This morning Labour MSP Jenny Marra called on the Scottish Government to set quotas for women’s representation on the boards of public bodies.
Her amendment to the Police and Fire Reform Bill, setting out that the board of the new single police service should consist of a minimum of 40% women and 40% men, was rejected at committee stage by the SNP and Conservatives.
In the debate today, Marra said: “Gender equality at boardroom level is unlikely to happen organically in the next 13 years unless we take bigger and bolder steps to make it happen.”
34% of public appointments in Scotland in 2011/12 were held by women, but with significant gender imbalances within organisations: as quoted by Marra, the board of sportscotland is 78% male.
The Scottish Government appears keen to make progress in improving women’s representation in public life, if perhaps not to the extent of quotas. According to Sports Minister Shona Robison: “It is patronising to assume that there aren’t equal numbers of equally suitable male and female candidates, and it is worse than patronising to assume that the best candidate just happened to turn out to be male on so many occasions. Public appointments have seen some good progress being made over the years but it is not enough.”
The Scottish Government’s response is to hold an open event hosted by the Scottish Government and supported by the Public Appointments Commissioner to review the progress of the Diversity Delivers strategy.
Many European countries are looking at following the example of Scandinavian nations, in introducing quotas to improve the representation of women on public and private boards. The Westminster government has an aspiration that by 2015, 50% of new appointments to public bodies will be women. In the private sector, companies are working towards a voluntary target, introduced by Lord Davies in 2011, to increase the percentage of women on FTSE 100 boards to 25% from 12.5%.
Norway introduced legislation in 2003 to set 40% quotas for women on boards. The proposed legislation caused a great deal of public debate in Norway, with opponents arguing such measures would be unfair to men, that private companies should be free to appoint who they like, and that more competent men would be replaced with less able women.
According to Aagoth Storvik, who conducted the study Women on Board into the Norwegian experience together with Mari Teigan, “It is surprising because when the quota was introduced it created a lot of debate, especially from people in the business sector, who were critical of the reform. But after the reform went into force almost nobody seemed to object, hardly anybody is writing about it in the newspapers any more or telling us about negative experiences.” Further research published in 2012 indicates the changes are not an economic burden.
Earlier this year, the EU urged businesses to consider affirmative action to voluntarily improve women’s representation on boards, in order to demonstrate that compulsory targets will not be necessary. Storvik and Teigen’s findings demonstrated that without the compulsory order being imposed Norwegian boards only made modest improvements in representation. But Shona Robison is right to note in the debate in Holyrood that there is no consensus on the issue.
Like Jean Stephens, the chief executive of RSM International, I believe quotas are a ‘necessary evil’ to make the change in boardroom culture we need. According to Stephens, “Proposals for European-level legislation to set binding targets for Women on Boards is both welcome and essential. Equality within the boardroom is drastically lagging and realistic quotas are a necessary evil to kick-start the changes needed to create a correct level of diversity.”
Representation, especially on public bodies, should reflect society. That means public boards need to include people from all parts of the community, and women are not a minority in that. I believe quotas work, and it would have been both brave and the right thing to do for the SNP to introduce them to the new single police board. Nonetheless, I hope in moving forward from Marra’s call today, the Scottish Government will reflect on how a better and more equal Scottish state needs more women to be at the table, and how that they as the government have the powers to make that happen.
#1 by Gregor on June 14, 2012 - 1:16 pm
I simply could not disagree with you more.
Quotas are awful.
They cure the symptoms but simply do not tackle the underlying issues. Across politics we are severely hamstrung by the imbalance of people involved with wider society.. I don’t think anyone will disagree; but this is completely the wrong way of going about it.
Female quotas seek to ensure that the few woman who do wish to partake are artificially accelerated, and the “best person for the job” is left behind. I have a female constituency MSP – she is utterly brilliant. Wouldn’t change her for the world; but she is there on merit, not gender. Quotas will do nothing to address the problem of *why* women aren’t putting themselves forward for positions.
And it doesn’t just apply to women. If we are to implement quotas for women, should we also have a quota for disabled people, BMEs, LGBT people, those from lower socio-economic backgrounds, and so on?
If I were the best person for the job, should I be excluded because I am male? Is that the sort of “equal” Scotland we wish to live in?
By the same token, should I be given a job because I am a gay man, even though there might be a heterosexual man OR woman who is more qualified to take that place?
Also, for completeness, I think Ms Marra should declare an interest, as she is where she is today because of a “zipped list” system, and Labour’s inability to win a single seat in the North East region.
#2 by James on June 14, 2012 - 1:33 pm
Good plan from Jenny, like it.
By coincidence, this morning the Presiding Officer also declined at the last minute to take a speech from an MSP from the only party which currently uses any gender balance mechanism internally – the Greens require the same 40%/40% minimums across all seats selected.
#3 by Ross on June 14, 2012 - 3:05 pm
#1 – ‘female quotas’ – what are they? Nobody proposed female only quotas. You say they dont work – look to Finland, Norway, Iceland, Denmark, Berlin – Canada, Belgium, Italy, Spain France. And even the EU as a whole is proposing quotas for boards.
Truth is, although it shouldn’t gender does matter. And as long as you accept that women are equal to men there is no real argument against each of them having a minority stake on a board.
SNP record on women’s issues is apalling. Time we started emulating the nations they love to aspire to so much.
#4 by Tris on June 14, 2012 - 3:06 pm
I agree with every word that Gregor wrote.
We need the best people to run our public bodies. If we have quota for women, reflecting the make up of society, we will need quotas based on ethnicity, sexuality, faith, socio-economic status, disability (all of them, not just in general), age; probably more. It is totally unworkable.
#5 by Kirsty on June 14, 2012 - 3:09 pm
I agree we need the best people to run our boards, but why is it that all the apparently best people at present are mostly white men?
#6 by Iain Menzies on June 14, 2012 - 4:05 pm
I dont know why that is. I dont even know if that IS the way things are.
But it should be the best people, if you can show that right now there arent the best people, and that female quotas will provide the best people you may be on to something.
As it is what you suggest would ensure more women, but do nothing to ensure the best people are there.
#7 by Kirsty on June 14, 2012 - 4:10 pm
What makes you think that diversity and merit are mutually exclusive?
#8 by Iain Menzies on June 14, 2012 - 4:49 pm
what makes you think they are in anyway connected, especially on an individual level?
My other half is a doctor, does his being gay make him a better doctor….personally i think that his value as a doctor is a combination of his training and experience….not what he does in the bedroom.
#9 by Kirsty on June 14, 2012 - 4:51 pm
I meant as social outcomes, not on an individual level. If a board wants to appoint on merit, what is it about also seeking diversity that precludes this? For example, if you’re just appointing from the same cabal of white, male, establishment figures, how do you know if you’re really appointing the “best”?
#10 by Gregor on June 14, 2012 - 4:52 pm
I’m double posting here, and I apologise, but I thought it important to say this, as I don’t think I’ve ever said it before, nor am I likely to say it again. I hope you’re sitting down, pal..
I agree completely with what Iain has said.
If you want equality, we must break any connection between diversity and merit.
#11 by Iain Menzies on June 14, 2012 - 5:15 pm
Gast is flabbered
#12 by Chris on June 14, 2012 - 3:07 pm
Gregor
Wouldn’t it be better to take action from the top to the bottom rather than just at the bottom? Before Labour primarily took action we had only 3 Women MPs in Scotland out of 72 only as recently as 1987 (Margaret Bain, Maria Fyfe and Ray Michie). Leaving it to the market doesn’t work.
#13 by Gregor on June 14, 2012 - 3:49 pm
Ross; your anti-SNP stance is admirable in its determination, but sadly not helpful in solving this issue.
I’m sorry that you feel aggrieved by me shortening “40% of boards to be made up of female members” as a female quota rather than a “whole board quota”, but if that’s the best argument you can countenance my arguments with, then that’s fair enough.
Chris – I’m not, by any means, suggesting no action is taken. It’s clear that we must do SOMETHING. I don’t however, think that fighting discrimination with more discrimination is the best way of going about it. I don’t know how to engage more women in politics, I’m not a woman, and don’t speak for them, and don’t want to condescend them by telling them what “we” should do for them.
I also think that by talking of the two genders so rigidly, we’re doing the Transgendered and transexual communities a disservice.
I want to live in a Scotland where all are welcome, and everyone can get to where they should be based on merit. We have a very, very, very long way to go, and I’m happy to debate any measure that we could go for. But compulsory quotas are a retrograde step towards that goal. Not in my name.
#14 by Kirsty on June 14, 2012 - 4:17 pm
Well, I am a woman, and on your logic above that means I get to say what’s best to be done.
But that’s not the point. When government ministers are appointing boards (and this is the topic of the post, not engaging more women in politics which you mention above) I think a greater diversity of voices and experiences will generate better leadership of Scotland’s public organisations.
I agree that diversity should ideally be created by merit, but check your privilege – public appointments aren’t yet a level playing field if you’re not male and from the Scottish Establishment. I’m glad you’re happy to debate any measure that will build this diversity – as I said in the post, quotas are a measure that has been demonstrated to work, and I think the SNP should have at least tried it on the new single police board.
#15 by Gregor on June 14, 2012 - 4:25 pm
It’s exactly that condescension that I think we need to get away from.
What do you mean that I should check my privilege? Do you think I am where I am because I am a man?
I’m not from the Scottish Establishment, nor am I of the predominantly middle class, christian, heterosexual types that fill these boards.
A greater diversity of voices and experiences will generate better leadership of Scotland’s public organisations – but that goes far and beyond the genitals a person happens to have.
Quotas solve the symptoms – of course if you set a legal minimum of women representatives then it’s going to happen and we can all clap ourselves on the back. But have we really changed society and culture? Or are we getting more middle class, christian, heterosexual types just with different clothes?
The Single Police Board, especially in its infancy, is going to be incredibly important to the whole justice system in this country. I don’t think we should be using it as a political tool. I don’t know anything of the make up of who is going to be on it, but I certainly don’t want to see people left out simply because they are the wrong gender. That is not the Scotland I want to live in.
#16 by Kirsty on June 14, 2012 - 4:45 pm
The single police board is a new construct, and I think for that reason is the best place to start implementing policies like quotas – it doesn’t disrupt any already existing trustee or board member patterns as would be the case for other organisations.
I’m not suggesting quotas are the solution – merely the first step in creating a culture where having women on the board isn’t unusual. Genuine question – what would you do to develop that diversity instead?
#17 by Iain Menzies on June 14, 2012 - 4:54 pm
See even if i accepted what you think is a good idea i would think that doing this with the SPB would be madness.
If there are issues with the police in future that can be laid at the door of the SPB then it will be all to easy to say its the wumin’s fault…..what you want to be doing is taking a bored that currently works well without women, and madate putting more women there, then if there is any advantage to it (other than ticking the diversity box) you can crow about it and roll it out.
If there is no quantifiable advantage, then we can put the idea back in the box marked silly political posturing.
#18 by Gregor on June 14, 2012 - 4:56 pm
I’d rather we solved the problem, rather than paper over the cracks.
We need to know *why* women aren’t applying for these types of jobs. In my local area, for example, when you look at why the council candidates, all parties (bar Labour, with their AWS) struggled to field women. I know in my own party, that’s not because they weren’t selected, it was because they didn’t put their names forward.
The same goes generally in politics. I’ve had a few jobs and whenever I’ve seen lists of candidates for jobs, it’s always heavily male. Heavily male applicant lists will lead to heavily male boards.
Until we get more women applying for such posts, things won’t really change, we’ll just artificially promote those women who are happy to put their hat into the ring. That doesn’t help those women who feel excluded.
Something like blind interviews or something would help – or blind shortlisting at least as a start. Remove the candidate’s names and any identifying information when they’re applying for jobs. That’ll make sure it’s based on merit, and not gender.
Under a quota system, I could be the best person for the job, and yet be denied because of my gender. Can you please, please explain in what way, shape or form this is a more equal situation than now?
#19 by Kirsty on June 14, 2012 - 5:33 pm
I don’t accept the premise of your question, because I don’t think ‘the best’ candidate exists for any post: just candidates that are capable to varying or lesser degrees, each with differing strengths and weaknesses which you can choose between. In that scenario you present, appointing someone who is capable and female is not fair on you, but is better in the wider sense of equality. This is what I mean by checking privilege – if you want a more equal society, then you have to accept that not all things will be good for you individually within that society.
#20 by Doug Daniel on June 15, 2012 - 10:51 am
I’ve been against quotas in the past, but let’s face it, sometimes you just need to force people’s hand. My recent trip to Norway made it abundantly clear that we’re absolutely miles behind the Scandinavians in this respect, and unless someone has a more subtle and nuanced approach, then we should just go with this.
We could spend long enough just saying “yeah, we need to do SOMETHING!” without actually getting anywhere. Maybe just the imminent threat of quotas would see companies suddenly become a bit more concerned about gender equality.
There is a caveat though: my department has been expanding quite rapidly of late, taking on three new developers and a tester. Every single one of them has been male, giving my department the rather one-sided gender split of 13 men and 0 females. On the face of it, we look incredibly sexist, but that hides the fact that we’ve been trying our best to take on women (we almost got one, but she turned us down for a better paid job). The sad fact is there simply aren’t enough women doing software development at university to allow proper diversity. Then again, our accounts, resourcing and HR departments are almost the exact opposite – 1 male to something like 20 females.
I don’t know if this makes up for the gender bias in our department (which, as I’ve said, we’re desperately trying to solve – if only because it just feels unnatural), but it’s certainly something to think about, especially when one is looking at the differences in average earnings between men and women. Is it the fault of women in general that they seem to go for careers that pay less, perhaps because they’re simply not interested in the same things as men, or is it society’s fault for somehow making them feel like they stand a better chance in those careers than in ones like IT and engineering?
I just mention that because the one thing we need to be aware of with quotas is that there needs to be a supply to meet the demand. But that is a detail that can be sorted out in the actual implementation.
#21 by Tris on June 15, 2012 - 11:27 am
I think Doug, that you have hit the nail squarely on its head.
You would also find if you went to a steel smelting plant that most of the operatives would be male; despite management removing most of the physical labour from bin emptying, it remains a male dominated job, as do the building trades. On the other hand nurses are still predominantly female as are people who work on assembly lines for small and intricate technology.
We have to remember when making our plans for re-arranging things to fit the politically correct model, that sometimes nature will not be thwarted.
No one says that men cannot do this job, or women cannot do that job, but sometimes nature gets in the way.
Some time ago I was recruiting for a factory that makes kitchen units. They were looking for a very large number of labourers. We had over 200 applications, not one of which was from a woman despite it being open to all.
I also recruited for a company freezing local farm produce over the summer. The hours were very long, the work hard and cold (at some stages dirty), the pay lousy. We had, nonetheless, a large number of applicants. Most were in the age range 18-24. Nearly every one was male, but where we could we took on females. Within the first week every female but one had left, and she was far bigger and tougher than most of the guys.
We must remember the needs of employers a little too in this rush to be politically correct.
Again though, I would ask, if we have gender equality, what about other equality matters.
#22 by Chris on June 16, 2012 - 9:41 am
It’s not really nature, it’s culture. Culture is, of course, a good thing. One of the best thing about culture is that it changes constantly. We can leave that change to simply evolve or we can intervene to make changes in culture.
The culture of smacking kids has changed a lot without much intervention – although NSPCC campaigns have helped. Whereas the culture of drink-driving or driving without a seatbelt changed by direct legal intervention.
it is possible to change culture by law, presuming that the parliamentarians had some democratic accountability, which they do.
Looking at parlaiment I am quite surprised by the SNP’s reluctance on positive discrimination. It is noticeably out of kilter for a purportedly centre-left party. Given the gender imbalance in its membership and voters you would think they would be making more efforts on this. Maybe the party is run by and for old men? You tell me.