, particularly Sweden. When we talk of flexible working, there is a tendency to assume that that means part-time work. That is largely the case at the moment. The difficulty that we face is the nature of most part-time work in Scotland's private sector. Part-time work opportunities are disproportionately allocated to more elementary occupations relative to and at the expense of professional occupations, and those professional institutions are missing a trick. That is not to say that they are not part-time workers in the professions, but the IPPR study found that most of us, as a result of negotiation, once a full-time worker was in post. For women re-entering the workforce from a period of no employment, that is a real problem, in that the availability of part-time flexible work at the recruitment stage is so skewed towards low-skilled, low-pay work. That means that professions are missing the skilled women who are looking for work within their skillset but wanting flexibility to fit in with their family commitments. By not advertising that part-time and flexible work is available, companies are limiting their pool of talent on which to draw. For every woman re-entering the workforce after their break to care for her children, that has to take a lower-paid job, underneath her skillset, just because it is more flexible and fits in better with her family life, it is not just the woman who loses out, it is also our economy. It is a missed opportunity for our business to recruit and retain talent. It is less tax being paid. Gillian Martin for giving way. I agree with everything that she is saying. Does she accept that in Norway and Sweden and in those countries that the childcare is far superior, but they also raise taxes to be able to ensure that that happens? One other thing that I would also say is that they are in control of their entire fiscal area, so though taxes are coming back, I made a comment on that in one of another debate that I was making about how the Norwegian Prime Minister cites that women working and paying tax is being the number one source of the wealth of Norway. If we had that fiscal arrangement, we would be able to look after all our money. I am sure that we would be in a situation where we would be able to generate a lot more money as well. It is less tax being paid, it is skills being underused, it is a sheer and utter waste of education and expertise, and it is a major contributor to the gender pay gap. I heartily welcome Clare Adamson's suggestion on this pay equality accreditation. He nearly got a standing innovation from me. Professional women driven into work below their skillset due to lack of flexibility costs Scotland money. Flexible working for dads 2 might mean that we have a future where debates of this nature are not needed. Today, children and young people have unprecedented access to technology, but having an iPad at your fingertips is not necessarily going to lead to a young girl aspiring towards a career producing software or designing apps. If she does, like we have heard today, already she knows that it is very likely that she will achieve more but earn less because of her gender. On the day of the Scottish Parliament elections last month, I was standing outside Whitehill neighbourhood centre, which, as well as acting as a polling station, was also serving as a social community hub. Two girls from primary 7 nearby Beckford primary school struck up a conversation with me. They began by giving me some political advice that parties should work together more. They said that politicians in general should stop shouting at each other. With current events in mind, I wonder if they are available over the school holidays to offer further counsel. What struck me most about the conversation was that they were very excited about coding. They were learning how to code in class. They were also very aware that, if they went on to work in the technology industry, they would be paid less than their male counterparts and would be less likely to reach senior positions. That was their expectation. At the age of 11 in Scotland in 2016, here were two young girls standing outside their youth club, telling me they expect to earn less than boys and not have the same opportunities, even though they might have the same or higher qualifications and abilities. They understand the gender pay gap. Both of the girls were articulate, confident, funny and very smart. Instinctively, I could tell that they have so much to offer to our community, our economy and our wider society. Dozens of times since our conversation, I thought of them and I feel guilty that we are letting them down. Today, we have talked a lot about the leaky pipeline in STEM subjects that these girls either choose not to pursue science and technical subjects through school and university, or if they do not continue on to STEM careers or reach senior levels such as in male counterparts. We have heard a lot of the statistics and I will not repeat them, but the evidence is stark. 73 per cent of women who graduate in STEM subjects do not stay in the sector, which is an enormous waste of potential. Last week, I saw that the Herald covered national women in engineering day, which had been launched by the Institute of Civil Engineers Scotland. The article highlighted Scotland as an extra 440 new civil engineers this year to meet its needs, yet further education, engineering students are down by a third since 2010 and seven out of eight ICE members are men. I welcome the Scottish Government report to address under representation of women in STEM and recognise that that will be done in partnership with the Scottish Funding Council, our colleges and universities, and I welcome the additional £1.5 million investment in equality projects. However, more must be done, Deputy Presiding Officer, and Scotland has to catch up. Sarah Tyam, director of ICC Scotland, points out that Scotland lag behind much of Europe in terms of gender-balanced workforce, and she warns employers who ignore the benefits of attracting more women into the profession risk becoming increasingly marginalised. Further, Belinda Oldfield, a Scottish Water Executive, says that it is quite shocking that less than 7 per cent of parents with girls would recommend engineering as a good career route for their children. As Jamie Hepburn alluded to, old-fashioned attitudes do persist and do so in our homes, in our schools and in our workplaces. However, today we should recognise some of the good practice that is out there and close the gap that has already been mentioned. The be what you want work across schools is enabling young people to make informed subjects and career choices, encouraging them to take or to pursue non-traditional jobs. That initiative also provides resources, important for teachers and career advisers, on occupational segregation and gender stereotyping. Also, the Institute of Physics has produced a study that finds that career materials are not gender-neutral, so there is a huge amount of work to be done to make sure that this good practice can be rolled out further. We know that if children are conditioned at a young age to conform to gender roles, then barriers will reinforce the structural inequalities in our labour market. I have been sitting here again thinking about my own daughter who has come home from school and activities on numerous occasions to complain that the teacher or the coach is not a feminist mum, because I have asked strong boys to volunteer to lift some chairs or have assumed that girls do not want to play football. I am heartened that many young women are growing increasingly impatient and I reflect the comments that Claire Adamson made, and they are not willing to put up those attitudes that are holding them back. Much of what I was going to say has been said, but I want to pick up on the issue around gender quotas, because quite simply there is a lot of rubbish being said about that today. We know in this chamber that equality does not just trickle down, it is not enough to have a few women in positions of political leadership. That simply does not do. I note that Annie Wells is speaking tonight at the parliament event to try and encourage more women to stand. I hope that we will have a genuine conversation at that event. There are some excellent speakers on the programme, at least of all Nancy Sloan, who has done terrific work across this field. However, we have to challenge those misconceptions out there that gender quotas somehow produce women who do not have the same merit as men. We have not seen progress sustained in this chamber. It is a fact that it is simply as a result of the success that the Tories have had at the polls that did not have enough women candidates. That is why we have seen this Parliament stagnate in terms of women's representation. The member is just concluding, and I hope shortly. I have been told to sit down, but I hope that you are coming to the event tonight, because I think that we have to continue this conversation. I do not think that I was so rude as to say sit down. Can I move on? It is Christina McKelvie to be followed by Alison Harris. It is with the same pride and the exact same passion that I continue to address as a society and structural imbalance that affect women. With this imbalance being particularly relevant to women within the workplace. For all of my life, whether it be as an MSP, a trade union official or an activist, I have always championed the fight for women's equality. I will continue to do so, because it seems to be in my DNA. It is with great privilege that I support this motion and I welcome the release of the report from the Scottish Government, which ultimately shows where the Government's priorities lie. In reducing the mass discrimination felt by women in work, thus giving those women the privilege often solely enjoyed by men. Opportunity. The opportunity to carve out a successful and thriving career, not based on anything other than their talent and their fortitude. The opportunity to break out of the cycle of poverty and leashing a woman's full potential to the world of work. The report shows that the pay gap in Scotland has reduced substantially from 18.4 per cent in 1997 to 7.3 in 2005, which we still have a way to go. That means that, for a whole generation of girls and young women taking their first tentative steps into the workplace, they can do so without having the same fear and gender restrictions that once controlled them or their mothers or their grandmothers. For that, the Government should be congratulated, but we will not rest on our laurels that I have already said. There is still a way to go. We will not be confined to the small-time kitchen mentality that once defined a generation of our women. It is through specific policies of this Government that we have sought to address the societal imbalance that I talk about. That can range from the transformative funding for quality, affordable childcare that we have implemented and continue to do so, to the initiatives that we have taken to tackle maternity and pregnancy discrimination within the workplace. I am sure that we will take up a topic in the Equality and Human Rights Committee at some point. If you will forgive me, it is of the latter point that I wish to return to what has already been well-worn debate over the past week—the European Union. The European Union provided extra safeguards against maternity and pregnancy discrimination. The EU pregnant workers directive, for example, which guaranteed the right to paid time off to attend antenatal appointments, benefitting over 430,000 women workers per year. That now faces an uncertain future, but I suspect from this place that it won't. Those are the rights that now come under severe threat, a threat brought on by the pure complacency of a Westminster Conservative Government that was too preoccupied with a peace in its right-wing factions that I forgot what it left behind. What did it leave behind? It left behind the hard-fought-for workplace rights of society progressives throughout Europe. Undoubtedly, that uncertainty will impact greater on the precarious women worker than it will with any other cohort. It is this theme of precarious work and gender-specific work that this Government seeks to address in the future, and indeed the published report calls for more to be done to tackle the occupational segregation that still exists between genders. I will just highlight that South Lanarkshire Council is still to sort out its gender pay gap after all of those years. Why should women conform to the atypical maternal career role that society often expects of them? What can't women seize the reins of prosperity and occupy that which the report deems to be the highest-earning occupations, the managers, the directors, the senior officials, the doctors, the consultants, the lawyers? It is on this point that this Government moving forward will really make its voice heard, and I suspect many across this chamber will raise that voice too. The ambition to have diversity in the boardroom, to have 50-50 by 2020, is an ambition that is challenging but certainly worthwhile, and things that are worthwhile are usually never easy. I may say to you that well-behaved women seldom make history after all. It is my determination that when the next generation of women— Why to take that personally, Ms McKelvie? I think that many of us can, Presiding Officer, many of us can, and I absolutely welcome the fact that we do. It is my determination that when the next generation of women reach the world of work, that there will be no glass ceiling or sticky floor to their ambition, there will be no restriction on their ability to dream, what will matter will be their talent, their skill, the hard work and, rather than sex or gender of the individual, that is what we will focus on. For the plurality of modern apprenticeships available to the living wage—and I mean the real living wage—for social care workers, to the family-frending work in Scotland partnership, this Government has set out bold and transformative policies that can accelerate the decline of disparity in help-transform women's lives in the workplace. Along with many of my colleagues across the chamber, women and men are sure that we are all committed to ensuring that we create the best environment for our women and our girls to work and grow in. If we do that, we make the world a better place for our men and boys, too. Alison Harris, we are followed by Ruth McGuire. I am delighted to have the chance to take part in today's debate, as it is a vitally important subject. It is important for a variety of reasons, but above all it is crucial that we ensure that women face no extra barriers because of their gender in their chosen careers. It goes without saying that women contribute a huge amount to our businesses and public services, and it is essential that they continue to do so and that they have the opportunity to do so. A quick glance at the latest labour market figures from the ONS show that, across the UK, the employment rate for men was 79.3 per cent between January and April this year, compared to 62 per cent for women. I understand that the latter figure is the highest since comparable records began in 1971. In Scotland, the Scottish Government's annual population survey reports that the employment rate for women between April 2015 and March 2016 increased over the course of the year by 0.2 per cent, from 69.5 per cent to 69.7 per cent. That compares to an increase of 1.1 percentage points for the rest of the UK, from 67.5 per cent to 68.6 per cent over the same period. Clearly, progress has been made both nationally and in Scotland, but there is still a great deal that needs to be done to achieve greater parity in this regard. Deputy Presiding Officer, I want to turn briefly to occupational segregation, one of the barriers that prevents women from fulfilling their potential in the labour market. Fundamentally, women should have the opportunity to work in traditionally male-dominated industries in science, research, engineering and technology occupations. The breakdown between men and women is 78 per cent and 22 per cent. In skilled metal, electric and electronic trade, only 2 per cent of the workplace is represented by women. Now, if women do not want to work in these sectors and occupations, that is fine, but what happens if they do want to work there? We need to overcome the stereotypes that often underpin occupational segregation and we need to give women the opportunity to enter traditionally male-dominated sectors. To this end, we need to look at skills training and apprenticeships and we need to encourage more women and girls into studying STEM subjects, an area where the SNP's record is woefully poor. Regarding apprenticeships, in Scotland there is a huge gender imbalance. Skills Development Scotland figures for 2014-15 show that, while they are broadly equal at modern apprenticeship level 2, by level 3, around 2 times as many men start and at level 5, 10 times as many men start, that is clearly disappointing and the reasons for that need to be understood and addressed. Equally, there have been some disappointing figures relating to the number of females studying STEM subjects. Skills Development Scotland emphasises that those subjects are dominated by men and, extremely worrying, 73 per cent of STEM graduates are lost from STEM occupations compared to 48 per cent of males. Furthermore, while some STEM subjects have seen improvements, there are still some worrying signs. In 2007, the statistics show that of students who took higher computing, as we have already alluded to today, 20 per cent were female whereas in 2015, we can see that only 17 per cent of those studying higher computing are female. Those figures highlight that the trend is going in the wrong direction. It is abundantly clear to me that only by giving women the opportunity to learn skills and undertake training in these sectors can we hope to make any meaningful progress in addressing the gender imbalance. That has to be kept in mind through all stages of life and education. Girls must be encouraged starting from home, through primary, secondary schools, to apprenticeships and on to universities. While I believe that opportunities and encouragement must be given to females to study those subjects and enter male-dominated workplaces, I must state that it is not my belief that we should impose gender targets across the workplace. I believe that women deserve to be chosen on their own merits. They should be chosen for their talents and because they are the best person to do the job, not because they happen to be female. Across the political landscape, private industry and our public services, women have reached the top, not because of a quota imposed by the powers that be, but because of what they have to offer. Artificial quotas are not the answer. The solution lies in education and in providing sensible policies that knock down existing barriers. Like colleagues across the chamber, I strongly welcome the recent publication of new perspectives on the gender pay gap. In particular, it is conclusions that the gender pay gap both full-time and overall continues to reduce and that it is lower in Scotland than in the UK. Of course, we still have a long way to go and I equally welcome the reports highlighting where the work is most needed, as well as our Government's clear commitment to working with partners to continue to tackle the gender pay gap and other gender-related inequalities in the workplace, to ensure that nobody in Scotland faces barriers to subject or career choice due to their gender. As we have heard today, many of those gender-based inequalities disadvantage exclusively or predominantly women. The gender pay gap is a clear example, as well as issues of pregnancy and maternity discrimination and affordable childcare. Occupational segregation, however, is a workplace inequality of detriment to both men and women, as well as to the overall social and economic wellbeing of Scottish society. Although women are disproportionately affected by occupational segregation in financial terms, clustered in undervalued, low-paid and unpaid work, a situation that is unfortunately familiar in other industries too, in terms of fulfilment of individual potential, both men and women lose out. If we look at the impact on wider society, we all lose. As much as we need more female scientists, we also need more male nursery teachers and male social care workers. I am sure that some colleagues will share my concern that a series of recent reports have shown that despite higher numbers of women studying STEM subjects than ever before, successfully building a career in science remains difficult for women. Firstly, there remains strong, unconscious and subtle bias against women in the publications and research grant applications process. It has been shown that both men and women rate identical scientific papers more highly when they are submitted under a male name, that female authored submissions are reviewed more harshly and that men have higher success rates than women when applying for research grants. A recent study by the British Medical Journal has also shown that the number of women listed as lead author in high-impact journals has plateaued or declined since 2009, at a level below women's representation in the medical community. That is all crucial because securing academic funding and getting published are central to pursuing a career in science. In addition to women's voices not being taken as seriously, a recent House of Common Science and Technology report highlighted how women also have to compete against structural bias, with initial scientific careers dominated by short-term contracts and poor job security, often exactly when women who wish to are looking to start a family. That can leave women faced with a choice of career or family. Not only does the glass ceiling in science stop women from fulfilling their individual potential, in economic terms, the late Professor Ailsa Mackay estimated that the lack of women in science and engineering occupations represents a loss of £170 million a year to the Scottish economy. In policy terms, we lack female voices as the input of more than 50 per cent of the population when it comes to research and provision of evidence that will drive future healthcare policies and standards of care. As such, it gives me great pleasure to note the Scottish Government's recent announcement of £79,000 of funding to continue the career-wise programme set up in 2013 to offer female undergraduates paid employment with STEM employers. I welcome the continued Government funding of the partnership project to close the gap, dedicated to addressing women's inequality at work, as well as the establishment of an advisory council on women and girls to advise on tackling workplace and occupational segregation. Although women often have the required scientific qualifications but face difficulties in pursuing a scientific career, in terms of men entering into traditionally female domains such as childcare, we have yet to overcome the first hurdle of encouraging men to study their relevant subjects in the first place, with college courses focused on care strongly dominated by women. Not only does this gender bias hinder individual men from fulfilling their potential, it also can limit the experience and development of our young children. It is crucial for them to have positive male and female role models from an early age to experience different perspectives, interaction and play in their nursery setting. Of course, crucially, to see that caring, nurturing and empathy are healthy and positive for men and women. I have mentioned them before, but I will take the opportunity again to commend the work being done in my constituency by Ayrshire College for its on-going efforts to challenge gender stereotypes and promote the role of men in care work and inspire more men into the profession. They recently held a successful recruitment event to encourage men into programmes such as their HNC in social care and their early education and childcare courses, which featured the testimony of men working in care and was advertised by what I thought was a very evocative and powerful hashtag of this man's cares. Tackling occupational segregation and addressing all matters of inequality is not just about fairness, it is about Scotland's overall economic and social wellbeing. I look forward to supporting the Scottish Government and working with others in the chamber and partners locally and nationally to make sure that skills available to employers are not limited by gender stereotypes and that men and women have equal opportunity to fulfil their potential. Andy Wightman, to be followed by Fulton MacGregor. Thank you, Presiding Officer. On behalf of the Scottish Green Party, I very much welcome the Scottish Government's report, New Perspectives on the Gender Pay Gap and the news that the pay gap in Scotland is in long-term decline. The report makes clear, as others have pointed out, however, that the pay gap is a complex phenomenon and so that, although the overall trend is encouraging, progress has been less impressive in sectors such as older workers and in those in senior positions. Of the many factors at work in producing the gender pay gap, as we have heard, horizontal occupational segregation is a significant one. Having raised the issue during the Holyrood elections this year, we are particularly grateful that the report, or we particularly welcome the fact that the report focuses on the severe underrepresentation of women in particular sectors of our economy and overrepresentations in others. For example, women are more likely to find themselves in work such as retail that is insecure, undervalued and poorly paid. As we continue to argue for a real living wage and better working conditions for everyone, regardless of their gender or employment, it is clear that that alone will not be enough to eliminate the gender pay gap. As we have heard, under employment of women in science, technology, engineering and maths is particularly acute, according to Labour force survey, figures of women represented only 13 per cent of the UK STEM workforce in 2014. Segregation within education and training is a serious and on-going problem. For example, between 2010 and 2015, there was only a 1.5 per cent increase in the proportion of female modern apprentices in engineering and a dramatic fall of around 35 per cent in information technology. The apprenticeships in which women dominate such as early years' care and education and hairdressing are shorter in duration, less generously funded, have lower rates of pay, higher drop-out rates and poorer labour market outcomes. That is all the more of a pressing problem, given the major skills in STEM sectors of our economy. Scottish Power, for example, has warned of a major skill shortage in the energy sector, with 80 per cent of its engineers due to retire within the next 20 years, and at present only 16 per cent of the energy workforce being female. The Scottish Green Party manifesto called for an occupational segregation commission, and so we welcome the Government's very similar plans to establish an advisory council on women and girls, to advise on action to tackle workplace and occupational segregation. Although there has been laudable ministerial focus on occupational segregation for some years, not enough progress has been made to open up sectors of the economy closed to women. I hope that the advisory council will help ministers to redouble their efforts. I want to move on briefly now to the role of employability support in helping to address pay gaps. As Alex Rowley observed earlier, a recent report by Engender argues that current employability programmes, particularly those delivered by the UK Government, do not sufficiently consider the employment challenges facing women. An individual's readiness to work is influenced by their education and skills, by their caring responsibilities, by their safety at home and in the workplace and by the types of work that they are able to access. Women have different experiences than men in all of those areas. Employability programmes need to, but do not currently take account of those differences. Indeed, with the closure of the Edinburgh Employment Charity Women into Work last year, there are currently no employment programmes specifically targeted at female job seekers. As gender and labour market experts close the gap note, the generic skills support that is offered by current employment programmes, especially by the UK Government, is likely to replicate gendered patterns of skills acquisition and employment, and it is likely to entrench further occupational segregation and widen the gender pay gap. As we prepare for the devolution of the UK employment programmes next year, I urge the Scottish ministers to consider how the Scottish replacements for the work programme and work choice schemes can be made gender sensitive. The promotion of women's economic equality should be a cross-cutting theme of employability programmes, being included as part of funding and evaluation criteria. I would also commend Clare Adamson's proposal for equal pay accreditation, and I would suggest that the Government explore all possible options for encouraging businesses and employers to step up to the mark on equal pay, including options around, for example, how we deliver things like the non-domestic rating regime to businesses. I would also like to mention briefly the UK Government's scrapping of employment tribunal fees, or rather its introduction of them. Official statistics show an 81 per cent drop in claims lodged between April and June 2014, compared to the same time in 2013, with six discrimination cases reducing by 91 per cent. That is why we called in the election campaign for an end to tribunal fees, and we welcomed the Scottish Government's pledge to do that when the power is devolved, because clearly people who feel that they are being discriminated against must have access to justice. To conclude, the new perspective on the gender pay gap report was very clear that inflexible working practices are a major barrier to women's access to employment and a cause of the gender pay gap is a wealth of evidence, both in that report and many others, to suggest that women bear the brunt of employers unwillingness or inability to offer flexible working. We require very great cultural and attitudinal changes by employers, and the Scottish Greens offer all support to the Government in achieving a reduction in the gender pay gap. It accords very much with our fundamental principles of equality, peace, environmental sustainability and radical democracy, and we look forward to working with the Scottish Government to further those aims. Fulton MacGregor, followed by Mark Griffin. Let me just start by saying that I am very pleased to be given the opportunity to speak in this important debate. I welcome the substantial difference that the Scottish Government has made in relation to the gender pay gap and the advances in recent years are incredibly encouraging. I believe that this improvement is in no small part due to the Government's progressive policies in areas such as the living wage and childcare policies that have already been mentioned by other members. The plans to increase free childcare further to 30 hours per week will bring more benefit for families and particularly mothers across our country. In this day and age, it is disgraceful that some women are unfavourably treated just because they are pregnant or because they are a mother. That results in many feeling that they have no alternative but to leave the employment and it can of course continue to impact on them in the future. Increasing childcare will help to counter that but I feel that there needs to be a more understanding, compassionate and inclusive approach across all sectors in supporting parents and, as I said, particularly mothers. Female employment, as we have heard, is on the rise and the pay gap continues to decrease but there is more we can do and I welcome the plans set out by the minister earlier today. While there have been great steps taken in relation to the gender pay gap, all of us here recognise that there is still some way to go. We must continue to put pressure on organisations throughout the country to put an end to gender pay inequality as quickly as possible. On that note, I intend to use the remainder of my time to highlight the problems facing many employees, both serving and retired of North Lanarkshire Council surrounding equal pay claims that have been going on now for many years. I would point out to members at this stage to declare an interest, sorry, that I was a councillor at North Lanarkshire Council until just earlier today, and that is unrelated to this debate. While the issue of equal pay has affected male employees, the overwhelming majority of those affected are female. What worries me is the way in which North Lanarkshire Council, alone not alone, has fought the equal pay claims by its workers for more than a decade. Some members may know that there have been two claims—I am sure that Clare Adamson will agree with me here—first wave claims relate to the period prior to the introduction of the new job evaluation based pay arrangements in 2007 and the second wave claims relate to the period after the introduction of those arrangements. I am also deeply concerned at reports that some employees have been told that they must sign confidentiality agreements and some have the offer of compensation withdrawn in cases where they have discussed their settlement with peers or published it online. There have been concerns and disputes over whether those claims are pensionable. North Lanarkshire Council still has not ruled out a legal challenge to the Scottish Public Pensions Agency, which ruled that ar ears of pay should be pensionable. That relates only to the second wave claims that I mentioned, as the council has already accepted that the first wave claims should be pensionable, however, on that point, Mark Irving from Action for Equality Scotland told me just yesterday that, and I quote, the first wave claims have been adjudicated by a formal decision of the Glasgow employment tribunal in May 2015. North Lanarkshire Council accepts that those claims can and should be made pensionable if the claimants wish so, but over a year after the decision, the council has still not actioned people's requests. That is absolutely unacceptable. North Lanarkshire Labour must recognise that the money that has been awarded is not compensation or some sort of bonus, it's back pay of wages previously short paid. The sad fact here is that people are dying in some cases without seeing their claims completed. The workers of North Lanarkshire shouldn't have to keep fighting for what is rightfully theirs, it's time for the council to own up, step up and make those payments. The Labour Party in North Lanarkshire regularly highlight the financial position of the authority, and I think that we all accept that all levels of government in Scotland face budget constraints caused by continued unnecessary austerity from the UK Government. I would suggest that North Lanarkshire's problems are largely down to its over-reliance on PPI projects, some of which have left the people of North Lanarkshire with crippling repayments. In addition, it seems to me that if the council had settled those equal pay claims earlier and sorted out the issue at the first opportunity, they wouldn't find themselves feeling that they must now fight this claim from staff, which is a legitimate claim. There is now a new leader in place at North Lanarkshire council, and I welcome that he has said that he is keen to resolve this matter. I do hope that he does now deliver for these workers who have waited for so long. Needless to say, however, should the SNP take control of North Lanarkshire in May, there will be changes around how the council conducts itself in matters like that. I also feel that I can assure people involved in equal pay claims that should the SNP emerge as a majority party next year, there would be an aim to have the claim settled at the earliest opportunity. Equality in the workplace is not something that we should have to engage lawyers to achieve. It is something that we should be provided in all walks of life without any question. Mark Griffin, to be followed by Ben Macpherson. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I welcome the opportunity to speak in this important debate today about gender and the workplace. We should challenge discrimination and loss of opportunity wherever we see it. There is no bigger impact than that of gender discrimination. Fifty per cent of the population affected by the issues raised by engender in their briefing for this debate—I thank them and the many others who have contacted MSPs with briefings—shown how important that issue is taken inside and outside the chamber. What they said was that occupational segregation, ungendered employability programmes, unpaid caring roles, violence against women and different forms of discrimination all contribute to the gender pay gap, which is a key indicator of women's inequality in the workplace. I have a seven-month-old daughter, Eva, and my wife and I will do the best that we can to give her the confidence and the skills that she needs to succeed. I can already see how bright she is. I have visions of her growing up into a successful engineer or scientist. There is certainly no danger of gender segregation in the Griffin household. However, the point here is that she should not have to work harder or need the extra encouragement to pursue a career in science or technology than her neighbour's baby boy, who was born just a few weeks later. In our approach to the debate today, we have suggested an amendment that highlights that the employment and industrial barriers that women face have a negative impact on Scotland's economy, with the Royal Society of Edinburgh explaining in its recent report that the lack of women in science, technology, engineering and mathematics jobs is a loss of a potential £170 million a year to the Scottish economy, a point that was made by Ruth Maguire in the debate. I appreciate the Government's support for our amendment this afternoon. I have said before in this chamber that the Scottish Government must prioritise supporting women into STEM industries, where they are currently grossly underrepresented. I think that we need to take a look at the jobs and industries that will give people the best opportunities to succeed. Those will be the high-skilled, high-paid jobs in science, engineering and technology. There just isn't a future for Scotland as a low-skill, low-wage economy. There isn't a future competing with developing countries for those jobs and how we give all of our young people—or people who want to retrain—the chance to get a job in a high-tech industry will play a massive part in how we take our country forward. To do that, we need to break down the barriers that women face. There is a massive prize to aim for. According to research, more than 7 million jobs in the UK will depend on science skills by 2030. Those STEM jobs are exactly the kind of jobs that we need. We need high-quality, high-skilled, highly-paid jobs, which other emerging economies cannot compete with us for. I studied mechanical engineering at university. A key source of skills and graduates for that sector is a course that provided fantastic opportunities for high-skilled, high-paid work. There were 120 students on my course. Four of them, just four from 120, were women. How this Government opens up careers in science technology to half of our population will determine how successful they are at tackling issues of gender in the workplace. It is clear from the engender briefing that curriculum segregation is still evident at school and college and even before we get to universities. In colleges, women are clustered in art and design, 72 per cent care, 73 per cent hairdressing and beauty, 97 per cent and languages, 64 per cent. Men are more likely to be found studying construction, 92 per cent engineering, 87 per cent nautical studies, 93 per cent and land-based industries, 68 per cent. That is a figure that you see repeated again and again and again. In universities, more women study subjects than men related to medicine, social studies and languages, while men dominate in mathematical and computer science, engineering technology and architecture. As far back as the high school classrooms, subjects are being gender divided. Young men study in technological studies at 93 per cent, graphic communication at 71 per cent, physics at 72 per cent. More young women study in home economics at 92 per cent, administration 77, biology 64 and art and design at 82 per cent. The figures in that engender briefing make stark reading and I think it will probably just confirm what most of us will already know, but, as I said before, there is a big prize to aim for, those 7 million jobs in the UK that are going to depend on science skills by 2030, the jobs for the future that we need. We have a challenge in giving people the skills and training that they need to apply and succeed in this area, but if we simply accept the barriers to half the population advancing in that key area, then we have already lost out. For Eva and for the other women who are battling to succeed, we all have to do more. I also welcome the publication of the Scottish Government's report on new perspectives on the gender pay gap, illustrating that the gender pay gap is lower in Scotland than in the UK and has reduced substantially over the long term. I also welcome the minister's opening remarks and the content of the motion. The title of today's debate, Presiding Officer, is gender and the workplace. However, as has been evidenced, the overarching issue for discussion is, of course, the wider matter of gender inequality and its importance to us all. Let's be clear, as detailed in the Labour amendment and passionately and articulated by Gillian Martin, that gender inequality not only undermines the integrity of our society but also significantly undermines our productivity, our competitiveness and the fulfilment of our economic potential. Therefore, I very much welcome the wide range of Scottish Government policies designed to help to close the gender pay gap and the progress made by the Scottish Government from encouraging payment of the living wage to increasing free childcare, from challenging pregnancy and maternity discrimination to addressing occupational segregation, towards working towards gender balance on boards, to promoting family-friendly and flexible working. Those policies are and will make a difference and we should support them. Presiding Officer, I would also like to congratulate employers in my constituency and across Scotland who are paying the living wage at the moment and also the local and national initiatives who are promoting payment of the real living wage. That is an extremely important matter for creating equality and also enhancing demand and productivity in our economy. Furthermore, I would like to congratulate proactive national organisations, for example, Family Friendly Working Scotland, who are working directly in the area of gender in the workplace, specifically. I look forward to meeting them in the coming weeks to learn more about the progress that Scotland is making as well as the challenges that we still face. Presiding Officer, as well as highlighting the progress made, the report also recognises that a significant gender pay gap persists for some age groups, sectors and occupations and explores key drivers such as traditional social employment or attitudes and culture. In light of that, I would like to comment on the corporate private sector of our economy and particularly the corporate legal sector. Prior to being elected, I worked as a commercial lawyer with one of Scotland's many outstanding firms. With a female chairperson, a high proportion of female partners and increasing opportunities for flexible working, the business that I worked for was impressively sensitive and aware of gender equality matters and had a forward-looking human resources strategy. However, the legal sector as a whole is an interesting industry to examine when it comes to issues surrounding gender in the workplace. As reported in December 2015, Scotland now has more female than male solicitors for the first time, after a sharp increase in the number of women qualifying as lawyers. Figures from the Law Society of Scotland revealed that 51 per cent of Scottish solicitors are now women. That figure rises to two thirds for solicitors under 40 per cent and 64 per cent for those admitted in 2015. However, women are still underrepresented when it comes to senior roles with private firms, as well as at the bar and in the judiciary. More strikingly and unjustly, according to data from July last year, the gender pay gap for solicitors in Scotland is currently a staggering 42 per cent. That is totally unacceptable. I highlight that not only to raise awareness of this deep inequity but also to emphasise the wider point that significant gender pay gaps persist for some sectors and occupations and that that, again, to reiterate is because of traditional social or employment attitudes and culture. In the corporate world, for example, there is normality and expectation of long working hours, and often unnecessary presenteeism is prohibitive to those with young families or ambitions for a reasonable work-life balance. While shifts in social attitudes are occurring and while our Scottish Government is taking action to encourage this where it can, as outlined by the minister earlier, for clarity it is important to acknowledge that much of the policy agenda relating to gender equality in the workplace and many of the potential solutions orientate around employment law and company law, neither of which this Parliament has power over. In those times, and to echo what Christina McKelvie said, it is important to acknowledge the valuable contribution that European law and European Union membership has made towards strengthening employment rights, including in areas directly related to gender equality in the workplace. Therefore, Presiding Officer, as well as endorsing the resolution before us and the Scottish Government proposals within it, let us also bear in mind that securing Scotland's continued membership of the European Union matters and it matters when it comes to building more equal workplaces in our country for our fellow citizens and for generations to come. We now move to the last of the open speeches. Sandra White, please. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. If I could just turn to Christina McKelvie who mentioned about cheeky women, I would not call myself cheeky, but I would like to say that the reason and one of the ways that I was involved in politics was that when my kids were young there were absolutely no play groups, no nurseries, anything at all, and I took on board that. I started up these summer play schemes and through that I became elected as a council. It was the only way that I could continue with that. I did not see myself as being cheeky, I just saw that as being an injustice. Obviously, it was a woman and her children who were actually being hard done by, but I know that other people within the council saw that as being cheeky, simply because I was a woman. I thought that I would throw that in and let you know that being a cheeky woman or whatever or injustice certainly set me on the road to politics. Presiding Officer, I welcome the contribution that the minister has made today and others as well as I think that it has been a very, very good debate, but in particular the minister's contribution which recognises the inequality of unpaid carers, which many members have highlighted, affects more women than men. Indeed, women provide around 70 per cent of unpaid care and twice as likely to give up paid work, which is a very hard choice in order to care for someone, which means that 74 per cent huge amounts, 74 per cent of claimants for carers allowance, are indeed women as well. I take on board what the minister has said in regards to the welfare powers being devolved. I welcome the Scottish Government's commitment to equalise carers allowance with jobseekers allowance once carers benefits have been devolved. I think that that will make a big improvement and I thank him for that explanation also. Alex Rowley raised an issue that I wanted to raise as well in regard to other programmes that are coming forward from the DWP to the Scottish Parliament, the employability programme, the works programme and the choice that has been devolved under the Scotland Act 2016, which was already mentioned by the minister. I believe that that gives this Parliament and the Scottish Government the opportunity to look at programmes with gendered equality basically as a central aim of these work programmes. I look forward to having meetings and through our committee also, but also exploring the concept along with the new powers of employment of support, which takes into account barriers that are faced by women who are in work and who are returning back to work. That is a huge barrier when you are on even some form of carers allowance where you can only get a certain amount of money. Indeed, I am sure that all of us here have had constituents who have only been allowed to work a couple of hours a week, simply because if they are just above that, they completely lose all of their carers allowance, even if it is for a disabled child or whatever. That is no way to encourage people into work and as women make up the largest amount of carers, I think that it is discriminatory against women. I look forward to looking at that part of the Social Security Committee. One of the areas that was raised in Clare Adamson and raised it at the very beginning of her speech or later on was the unconscious bias. I think that we are all very, very aware of the unconscious bias that exists. Monica Lennon raised it even further with the fact that she was speaking to a couple of girls at the polling station. They were unfamiliar with the fact, but did not seem to mind—excuse me for saying that—that, even though they were going to get a job that is exactly the same as men, they were expecting to get less moneys. That is really quite shocking and it is quite worrying that young girls in this day and age expect that. That is an unconscious bias, not just from their point of view but from the point of view of what has been put out there. I am going to come to that particular part. I want to come to the media with my last couple of minutes. We really need to tackle that particular issue of unconscious bias. We will have to look at the situation in which Mark Griffin picked up on that in regard of careers. There is huge discrepancy in careers. We have to support people in their homes and schools. We have to look at career advice as well. We need to look at what is happening in schools and why young girls are being put down that road—maybe not being put down that road, but not being encouraged to take up other forms of employment. We looked at that in the Equal Opportunities Committee, the previous committee that I was on. We certainly looked at that and there was some evidence there that perhaps they were not getting the best career advice, but I can return to the media. We all pay attention to that, but they are never called to account for the way that they portray females, young and old, in the media. We just need to look at anything at all in the newspapers, in the TV or whatever it might be. The way that they portray women—I am not even talking about the page 3 or whatever it might be, certainly I do not think that they are like me on page 3, but never mind. I am not even talking about that. I am just talking about the fact that they see very, very flippant about women and girls in careers. Young girls are very susceptible to peer pressure. They see that forthcoming through newspapers, on trains, buses or whatever it might be, every other day, that women are not given the proper place in the society and that filters through to jobs and the level of jobs that they can receive and also the perception that men have of them. I think that that is something that we really, really need to tackle. I know that I have only got two seconds left, Presiding Officer, so I will finish just now. I think that it is a very, very good debate looking at all various aspects of it, but we really need to look at the media in this. If they can put forward positive images of young girls, women and females, then maybe it will be a wee bit long and at the line of looking at this unconscious bias. Thank you very much. Now move to closing speeches. I call Pauline McNeill for six minutes please, Ms McNeill. Presiding Officer, I most sincerely welcome the Scottish Government report new perspectives on the gender pay gap, new solutions perhaps, and listening to the debate this afternoon, perhaps perspectives haven't changed as much as we would have liked. Inequalities remain deep and, as the wonderful briefings that we have had from organisations like Engender, which say that the grotesque disproportionate impact on women still exists. As members talked about this afternoon, occupational segregation is a real challenge and I wholeheartedly welcome that Jamie Hepburn is going to be chairing the advisory council for women and girls. I think that it has the possibilities of making a generational difference. However, we know that women have always had to fight for their rights in society, the bias that Ruth Maguire talks about in an excellent speech, cheeky or otherwise, as Sandra White said. However, I hope that the next generation of women who will continue to fight for their rights will recognise that we have made progress, but they will know that we still have to travel far. Women are the front-line victims of austerity, women have fewer assets, they are less likely to be part of an occupational pension scheme, staggering that they are 92 per cent of low-emperience and 75 per cent of part-time workers. Globally, according to Oxfam, women form the majority of those in the world living in poverty, exposed to violence, forced marriage and, of course, the lack of basic education for girls across the world is still staggeringly low. Gender inequality, according to Oxfam, is the most serious and pervasive form of discrimination with half of the world's population being women. Only 37 per cent of the GDP is generated. As many women have talked about this afternoon, they are seriously held back by structural bias. Gillian Martin talked about the importance and the contribution that women make to the economy that has been missed. Find things that show that women value in their employment, things such as support in line management and support for their return to work, whether it be through illness or maternity leave, are things that women seem to value more than men. In the STUC report, the Women's Voice and Women's Work, which is an excellent report, if you have not read it, talked positively about that there is an unprecedented interest in a collaborative and engaging approach to women in the workplace. Issues such as long-term job security, financial rewards remain problematic. Issues such as the unequal promotion opportunities for women and the lack of research and understanding the barriers to women's employment. I am pleased that Jamie Hepburn, the minister, has acknowledged the work that needs to be done in research in that particular relation to older women. I believe, like many other women, that a woman's place is in the union. I think that perhaps trade unions are an unexplored source for researching barriers for work. I would like to commend the minister if he has not already thought about talking to the trade unions and sharing the advisory panel. As a former full-time trade union, I officially testify to the many women who would face a lone employment discrimination if they were not for their unions. Unions themselves remain male dominated. In fact, it highlights that, organisationally, women are not represented at the top. 50 per cent of men and women are not in trade unions. I think that it matters for another day, but it highlights the issue of women who probably need to be in trade unions. The question of older women in the workplace is that there are issues such as the health deficit for older workers in general, and the demographics show that we need to address it because that demographic is going to be increasing for the next two decades. I just want to say a word or two on the issue of childcare. I think that we have to ask ourselves the question, what does flexible childcare actually look like? I do think that it is one of the policy areas that does require a national all-party focus, and I do not think that we have caught this quite right up until now. Of course, Scottish Labour supports free childcare, we introduced it when in government, and I support this, but I do think that sometimes it has been at the expense of working out how we could create a more flexible childcare policy and workplace nurseries in particular. Gillian Martin also talked about the importance of childcare and how women could actually work a lot smarter and longer if they were given that flexible aspect of childcare. The causes that many members have talked about of the pay gap, I think that we are all agreed that occupational segregation is one of the main causes, the way that society is structured in Mark Griffin and others, and Monica Lennon just talked about how early that sets in in a girl's life if she does not have parents who are going to promote that she has an equal opportunity, and the role that women play in caring, of course, is vital to that. I am glad that the Scottish Government is going to accept Labour's amendment, and I spoke to the fact why we think that that is important. Of course, we will not be supporting the Tory amendment tonight, as Ben Johnson and others have said. We support the real living wage, and not the one manufactured by John Osborne, to undermine working families' tax credits. I never met a Tory in my union career who either supported the minimum wage or their living wage. They are very convenient supporting it now, so for no reason we cannot support the Tory amendment tonight. I support the main motion tonight, amended by Scottish Labour. I call in Liam Kerr around eight minutes, please, Mr Kerr. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. We are grateful to Jamie Hepburn for bringing this debate. As shown by the small amendment, there is much with which we agree. Certainly, Jamie Hepburn is right to say that many stereotypes start early and feed through to adulthood via course choices, and we agree that it is essential to challenge such stereotypes. Monica Lennon is right to highlight gendered materials. I am particularly glad to hear Gillian Martin bringing up flexible working for dad, something that I am particularly passionate about. Above all, we do not argue with Alex Rowley in his call for a joined-up strategy, and we heed his call for action from the Scottish Government, not more debate. But there is much good work being done. Indeed, in my own experience as an employment lawyer, principally advising the oil and gas industry, it is notable that the generalised statistics and blunt conclusions relied on by some mask many subtleties. As Ben Macpherson says, 51 per cent of the 11,000 practising solicitors in Scotland are female. 64 per cent of those are under 40. The percentage of female executives at a major oil company that I have dealt with more than doubled between 2000 and 2014. On a side note, I can reassure Christine McKelvie that the UK legislation goes well beyond the European de minimis on maternity and pregnancy. The positive change towards more gender-balanced industries is hugely encouraging, although we would accept that it is a long way from generalisable across all sectors. However, all of this progress, all of it, has been done without mandatory quotas or top-down dictates. The reason the legal profession is attracting more women is because it realised that a more balanced workforce makes for a better workforce and adapted accordingly. It is also increasingly receptive to flexible working and family commitments. More women have been attracted into the oil and gas industry because universities, technical colleges, schools and industry have worked together in a joined-up approach to make the industry more attractive. The three largest parties here are currently led by women, not one of whom got to that position because of quotas or positive discrimination. Those women and before them, Annabelle Goldie, Wendy Alexander, Joanne Lamont, got there because of ability and on merit. As Annabelle said at the outset, imposing equal numbers of women on to boards rather than selection on merit leads to deterioration in operating performance, negative attitudes and responses towards the promoted women, the masking of underlying problems with attitudes and infrastructure and ultimately the devaluing of women in both their own self-esteem and their perception by those they work with. Gender quotas and positive discrimination are not just anti-meritocratic in principle, they are also counterproductive in practice. Monica Lennon Thank you. I wonder if Liam Kerr would like to explain—we've talked a lot about merit, but we see your benches are full of men. Is there a problem with conservative women and your party? Were they not good enough to be selected? Liam Kerr On the contrary, we simply need the Scottish electorate to do what it started to do a month ago and start voting for more Scottish Conservatives, and that's the way to increase our benches. The reason there are fewer women on boards is not a function of institutional sexism, although I accept that there may be a residual element. There are myriad. As many speakers have said, there are myriad social and economic factors at play, including, as Clare Adamson rightly says, unconscious bias. We should achieve equality by winning the argument, not by bludgeoning businesses into compliance without addressing the fundamentals underpinning the current differences. Moving on, I would be surprised if this chamber did not support our amendment in relation to encouraging men into careers that a female dominated. As Rachel Hamilton says, that cannot be done in the context of cutting 152,000 college places. We need more men in teaching, for example. Far too often, we read reports that young men turn to crime or bad behaviour due to a lack of male role models in the school environment. Only 9 per cent of primary school teachers today are male. 9 per cent. In education overall, the numbers hovers around 23 per cent. I think that's appalling. I fully support Annie Wells when she says in her amendment that work must be done to support male and female representation across all professions. Ruth Maguire, I thought, spoke very well on that. I simply cannot imagine that this chamber will refuse to support our amendment on that basis. I cannot conclude the response without briefly turning to the contribution of the Liberal Democrats. Those coming in late or who have popped out during this debate may not be aware that the Liberal Democrats have made no contribution to this debate, mainly because not a single one has attended it this afternoon. Perhaps that's only to be expected from a party that has no female MSPs or MPs, has never had a female leader—either hero and Westminster—and this year, in this past election, saw a well-respected, hardworking female MSP toppled from the top of the north-east regional list to be replaced by a man. I mean no offence to the member personally, but it hardly screams equality. I do not want to kick a party that is down much, but on a motion such as this, I find that unacceptable, and I find it unacceptable that, on what is a cross-party collaborative approach, it has not shown up at all throughout this debate. We must do more, and we can do more, to break down the barriers that still exist in all workplaces and for all genders. Education is key. Fostering and enthusiasm in girls for engineering, science and maths is key. Encouraging the private sector is key. Getting more male teachers to foster and encourage the next generation is key. Making childcare more accessible and affordable is key. Positive discrimination and quotas are not. Nor is a semantic point on the national minimum wage, national living wage, a reason not to support the amendment. As Jamie Hepburn and Alex Rowley suggest, the Scottish Government may not feel it is enough, but I am sure that it does welcome the increase, as was craved by the motion, particularly as, when it was passed by the Chancellor, it was higher than what the SNP was proposing at the time. The chamber calls for collaboration, so let us have a bit more of that and a bit less opportunism. I commend the amendment to the chamber. I now call Angela Constance to wind up the debate, and I say that there is a little time in hand. A little bit upwards of 10 minutes, please, Ms Constance. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer, and thank you to everybody who has contributed to this afternoon's debate. There have been some thoughtful, very worthy contributions, although I am somewhat perplexed that some of our colleagues and members on the Tory benches seem to have never heard of the glass ceiling. They fail to recognise that the underrepresentation of women in every aspect of our economy and, indeed, civic life is oppressive, it is an exclusion and it is quite simply wrong. In what we in this Parliament have to guard against at all costs, yes, we have got our first woman, First Minister, and I am absolutely positive that she will do far more for women than the First Women Prime Minister ever did. Three of our party leaders are women, and, yes, in Scotland we have got the first ever 50-50 gender-balanced Scottish Government cabinet. What we have to guard against is the complacency, because having a few women at the top, particularly in this place, does not replace the absent women who are absent from our benches. I was very proud to be one of the MSPs who signed up to the 50-50 campaign. As we progress with this Parliament, I look forward to bringing forward the 50-50 legislation for public appointments to public sector boards. Obviously, we will return to this issue. We really have to guard against, particularly the women who are here. We have to guard against saying that just because we have managed to get elected or that we have managed to get into positions of powers, surely other women can manage it too, because there are very visible and invisible barriers that exist for women the length and breadth of this country. It is beholden on us, more so those of us who have the privilege of electing position and being ministers, to do everything that we can to absolutely kick down that glass ceiling. As I said, Presiding Officer, we have had some thoughtful contributions. We heard from Gillian Martin and Rachel Hamilton as they both reflected on their quite personal experiences of maternity and pregnancy discrimination. I certainly recall having to come into this Parliament when my own son was only days old, and that is most certainly not a boast. It was a matter of necessity, but it is also a matter of regret. This Parliament should always seek to lead and to set an example. That is why this Government, whether it is myself or Mr Hepburn, is absolutely determined to work hand in glove by the European Human Rights Commission, based here in Scotland, bearing in mind the plight of 54,000 women in Scotland, who, despite living in the 21st century, continue to experience discrimination around being pregnant and given birth—a time in your life that should be the absolute happiest. There has been a fair reflection of the achievements that we have made as a Parliament and as a country, but there has been an honest acknowledgement of what remains to be done. Yes, the full-time gender pay gap has decreased, and it is lower in Scotland than it is in the UK. That is the same for the overall gender pay gap figures, but our comparisons should be further afield than just our nearest friend and neighbours. Of course, the pay gap for the over-50s is particularly stubborn and persistent. It is perhaps related to that premium on caring that women in particular have. Pauline McNeill was quite right to say that we should be looking at this issue in more depth. Certainly, when I was chairing a former post-the strategic group on women and work, certainly the trade unionists represented in that group were already very engaged in those issues. We should remember that 40 per cent of families rely on help from grandparents to care for their children. It is, of course, hardening that we have a higher employment rate, with lower unemployment and inactivity, that we have the second highest employment rate for women in Europe. We also have to acknowledge that employment for women over the year has decreased by 35,000, and economic inactivity for women has increased by 43,000. When it comes to the economy, we are not out of the woods yet. We should always scratch beneath those headline statistics, because our Scottish Government research shows that countries that have pioneered the policies that the Scottish Government is pursuing do not necessarily have the lowest pay gaps. We have to work even harder to ensure that all the arrows are flying in the right direction and that we have that joined-up approach, joined-up Government and joined-up Civic Scotland. It would, of course, be remiss of me not to reiterate calls on those local authorities who have not settled their equal pay claims. It would also be remiss of me, particularly in the aftermath of Thursday's referendum result, not to acknowledge the pivotal role that the EU has played in advancing women's equality. Equal pay, maternity leave, shared parental leave and anti-discrimination laws are just some of the rights and protections that are enshrined within EU law. Whatever happens in the coming months and years, I want people to be assured that the Scottish Government will always seek to uphold those rights and to uphold those protections, which have done so much to progress women's equality. As mentioned already, the Government is accepting the Labour Party amendment. It rightly recognises the negative impact on our economy of occupational segregation and, indeed, the underrepresentation of women in our economy and, in particular, in STEM. As we all know, there are not many guarantees when you try to predict our economic future, but that focus on STEM has to be and is a sure bet. We also know that addressing occupational segregation is a particularly wicked issue. There is no country in the world that has solved occupational segregation. Indeed, there are some countries that do better in particular sectors, and we should seek to cast our eyes far and wide and learn from the best international practice. Perhaps we should all unite tonight and be determined that Scotland perhaps could be the first country to finally crack occupational segregation. We know that inequality in the workplace is solving, challenging and tackling inequality in the workplace. It is not just the right thing to do, it is actually the smart thing to do for the future of our country and, indeed, the future of our economy. If I can quote from the Bank of Scotland, who says, being able to attract, develop, fully utilise and retain top female talent is highly important to us and we recognise that companies with gender diverse senior management teams perform better. Gender diversity is absolutely good for business. It chines with our agenda on inclusive growth and inclusive growth is very much at the heart of this Government's economic strategy. We want an economy that works for the common good and we know that promoting economic growth and tackling inequality absolutely have to be two sides of the same coin. We will continue to support and promote the real living wage and we will not be supporting the Tory amendment, which in essence has a tinkering for some around the national minimum wage. Again, there is very strong evidence that the living wage is good for business. It increases productivity and, most importantly, makes people feel valued in the workplace. If I can quote one nursery worker from West Lothian, who says that the living wage also makes me feel more confident and valued whilst I am working and I recognise that I am appreciated for doing my job and that even rubs off on the children that I am looking after. The real living wage is a societal good that we should all be campaigning, supporting and advancing every opportunity that we have. Many people have focused on the importance of STEM. I want to briefly highlight that we should recognise that the number of SQA exam passes by girls in STEM subjects has risen between 2007 and 2015 and that 48 per cent of pasties in STEM subjects are from young women. Of course, we know that there is more to do. We know that young women are well-represented in biology but less so in physics. We have a startling challenge in and around ICT, for example. We have to be attracting and encouraging more women and more young people into those productive sectors. They are sectors for the future and we are really missing a trick and our economy will miss a trick if we cannot get more women into a sector that is crying out for them. As I said earlier, we really have to ensure that all the arrows are flying in the right direction. We need a comprehensive response and, in essence, that is my job to join up the strategy, join up the dots between the early years and the developing Scotland's young workforce, ensuring that those gendered action plans that the funding council skills develop in Scotland are pursuing are actually having an impact on the ground. We are advancing early years and free childcare. The biggest infrastructure project undertaken by this Government, flexible work and, as many members have mentioned, is absolutely crucial, as is the reporting of the pay gap and occupational segregation. I want to end by briefly touching upon the new powers that will come to this Parliament. It is important that we do not confuse social security powers in relation to disability and carers and benefits that are there to assist people with the additional cost of living with a disability. We should not confuse those with the limited employment programmes that are being devolved to this Parliament. Nonetheless, with the devolution of the work choice programme and the work programme, we will make different choices. There are, indeed, opportunities that Andy Wightman spoke of of having more gender-sensitive employability programmes. I am very proud of the fact that this Government has funded Scottish women's aid, who work in partnership with various local services, with an employment programme that supports women, women who have been financially dependent on an abusive partner, who have additional barriers into the workplace. There are already examples of employability programmes that are targeted at the specific needs of women. However, that is an area that we will have to pursue further, and I know that Mr Hepburn will relish that task as he takes it forward. Thank you, cabinet secretary. That concludes our debate on gender and the workplace. The next item of business is consideration of business motion 629, in the name of Jo Fitzpatrick, on behalf of the parliamentary bureau setting out a business programme. I would ask any member who wishes to speak against this motion to press the request-to-speak button now, and I call on Mr Fitzpatrick to move motion 629. Thank you, and no member has asked to speak against the motion. I will put the question to the chamber. Are we agreed with motion 629? We are agreed. The motion is agreed to. The next item of business is consideration of three parliamentary bureau motions. I ask Jo Fitzpatrick to move motion 630 on variation of standing orders, motion 631 on substitution on committees, and motion 633 on membership of committees on block. The question on those motions will come at decision time to which we now come. There are four questions at decision time today. The first question is that amendment 607.1, in the name of Annie Wells, which seeks to amend motion 607, in the name of Jamie Hepburn, on gender and the workplace, be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. We will move to a vote and members may cast their votes now. If the result of the vote on amendment 607.1, in the name of Annie Wells is as follows, yes, 30, no, 93, there were no abstentions, the amendment is therefore not agreed. The next question is that amendment 607.2, in the name of Alec Rowley, be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are all agreed. The next question is that motion 607, in the name of Jamie Hepburn, as amended, be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are all agreed. I propose to put a single question on parliamentary bureau motions 630, 631 and 633. If any member objects, please say so now. No one does. I therefore ask the chamber that motions 630, 631 and 633, in the name of Joe Fitzpatrick, be agreed. Are we agreed? Are we all agreed? That concludes decision time. We will now move to members' business. I would ask members to move quietly and I will take a few minutes to allow members to change places.