The Big Question: Why is there still such a big gap between men's and women's pay?

Why are we talking about equality now?

The Equal Opportunities Commission is about to be subsumed into the Commission for Equality and Human Rights. It has produced its swansong report, Completing the Revolution, which paints a picture of persistent gender inequality in Britain.

What's the problem?

On almost every front women are making progress, but it is painfully slow. Decades after the landmark Equal Pay Act (1970) and the Sex Discrimination Act (1975), for example, and countless commissions and enquiries, women working part-time earn 38 per cent less than men working part-time. Full-time female employees earn 17 per cent less than men - bad but way down on the 30 per cent differential recorded in 1970. The EOC say that the average woman working full-time could lose out on £330,000 over her working life.

Ethnic differences can exaggerate the situation further, and the EOC point to the problems faced by transgender people. They enjoy fewer legal safeguards and still more discrimination.

Women are under-represented at the top of business, politics and the law, they tend not to run and own their own businesses, and they usually receive lower pensions. The Government's recent Women and Work Commission suggested that "increasing women's participation in the economy and breaking down the gender segregation of jobs could be worth between £15bn and £23bn per year to the UK economy".

Is the glass ceiling intact?

More than 20 years after The Wall Street Journal coined the phrase to characterise the seeming inability of women to break through some invisible, informal barrier to the top in business, things are little better than they were then, in America or in Britain.

In the mid-Eighties, women had 45.7 per cent of America's jobs and more than half of the master's degrees being awarded. Yet 95 per cent of senior managers were men, and female managers' earnings were, on average, 68 per cent of their male counterparts. Today, the figures have hardly changed. A survey by Cranfield business school found that the number of female executive directors of FTSE-100 companies edged up from 11 in 2000 to 17 in 2005, against 400 men. Only 10 per cent of all directorships of FTSE-100 firms are held by females. There are 54 holders of the highest judicial offices - only four are women. Of the 108 High Court judges, just 10 are women, or 9 per cent.

What are the barriers?

Almost endless. They pervade every aspect of life and work from cradle to grave, and are peculiarly impervious to official action. The Women and Work Commission identified problems emerging at a very early age. It found that, "despite girls' high aspirations, and outperforming boys in exams at school and university, many girls and young women follow traditional routes in education and training". Girls also "perceive vocational qualifications as being stereotypically male".

Those women who do make it to the fast track often find themselves dropping a few gears when they have a family. Probably the biggest single problem for professional women is this marginalisation from the workforce, exacerbated by difficulties in finding and affording childcare. Women also tend to be single parents, who have problems in accessing work in the first place. Similar difficulties are emerging as women become carers in our ageing society.

There are softer barriers too: in some occupations, long hours or a boozy ethos can effectively close women out of "networking" opportunities, though there are exceptions and things are not as clear-cut as they were. Promotion decisions can also suffer from simple bias, based on unconscious stereotyping or a discrimination based on the calculation that a woman might leave to start a family.

A barrage of legal cases has probably made employers more guarded about such decisions nowadays. The case of a City analyst, Julie Bower, in 2002 was instructive. She was awarded £1.4m compensation for sex discrimination after a tribunal found that she was forced out of her job at Schroder Securities. Differences in lifetime pay inevitably lead to similar disparities in pensions; thus does the gender gap perpetuate itself long after work and child rearing.

What about Blair's babes?

Some crashed and burned, but the female breakthrough in 1997, overwhelmingly Labour, was a step change. In 1987, 41 MPs were female, 6 per cent of the total. The number rose over the next two parliaments to 120 in 1997 (122 after by-elections), with more than 100 of them Labour. This slipped to 118 after the 2001 election but rose to 127 after the 2005 vote. Women now make up 1 in 5 of all MPs, the highest ever proportion. But at this rate, according to the EOC, the "power gap" in parliament will take almost 200 years to close. Parliament has been made more "family friendly" and gender issues seem to take up more time, but how much policy has been influenced by women is less clear.

Most female voters have backed the Conservatives in every election since they fully gained the franchise in 1928, with the exception of 1997.

Who's doing the washing up?

The ladies. The EOC say that the "chores gap" - the difference in the amount of time men and women spend doing housework per day - will "never close", with women spending 78 per cent more time than men doing the washing-up, ironing and the rest.

So it's a man's world?

Pretty much, though men tend to be unhealthier, historically, and die younger. The EOC say this health gap is "likely never to close" , with men aged 16 to 44 almost half as likely as women to consult their GP, which can result in later diagnosis and treatment. On the other hand, gender inequality even applies to homicide; every month, the EOC says seven women are killed by their partner, ex-partner or lover.

Are things getting better?

Some things are changing relatively fast. The new legal right to request flexible working has had an impact. Now some 47 per cent of new mothers work flexitime, compared to 17 per cent in 2002, and 32 per cent of new fathers now work flexibly, triple the number in 2002. The introduction of the Gender Equality Duty on public bodies may also change things, requiring them to take account of the different needs of men and women when they deliver services. But having it all seems almost as tough a deal as ever.

Can we learn form abroad?

The Nordic nations have been particularly keen on gender-equality issues. Probably the most dramatic recent example of radical action occurred in Norway, where a law was passed requiring companies to have two women on their boards. Norwegian business has not notably suffered as a result.

Are things getting better for women?

Yes...

* The pay gap between women and men is now much smaller than it used to be

* There are many more women in politics and, under both Brown and Blair, there are more women in the Cabinet than ever before

* Women are more confident of their own position and more willing to fight for their rights

No...

* The number of women in positions of influence and power is still relatively insignificant

* Until childcare provision improves, women will continue to be marginalised in the workplace when they start a family

* After centuries of being in charge, men are still reluctant to relinquish power to women