Meeting of the Parliament 03 March 2020
I welcome the chance to take part in the debate. Several members have already mentioned that the tag line for this year’s international women’s day is each for equal.
Under that theme, I have seen campaigners highlighting in particular the important contribution of women to the economy, and the levels of inequality that exist in the labour market. For example, research by Close the Gap found that closing the gender gap in employment could be worth up to £17 billion to the Scottish economy. Measuring value in that way can be reductive: we should want a more equal world on principle, not just for economic reasons. I am wildly impressed by the voice of Greta Thunberg, who is one of the world’s most inspiring voices on climate change, a young woman who speaks with both anger and clarity in an incredible way and who uses her platform to lift up the voices of others, not just to speak for herself. It is important to recognise that it is not just about the economy.
However, looking at the economic metrics does help to demonstrate the scale of change that we still need to see. Women’s pay is still 15 per cent lower than men’s, across the whole workforce. Since 2011, the gender pay gap has fallen by only 0.9 per cent for full-time employees. Information on the lack of progress on that subject is available from the Scottish Parliament Information Centre, and it should shock us all.
Such issues were highlighted to me this morning, when I visited the University and College Union’s picket line at the University of Strathclyde, where people were campaigning on the linked issues of pay, workload and casualisation, as well as the gender pay gap. The combined impacts of low pay, precarious work, and the way in which workload impacts on family life, given the unequal distribution of caring work, exacerbate the existing gender pay gap and the lack of women in highly promoted posts in the sector.
It is true that we have seen good progress on certain issues. I echo the comments that have already been made about the Period Products (Free Provision) (Scotland) Bill, promoted by Monica Lennon. It has been estimated that, over a woman’s lifetime, it will cost her more than £5,000 to purchase such products. The Parliament has now agreed that that is not acceptable and that eradicating that cost barrier is imperative. Monica Lennon is due great credit for her work on the issue, as are those from across the spectrum—in particular, those in the Scottish National Party—who ensured that the Government came to see the case for supporting the bill. They are all due congratulations for working across party lines on the issue.
The bill is not a destination in itself, but it should engage members’ minds on the size of the task that remains ahead of us. We still have a long way to go on women’s reproductive rights, on pay, which I have mentioned, and on the experience of marginalised women, such as those in ethnic minority, trans and non-binary communities. For example, we have not taken some of the steps that are open to us on reproductive rights. Under the Abortion Act 1967, there is still no legal right to an abortion in Scotland without the permission of two doctors. Under the Scotland Act 2016, that power now sits with this devolved Parliament, as it should have done from the start. It was an anomaly to devolve all health and justice matters at the start of devolution in 1999 but to consider abortion to be an exception. Whether we regard it as a criminal matter or a health matter, it should have been part of the devolution settlement. We can, and should, now take the obvious step of decriminalisation, which many reproductive healthcare professionals have called for. Provision for late-term abortions is still not what it needs to be in this country.
I was pleased to see that the motion recognises the importance of taking an intersectional approach. I think that I am right in saying that, if we agree to the motion—I hope that we will do so unanimously—it will be the first time that the Parliament has expressed a view on that. I know that, for some people, intersectionality sounds awful jargony, and it can be a bit of a tongue twister. That is partly because the idea originates in a lot of US thinking. In American English, intersection is used in everyday language, so intersectionality is much more accessible as an everyday concept—it is the way in which things meet at a crossroads.
At its root, intersectionality is a simple and powerful idea: that we need to recognise the different ways in which inequality, prejudice and discrimination can play out. Neither people as a whole nor groups of people are homogenous. Gender inequality impacts in different ways on women who are white and on women in black and minority ethnic communities; on women who are disabled and on women who are not, on women who are well off and on women who live in poverty; on women who are trans; on those who choose to identify as cisgendered; and on those who do not hold any gender identity at all.
In Scotland, we have a large number of women’s organisations, including Engender, the Scottish Women’s Convention, Zero Tolerance and many others, that have been doing fantastic work over the years to support women, and they have worked with a proudly intersectional ethos. An assumption that all women are non-trans would be every bit as wrong as an assumption that all women are white, or able bodied, or heterosexual, and it would be just as likely to continue to create inequality.
I welcome the chance to debate such matters. It took 50 years from the first international women’s day to equal pay legislation. It is now another 50 years later and we still have not fully delivered on equal pay. We have a lot more work to do. I hope that we will unite and unanimously agree to the motion tonight.
15:38