 Gordon Lindhurst will speak to and move the motion on behalf of the Economy, Jobs and Fair Work committee. Ten minutes, please, Mr Lindhurst. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. Last spring, the Economy, Jobs and Fair Work committee undertook an inquiry into the economic impact of the gender pay gap in Scotland. We heard from a large range of witnesses, and I would like to thank everyone who gave us their views during the inquiry. Whether in written evidence, Twitter stories, case studies, formal meetings or committee visits, all of those helped in former inquiry and shaped the report. This may sound slightly controversial, but we were, of course, well aware that we were by no means the first to attempt to tackle the subject. However, we wanted to try and look at the issue from an economic point of view to understand potential benefits to Scotland's economy if there were parity of earnings. First, it is important to attempt to clarify what we mean by the gender pay gap. As has been highlighted, a common misconception can be that it is about men and women being paid the same for equal work, but the gender pay gap is not the same as equal pay. In 1970, the Equal Pay Act introduced as a legal right the requirement that women should be paid equally for doing the same or comparable work. It was a disappointment to the committee to hear that, despite over 40 years having passed, this has still not been resolved and live claims remain outstanding against employers who are considered to discriminate on grounds of gender. If the gender pay gap is not defined in the same way as equal pay, what is it? How is it measured? The committee found that calculating the pay gap is not a straightforward task. Most commonly, it is carried out by comparison of the hourly earnings of men and women. Unlike other labour market indicators such as unemployment, there is no internationally recognised definition of the pay gap. That means that, in Scotland, the pay gap can vary from 6 per cent to 33 per cent depending on which measure is used. That made it difficult drawing comparisons between Scotland and other countries. To be consistent with the UK Office for National Statistics, the Scottish Government uses the full-time median pay gap, which compares median hourly earnings of full-time male and full-time female workers. The Scottish Government measure, however, excludes part-time workers and, in doing so, 42 per cent of female workers in Scotland. 75 per cent of part-time workers are women, with 42 per cent of women working part-time compared to 13 per cent of men. Without including part-time workers when calculating the gender pay gap, it is to be questioned whether the result of the measure used by the Scottish Government fairly represents the Scottish workforce. The committee has accordingly urged the Scottish Government to change the way it measures and reports the gender pay gap in its national performance framework to take into account part-time workers. As a result, the Scottish Government has at least committed to including additional information on Scotland's performance to show the position for part-time workers, and that is to be welcomed. Rather than just looking at the gender pay gap, the committee wanted to look at possible implications that it has for the Scottish economy. The committee heard evidence from a range of witnesses who spoke to the potential economic benefit of increasing women's participation by reducing the gender pay gap. Further, Scotland's specific and detailed research needs to be carried out, however. We know that women across our economy continue to be concentrated in low-paid industries and part-time work. They can be impacted at all stages of their working lives and not solely as a result of choosing to start a family or to take time out of their careers. It is particularly important in the committee's view to note the care sector and its importance in our society. It is the committee's view that the care sector, including childcare and adult and elderly care, is an undervalued but growing and central part of Scotland's economy. It is not just about childcare. Care as a sector is also representative of many of the reasons for the existence of the gender pay gap. The sector is dominated by women and is traditionally low-paid. Social care needs a more diverse workforce. It needs to be valued as a sector. It needs to be better paid. In its recommendations, the committee recognised the impact that improving pay in child, adult and elderly care would have not only on reducing the gender pay gap but on recruiting a more balanced workforce. That balance, we heard, can have a real and meaningful impact. During the course of the inquiry, members of the committee had the pleasure of visiting numerous businesses and the experiences gained from those visits are reflected in the report and its recommendations. Just a few examples. Some members visited Homesweet Home, which is a domestic cleaning agency working with self-employed cleaners. 95 per cent of their workforce is female and the agency recommends payment of the living wage as a minimum. However, the 5 per cent who are male often undertake the higher-paid jobs. One of the other visits was to men in childcare. A Scottish Government initiative and Edinburgh Council-funded initiative aimed at encouraging men into childcare. Again, childcare is normally a sector that is primarily people by female workers. However, the men on the visit spoke positively of the reception that they had experienced from families of children that they worked with. They highlighted the need for more men to show an interest in the profession. Encouraging men into childcare and supporting both women and men with wages that show the importance of care could have real benefits beyond the purely economic. I would also like to highlight the importance of flexible, agile and part-time working. The committee found that even if employers are actively looking to assist women in re-entering the workforce, they may struggle with the provision of part-time jobs and flexible working. The committee heard that in the UK, around 8 per cent of roles advertised with a salary of over £20,000 per annum offer some sort of flexible working. Flexible working can be important for different reasons and at different career stages. Without the opportunity of flexible working, women can lose out in the jobs market and we can all lose out on what their skills provide for us. The committee has heard evidence of the business benefits of offering agile and flexible working and notes that good practice of companies can positively influence maternity return rates at an appropriate time. In recent years, some companies have introduced programmes to encourage people back into the workforce after a career break. For some, this is a return to work after maternity leave, but not exclusively. The committee has heard that one of the key points at which women drop out of the workforce is after a career break, often to care for children. We were encouraged to hear that businesses and organisations have been finding innovative ways of supporting employees to return to the workforce and retrain with the assistance of appropriate mentoring. The Scottish Government's support of returners programmes and its commitment to learn from best practice and work with partner projects is to be welcomed. The committee recognises that different solutions may be needed for different sectors and that approaches to returners programmes should be tailored accordingly. There is a host of arguments as to why the gender pay gap should be addressed. I have, of course, only had the opportunity in this short speech to cover a few key points and a few of the aspects of the report that the committee produced. The subject is a very complex and wide-ranging one. The Equality and Human Rights Commission, in its written evidence on its own gender pay gap situation, as independently audited, revealed a 0 per cent pay gap across its staff groups, but that pay equality actually varied at different levels within its organisation. There is work to be done. That is why the committee recommended in its report that the Scottish Government produce an overarching strategy to address the gender pay gap, including an action plan and measurable targets. I note that the Scottish Government will undertake a scoping exercise to see if a co-ordinated cross-government action plan is feasible. The whole committee no doubt looks forward to seeing the result. In conclusion, with the political will, we can move forward in a balanced and appropriate manner to address this issue. It is a matter of fairness to all. I am very grateful to members of the Economy, Jobs and Fair Work Committee for the report that we debate today and the chance to debate it. I welcome the work that they have undertaken to build a better understanding of the drivers and reasons for the prevalence of the gender pay gap in Scotland. The written submissions that the committee received and evidence sessions have heard all underline what a complex issue it is, but the Government is not shy away from issues based on its complexity. We are determined to reduce gender inequality and to improve the position of women in the workplace and in all aspects of Scottish life. Our recently launched programme for government sets out our plan to shape the kind of Scotland that we all seek in inclusive, fair, prosperous, innovative country, ready and willing to embrace the future. As part of that, our strong commitment to equalities at the core of Scotland's economic strategy. Closing the gender pay gap is a priority both in terms of the promotion of equality but also just as fundamentally boosting inclusive economic growth. Scotland is making positive progress. The overall pay gap in Scotland, which reflects all workers' full and part time, currently stands at 15.6 per cent, down from 20.4 per cent in 2007. The full-time pay gap in 2016 was 62 per cent lower than the UK figure of 9.4 per cent and down from 11.9 per cent in 2007. Too high but still progress, but we must do more. That obviously allows me to mention the point that has been raised by Gordon Lindhurst in terms of issues around measurement. He is quite right to reflect that there is no single international standard in relation to the committee's request. We have responded. We will set out a publication of a wider range of information about the nature of the gender pay gap and a range of different measurements in Scotland performs. The fundamental thing is that, no matter the measurement, we want to see it moving in a positive direction. That has been the case here in Scotland, but, of course, we want to see it come down further still. The evidence provided during the inquiry has reinforced much of what we know about the main drivers of the gender pay gap, and it is confirmed that there is no single solution to closing it. We agree with the committee that high-quality evidence and analysis is vital to underpinning effective and inclusive policy making in Scotland. We are therefore taking real steps forward in improving our gathering and communication of data. Just last week, we published a working paper on the development of a gender index for Scotland. We will now engage in meaningful dialogue with those who have an interest in the matter as we take the work forward to its conclusion. We are already planning a workshop for later this autumn to discuss how to take the work forward alongside other data gaps that have been highlighted in the recently published Equality Evidence strategy. We must also use that data as we seek to improve it, and what we already know about underrepresentation of women in traditional male-dominated careers to guide our approach. For example, we know that women are still underrepresented in science, technology, engineering and mathematics careers, but even within the sectors where women are well represented such as in finance and law, occupational segregation prevents women from progressing to senior management positions. I also in that regard would pick up on the point and agree with the point that was made by Gordon Lindhurst that equally we need to also be taking steps to diversify the workforce in the care sector. We need more men to enter that sector, and we also need to ensure that those who are working in that sector are adequately remunerated. That is why we have committed to ensuring that those who are working in adult social care and early years childcare are paid the living wage. Segregation in the workplace, gender stereotyping and discrimination starts at an early age. Incidentally, that is one of the reasons why it is so important for us to ensure that more men work in early years childcare, so young boys have that role model that they can look to and understand that it is just as much a career for them as their female counterparts. It is also why we have been developing our STEM strategy and why we will be publishing shortly, and it is why we are implementing the young workforce strategy. In partnership with Skills Development Scotland and the Scottish Founding Council, we have set targets to increase the gender minority share, the most imbalanced college subject groups and modern apprenticeship frameworks by 2021. We know that I have seen it all too often when I am out and about that a modern apprenticeship can be a life-changing opportunity for a young person. That is why we are committed to expanding the reach of that opportunity, tackling gender imbalances and promoting equality of access through the work of developing the young workforce, the modern apprenticeship equality action plan and the Scottish Funding Council gender action plan. We have set out a number of ways that we aim to ensure that young people can be supported with their subject and career choices. Since my appearance before the committee, Skills Development Scotland has now published their equality action plan year one update. Overal, there have been improvements to the number of modern apprenticeship frameworks where the gender balance is greater than 75. From 74 per cent in 2015-16 to 70 per cent in 2016-17. That is welcome progress, but again we must see more. Skills Development Scotland has continued to work with a range of organisations to further improve the gender imbalance in the uptake of apprenticeship frameworks. We will continue to support them to ensure that apprenticeship opportunities are open to all. There is, of course, a clear need to make sustainable change to societal and cultural norms to achieve the inclusive growth that we want to see. That is a long-term commitment, not one that we will achieve overnight. We need consistent commitment from every part of the system to make lasting changes and to make sure that we tackle discrimination in the workplace. That Government is committed to that agenda. That is why I chair a working group on pregnancy and maternity discrimination. That is why we support a women's returners programme, as was mentioned by Gordon Lindhurst. That is why we have worked with time-wise and we fund and take part in family friendly working Scotland. That is why we have got our Scottish business pledge. That is why we are rolling out more early years childcare. That is very much an agenda that we are signed up to. It is not just a commitment for us all. In the political sector, of course, there needs to be a societal commitment, but the committee can be assured that it is an agenda that we as a Government are signed up to. Colin Dean Lockhart, up to six minutes please, Mr Lockhart. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. Let me start by thanking the clerks and others involved for their hard work in preparing the report on the gender pay gap. That is an important report. It deals with a complex topic that cuts across issues of fairness, equality and social justice, as well as the wider economic considerations such as low pay and skills development for women. The gender pay gap in Scotland or the UK is not unique to this country. It is a common feature of advance in developing economies worldwide. In fact, the gender pay gap in Scotland, as the minister said, stands at 6.2 per cent for full-time employees and 15.6 per cent for all employees and is at the lower end of the gender pay gap compared to many European countries. However, more needs to be done to close the gap. With that objective in mind, a major focus of the committee was to identify the underlying factors that caused the gap in pay. The committee looked in depth at a number of those factors, including occupational segregation, in particular the underrepresentation of women in STEM and other highly-paid occupations. For example, only 2 per cent of engineering jobs and 18 per cent of digital technology jobs are carried out by women. The opposite is true when it comes to lower-paid sectors, where there is an over-concentration of female workers. For example, Scottish Care, in evidence to the committee, told us that 86 per cent of their workers were women. Other factors that are heard in evidence include the low levels of women who reach senior management within organisations and women who are not returning to work after having children or are not returning at the same level, with Ernst and Young telling us that working below-scales level is an issue for women when they want to return to the workplace and the older women get, the harder that becomes. In order to effectively address the gender pay gap, it is important that we look beyond the headlines, beyond the easy solutions and address those underlying issues. That is what the committee has done. By setting out a comprehensive set of recommendations, time allows me only to highlight a few. First, we need to tackle the long-term factors that result in occupational segregation. The committee heard extensive evidence that the key to tackling occupational segregation is encouraging more young women to enter high-earning fields such as STEM-related careers. Specific recommendations to address that include improved career guidance from primary school right through to tertiary education. There was a feeling that career guidance sometimes is out of date with the opportunities available in the workforce and sometimes comes too late in the career options of pupils. There is an emphasis of maximising the uptake of women workers in STEM areas. Also, addressing the gender imbalance in modern apprenticeships, we welcome the minister's plans and his announcement in that area. There is also a job to be done in encouraging men to enter social care and other sectors that are heavily represented by female workers. The committee also recommends better support for women returning to work. That is addressed to some extent by government initiatives. The UK Government has announced a £5 million fund to support that and the Scottish Government is supporting that as well. It is also incumbent on the private sector to establish effective returner programmes for women. The committee heard powerful evidence that the valuable knowledge and skills of experienced women are not fully deployed when they return to work, and we simply cannot afford to lose this valuable talent in the workplace. We also need to consider the impact of the decline of female participation at colleges and the impact that that has had on supporting women back to the workplace. As Audit Scotland has reported, the fall in part time college places has had a disproportionate impact on female students. The committee further recommended that the care sector, as Gordon Lindhurst mentioned, should become a Scottish Government priority sector, acknowledging the importance of this sector to Scotland's economy going forward and the increased spending that has been taking place and that will take place in this sector. Changing demographics mean that future demands placed on the care sector will increase significantly, and it is important that we prioritise that to achieve a balanced workforce, improve productivity and help to make this sector fit for future challenges ahead. The committee has also called for more analysis and information on the gender pay gap in Scotland against something that the minister touched on, and we welcome working together with the Government in that area. The gender pay gap varies according to a number of factors. It is not a static one-dimensional problem. It varies according to age, social class and level of education. The committee recommends that the Scottish Government does more work in this area to analyse how we can address the gap in Scotland. In that respect, the committee welcomed the UK Government's initiative for companies reporting on their gender pay gap. There was some concern expressed that the 250 employee threshold for reporting might not capture large parts of the SME economy in Scotland, but there was some concern raised by the CBI saying that any extension of mandatory reporting to companies in Scotland with less than 250 employees would place a significant regulatory burden on those companies. To conclude, the Scottish Conservatives support steps to close the gender pay gap in Scotland. We agree with the committee's approach to deal with the underlying issues and not just the headlines or the outcomes, as the report itself concludes. There is recognition that the reasons for the gender pay gap are deep-seated and wide-ranging and need to be tackled across a number of policy areas, including education, skills, childcare, procurement and business support. We agree with that, and we look forward to working with the Scottish Government to close the gap. Things have certainly changed since you and I were first elected to the Parliament in 1999. I am delighted that I have been preceded by three men in this debate on the gender pay gap. The feminisation of debates in this Parliament continues apace. I am very proud that it was the Labour Party and Barbara Castle that introduced the Equal Pay Act in 1970, so that men and women receive equal pay for performing equal work. That, of course, followed on the Ford sewing machinist strike at Dagonham and fundamentally changed women's industrial history. We have come a long way in almost 50 years, but much, much more work is still to be done. Let us not, as the convener rightly pointed out, confuse equal pay with the gender pay gap. The gender pay gap in Scotland stands at almost 16 per cent, caused by a myriad of different complex and interconnected issues that, when you take them together, underline women's inequality in the labour market. It is the case that women are still more likely to be in low-paid, part-time, low-skilled jobs. It is the case that women are underrepresented in senior management and leadership roles. It is the case that women still have the majority of care duties, whether it is for children or indeed for older people. If we maintain the snail's pace of change that we have just now, it will take another 140 years to close the pay gap. I am sorry, but I cannot wait that long. I will not live that long for a start, but I am impatient for change, not just for my generation but my daughter's generation and the women who will follow her. I am impatient for that change for our economy, too. GDP figures announced today show that our economy grew in the last quarter, but by only 0.1 per cent. As night follows day, out came the press release from Keith Brown, claiming credit for the good news. The Scottish economy is teetering on the brink of a recession, and the cabinet secretary's response is breathtaking in its complacency. It matters now more than ever before, because lower growth rates between Scottish and UK Governments will have an impact on our block grant because of the fiscal framework. So, growing our economy is a fiscal imperative. Patrick Harvie I am grateful to the member and notwithstanding the long-standing green critique of economic growth as an overriding objective. Does Jackie Baillie acknowledge that focusing in a narrow way on GDP itself fails to understand the different gendered aspects to economic work? Unpaid caring work, for example, does nothing for GDP. A great deal of that is done by women, whereas paid caring work is seen as contributing to GDP. It is a myopic analysis. Jackie Baillie As the member will appreciate, GDP is capable of comparison across different countries, but I absolutely accept the point that he makes that there should be more quality to the statistical collections that we make that indicate what the gender pay gap is across the board. We do know that if growth suffers, there is a continuing pay gap. Over the course of a woman's working life, she will earn on average £456,518 less than a man. That is a shocking statistic. What a lost opportunity. If we close the gender pay gap, we inject a staggering £17 billion into the Scottish economy. That is transformational for our economy, but it is transformational for women, too. It is imperative that we close the gap. The committee came up with a range of recommendations covering everything from a national strategy, flexible working, tacking occupational segregation to making care a priority growth sector. Let me say as gently as I can to the minister that the Government's response is timid. Where is the evidence of urgency, the evidence of momentum and the evidence of political priority? I hope that the minister proves me wrong. Here is one area where he can do just that. Formally designating care as a key growth sector would be a small but welcome first step in addressing the undervaluation of care work. We know that the majority of staff in the care sector are female. The jobs are often part-time, low paid. As a society, we all understand the importance of care, and yet we do not value those who choose caring as a profession in their take-home pay. At the moment, it is the single biggest growth sector in employment terms than any other. Yet it is not on the radar of our enterprise agencies, and that needs to end. We know that childcare provision can be a real driver for economic growth, enabling parents to return to the workforce or increase their hours. With the expansion of childcare, adult social care and older people's care, we need to address the skills shortages and help the private and third sectors in the fields of investment, leadership, innovation and fair work. That is a job for our enterprise agencies. Our economic strategy moved towards a more inclusive definition of what is important to the Scottish economy. The care sector should be at the centre of that, supported by all that is best in our enterprise support structures. I recognise that the first step has been taken by paying the real living wage to adult social care staff, but that does not apply overnight. It does not apply to childcare staff. When health and social care partnerships are commissioning services, there are still issues for private and third sector care staff as costs are driven downwards. There is much still to do to value all of the workforce well and to shatter the glass ceiling for women. A Labour Government would be focused on reducing the gender pay gap, not on protecting the privileged few. We would increase the minimum wage to a real living wage of £10 per hour, and as part of our plan for rights and work, we would ensure that companies comply with gender equality legislation. The prize is great minister for women and for our economy. We now move to the open debate, and speeches have up to no more than six minutes, please. Ash Denham, to be followed by Oliver Mundell. I would like to begin my speech with just one of many, many workplace discrimination stories that I have heard from my female friends over the years. One was a middle manager in an IT services firm, and she had worked for the same firm for 12 years, working her way up to managing the most prestigious account that the team had. However, when she told her boss that she was pregnant, she was immediately removed from that account and told that she would then have to spend the rest of her time before she went off on maternity leave training up her male replacement. When she returned from maternity leave, not only was she not given her account back but she was then put on to a number of small accounts, all of which were on to use their terminology red alert status due to previous mismanagement by another staff member. Effectively, on her return from maternity leave, she was set up for failure. That example was only from a few years ago. It is a textbook example of what is called the motherhood penalty that many mothers may face throughout their employment. It is part of a series of entrenched behaviours and attitudes that are a cause of the gender pay gap. I started my working life in London in the mid-1990s. Sometimes it feels like in some areas we have moved on, but in some areas we maybe have not moved on as quickly as I certainly would like them to. In my first job at a systems integrator, I appeared in a league table that was pinned to the break room wall. Best work performance? No. Sadly not. It was a ranking of the sexual attractiveness of all the junior female employees at the company. In taking evidence on the economy committee for this report, my colleagues and I heard detailed testimony about the ways women are still put on unequal footing in the workplace today. The motherhood penalty that I have just mentioned is only one example of that. According to the PwC report, three in five professional mothers that return to the workforce are likely to be moved into lower skilled or lower paid roles with total earnings being reduced by a third. This phenomenon sees a disproportionate amount of women taking on part-time roles and forgoing professional advancement. The gender pay gap is the undeniable embodiment of a workplace culture where women are systematically undervalued and unduly limited. Those limitations must be dismantled if the gender pay gap is to truly be reversed. The economy committee report sets forth a number of recommendations that aim to do just that. For instance, we heard that the motherhood penalty would diminish if changes were made to flexible working and also to childcare provision. A demand for flexible jobs, which is quite outstripped by supply, is causing a talent bottleneck that has had an adverse effect on working mothers, forcing them into part-time jobs that they are overqualified for and do not necessarily want. Flexible working, on the other hand, enables people to tend to, for example, caring responsibilities but without sacrificing their earning potential and their professional advancement in the process. That also has business benefits, as flexible working has been shown to boost labour market participation and productivity. The committee heard that we also have in the UK a 1.5 breadwinner model, and I would like to see us moving away from that model. I have spoken quite a bit already about motherhood and how that links into the gender pay gap, but the gender pay gap is an issue that affects all women, women with children and women who do not have children. The committee report notes that little change has been made in easing occupational segregation in things like the modern apprenticeships. Female starts in engineering, construction and automotive in 2015-16 did not break higher than 6 per cent. Colleges Scotland stated that they thought that that had less to do with the apprenticeships themselves and more to do with societal attitudes. That is why I think that we need to do more on early interventions into children's life in order to prevent this gendering of occupations. SSE had a really good example of that as they created their own picture book for children, and that features a female engineer. It is then brought into primary schools by female engineers who then talk to the children about their work. In gender, which was also testified before the committee, they spoke of a leaky pipeline of women and girls in the hard sciences. We really need to put strategies into place to foster greater and more sustained female involvement in those currently male-dominated fields. The city of Glasgow's college Women in Construction and Women into Engineering courses are really good examples of what can be achieved in that area. Occupational segregation persists outside of the hard sciences as well, with women holding only 50 per cent of the positions in finance, but they are concentrated into the lowest-paying jobs. There are more women than men now in the law sector, but only 28 per cent of partners are female. If women do break into tech, for example, earlier from my own life, engineering and construction, there is this double-glass ceiling effect, which sees only 12 per cent of females rising to management in those fields. I am running out of time, Presiding Officer. I will just say that the report forward mentioned that at the present rate of progress, it is going to take us 140 years globally to close the gender pay gap. I think that everybody in the chamber would agree that that is not acceptable. I look forward to the Government taking action on some of the recommendations that were in the committee's report. I say to members that any extra time taken will affect their own colleagues later on, and I call Oliver Mundell to be followed by Richard Leonard. May I begin by adding my thanks to those already given by other members to the committee and all those who have contributed to the report on the gender pay gap? It is a very worthwhile, substantive and wide-ranging piece of work, and I have no doubt that, given the clear cross-party support for a number of the recommendations that were brought forward, the work of the committee will ensure that Scotland continues to be a leader in this area. And, be it in no doubt, we must make sure that that happens. The issue is so vital, so important and goes right to the fundamental issues around fairness, equality and the kind of society in which we want to live. If we cannot address those issues and ensure that everyone, irregardless of gender, has the same opportunities throughout their life, then I think that we should all be embarrassed, not just as a Parliament but as a country. That said, and despite some of the worrying and disappointing evidence of continued challenges that the committee heard in the course of their evidence, I do believe that we have to recognise and learn from the very significant steps that have already been taken. In doing so, we must pay tribute to the instigators and trailblazers who, through the generations and across the decades, and indeed for that matter over the centuries, have, through their own personal commitment, delivered real progress and changed hearts and minds. As I have said many times in this chamber in other previous debates, I believe that when it comes to issues around gender inequality, issues like the gender pay gap, we have to be willing to view them in the context of society as a whole and recognise particularly as other members have referenced further issues around the representation of women at the highest levels of decision making. That is why, Deputy Presiding Officer, I am particularly delighted that, for the first time in the UK, we have seen the roles of head of state, head of government and head of the judiciary, all held by women. Unless we forget here in our own Scottish Parliament, we also have the first female First Minister in Nicola Sturgeon. Until very recently, all three leaders of Scotland's main parties, or in the interest of the cross-party spirit of this debate, three out of our five party leaders here in this Parliament were women. I recognise that Jackie Baillie's continued perseverance with this cause and I am, of course, disappointed that she did not put herself forward to make sure that continued. I believe that the examples of all women in public life and in prominent positions do send out a very strong message of the changes that are already taking place within our society. Although we cannot ignore that progress, neither is that an excuse to rest on our laurels. As other members have addressed in this debate, it is not all around equal pay. As I have alluded to, it is about assuring that opportunities, options and choices are open to all so that both men and women can compete on a level playing field and go to the very top in our society. Ultimately, that is the only way to address the discrepancy in average pay. It is also about addressing continued stereotypes and often the self-limiting and underlying factors that discourage particularly women from entering into STEM-related jobs and equally means that a number of men for various reasons decide that they do not wish to be involved in the care sector or perhaps would be unwilling to go into primary teaching or nursing. Again, while I understand that some progress has been made in some of those areas, I appreciate that, relatively speaking, those barriers are beginning to break down. To find ourselves in 2017 and still have such fundamental challenges within our workforce is somewhat alarming. There is clear evidence of long-term occupational segregation and the committee's report captures some of that. I have found, particularly within our schools from many of the discussions that I have had with teachers over the course of the past year and a half, that it is also apparent that far too many young people are taking decisions too early in their school career and their learning journey. It is those lessons and decisions that they make early on that continue to influence their thinking throughout the rest of their life. It is for this reason and because of the multitude of challenges that exist, that making the progress that we all want to see is so tricky. There is no single answer, but thanks to the work of the committee and what I believe is the genuine willingness on all sides, I believe that we can continue to make significant progress. We must, because every day that the gender pay gap continues to exist, is another day when our economy is underperforming and, more importantly, the under-utilisation of skills and talents within our society and our country is a crying shame at both the individual and at a national level. I call Richard Leonard to be followed by Patrick Harvie. Can I refer members to my register of interests? Before my election to Parliament, I had the singular privilege of working for nearly 20 years as a trade union organiser for the GMB across Scotland, negotiating pay rises, averting redundancies, battling grave injustices like the construction industry blacklist in scandal and securing equal pay for women workers, more often than not low-paid women workers. Women workers in supermarkets, in social care in our communities and in factories and offices, in cleaning, catering, caring, in clerical and in cashiering work. My first recourse to an employment tribunal as a union organiser all those years ago was an equal pay case for the head chef at Rossith Dockyard who discovered that she was getting almost £2 an hour less than her predecessor. We won. Down the years, I have led and won equal pay cases for cleaners at Longannic power station and at Diageo sites across Scotland, where we discovered that there was a janitor's rate of pay, male, a cleaner's rate of pay, female, and a part-time cleaner's rate of pay, female too. As the committee report shows, women make up 76 per cent of all part-time workers in Scotland, so they are among the lowest hourly, weekly, monthly and annually paid workers. 20 per cent of all women workers, nearly 300,000 women in Scotland today earn less than the living wage of £8.45 an hour, this compares to 14 per cent of male workers. To tackle low pay and in-work poverty is also to tackle the gender pay gap. That is why, for the Labour Party, the living wage is a political priority. It is also always been clear to me that work that is predominantly performed by women is markedly undervalued and underpaid. As the committee was vividly told by one witness, and I quote, if the social care workforce in Scotland was more balanced and representative of the community and, dare I say it, more male dominated, we would not be a low paid profession. I say to the Government that unless we re-evaluate those jobs in our society and in our economy, and unless we address the scourge of low pay, we will never close the gender pay gap. There was something else that I knew from the outset in my time as a trade union organiser, and that was that working people through their trade unions could achieve much through industrial struggle and occasionally through the courts and tribunals, but rail and decisive advance was often made through political action and political decisions. I spent much of my time in the union toe-to-toe with some of Scotland's biggest employers, challenging them to pay the living wage. One of the best examples is Diageo, the biggest drinks company in the world, which, despite negotiation after negotiation, year after year, record profit after record profit, would not move on the living wage for their lowest paid workers who are employed for them but not by them. Transferred every few years from compass to mighty to Sodexo, those lowest paid cleaning and catering workers, again a group of predominantly women workers, were treated as second class citizens for too long. So when a representative of Sodexo and a representative of Diageo appeared before the committee, as part of this inquiry, I was not surprised to hear them describe how they were committed to the living wage concept, and so the committee decided that we should highlight in our report the difference between actual living wage employers and those conceptual living wage employers. It is there in paragraph 192 of the final report that actual living wage employers are those who ensure that all those working for the business are paid the living wage and conceptual ones are those who support the concept of the living wage but do not actually implement it. I am delighted this afternoon to report to Parliament that those low paid workers employed by Sodexo on the Diageo contract on sites across Scotland, those workers whom I represented all those years, now have it confirmed in writing that by the end of this year because of political pressure applied in this Parliament, we will get the living wage of £8.45 an hour. So there is a lot we can do in this Parliament. We can devise a national strategy, we can act through public procurement, we can redesign the Scottish business pledge and we can prioritise the social care sector because we do have it in our power to tackle the gender pay gap because if we are serious about equality and the place of women in society then this Parliament and this Government must act not only as a matter of economic imperative but as a matter of moral imperative too. I am very pleased that the committee has chosen to devote a significant amount of time to an inquiry on this topic and I thank them for their work. I think that I would like to begin by reflecting on a problem that I think our society has in discussing this issue. It is a problem of a great deal of our focus and attention being drawn to the top end of society, the top end of the economic inequality in our society. Very often when the gender pay gap is even acknowledged in mainstream media discussions it is around the highest flying business people or as recently it is around the massive salaries given to TV stars and the six and even seven figure salaries that a tiny proportion of people in our society enjoy. Obviously, I want the BBC and other big broadcasters to address gender inequality and if it means that we see a bit less of Andrew Neil on the telly as well then that is just the icing on the cake. However, an attention that is only drawn to the tiny number of people at the very top end of our society and its economic inequality will not address the reality of the vast majority of people's real lives. It came across in something that Oliver Mundell said as well. He said that more women getting to the top, getting to the very top, I think he said, is the only way to address the gender pay gap. As an example, he mentioned that the heads of government, state and the judiciary in this country in the UK are all now women. If getting women to the very, very top was the best way of achieving that, we would be there already and we are not. I think that that example demonstrates that a focus on the very top is not enough to address the wider problem and I am happy to give way. Oliver Mundell, I understand the point that Patrick Harvie is trying to make but I think that that is a mischaracterisation of my remarks. I said that having women in these prominent roles, making decisions, being seen to make decisions, being seen to take the lead in our public life was an important message and probably the strongest message of all. I did not say that it was the only thing that could be done and I hope that he would accept that was the point that I was making. Patrick Harvie If that is what the member intended to say, I am happy to accept that. I would suggest that sending out that signal may be a nice thing to do and may have some real value. However, if we send out the signal that all is right at the top without fundamentally changing the structural inequalities that exist throughout the rest of our society and the rest of our economy, we will not really have achieved anything more than a cosmetic change. The economic case for reducing and eliminating the gender pay gap has been touched on by a number of members and it comes across very strongly in the report. I wonder whether it comes across too strongly in the report, because while there is undoubtedly a strong economic case for reducing the gender pay gap, as has been demonstrated time and time again by numerous studies, that is not news, it is something that we know to be the case. Is it really the one argument that we should be relying on more than any? Surely we can agree that gender inequality is in principle wrong and that the gender pay gap is one expression of gender inequality in our society. If a business feels that it is not able to improve its own economic performance by reducing the gender pay gap, that should not be taken as a justification for not taking action. We should be clear about the economic opportunities from reducing and eliminating the gender pay gap, but we should not rely solely or even perhaps prominently on that economic argument for doing something that is the right thing in principle. I say that the gender pay gap is a symptom of wider societal structural inequalities that themselves matter and require to be addressed. I think that Richard Leonard touched on this in talking about the way that we value different kinds of work. The kind of work that women have historically done in a higher proportion than men has been undervalued, and it is still undervalued. Simply getting more women, for example, into high-value careers in the STEM industries, for example—great, good thing in its own right—is it enough? Getting more men to think about a career in the caring professions—great, good thing in its own right—is that enough if those caring professions, which are critically important to our quality of life, are still undervalued and paid less than they ought to be if we want to close that gap? Do the services that we have really genuinely meet the diverse needs of all women, including single parents, 92 per cent of whom are women, including women returning from career breaks, who, as we heard earlier, are not necessarily looking for help into the easiest and quickest entry-level job. They are looking to regain and return to a meaningful career that they may have left behind before, but only for a period of time. We should be giving them the support that they need as well. I would make the case that the Government's commitment to explore and fund trials of a citizen's income is also a critically important way of addressing those wider, structural gender inequalities that feed through into the pay gap by ensuring that all people—women and men—are better able to strike their own balance between learning, working, volunteering, caring and all the other things that matter in our lives. I would like to start by thanking Gordon Lindhurst and the Economy and Welfare Committee for bringing this important motion and its report to Parliament today. I congratulate each of them on the work that they have undertaken. However, like others in the debate, I find it dispiriting that, after 18 years of devolution and a range of debates, we must still hold those inquiries and look to close a gap between male and female median earnings that the committee conservatively estimates to stand at 16 per cent. That frustration is mirrored among several prominent female broadcasters in their open letter to the director general of the BBC, Lord Hall, earlier in this summer, in which they said, and I quote, "...you have said that you will sort out the gender pay gap by 2020, but the BBC has known about the pay disparity for years. We all want to go on the record right now and call upon you to act now." Deputy Presiding Officer, this Parliament has known about that disparity for the entirety of its existence. It is time for us to act now. The committee rightly pointed to the fact that the extent of the gender pay gap is actually quite hard to calibrate, and it causes our difficult to accurately fathom, given particularly the 250 employee minimum threshold for gender pay reporting that exists currently. As such, it rightly recommended that the Government adopted a range of indicators to establish patterns, trends and hidden obstacles to female pay progression in this country. Nevertheless, the committee has given a flavour of the challenge before us. Women continue to be concentrated in low-paid industries and part-time work. In Scotland last year, for example, 40 per cent of women were in part-time work, and that is 78 per cent of all part-time workers in this country, while male entrepreneurs in the self-employed workforce appear to have greater ease in accessing capital than their female counterparts. Our response to gender inequality in the workplace cannot solely rest on the calibration of pay scales. Since the exchange of human labour began, inbuilt systemic barriers have existed to build an imbalance in opportunities and advantages that women can enjoy at work, so we must take a whole systems approach to reform. As a Deputy Prime Minister, my friend and colleague at the time, Nick Clegg, sought to change the narrative around gender stereotypes at work through shared parental leave. He identified maternity, or even just the potential of maternity, as one of the biggest barriers to women's progression in the workplace. Despite it being against the law, we know that employers still discriminate against women in recruitment if they are of child-bearing age, but it is when children are born that the gap really begins to grow, with women being passed over, as we have heard, for promotion or else moving necessarily into part-time work. As part of his justification for the policy of shared parental leave, Nick Clegg said that if both sexes are equally likely to take time out of their career to look after young children, and if both are equally likely to go part-time to help them juggle work and home, then employers will not have an excuse for letting women fall behind. It is a fairly simple premise. We can make great progress towards evening out the playing field in the workplace by giving parents their choice and by removing the supposition from employers that were women in their 20s or 30s is less dependable than a man. However, this must walk hand in glove with efforts to change culture and perceptions among male workers as well. Indeed, a recent survey by Hayes Recruitment in the UK found that nearly two thirds of workers say that men are less committed to their career if they should take their share of shared parental leave. The Parliament will soon have an opportunity to change that culture, but it will also change the culture of those organisations in public control so that organisational governance reflects wider society through gender balance. We will set a new standard in the agenda equality in the workplace bill, and we will set a new standard in gender equality in the workplace and challenge industry to follow that lead. We also need to do more with childcare and extend the debate far beyond the public funding of ours. The recommendations of the McLean commission offer a kind of flexibility directed at giving parents a range of options and making it easier for women in particular to re-enter and remain in the labour market. Until we get that right, combined with societal pressures around expectations of motherhood, we will continue to fall behind. The committee's estimate of a 16 per cent gap between male and female earnings that I alluded to at the top of my remarks is more than 10 per cent adrift of the 5 per cent gap that exists in Denmark. Although that needle has shifted over time, it is clear that our efforts have not been equal to the challenge. I want to be able to go home tonight and look at my three-year-old daughter Darcy in the eye and explain to her that whatever path she chooses, she can expect exactly the same recognition and reward as her brothers, and that is what this report takes us some of the way to doing. I thank everyone from the public sphere who engaged with the committee through their submissions and on social media on their agenda pay gap experience. Those testimonies really informed our questioning and the report, and the best reports commit of inquiries where the people of Scotland have been very involved. I would also like to point to the amount of media interest that we got into this issue as a result of an inquiry. Again, when the media pay attention, it means that what we do permeates out into civic society. I was on two call-call phone-in sessions on this very issue on Radio Scotland and on Women's Hour. I know that other committee members were interviewed, too, and that engagement prompts a national conversation, and that is what this issue desperately needs. I want to use my time in this debate to talk about the limitations of the agenda pay gap reporting obligations. As we know, there are new reporting legislations in the UK Government that will affect companies over 250 employees, and I remain unconvinced on the effectiveness of that legislation in Scotland for a number of reasons. Most obviously, the legal duty only compels very large companies to report their agenda pay gap, and in Scotland, it is SMEs that make up the vast percentage of our economy. As a former small business owner, I completely understand the pressures that a formal and compulsory reporting puts on a very small business. I do not think that anyone in the committee was arguing for reporting to be made compulsory to all businesses, but we have recommended that the Scottish Government look at how we can better capture a picture of the agenda pay gap challenges in our economy. That might possibly be done, too. Would she accept that a small employer in my constituency who we visited, Paidge Park architects, have only about 40 employees, and they could produce the agenda pay gap figure very easily? Absolutely. Ms Martin, if you would let me go back to your feet first, not at all. I absolutely accept that, and that has been having this discussion with Ash Denham on where the threshold should be. I do not think that it is exactly an onerous thing to do. It is certainly the right thing to do. I am thinking that this might possibly be done through existing channels. For example, might agenda pay gap report be asked for in a public procurement situation or in a Scottish Enterprise or high account management situation? If a company wants access to tender for public contracts or business support, then adding stipulations on fair work reporting is not a new idea. I would suggest that business behaviours may change as a result, because like it or not, although we might be convinced that the business benefits of closing the agenda pay gap many companies still are not. The effect of that would reach even further if there were demands on the supply chain from those from procurement contracts, too. However, reporting can just reveal the problem, as the legal duty to report does not compel companies to put any kind of action plan in place if the gap is significantly wide. That was apparent in one employer that I visited who were concentrating on getting the report together itself but had not given any thought to what they might do to address what was in that report. In our report, we not only encourage all businesses reporting to create an action plan but ask the Government to give them guidance on what that action plan could include. I suggest that any company looking to address the agenda pay gap could do a lot worse than reading our committee's report or viewing some of the evidence given to us by organisations such as Close the Gap and Gender, Women's Enterprise Scotland or the Fair Work Convention. I would like any guidance that the Government may introduce on that to be rolled out to all businesses, not just those of 250-plus employees. My colleagues have talked about some of the report's findings on why closing the gap is important and what mechanisms many companies have used that have been affected in closing the gap. I am not going to list them all again. The companies doing all those progressive, fair and innovative things—the right things, as Patrick Harvie has said—are enthusiastic about what it meant for them and their employees. However, we need to recognise that, for some reluctant employers, a business and financial argument—one that I am confident will be compelling—needs to be made. A company without a gender pay gap is a better performing company. It attracts and keeps talent. It has diversity of approaches, views and skills that make your work and products better. Just these two things have a massive effect on the bottom line. It is the right thing to do, but for those for whom that is not a motivating factor—and let's face it that there are some people out there like that—it is also the smart thing to do. In closing, I want to say to those companies who have closed the gap and who are working hard to close the gap, spread the word on the financial and business benefits and analyse your bottom line improvements and tell the world that gender pay gap reporting is not in itself the answer, it is you who is the answer. Not only should we ensure that it is reputationally and socially unacceptable to not have a get-pay gap, but we should make it as clear as we can that it is also not good business. I welcome the opportunity to speak about the economy, jobs and fair work committee's recent report. As a new addition to the ranks of the committee, I was not directly involved in the gender pay inquiry, but I am pleased to congratulate my fellow members on the body of work that they have produced and on the contributions that they have made today. I welcome the continuing work to address the historic injustice of the gender pay gap and of unequal pay between men and women. There can be few things as transparently unfair as failing to be paid the same money for doing the same job, not because of what you do, because of who you are. However, the focus of the committee went wider than that, the differences in opportunities or at least perceptions of opportunities that have clear gendered element, the distinctions of types of occupation that still affect even our youngest generation of working people and the particular issues around having a family and the choices that people can make. There has been some significant progress in recent times. From years this year onwards, larger businesses will be obliged to publish their gender pay gap figures, a significant step in increasing transparency and ensuring that where issues exist they are addressed. At the very top end of the employment market, the proportion of women on FTSE 100 boards has more than doubled since 2011. However, in the wider economy, women have often found themselves pushed into lower paying jobs. There are several possible explanations from sharing financial responsibilities to issues around skills, and I intend to touch on that in a moment. We know that for many of those women increases to the national living wage and taking many out of paying income tax altogether have provided an additional degree of financial security, but the question of occupational segregation remains significant. To take one example that has been covered already today, the number of women entering STEM jobs remains worryingly small despite the often higher pay and opportunities that these professions can provide. There is precious little evidence that this will be remedied in the near future. Physics, computing and other technical subjects still see a low level of involvement from young women in schools. If anything, that seems to drop off by the time they have reached university, colleges or apprenticeships. We have seen cuts to STEM education in recent years, and it must be as clear as day that we require more STEM teachers in Scotland and work to reverse some of the harm done to our colleges. However, as well as that, more girls must be involved in STEM from the earliest ages. To achieve that, STEM subjects must be promoted as a viable career option for young women. That requires closer working between schools and industry and a far greater focus on careers guidance. Often very blunt gender stereotypes are typically in place for children at a very early age, which can determine what careers children look towards. We can only address this problem by tackling it at a similarly early age, ensuring that all children are open to the breadth of careers that are available to them. That is part of a slightly wider point. To what extent does our current careers guidance prepare young people effectively for work? To what extent are technical and scientific professions promoted and are routes into them other than university? I therefore look forward to the Scottish Government's STEM strategy, which is due for publication soon. However, if we are to see change within a generation, the work must come in quickly and be radical rather than piecemeal. Scottish Conservatives have also previously raised concerns about diversity in the modern apprenticeships programme in Scotland. Gender differences arise not only across the scheme as a whole but also when broken down to individual frameworks. Some of the very traditional divisions remain. The committee noted that little progress had been made here, and by some measures it is getting worse. The delivering the young workforce target to reduce 60 per cent the percentage of modern apprenticeships frameworks, whether gender balance is 75, 25 or worse by 2021, is far from ambitious, yet there seems to be problems in making modern steps in that direction. Perhaps the roll-out of foundation apprenticeships across Scotland and the closer links with schools presents an opportunity to challenge that dynamic. A feature of the economy committee's inquiry was evidence that the problems leading to women receiving lower pay are more present in the Highlands and Islands than in Scotland as a whole. Highlands and Islands Enterprise's submission showed that gender segregation of careers in sectors was more pronounced in the region. High's research also showed that women are still more aware of jobs in sectors that are perceived to be lower paid. The contribution that under employment amongst women has the differences in pay is also compounded in more rural areas, with high pointing to multi-occupational work and the level of part-time and seasonal employment as being significant. The work that High is taking forward is welcome, but it is clear that the routes behind several of those issues begins at an earlier point, and that we need schools, businesses, enterprises, agencies and other public sector bodies to have a more unified focus if we are truly to commit to seeing change. Other components that I welcome are the digital Scotland publication tackling the technology gender gap together, which high skills development Scotland and other bodies are working together on. It makes many of the points that I have spoken about today, and its conclusions are very much worth looking at. However, I do question whether the identified problems are being addressed for Scotland's young people in practice and the level of resource being directed. To conclude, many of those long-standing problems will require real focus and resources to address. The benefits, however, will not just flow to individuals but the wider economy, too. Again, I thank the committee for its report. Ivan McKee, who will be the last speaker in the open debate. I thank the Economy, Jobs and Fair Work Committee for the work that they have done in leading an investigation into this very important topic and for the comprehensive report that they have produced. As parliamentary liaison officer to the cabinet secretary for the economy, I take great interest in all the work of the committee, and in particular such a key subject area. The potential impact to the economy of balancing the gender pay gap has been well documented. A figure of potential increase in GDP of £17 billion to the Scottish economy is given in the committee's report. That, of course, assumes that there would be no gender displacement and that women entering the workforce or increasing their hours would not displacement currently in those roles. It is a reasonable assumption, given the growing skills shortages that we currently see in the labour market, as highlighted in the report. That is a deficit set to increase, obviously, as a consequence of Brexit. As the report highlights, there are definitional issues around quantifying the gender pay gap, use of mean or meeting, weekly or early, with or without overtime and the impact of lower early rates for part-time work all make quantification and hence international comparisons difficult. Something that requires more work, we need to understand who in the world is better at this and to seek to learn from them. One thing that we can see is wide variations in the data. There is a clear age-related impact, with the pay gap being significantly smaller for age groups under 40 than those above. Whether that is a persistent phenomena, a consequence of maternity leave and return to work barriers or a positive trend such as we see greatly increasing numbers of young women entering professions such as the law, which will consequently impact on older age cohorts in coming decades, is not yet clear. That is one area where more understanding would be valuable. Examples of pay inequality with women being paid less than men for the same or similar work still exist. The key drivers of the gender pay gap are highlighted as being around occupational segregation, gender variations in part-time employment rates and differential promotion rates. Occupational segregation, as a report highlights, is often a consequence of gender-based stereotypes that can influence from an early age impact in career choices. My own four children, a lawyer, a vet, an engineer and an economist and no prizes for guessing which two of the girls are epic fail in the McKee household, so do not go taking any lessons from me on gender career stereotypes. Despite my own failings, that is an area that requires focus. Women are expected to go into the caring professions and men into technical work. The focus on women into STEM careers is critical, although despite that focus being on the agenda for some considerable time, in many areas limited progress has been made. In my own engineering class, only 10 per cent were women, and gender balance was well understood even then as an area where improvement was needed. Thirty-five years later, in progress has been limited. However, the experience of the law in some medical disciplines shows that progress can and has been made in some areas. However, that is a two-way street. More women into STEM means more men into traditionally female-dominated jobs, for example in the care and early learning sectors. As a report highlights, seeing more men in the traditional female-dominated career type roles will help us to break the ideological link between women and care or the idea of the female as caregiver. The assumption that lengthy, child-rearing career gaps for women are inevitable is another outdated gender stereotype that needs to be challenged. As a report points out, in Scotland, in 2016, 8 per cent of women aged 16 to 64 were economically inactive because they were looking after the house or the family compared to only 1 per cent of men. I was fortunate enough when my own children were preschool to be working a shift pattern that allowed me to take on responsibility for much of our childcare while Mrs McKee returned to full-time work. Most are not so fortunate. The report also raises other important issues, such as flexible working or encouraging female entrepreneurship, which I am happy to support as part of the women and enterprise cross-party group. In summary, I welcome the report, and there are some clear areas where more understanding of the data and the steps that we need to take to make progress is required to enable us to deliver the societal changes and the economic benefits of closing the gender pay gap. I give all the closing speakers an additional minute. I think that you'll have no difficulty with that, Ms Bailey. I ask you to close for labour, please, up to seven minutes. Sorry that I wasn't meaning. I went down the wrong way. Let me just say that I'm not the first woman today. I have a coughing fit. The other one was slightly longer. Take a moment. It's okay. I don't need a lozenge, either. After-speaker has acknowledged that women's employment is more precarious than men's. We are the part-time low-paid workforce. Many of us are on zero-hours contracts and employed in the gig economy. More likely to be consumers of public services, more likely to be in poverty, and more likely to be in receipt of social security. For far too many women, under-employment is working well below their qualification level. That is such a waste of talent and a waste for our economy. As I said earlier, closing the gender pay gap would inject £17 billion into the Scottish economy. That matters even more now because of the fiscal framework. If we do not sustain the same or higher levels of growth than the rest of the UK, we might be on the end of a block grant reduction. Let's take a year-on-year comparison. Scotland's economy grew by 0.2 per cent over the last year. The equivalent UK growth was 1.5 per cent. That may have serious implications for what we receive through the block grant. I do not think that the Scottish Government has woken up to that. Closing the gender pay gap would be a no-brainer if we are serious about the economy and about our long-term finances. The causes of the pay gap are common across the world, but some have been better than us at closing that gap—Belgium, Luxembourg and Norway—to name but a few. We need to understand what they do that works and copy them unashamedly. Let me highlight some of the key recommendations that many have touched on across the chamber. First, a national strategy with an action plan and measurable targets. It makes sense when you have a complex and interconnected set of problems that you need to have a plan. The response from the Government is to have a scoping exercise to determine feasibility. It is a little weak. Why can't you just say yes? There will be a national strategy and then work through what it needs to cover. Secondly, there is the role of enterprise agencies. Women are 49 per cent of startups, but 3.4 per cent of growth companies. For years, research undertaken by Women's Enterprise Scotland and others has pointed to the need for gender-specific support for women-led businesses, but it really has not been provided. If GDP in Scotland reflected women starting up in business at the same rate as men, we would contribute £7.6 billion to the Scottish economy. What is not to like about that? The Scottish Government has pledged to double the women's enterprise budget. It is only £200,000 at the moment. Just think what we could do if we gave them more money. Never mind mainstreaming consideration for women's enterprise and tackling women's economic inequality as part of our enterprise agencies. Whilst on the enterprise agencies, we should put our money where our mouth is. The Scottish Government should redesign the business pledge, which is not fit for purpose on gender equality. For businesses that get millions of pounds in regional selective assistance, we should be asking for gender pay gap reports and action plans as standard. I do not think that the Scottish Government's response agreed to that. Where is the political will and the priority in that? If we do not embrace those recommendations, little will change. Gillian Martin was right to talk about the limitations of gender pay gap reporting as proposed by the UK Government. The Scottish economy is made up by a majority of companies with less than 250 employees, so the new requirement to report the gap will not touch them. Gillian Martin was also right to ask how we could use procurement or even enterprise agency account-managed companies to make a difference. I am not sure that I saw a really positive response from the Scottish Government on that. Close the gap and tell us that existing responses to tackling the pay gap are insufficient. They, together with Engender, are very clear about the need for a national strategy. So tell us, minister, are you going to do this? I said that the Scottish Government's response was weak. I would rather be wrong about that. Let me tell you why. Your response refers to the Fair Work Convention, it refers to inclusive growth, the enterprise agency activity, the business pledge, all and in and of themselves positive initiatives, but they do not really engage with tackling the gender pay gap. So let's get behind the committee report. It is bold, it is ambitious, it's challenging to us all, and I want the Scottish Government to be equally bold and ambitious. We have a chance to change this for generations of women, but if you just want to carry on as before, it will be 140 years before we close that gap. Frankly, our daughters can't wait that long, neither can our economy. My goodness, you didn't use the entire seven minutes, there's a start. Can I just remind members that the use of you and yours that you speak in this Parliament through the chair, and it's just a little habit we're all slipping into which you're going to slip out of? Can I now call upon Alison Harris, please, to close the Conservatives up to seven minutes, please? Deputy Presiding Officer, in closing this debate for the Scottish Conservatives, can I say just how apparent it is that, across this chamber, members are united in our determination to close the gender pay gap, even if there are slight differences in how that is to be achieved? At the outset, can I also play tribute to my colleague Gordon Lindhurst and to all the members of the Economy, Jobs and Fair Work Committee for working so diligently to produce the report before us? The Scottish Conservatives welcome both the report and the recommendations. Women in the workforce continue to be concentrated in low-paid industries and part-time work. We share the view of many of those individuals who tweeted their opinion from valuing women's work means recognising the value of women's contributions to the economy, too, when women thrive, we all benefit, and many other contributions that were made. Likewise, many of the contributions that have been made today by the speakers across the chamber have highlighted a lot of aims that many of us share to close this gender pay gap. We heard from Jamie Halcro Johnston on the evidence that the gender pay gap is particularly marked in the Highlands and Islands. Dean Lockhart pointed out that the gender pay gap is not a unique problem to Scotland. Oliver Mundell highlighted the value of seeing women occupying leading and public roles. Jackie Baillie expressed concern at the state of the Scottish economy, stating that, if growth suffers, that affects the gender pay gap. Ash Denham mentioned the PwC report and the motherhood penalty, something that I will come back to later on in my speech. Alex Cole-Hamilton discussed a whole systems approach to gender discrimination, and many other speakers, too many to mention individually, made very valid and useful points, though some points I felt we could not really agree with. However, not only is closing the gap the right thing to do, as Patrick Harvie said, but the potential economic benefits of doing so are being highlighted by a number of bodies, including the CBI Scotland, who, in their evidence to the committee, wrote, closing the gender pay gap increases the competitiveness of individual companies and the profitability of the economy as a whole. That view, together with further anecdotal evidence, is positive, but, as the committee notes, more study needs to be done to confirm the correlation between bottom-line improvements and closing the gender pay gap, and again, we welcome that. Further proposals put forward by the committee in areas such as the creation of a more gender diverse apprenticeship programme for those returning to work are positive steps in the right direction. Similarly, we hope that the Scottish Government will note the committee's recommendations on calls to boost the number of public sector jobs offering flexible working hours, on more recognition of the role of the care sector, on more emphasis on getting enterprise agencies to address gender pay issues in their sectors. In a country in which only 20 per cent of SMEs are owned by women, asking the Scottish Government and its agencies to review the funding streams available to new and existing female entrepreneurs is very welcome, particularly in light of anecdotal evidence that male entrepreneurs are more successful in obtaining capital than females. We have heard other speakers highlight, as a nation, that we need to do more to encourage more girls to study science and technology subjects. With women holding only 18 per cent of jobs in a well-paid technology sector and a mere 9 per cent in engineering, huge scope exists for girls who are able to study those subjects. In 2015, Education Scotland highlighted that girls made up only 20 per cent of advanced higher computing and 28 per cent of the then new higher physics course. Those figures are disappointing and also what is disappointing is the low uptake by girls in STEM subjects in both college and university places, contributing to a gross underrepresentation by women in well-paid jobs in those sectors. Other speakers have highlighted caring issues as a further reason for the gender pay gap. Whether of children or sick or elderly relatives, providing care is still very much a role played by women. Many employers fail to recognise that and continue to show a lack of flexibility in working hours, leading to more women seeking part-time work. A particularly troubling section in the report refers to what is described as the motherhood penalty. That being the pay gap between working mothers and women without dependent children, which can cause the pay of returning mums to fall behind other women by as much as 11 per cent. On that issue, I found the comments to the committee from family-friendly working Scotland to be particularly salient, as are the words of Professor Loretto, when he highlights the issue of work choices of grandparents of working age being affected by taking on caring roles. The Scottish Conservatives see the report as a starting point. We are supportive of the recommendations that have been made and look forward to the Scottish Government and all sectors of our economy, both public and private, building on the recommendations to do their bit to close the gender pay gap. I begin by thanking members for their contributions today. I think that there has been broad agreement. I want to make very clear that I do not think that anyone in this chamber—not least the Scottish Government—is not serious about the agenda. I regret it if Jackie Baillie feels our response has been weak. She is entitled to her perspective. I expect her to be pushing us to do more. I have had a look over again how we have responded to the recommendations of the committee. My observation would be that virtually all of the committee's recommendations tally entirely with the work that we are taking forward. Clearly, there will be areas that we can look at again, and I will always be willing to do that. However, I agree with Jackie Baillie's point that she made that there is an important reason for us to be engaged in this agenda. She referred to her daughter, Alex Cole-Hamilton. I have a daughter as well, and I do not want her to grow up in a society. No, let me posit it in a positive sense. I want her to grow up in a society where there is no gender pay gap. That is my aspiration for her and for all of our daughters. Of course, some of the issues that persist are entrenched. They are long-standing, and they are attitudinal. It starts very early when our children are very young. I have to say that Ivan McKee was probably in a little harm himself. I am sure that he is very proud of all the achievements of his children. I suspect that even all of us who have spoken in this debate, who are, I believe, totally and utterly committed to the agenda that we have spoken about today, will ourselves be susceptible to lapsing into using language, providing toys and all the rest of it that sometimes reinforce those gender stereotypes. We always have to remind and start with ourselves that we must seek to avoid that. Let me pick up on some of the issues in the time that I have available that have been raised in the debate. Dean Lockhart mentioned the UK Government's private sector gender pay gap regulations. I would welcome them as at least an acknowledgement about the systemic pay inequality that women experience, but I would agree with Gillian Martin and Jackie Baillie that they are not enough themselves likely to drive the change that we need. They are rather limited in terms of the threshold of 250 employees, which will exclude the vast majority of private sector companies and most third sector organisations here in Scotland. Clearly, we are not able to alter in that legislation. It is reserved, but what we can do is lead. For example, we have a significantly lower threshold for our public agencies here in Scotland. Gillian Martin and Jackie Baillie spoke about the efforts that we could be taking through our enterprise agencies around the provision of regional selective assistance grants or account managed companies. We are going through an enterprise and skills review right now. I will say that we are pledge content to explore with our agencies how we can increase the number of businesses that produce pay gap reports. We are looking at that in a very seared fashion, but what they can do right now is to sign post-businesses to relevant guidance that is available. For example, close the gaps, think business toolkit, which is available to all companies of all sizes. I will come back to that in a short moment on why talking about that in economic terms is, from my perspective, important. As Shaddenham mentioned, the motherhood penalty, I am acutely aware of some of the issues that drive that. That is why we have established a working group to take action to tackle pregnancy maternity discrimination. It is a group that I chaired involving many inquiry witnesses, the NHS Police Scotland, the Quality and Human Rights Commission, which is why we have established a women's returners programme. I would accept, willingly accept that it is limited at this stage. It is designed to pilot initiatives so that we can see good practice. I have to say right here and now that it will never be something that the Government can lead in its entirety. We are going to have to require all sectors, particularly the private sector, to be willing to step up to the place. What we want to do from those pilots is to get good practice so that we can work with employers to see more support for women to return to the workplace. Alison Harris spoke about that very briefly, yes. Oh, Dean Lockhart, I am so sorry. Thank you very much. Does the minister agree with Audit Scotland that the cuts to 153,000 college places have impacted women's ability to return to work? We have set out our clear commitment to support the full-time equivalent place at 116,000. That is what we have done. Earlier last month, not this month, Ionis, the Flexible Workforce Development Fund will allow employers to come forward to support those who need to be upskilled in the workplace. Many women will benefit by that. We have refocused individual learning accounts to individual training accounts, which can be delivered through the college network, which can be designed to support the upskilling of those women who are low-paid. Alison Harris spoke about the need to support flexible working. That is an agenda that we are signed up to. We fund and participate in family-friendly working Scots. She referred to the recommendation by the committee that we, as a Government, are agencies. It refers to the Scottish Parliament. I do not think that the Presiding Officer would like me to veer into what the Scottish Parliament might do. I am sure that the parliamentary authorities will reflect the recommendation as well. It asks for all of us to ensure that roles are advertised as flexible, agile or part-time, unless there is good business reason not to do so. All Scottish Government staff, including senior civil servants, are encouraged to participate in our flexible working hours scheme. We require our managers to consider all flexible working requests objectively and with its sensitivity. There is much more that I wanted to say, and I will not be able to say it, but I think that it is important to reflect on two. You do have some time to give you another two minutes and more. Well, let me just get on with it then, Presiding Officer. That is what I will do. I couldn't put it better myself. Well, thank you, Presiding Officer. I want to touch on the issue of childcare in two ways. First of all, the expansion of childcare that we have as an agenda is, in itself, going to support many more families to be able to better balance their work and caring responsibilities. However, I want to assure Jackie Baillie that I utterly recognise the economic opportunity, not just for those who benefit by the childcare themselves but for those who provide the childcare. We have provided local authorities additional money—21 million pounds—to invest in their first phase of the workforce expansion this year. We have a commitment to seeing additional 435 graduates working in nurseries in the most deprived community by August 2018, in a second, Ms Baillie, to support that commitment and to providing 1.5 million pounds of additional funding to the Scottish funding council and to reduce teacher training and childcare-related graduate places. Skills Development Scotland are providing training opportunities for childcare. We have a commitment to pay the living wage to all those delivering funded entitlements. I don't want anyone to be under the impression that this is not a sector that I take seriously. In relation to Patrick Harvie's language, I don't want to undervalue that sector. Perhaps we need to switch some of the language that we use instead of talking about how the sector is undervalued. Let's say how we, let's show leadership in this chamber and let's say how we value the sector and we'll deliver it as an administration. I give way to Ms Baillie. Jackie Baillie, can I invite the minister to show leadership, make this a key growth sector that is the responsibility of our enterprise agencies as well? I'm happy to speak to enterprise agencies. I suppose the point that I would make is that this is a whole system commitment and our skills agencies are engaged in this area. Richard Leonard was quite right to identify the need for us to tackle low-pay. We have done very well in Scotland in the terms of 80 per cent of our populations paid at least the living wage or more, but I utterly recognise that. The remaining 20 per cent is who we need to focus on now, and that represents women in low-paid work more than men. We are promoting the living wage. I want to see more than an unprincipled commitment to paying the living wage. I want to see a real hard and fast commitment. I think that Mr Leonard might be referring to something else in those comments, but I'll let that stand. Let me finish utterly on the final point. Patrick Harvie was right to say about the intrinsic good and self-evident worth of closing the pay gap. I totally agree with that point, but it is important that we talk about it in terms of its economic imperative, and it is very much the same with the fair work agenda when we talk about payment of living wage flex. We work in involvement in the workplace that increases retention, reduced absenteeism, increased productivity, and closing the pay gap can achieve the same. There we must end or you are cutting into the committee summing up. I agree with that point. I agree with that point. Thank you very much. I call on John Mason, please, to call us for the committee up to 458, please. Thank you, Presiding Officer, for protecting the back benches against the front benches. Can I also start off on a very consensual note by thanking everyone who has taken part in the debate today, but also to emphasise our thanks to the committee for the wide range of witnesses who took part at the committee. We spent a considerable amount of time on that. We also went out and visited in subgroups quite a number of businesses all around the country, and that was tremendously helpful certainly for myself. I can also thank SPICE for their help for the clerks, but particularly mention 2 for our adviser, Jane Gotts, who had tremendous input into the whole committee. It would be fair to say that most of today's debate has been broadly consensual, and that would be true of the whole study that we did in the committee. It has to be accepted that, say, some committee members are more consensual than others, and I shall leave it to members to decide who I might be referring to. If I can start off with a few points generally that the convener on behalf of the committee was not able to spend a lot of time on, and then I would like to mention some of the individual contributions that people have made. Firstly, occupational segregation, which has been mentioned by a number of people, including close the gap in their response. Throughout its inquiry, the committee has sought to understand the challenges that women working across both the public and the private sectors still face. As the convener said in his remarks, the pay gap impacts on women at all stages of their working lives, and the committee heard many reasons for this. Occupational segregation is a key factor in causing the gender pay gap, with women historically clustered in sectors traditionally low paid, sometimes called the five Cs, cleaning, caring, catering, clerical, cashearing, and this pattern sadly continues. There are fewer women in higher paid sectors such as engineering, IT technology, and Equate Scotland told the committee, as I think has been referred to, that only 18 per cent of technical jobs and 9 per cent of engineering jobs are held by women, and Alison Harris made quite a reference to that. The committee heard quite a lot about the leaky pipeline, and if people do not look at anything else in the report, it is worthwhile looking at those two infographics, which talk about how, even when we start off well, there is a drift through the system and women, especially if they take a career break, can fall out of certain sectors. STEM is an area with high paying jobs and increasing opportunities, so plugging this leaky pipeline is an essential part of reducing the gender pay gap. Some of the factors witnesses said caused leaks throughout the pipeline are starting school when very early young children are saying that there are boys and girls jobs, lack of role models in the STEM industries with fewer women in senior positions, and difficulties, as has been said in returning to the workforce. Apprenticeships have been mentioned by a number of people, including the minister and Jamie Halcro Johnston, and the committee noted the successes of the modern apprenticeship model in providing opportunities for young people and employers alike. Despite considerable efforts, little progress has been made in addressing occupational segregation with the modern apprenticeship system. For example, in 2015-16, there were no female apprentices in the civil engineering specialism within construction, and the committee notes work being done by Skills Development Scotland, which is very much welcomed. The reporting legislation has largely been touched on, particularly by Gillian Martin, who has spent most of her speech on that. We did hear quite a lot of evidence around the fact that the UK will require 250 staff and above to report, but that does leave out rather a lot of people in Scotland, as Dean Lockhart himself mentioned. Targets has not been mentioned very much, but we did hear about it. There was certainly some sympathy on the part of the committee that there should be a bit more in the way of targets, and targets have value in moving things forward. Having conditions on business support and procurement, the committee heard that there may be an opportunity to address the gender pay gap by placing conditions on economic development aid or procurement in the key sectors of the Scottish economy. I think that Scottish Enterprise and HIE have a slightly difficult job, so I have some sympathy for them, but I think that we were unhappy about their attitude. Other groups accepted that there was a problem and they wanted to challenge it, but we did at times get the impression from SEA especially that they wanted to attract in business and they did not want to put off business by saying things to them like they had to have more women in their organisation. Can I touch on some of the things that people have said in the final couple of minutes? Gordon Lindhurst particularly emphasised the difficulties of measuring the gap and that it is complex. I was glad that the minister appreciated and agreed with that point as well. Jackie Baillie in her two speeches talked was perhaps one of the more aggressive speakers. Sorry, just a minute there. I cannot hear what the member is saying for casual conversations across the chamber. Thank you. I realise that I am keeping members from the following debate, but— I was listening. I was listening. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I appreciate that. Jackie Baillie did bring up the question of GDP and how we measure that, and Patrick Harvie correctly challenged her about that. That is something the committee will be doing, looking at in its coming to subjects on the data and on the performance of the economy. However, we have heard already in one of our following studies already clear evidence and a clear statement from a witness that growing the economy does not make it fairer automatically. I am certainly believing that, even if the economy did not grow, we need to make it fairer right where we are today. Other people, including Ash Denham, talked about the positive impact on the economy of having women fulfil their potential working to the qualifications that they had. Richard Leonard talked about more women being in the living wage and the fact that there are conceptual living wage employers, and that is certainly a point that I am very sympathetic with as well. Patrick Harvie made the point that just putting the queen at the top of the whole system as head of state does not automatically mean that women at the bottom are going to do better, and I think that we would probably all agree with that. Alex Cole-Hamilton mentioned devolution in particular, but I think that we have to accept that there are many issues around that that are not related to devolution and that we do not yet have control over. In my concluding remarks, the gender pay gap is not an issue that can be addressed overnight. Even in Sweden, it is still at something like 13 per cent. It will take time. The committee will continue to monitor this policy area in budget scrutiny work and will carefully consider the Scottish Government's response to its report. There is no doubt that supporting women at all levels and in all sectors to achieve their potential will benefit Scotland's economy, so that would be good for women and that would be good for all of us. That concludes our debate on the gender pay gap. It is now time to move to the next item of business, which is consideration of motion 8013 in the name of Clare Adamson on behalf of the Standards Procedures and Public Appointments Committee on breach of the code of conduct for members of the Scottish Parliament. I call on Clare Adamson to speak to and move the motion. The Standards Procedures and Public Appointments Committee has considered and reported on a complaint from Christian Allard about Alexander Burnett MSP. The complaint was that Alexander Burnett MSP failed to declare his registered business interests when submitting written parliamentary questions back in August last year. All of the details of the complaint, the committee's deliberations and the commissioner's investigation can be found in the annexes of our report. The complaint alleged that Alexander Burnett MSP had relevant business interests related to housing development in Bancari Aberdeenshire. It was the complainer's submission that the conflict of interest arose by virtue of entries in the respondents' register of interest. The commissioner for ethical standards and public life investigated the complaint and concluded that Mr Burnett was in breach of the interests of members of the Scottish Parliament Act 2006 and the code of conduct for MSPs. The committee unanimously endorsed the commissioner's conclusion and, furthermore, we consider that the breach justifies the imposition of a sanction on Alexander Burnett. The committee wishes to focus its recommended sanction on the specific breach that is complained about. Accordingly, it recommends that Alexander Burnett MSP be prohibited from lodging parliamentary questions for written answer for a period of two weeks that will not overlap with any period of recess. I would like to take this opportunity to reiterate on behalf of the committee that the declaration of registered financial interests in any matter before taking part in the proceedings of the Parliament relating to that matter is an essential aspect of parliamentary transparency and accountability. Furthermore, it is a legal requirement under the interests of members of the Scottish Parliament Act 2006 and the code of conduct for MSPs. Before taking part in any proceedings of the Parliament, a member must always consider whether he has a declarable interest in relation to the particular matter being addressed in those proceedings. It is incumbent on members to make the appropriate written and oral declarations if they have a declarable interest. I move the motion on behalf of the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee. Thank you, and the question will be put at decision time. The next item of business is consideration of business motion 8099, in the name of Joe Fitzpatrick, on behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau, setting out a business programme. I would ask anyone who objects to say so now or to press the button, I should say. I will call on Joe Fitzpatrick to move motion 8099. The next item of business is consideration of Parliamentary Bureau motion. I would ask Joe Fitzpatrick to move motion 8098, in the name of Gordon Lindhurst, on gender pay gap, be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. The next question is motion 8013, in the name of Clare Adamson, on breach of the code of conduct for members of the Scottish Parliament, be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. And the final question is motion 8098, in the name of Joe Fitzpatrick, on a committee meeting, be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. That concludes decision time. We will now move to members' business in the name of Edward Mountain, and we'll just take a few moments for members to change seats.