Meeting of the Parliament

Meeting date: Thursday, June 15, 2023

Official Report 1072KB pdf

---

Gender-sensitive Audit

The next item of business is a debate on the Scottish Parliament’s gender-sensitive audit. I ask those members who wish to speak in the debate to press their request-to-speak buttons. Members may wish to be aware that the format for today’s debate allows some flexibility for longer interventions to be taken, should members wish to so proceed.

I call Karen Adam to open the debate on behalf of the board. I can give you a generous eight minutes, Ms Adam.

15:02  

Fantastic—thank you, Presiding Officer.

It is a privilege to open this debate and to have the opportunity to discuss our collective efforts to construct a gender-sensitive Parliament. The concept of a gender-sensitive Parliament is recognised by legislatures around the world and is a response to what my colleagues around the chamber will have lived experience of day in, day out. Sadly, women’s representation in Parliament is not reflective of our representation in society, and even here, where the decisions about Scotland are made, women are denied real power.

The Parliament’s gender-sensitive audit, which was launched by the Presiding Officer in 2022, looked at our rules, practices and culture to examine how women are—or are not—included and represented here. The new report, “A Parliament for All: Report of the Parliament’s Gender Sensitive Audit”, which I encourage every member to read, makes a number of recommendations to address the issues that were highlighted by the audit.

Of course, the barriers to entry for women to this Parliament and politics in general are many, and I want to spend a few moments talking about the obstacles that many of my colleagues across the parties might have faced.

In the 2021 election, I stood on an all-women candidate list in Banffshire and Buchan Coast. On many occasions in that election, I was challenged by a small but vocal minority not on my ability, my values or what I could bring to the debate, but on the basis that I stood on an all-women shortlist. For that small yet vocal minority, it did not matter what experience I could bring to bear when discussing the many issues that are faced by people across Banffshire and Buchan Coast.

For them, it did not matter that I was working class, that I was brought up in an LGBT home, that I had experience of translating for my deaf father or caring for my children with additional support needs, or that I had succeeded in many voluntary positions while juggling a degree and being a councillor and single parent to six children. For them, it did not matter that I had the opportunity of bringing those experiences to Parliament and being a voice for so many others like me, who rarely see themselves reflected in Parliaments like this one. All that mattered was that I was on an all-women shortlist, which meant that I had somehow skipped the queue. While we discuss how we support women in Parliament, I hope that I have given every party leader pause for thought on the uphill struggles, misogyny, abuse and harassment that women face on their journeys into this place.

The audit, which was carried out by Dr Fiona McKay, found that there had been fluctuations over time in the number of women in leadership and decision-making roles in the Scottish Parliament Corporate Body, the Parliamentary Bureau and committee convenerships, for example. That suggests that equal representation of women and men is not embedded within Parliament, nor is it guaranteed going forward. We can and must do better.

The audit also found that the number of women and men on committees does not always reflect the gender balance in Parliament. Men tend to be overrepresented in a number of mandatory committees, such as those dealing with finance, audit, standards and procedures and delegated powers. The one mandatory committee where women tend to be overrepresented is the committee that is responsible for equalities, which is the Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee, on which I sit.

On the level of participation in Parliament, the audit found that women tended to make fewer contributions during First Minister’s questions and were less likely to intervene in debates. It also found that men were more likely to have their interventions accepted by men and women.

To the surprise of no women in the chamber today, the audit found that, although there appears to be a positive shift in attitudes towards women in politics, women members of the Scottish Parliament still encounter sexism. I will not go into full detail here, but I have lost count of the number of times that I have been told what I should or should not say, what I should or should not do and where I should or should not sit. I have lost count of the number of times that I have been spoken over or expected to explain myself, and we know full well that that is seldom the case for our male colleagues. I call on my male colleagues to challenge that behaviour wherever they see it. Only in that way can we change the culture for good.

Will the member take an intervention?

Absolutely.

I acknowledge what Karen is saying today. She makes a valid point about the respect that women should be given when they come into a role in Parliament. That respect has not always been shown. As she says, it is up to all of us to do our bit and for the men in Parliament to stand up and be counted because it is they who are, at times, not treating women with the respect that they deserve.

I thank my colleague for that intervention. He is absolutely right. I thank him for his acknowledgement and for always being respectful to me. We can all spread the message to our other male colleagues that they should do better. Setting a good example is a good way of doing that.

As a mother of six children with caring responsibilities for my children and father, I was particularly interested in the report’s findings on childcare provision and our oft-lauded family-friendly Parliament. It is exceptionally hard for a parent, particularly a single parent, to be a parliamentarian. I welcome the return of the crèche and I hope that greater provision and more flexible childcare will become available in the future.

Will the member take an intervention?

Yes.

I am conscious that I am the second man to seek to make an intervention, but nothing should be read into that. It is because of my interest in the debate rather than my seeking to have my voice magnified more than anyone else’s.

As a working dad—that puts constraints on my wife as it impacts on her job as a nurse in Glasgow—I am interested in seeing the crèche extend beyond four-hour slots, perhaps to partnership nursery status with much more flexibility. Did anything on that come out of the gender-sensitive audit? I ought to say that I am asking not just for my benefit, but for my family, so we can get the balance right in our lives and have proper equality in everything that we do.

Thank you. I agree with those comments—four hours is a good start, but we certainly need to go further, with a more flexible approach. As the member said, the more childcare we can provide for families as a whole, including for men, the lesser the burden of childcare on women will be.

The report states:

“The retention of hybrid and remote systems was seen as increasing flexibility and access, including for those with caring responsibilities.”

In the past few months alone, our hybrid system has allowed me to carry out my duties in the Parliament when I have been unable to be in Edinburgh. However, we must be mindful that whether to allow remote or hybrid participation is often at the discretion of individual parties.

I am proud that my party is invested in supporting more women into politics at every level of government. I am proud that, under Nicola Sturgeon’s leadership, we introduced the first gender-balanced cabinet in the United Kingdom and that, under Humza Yousaf’s premiership, we now see more women in Government than ever before.

We must celebrate that, but we can and must do more, in Government and as a party and a Parliament, particularly on the unprecedented levels of abuse that are faced online and in the media by women in elected politics.

How can I, in good conscience, encourage women to step into any political sphere in the knowledge that doing so will lead to abuse on a daily basis? Many women to whom I have spoken have told me that they have no desire to put themselves in the crosshairs of keyboard warriors, and that breaks my heart.

It was an honour to be a member of the gender-sensitive audit board. I thank the Presiding Officer, Alison Johnstone, and fellow members who sat on the board, namely Maggie Chapman, Monica Lennon, Jeremy Balfour and Alex Cole-Hamilton; the experts who have helped to shape this important report, including Professor Sarah Childs, Dr Meryl Kenny and Professor Fiona Mackay from the universities of Edinburgh and Strathclyde; and Susan Duffy and Tracey White from the Scottish Parliament, Catherine Murphy of Engender, and Eilidh Dickson.

As is the case with the pursuit of equality, change is never instant, and efforts to enact change must be continuous. We need political commitment over the long term, not only so that the quick wins and short-term goals are reached, but so that substantial institutional change is reached. Equally, our introspection must not stop here. Assessing a Parliament for its gender sensitivity is not a one-off event. Progress needs to be monitored, data needs to be collected and analysed on an on-going basis, and further changes need to be made as inequalities are identified. I am encouraged by the enthusiasm and commitment of the Parliament’s staff. I fervently believe we will make change for the better, and I look forward to working with all to enact the recommendations of the report.

This year, we celebrate the centenary of the first woman from Scotland being elected to the UK Parliament; I note that my colleague John Swinney has celebrated the remarkable Katharine Stewart-Murray in a motion this week. We have come a long way over the past 100 years, but we still have a long way to go.

I call the Minister for Equalities, Migration and Refugees, Emma Roddick. You have a generous seven minutes, minister.

15:12  

I welcome the report, and I thank Karen Adam for her contribution to the debate today and to the report. Having been elected at the same time as her, I know that these have not been an easy couple of years. We have both faced quite a lot of online abuse and the types of obstacles that she described, yet she still took the time, and made the effort, to contribute to this really valuable report, so fair play to her.

I have genuinely been looking forward to this debate, because I know that there are a lot of serious issues to be raised and a spotlight to be shone on the experiences of women in this Parliament and in politics in general. In addition, I know that there is likely to be a great deal of cross-party consensus, which I hope will mean that we can get into the details rather than focus simply on the headline issues.

The Scottish Government has consistently held the position that it is for the Parliament to consider any proposals that are relevant to its internal operation, membership and working practices, but we routinely monitor the proposed development of parliamentary policy and operation to assess any potential impacts on ministerial interests, and we are happy to provide assistance if we are invited to do so. Although it is for the Parliament to act on the report, I am here as a minister to offer support on the work that it will lead to, and to pick up on any lessons that the Scottish Government can learn.

It would look pretty daft if I got up and did not acknowledge the obvious: I am also a woman in politics—a queer disabled woman. As many members will know, I have had my struggles in contributing to a system that was very much not designed for me or with people like me in mind. From being left out or not managing to get a word in when there are men in a meeting, to unacceptable comments and abuse, I face misogyny and sexism at work from folk in other parties and, sometimes, my own. If that surprises anyone, they are not paying attention. Sexism is so rooted in our society that it is not an issue for one party, one politics or one workplace; it is a problem everywhere. Not one party or area of society is free of it, and we have to recognise and accept that fact first if we are to stand any chance of dealing with the issue.

Emma Roddick talks about her route into politics. I for one am very glad that she is in politics; I think that she brings a lot to the chamber. Members will have been struck by her excellent address to the outgoing First Minister just a few weeks ago, in which she talked about her route in and how she was asked to stand by a senior politician. Does she recognise that the responsibility falls to all of us to identify strong, talented women, suggest that they run for political office and find ways to help them to do so?

Absolutely. However, that relates to an important point that Karen Adam touched on. I, too, struggle with telling women that they should stand, because I know what they will come up against. We have to encourage women to stand, but we also have to do the work to ensure that, once they are here, this is a safe space for them and that politics is not putting them in danger.

Briefly, I want to mention that, although we should encourage women to stand, all of us who are in political parties will understand it when I say that the selection process can be the most brutal experience. As parties, we might not want to talk about that, but it is often the elephant in the room. We should support people once they get elected, but the selection process can be the most brutal part of the process, and that can put people off. Does the minister recognise that point, and will she suggest to all political parties that we must do better?

Absolutely. That is an important point, not only because of how difficult selection processes are but because being a candidate does not mean that a person will be elected, but it can mean that they face an awful lot of conflict even if they are not successful. They might have trauma from the things that they experience, and some people who are not successful in elections still manage to attract abuse long after the contest is over. I am more than happy to speak with my party and all other parties about how we can do better by candidates.

We have to acknowledge that there is a long history of sexism, discrimination and inequality. The report was right to state that change

“is not going to happen overnight or without political commitment”.

It has taken a sustained effort on the part of many people to embed sexism in society, and it will take a sustained effort to embed equality instead.

Leadership is an important step in that journey, and we in Parliament have a responsibility to set an example and, crucially, to ensure that a seat in our national Parliament is accessible and attainable for women across the country who want to be here and who have something to contribute to public life.

The Scottish Government is playing its part in that regard. I highlight the work of the First Minister’s national advisory council on women and girls. Off the back of its important recommendations, we have made progress on ensuring consistent access to self-referral for friends at medical examinations after an assault, we are funding Engender’s development manager post to support gender-equal and gender-sensitive representation in the media, and we are delivering on our commitment to expand entitlement to 1,140 hours of funded early learning and childcare. Those are just a few of the things on our very long list of important advances.

I will now talk specifically about a few of the report’s recommendations. As Karen Adam said, the report discusses the goal of a family-friendly Parliament. That term is used often here when there are late sittings, when unreasonable expectations are placed on people with caring responsibilities or when plans change unexpectedly and at short notice. I am very aware that there are different ideas across the chamber about what “family friendly” means. I like the alternative phrase that was offered in the report of “life friendly”, not only because it is likely to give us more room for flexibility but because, whether or not someone has a family, this Parliament can often be very unfriendly to the idea that people have real lives going on, too.

I welcome the suggestion of a disability audit of the Parliament. Our reputation for being an accessible, liberal Parliament makes sense when we are being contrasted with Westminster, but, in many ways, it is not entirely deserved. If anyone has ever tried to get around this building and its winding and undulating corridors with any kind of mobility aid, they will understand that it is not accessible. Everyone in the chamber has sat in these chairs for hours on end. They do not meet basic recommendations on desk height, and they are incredibly uncomfortable. Uniformity is often prioritised over health and safety. The general public are not uniform, so we cannot expect their representatives to be uniform. There is work to be done so that the building is able to accommodate a full variety of physical needs.

The media and access are really important. I know that one thing that members have struggled with is group photos. That might be something else that we can look at to ensure that everyone can participate. I know that there have been times when we have been rushing after First Minister’s question time, for example, and people with mobility issues have not been able to get down in time to get a group photo. That might be another thing that we can look at to make the Parliament more inclusive.

Absolutely. That is one of many things that we should be looking at. It is always clear to me at the end of First Minister’s question time and at photo calls that some people have grown up learning how to elbow others out of the way. I have not necessarily learned to do that. There are very basic, everyday challenges for women in the Parliament.

I am a member of a majority female Government, and I do not mind folk celebrating that. That is a good thing, but we have to be clear about what it tells us. It tells us that we have a First Minister who promotes, supports and values women in his team—that is big—and it tells us that a lot of women have overcome a lot of barriers to make it into the Parliament, but it does not tell us anything about system change. We need to come back in five years to see how many women who are here today, across the chamber, are still in politics and how many left, and why. Retention will tell us a lot more about the state of play than a snapshot number of female ministers or MSPs at any given time.

I am aware that we are having this debate at a time when colleagues who have been here for longer than I have been admit that conduct in and out of the chamber and the behaviour that is directed at women in particular have never been so bad. Sexist and ableist language, including dog whistles and downright abuse, is directed at women every day in Scottish politics, and that is not acceptable. We all have a responsibility to raise the tone and set a line that nobody should cross, and we have to be clear that, however harmless someone might think their comments are, if they are relying on a culture of misogyny to give their words the effect of getting one up on someone, they are putting people in danger. Misogyny is killing women, and there is no space for making any form of it acceptable.

I will conclude by saying that it is great to see detailed consideration of proposals to change the workings of the parliamentary estate, which are not gender sensitive. However, all of those tangible changes have to come alongside attitude changes. I know that they are a lot harder to implement, but we all have to be part of that.

I look forward to everyone’s contributions to the debate.

I call Meghan Gallacher, who has a generous six minutes.

15:22  

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I offer my apologies to you and members for being late to the debate.

I welcome the Parliament’s gender-sensitive audit report, I thank those who contributed to its findings, and I am delighted to lead for the Scottish Conservatives in the debate.

Since I entered the world of politics at the age of 21, the political landscape has changed significantly. We have had our first female First Minister and our second and third female Prime Ministers, and, at one point, the three largest parties in Scotland were led by women. I even managed to achieve a first in North Lanarkshire Council when I became the first female group leader of a political group since the council’s creation. Regardless of our political persuasion, those are achievements of which we should all be proud.

However, as I said, the political landscape has changed, but not always for the better. As a young woman who entered politics at the peak of the Scottish independence referendum campaign, I quickly learned that politics is not for the faint-hearted. I will admit that I was not prepared for the online abuse that I would receive. It was personal, sexual in nature and grim. That was before I was even elected as a councillor in North Lanarkshire. After my election, the abuse escalated, and the sad reality is that not a day goes by in which I do not receive some form of abuse. I am sure that colleagues across the chamber share similar experiences.

I have had to get the police involved on not one but two separate occasions because of other people’s inappropriate behaviours. It is regrettable that the abuse that I have received has heightened again in recent months because of debates that we have had in the chamber. As I said, I know that I am not the only person in the chamber who has been wrongly stereotyped or labelled, all for standing up for what she thinks is right and for what her constituents want her to fight for.

I am not sharing that story with members as a “Woe is always me” story, but because I know that we can and must do better. Parliament needs to understand why women do not want to stand for election: abuse on social media is one of those reasons. Until we provide better support to women who enter politics, I am afraid that we will prevent talent from entering the chamber.

I turn to the report’s findings. There appears to be a lot of focus on the number of men and women on committees not always reflecting the balance of MSPs in Parliament. I am less concerned about that, because I feel that people in Parliament will naturally gravitate towards issues that they care about. For example, I am passionate about education-related issues, but that does not mean that I do not have interests in other areas of devolved government. I am not entirely sold on the recommendation of not having single-sex committees, because I do not think that Parliament should dictate to political parties who would best be representatives on various boards and committees. I hope that Parliament would prefer to have on committees people who have a genuine interest.

The report states, too, that

“women tend to make fewer contributions during“

Parliament business, including First Minister’s questions and debates. I am afraid that that comes down to behaviours—a point that has been mentioned previously. We, as women, are often accused of being shouty or mouthy when we are being robust, although comments such as those spur me on a bit because I like to prove people wrong. I am sure that other MSPs feel the same.

I have a question for the chamber today: is Holyrood family friendly? I have pondered that question since my election to Parliament and following the birth of my daughter, Charlotte. The conclusion that I have reached is that, as it stands, Parliament is not family or life friendly. For balance, I appreciate and commend Parliament for introducing proxy voting, for which previous MSPs had called for quite some time. However, I am often drawn to the article that Holyrood Magazine published in 2021, when it interviewed four MSPs—Aileen Campbell, Ruth Davidson, Gail Ross and Jenny Marra. I read the article for the first time before I went on maternity leave last year. All those talented women politicians decided not to seek re-election because it was difficult to balance being an MSP with their family lives. They shared their feelings of guilt at not being able to spend time with family and mentioned the mental impact that it had on them. They also shared the reasons why Parliament is not family friendly, which relate to the working day and voting times being moved “at the last minute”, which puts pressure on the MSP and their family. I have lost count of the number of times that I have had to phone a family member because I would not be home when expected.

Travel is another factor to consider. Whether we rely on public transport or battle the M8 every morning, if we do not have accommodation in Edinburgh, we are up at the crack of dawn and usually do not get home until very late in the evening.

I associate myself with virtually everything that has been said today. The debate is powerful. Does Meghan Gallacher agree that one of the challenges is that we do not have a unified definition of “child friendly”, “family friendly” or, probably more importantly, a definition of “life friendly”? People tend to see what they want in that phrase, instead of seeing in it an agreed balance that we should have between our job—representing constituents—and our family life outwith Parliament.

That point is really interesting. That is a discussion that we should have. This is the beginning. It is certainly the first discussion on the subject in which I have been involved in Parliament. We need to crack down and define that. I really like “life friendly”, which is the phrase that Emma Roddick used, because the matter is not just about MSPs with children; it is also about MSPs with various things going on in their lives.

I appreciate that I am pushing it, Presiding Officer.

No—I can be very generous, Ms Gallacher.

Thank you very much; I will continue, then.

There is the crèche to consider. We have a facility in Parliament that is suitable for childcare that one can use for a maximum of four hours. Although that is great for people who are visiting Parliament—please, do not get me wrong on that—I have to ask what use the crèche is to MSPs, MSP staff and Parliament staff because, as Bob Doris mentioned earlier, the vast majority of them work longer than four hours.

I am conscious that I face fewer barriers than the women in the chamber, but trying to have a partnership of equals in one’s marriage can be tough. This morning, I attended committee remotely, so I went to my constituency office and my two-year-old daughter was in the room with me. I would have much preferred to have come to Parliament, used the childcare facility and had my daughter here with me. That would have better supported my daughter and my wife. We have to think again about the four-hours service. As positive as it is, it does not quite meet the needs of all staff—not just MSPs, but all staff in the Parliament.

I could not agree more. I have been in exactly the same position as Bob Doris. It is getting to the stage at which we need to be bold in what we do. If we are telling people—especially young people who are starting a family, people with a disability and people from various walks of life—that this is the Parliament for them, we need to ensure that we mean it. I think that we are not there yet.

In contrasting the Scottish Parliament with Westminster, I note that it has a full-time nursery, which we could consider. I do not fully buy into the idea that the hybrid system is making the MSP role easier for people with young children. I can give an example: I ask colleagues to imagine trying to concentrate during stage 3 of a bill with a baby in one arm while voting on amendments with the other. One can make mistakes, and we do not want to make mistakes because we are trying to do our job. That happened to me in December last year, when I broke my maternity leave to vote on legislation. I feel that members who participate remotely do not get the same experience as MSPs who are physically in the chamber or a committee room.

More work needs to be undertaken to make the Parliament more life friendly; otherwise history will, unfortunately, continue to repeat itself. We will lose talented MSPs, and I do not want to tell any more young women that it is difficult to balance being a mum and a parliamentarian.

To conclude, Presiding Officer—I feel as though I have pushed it today—I agree with the principle of the gender-sensitive audit and the majority of the recommendations that are set out in the report. I applaud the continuation of events taking place in Holyrood to ensure that Parliament reflects our society. Data is key to monitoring progress. However, we need to address the culture of and behaviours in the chamber, to support our MSPs who receive online abuse and to finally make the Parliament family friendly and—I like this phrase better—life friendly. Only then will we see more women enter the world of politics.

15:32  

The report is welcome, and we thank the Presiding Officer and the audit group for encouraging MSPs to participate in the exercise. I hope that it will go on to improve and strengthen gender representation and participation in the Scottish Parliament. Because of the audit, we now have a women’s forum to take forward some of the recommendations.

It is right that the Parliament take steps to ensure equal representation. However, to make a real and lasting difference, equal representation must start before any of us get here. From the outset, the Scottish Labour Party took seriously the need for equal representation and ensured gender balance among our candidates. In the early days, that was met with derision, with one male MSP calling Scottish Labour women an “affront to democracy”. We have come a long way—there is further to go, but we have come a long way. Needless to say, those fearless women whom he insulted made sure that he very soon learned a valuable lesson.

An aspect of the audit that I found particularly interesting was committee representation—in particular, the point that was made regarding the Conveners Group, the power that it holds as the link between the Parliamentary Bureau and committees and the need to ensure that the group has adequate female representation.

Sadly, until there is equality of representation across the Parliament, we cannot get equal representation on committees. To do so without equal representation in Parliament would simply mean that women would be asked to work harder. However, I view the findings on representation in key committees powerful, and we need to address that, but it must not be at the expense of women or of parties who have embraced equal representation. Too often, I have witnessed pressure on our party to pick up the slack, which is simply wrong, given that there are two larger parties. That point is about not just our representation on committees, but our being asked to take part in panels or on programmes because they want a woman there for gender balance. The parties that persistently choose their representatives from misogynistic standpoints should lose their right to be represented on committees and panels. If we did that, it would soon change their ways.

Our society is not equal; therefore, there are barriers to women taking part. The greatest is caring responsibilities—of those, being a mother is probably the greatest. Whether we like it or not, those responsibilities fall predominantly to women. Until that changes, we need to recognise them as a barrier and to provide solutions.

As has already been mentioned, at the end of the previous parliamentary session, we lost a number of young women who found it difficult to balance caring responsibilities and their parliamentary duties. Now, due to Covid, we have a much more flexible system of working that can facilitate a better work-life balance. However, we should not stop there. We need to recognise that, by working remotely, people miss out on the conversations around the chamber and on meeting stakeholders at cross-party groups and receptions. We cannot simply accept that; we need to find ways around it.

When Covid happened, we found ways. With the same urgency, we should look at new ways of working that make our Parliament accessible for all our citizens.

The audit touches on job sharing. That is interesting but, again, I sound a note of caution. I know that I am not alone in thinking that there are not enough hours in the day, or days in the week, to fulfil my role. I seem to skim across the top, leaving behind more work than I am able to tackle.

If we look at job sharing, we need to be very careful that we do not end up with two people working 24/7 for half the pay, because that would simply be wrong. I believe that we need to look at our working practices; for example, the impact on parents of having fluid decision times. A 10-minute change can mean a missed train and desperate attempts to find alternative childcare with little or no notice. That is becoming more prevalent.

Do we really need to vote at 5 pm? Does the Parliament really need to sit in afternoons? Could it maybe sit in mornings instead? Should the Parliament crèche be adapted to meet the needs of members, as Meghan Gallacher pointed out, as well as the needs of the public? Those are questions that we need to ask.

As an MSP for the Highlands and Islands, flexibility does not really work unless decisions are made much further in advance. The Government knows its timetable months in advance but shares it with the Parliament only a week in advance. That does not give MSPs who live a long distance from the Parliament the ability to plan. There are people who need to travel or book flights—they need to incorporate travelling time into their diaries weeks in advance. Therefore, it would be helpful to know weeks in advance what they are expected to do.

I have some sympathy with what Rhoda Grant is saying—in particular, regarding the difficulties for members from the Highlands and Islands. Would she accept that what goes for the Government also goes for the Opposition? Generally, debates in Opposition time, which are announced 24 hours before the debate, also create problems for people who are moving around the country.

Yes, indeed. Planning beforehand is really important but, again, the Parliament has to be flexible to deal with issues that come up in an emergency. However, we have a virtual system that allows people to take part if we know when people should and should not be here.

The 2021 Scottish elections resulted in 45 per cent of MSPs being women, which is the highest percentage since devolution. However, it is still not 50:50, so we cannot be complacent. We need to ensure equal representation for all underrepresented groups. It is only when people see MSPs to whom they can relate that they will see the possibility of stepping forward into those roles. Embracing that diversity must be our aim.

I call Maggie Chapman. You have a generous six minutes, Ms Chapman.

15:39  

I was honoured to be the Scottish Greens representative on the gender-sensitive audit board. I place on record my gratitude to all those who participated in and supported the board, and to those who contributed to the research undertaken by Dr Fiona McKay and the wider discussions that have been going on around these issues over the past year or so.

The report, which my Scottish Green colleagues and I warmly welcome, highlights many of the ways in which this Parliament’s structures, processes and proceedings disadvantage women and identifies some of the ways in which those imbalances can be redressed.

Much of the injustice and discrimination identified is structural and is a result of deep-rooted societal attitudes, traditions and assumptions. Misogyny, as we have been exploring in recent years and months, can often be institutional, embedded and unconscious. Education, awareness raising, data collection and the sharing of best practice both regionally and globally can go a long way towards uncovering and alleviating gender bias.

However, we will fail in our duty if we do not acknowledge that that is not always the case. Expressions of misogyny in this place, and particularly in this chamber, are not always unconscious, unwitting or accidental. I will be specific—I must be for the sake of my women colleagues here and now and those whom I hope will join us in the future, if they are not repulsed by the less than pleasant reception that they can, unfortunately, expect. The language used by some Conservative members of this Parliament is deliberately and consciously sexist and misogynistic, using age-old myths and toxic tropes to manipulate political discourse and to distract attention from their own shortcomings and their party’s current chaotic depravity.

For example, last week, I dared to critique the Tory party’s legend of infinite growth on a finite planet, its view of tourism as yet another extractive industry and its baseless opposition to a policy that has been successful throughout the world. I presented a vision of a different kind of tourism, one that works with local communities, economies and ecosystems for the common good and wellbeing of all. In his summing up of the debate, Murdo Fraser made no response to my substantive points, dismissing me with the comment that I was

“wired to the moon and on a different planet from the rest of us”.—[Official Report, 7 June 2023; c 90.]

I have, of course, heard far worse, both in this place and elsewhere. One incident that sticks in my mind happened in 2007, when I was a newly elected councillor and a Conservative elected representative told me that he did not believe that women should be in politics but basically should be pregnant, barefoot and in the kitchen.

Others have already mentioned the disproportionate level of online abuse received by women, our being talked over or ignored and our points being taken seriously only when they are repeated by a man. Those are not one-off incidents. My women colleagues and I are regularly the objects of Tory ad hominem attacks, of shouting and sedentary chuntering while we are speaking and of aggressive interventions. Figures in the report showing that women speakers accept 72 per cent of men’s interventions although only 53 per cent of women’s interventions are accepted by men indicate something of that power imbalance.

I know that you are describing experiences in this place. Do you agree with me that it is worrying to hear what is happening in other places, such as Westminster, where female colleagues are mooed at across the chamber? That would worry me.

I remind members to speak through the chair.

I absolutely share Emma Harper’s deep concern about those comments, which only reduce what politics is and should be and will further discourage women from taking part and being in this place.

I do not want to get involved in tit-for-tat. However, there have been occasions on which I have been subjected to abuse, this time from Scottish Green members. On the day that I got engaged to my fiancé, I was referred to as a “dead body” by a member of the Scottish Greens. Does the member recognise that behaviour must change across the chamber?

I absolutely recognise that and I am sorry that that happened. I hope that I would have had the courage to call that out if I had seen or heard it, because that is unacceptable behaviour.

Murdo Fraser was rightly criticised by members of this Parliament for his language, which drew upon deeply offensive and damaging conceptions of people with mental illness and of women. Both groups are “wired to the moon” by their vulnerabilities or their reproductive systems. However, he and his party did not seem to mind that at the time. In fact, I am quite sure that many relished it, because that was now the story—not the threadbare cloak that is Tory policy, but the fact that another privileged cis white man was being called to account for his bigotry.

I was not the real victim of the words that day; I was only the excuse. The real victims—the collateral damage—are the people who have experienced mental health difficulties, who hear their struggles dismissed with a cheap jibe; the women who turn away from the circus that is public life in disgust at its poison; the Scottish communities who want a grown-up conversation about inclusive and sustainable tourism; and the poor souls lost in Twitter limbo who hear their own misogyny, ableism and concomitant homophobia and transphobia amplified and vindicated. Of course, there are more victims and survivors of the normalisation of prejudice, as this week’s hate crime figures illustrate.

It is a stimulating game for the boys, perhaps, but the Scottish Tories did not make it up. Donald Trump’s response to his criminal charges and Boris Johnson’s accusations against the Committee of Privileges both follow the populist playbook of defensive masculinity, and, if there is a woman to be blamed, as Harriet Harman knows, that is pretty near perfect for them.

We can and should do better than that here. A few years ago, the Young Academy of Scotland drew up a charter for responsible debate with principles to enable discussion that is informed, meaning that it is accurate, broadly evidenced and honest; respectful, meaning that it is empathic, judicious and open to change; and inclusive, meaning that it identifies common ground and addresses imbalances of power.

I urge all my colleagues throughout the Parliament to look at those principles and ask how fully we uphold them, both in what we say and in the standards that we expect and demand for our shared proceedings. Our culture will be the better for it, and women and Parliaments of the future, as well as the Scotland of today, will thank us for our courage.

I ask all members who are seeking to speak in the debate to ensure that they have, in fact, pressed their request-to-speak buttons. Thank you.

15:47  

I have really enjoyed listening to the contributions so far. Parliament is always at its best when we find a rich seam of consensus, as it appears we have this afternoon. It is an honour for me to represent the Liberal Democrats in this debate and it was an honour for me to take part in the gender-sensitive audit commission.

To put it in the simplest terms, this Parliament, like any other, exists to represent the people of our country and to reflect them as best we can. That can be achieved only when all groups in society are proportionally represented and are able to be represented free from any kind of structural or cultural barriers. Gender equality is intrinsic to achieving that level of representation and proportionality, and it is therefore also intrinsic to this Parliament and the work that we all do.

The audit set out to explore the way that gender impacts individual experience in Parliament. That bears serious attention. However, we must ensure that we also remain mindful of how other intersections such as those with race, sexuality and disability affect those experiences.

As we have heard, the Parliament is currently the most diverse that it has ever been, with women constituting towards 45 per cent of our MSPs. That is a fantastic achievement. However, as the audit has explored and as we all know, we cannot take it for granted. We are only as good as the current Parliament in which we find ourselves. Equality can never be taken for granted.

Although the report lies within the remit of Holyrood, I think that it bears mentioning that women’s representation in other layers of elected government remain worryingly low, particularly in local government. In Scotland, some 65 per cent of councillors are male and a quarter of wards have no female representation whatsoever. Perhaps the audit report could feed into gender-sensitive audit work on local government in the future. I will take that back as a suggestion in my party.

Representation is crucial, but it is not sustainable without accessibility. A career in politics should be accessible to everyone, but we all know that that is, sadly, far from being the case. The long hours that are associated with this job often clash with family or caring responsibilities, and we must try to mitigate that as much as possible.

One such method is increased parental leave, which Scottish Liberal Democrats have campaigned fiercely on for many years. Indeed, it was a Liberal Democrat minister who brought in new arrangements for shared parental leave, which I am very pleased that the Scottish Parliament has taken up.

It is also why the recent reopening of the Parliament crèche is such a vital move. I echo the point that was made about availability to all staff in this place. The crèche allows anyone who works in or visits the Parliament to do so more easily, as it takes up some of the burden of the tricky logistics that we all know can be associated with childcare.

When it comes to maternity and paternity leave, would Alex Cole-Hamilton welcome funding for an MSP to appoint an additional member of staff during such a period so that the support in the constituency office can reflect the loss of a worker in the form of that MSP, and so that the constituents are still served to best effect? I realise that there are challenges when it comes to the chamber but, to put those to one side, such an arrangement would allow the same level of service to constituents in an area.

Absolutely. We have to recognise that many of us employ staff who are in their early or mid-20s and are likely to entertain the prospect of parenthood soon. Martin Whitfield has made an excellent point.

Such flexibility is crucial to making the Parliament gender sensitive. That could be bolstered by the report’s recommendation of proxy voting, which we have trialled and which could include grounds such as parental leave, caring responsibilities and ill health.

The audit has also highlighted an issue that is becoming all too normalised within our politics. The environment that we work in can be brutal and is becoming more hostile. Although we all experience hostility, female politicians receive a disproportionate amount of abuse.

What does Mr Cole-Hamilton think of the phrase “F you, Maree”, and how does that fit into gender sensitivity?

I am dismayed that Kevin Stewart has sought to shatter the consensus that we have worked hard to foster this afternoon.

You said that.

Members, can we let Mr Cole-Hamilton speak?

It is a matter of public record that I said that. It is also a matter of public record that I have apologised in the chamber, to committees of the Parliament and to Maree Todd. I reiterate that apology today.

I am not a saint. I recognise the shortcomings in my character and I have sought to address those. One of the reasons why I sought membership of the gender-sensitive audit board was that I recognise the distance that I personally, and we as a Parliament, still need to travel in addressing all the issues that have been described.

In particular, female MSPs face a higher level of vitriol than male politicians, including me, have to contend with. It is essential that we investigate the effect that such hostility currently has, in order to limit further impacts. That is why the recommendations in the report, such as interviewing any outgoing MSP, could prove extremely useful.

The aim of creating a gender-sensitive Parliament encompasses the experiences not only of female MSPs but of everyone who works here—MSPs’ staff, our facilities team, our catering staff and civil servants, to name just a few.

The audit has produced overwhelming evidence that a dominant masculine culture is still prevalent in the Parliament. That has an adverse impact on women who work here. In fact, evidence from 2017—as we all know—found that one fifth of women in the Parliament had experienced sexual harassment or unwanted behaviour while working here. That is simply unacceptable. We must increase our measures to tackle such behaviour.

Will the member give way?

I will happily give way to Monica Lennon, if I have time.

It is good to have a debate in which we have a bit of time for interventions. I am grateful to Alex Cole-Hamilton for his role on the board and his reflections. In addition, it is nice to see Kevin Stewart in the chamber—I wish him well. We would all benefit from more kindness in our politics and our Parliament. Often, that is seen as a weakness, but it is a strength.

What I wanted to say to colleagues is that, as well as being a political chamber, it is also a workplace, and the words that we say and the tone that we take here can have an impact on the colleagues who write down our words and who work across this chamber. Given that it is a workplace, should we not all take more care not only to reflect and look back, but to make the commitment that we will be respectful and more constructive in the language that we use?

That was a typically eloquent intervention from Monica Lennon. I whole-heartedly agree with everything that she said. The aim of creating a gender-sensitive Parliament encompasses the experience of not only female MSPs but everyone who works here. I have said that. We know that the evidence tells us that we still have a long way to travel.

Before Monica Lennon’s intervention, I talked briefly about the nature of sexually-charged language and sexual harassment in this workplace. Alongside tightening the existing reporting system to make sure that everyone can have confidence in making a report if they wish to do so, we need to encourage a culture where we call it out if we see it. We must also not forget that, as people who are responsible for creating that culture, it is especially incumbent upon male MSPs such as me to ensure that we do all that we can at an individual level to dismantle the culture wherever possible.

Our female colleagues have been unacceptably disadvantaged for far too long. We must make sure that we are playing an active role in changing that by listening and learning. It has been a privilege to have been part of that by being involved in the audit. By implementing the recommendations in the final report, I hope that we can continue to work towards a Parliament in which everyone, regardless of gender, feels equally represented, treated and valued.

We move to the open debate. We still have some time in hand for interventions, should members be so inclined.

15:56  

I welcome the debate. To be honest, I am proud to be part of a Scottish Parliament that seeks to lead in this way, and I give credit to the Presiding Officer for her leadership.

I elected to speak today for several reasons. First, I think that most people who know me often hear me speak up about how women are still not fairly represented as we go through the processes for allocating finance and in enterprise. I am also a steering group member for the British Islands and Mediterranean Region Commonwealth Women Parliamentarians.

Perhaps the best positioning of the need for the work was in a blog that was written by Eilidh Dickson of Engender. In advance, she set out some of the challenges that the report should meet. Fundamentally, she pointed out that it is about recognition of not only the need for and value of creating shared equity for women but the need to embed equality for women in all aspects of its work. Implicit in the blog was the need for structural solutions for systemic problems.

I regard the change process as a continuum; at its most basic, we must build knowledge, awareness and habits of conscious consideration that permeate throughout every process. For example, only the other day, in one of my committees, we were discussing the framing of an inquiry. I noted that it had to explicitly include a gender-focused lens because, otherwise, we would not get the entire picture. Everyone immediately agreed, but why had that been forgotten about in the first place?

Women parliamentarians have to be at the table when decisions are being made, policy must be made from a fundamentally gender-focused lens—which is an inherent feature of developing a wellbeing economy—and the distribution of money must be equitable. In our representation, we need far more women with a background in business, finance or economics, for this is, and always was, about power. If there is a continuum starting from building knowledge and awareness at base camp, we are still scoring relatively low. I am pleased to see the report acknowledge that that work will be on-going.

What of the report itself? It sets out considerations around rules, practice and culture, with a long list of recommendations. I am pleased to see the external expert contribution from the likes of Engender and the drive for internal lived experience to be shared. I will play my part in supporting women here. I was very struck by some of the speeches that have been made today.

There are many recommendations around the likes of making the Parliament family friendly, job sharing, representation on committee and proxy voting. I will not mention them all, bar another nod to the fact that it proves that men still dominate in roles that involve finance when you look across the board.

I note, too, that although the report concentrates on us as MSPs and on our supporting structures, work on the wider environment still has further to go. I would include in that special advisers, which is an area in which there is still nowhere near equality, and the media, which continue to be heavily male dominated.

The area that I want to focus on is data. Data gives us power to articulate reality. I was delighted to see that at least seven of the recommendations focused on that. If we cannot collect data, we cannot measure the status quo and we cannot start to move beyond base camp in making change.

Many of the recommendations are for obtaining quantitative data, such as the gathering of basic diversity and intersectional data monitoring. However, importantly, there is also provision for obtaining qualitative data, such as the planned exit interviews for women MSPs. It is often in such exercises that key insights are obtained. Even better is the fact that we have the commissioning of research via academic fellowship.

The forum meetings that the Presiding Officer has already started to hold will form a valuable resource for us all to share as we proceed.

The guidance about the split by sex on committees and other groups is complex, and I am sensitive to the fact that each political party is in a different place on its journey, with one of the minor ones not yet appearing to have started. I note the recommendation from Engender that political parties should commit to auditing their own practice and culture through accessing the equal representation in politics toolkit. Such toolkits are always worth while.

My final point is about culture and the role that we all play in it, especially in the chamber. This is a theatre that brims with passion and strongly held views, and it is quite right that we debate matters of state in the most robust and vigorous way. On that, I am aware that I have had a lifetime of experience of standing up to bullying—mostly in corporate life, but with some experience in politics, too. The requirement to use the Glasgow phrase “Come here and say that” has often had to be deployed. Being cowardly, the bullies did not do so. However, I do not say that with pride; it is more a recognition that standing up in that way has become second nature to me.

For me, progress is not measured by other, younger, women having to learn and adopt the same strategies as I have, for that would be failure. For me, progress will happen when women take their rightful place and are represented fairly and squarely throughout all our decision-making processes, with their needs at the forefront at all times.

16:02  

Presiding Officer, I advise you and members in the chamber that I am having an ocular issue today—I have forgotten to bring my glasses, so I ask everyone to bear with me.

I am delighted that the Scottish Parliament is taking the issues raised in the gender-sensitive audit so seriously, and I am pleased to be adding my contribution to the debate.

I will start by focusing on the wording “gender-sensitive”, as I believe that it is important that we recognise what we are actually looking at so that we can properly make moves to change it and, I hope, change our culture, too. In this situation, it is not what is intended but what is happening that needs to be recognised, called out and eradicated from our processes.

As a newly recruited member of this illustrious establishment, I want to put it on record that in the past nine months I have found the Parliament and its processes, staff, members and general procedures to be open, welcoming and encouraging. I recognise the work that has been done, and which continues to be done, to eradicate all forms of prejudice, including sexism and gender bias.

I want to highlight a couple of the points from the report that particularly stood out to me. I have therefore selected some facts that I believe that we should address collectively.

The report highlights that women members are less likely to intervene and to have their interventions taken. It states that, of the 293 interventions made during the period observed, 110 were made by women, which equates to almost 38 per cent. The remaining 183 interventions were made by men, which equates to just over 62 per cent. It seems that women are almost half as likely to make a point in a debate as are our male counterparts. As someone who has not yet fully embraced the intervention process, I note that I literally have to step up and be heard.

How many interventions are taken and by what gender can be changed only if we make more, take more and loudly state our intention to make an intervention—

Will the member take an intervention on that point?

I will take an intervention.

I am grateful to Roz McCall for taking an intervention on that point. Does she feel that the practicalities of how an intervention is achieved are one of the boundaries that stop that and, if there were other methods of drawing speakers’ attention to a member’s desire to intervene, it might in fact be easier and perhaps, as we heard earlier, make for a happier or kinder environment?

I am all for a happier and kinder environment and I would agree with that point because, in many cases over the past nine months, I have seen women stand but not speak quite loudly enough to be recognised and sometimes that intervention goes by. I would highlight that point based on what I have observed over the past nine months. I would encourage all female representatives to intervene.

The report also states that men are more likely to have their interventions accepted, with almost 69 per cent of men having their interventions taken, while the rates for women are down at 53 per cent. The stats for women taking interventions are just as discouraging, with women more likely to accept men’s interventions, at 72 per cent of the time, than interventions by women, at 52 per cent. It seems that, across the board, women’s interventions are taken only half the time.

I will highlight an example of exactly that situation, which happened earlier this week. While listening to the lively and interesting Education, Children and Young People Committee debate on college regionalisation on Tuesday, I noted that there was far more engagement from the male members of the Scottish Parliament present. In the discussion, 18 interventions from male MSPs were taken, which is in stark contrast to the three interventions from the female attendees.

It seemed to me that my talented and knowledgeable female colleagues took a while to find the points that they wanted to come in on. The early part of the debate, therefore, was dominated by men. I certainly would not presume to know why that was the case, but the pattern of later interventions from female MSPs has been something that I have observed and, unfortunately, that means that we are run out by the clock, given the timed debate structure that is operated in the Scottish Parliament.

I mentioned in my opening remarks that it is important to recognise what we are actually looking at so that we can properly make moves to change it. In the hope of being constructive, I urge all members, including myself, to recognise the beauty of thorough and rigorous debate, which is an integral part of what we are here to do, to embrace interventions in a timely and early manner and, at the very least, to be open to raising the statistics of female participation.

The report also points out that women MSPs still encounter sexism. It accepts that there have been positive shifts in attitudes towards women in politics and I gratefully welcome the fact that we have progressed down a long road when it comes to public opinion. However, it is concerning—if unsurprising—that the report finds that women MSPs still encounter sexism with regard to what is said to them and how they are perceived.

Social media is one of the largest platforms for gender bias. I know a male member of staff who has worked for two MSPs in the capacity of augmenting their social media accounts. One of the MSPs was male and one of the MSPs was female. They both had the same member of staff, with the same tone of post and the same type of content but, according to this gentleman, the replies and responses to the female MSP were more aggressive, more personal and more disparaging—a reason, if one were needed, that we have to do more.

It is up to each and every one of us in the chamber to be accountable, responsible and ready to step in where necessary to ensure that abuse online, of any kind, is called out, reported and acted on. We must unite to say that it is totally unacceptable and will not be tolerated.

Will the member take an intervention?

I will.

I thank the member for taking the intervention. Would the member support the Parliament, through its Presiding Officers and its structures, becoming more involved in monitoring that kind of behaviour towards MSPs where they can? I know that that has been talked about across different parties. Is that something that the member would support or is that going too far?

I am all for more information, Certainly, monitoring will allow us to see where the issues are and how things are proceeding, so I would certainly be interested in seeing a little bit more about that.

I know that, if we are united in our objective, we can carry on with the good work of the gender-sensitive audit, not only in the Parliament but, I hope, progressing that to an inclusive Scotland.

16:10  

It is a pleasure to speak in the debate. I thank all those who were involved in the gender-sensitive audit and I call out, in an entirely biased way, the Presiding Officer for instigating it. Gender-sensitive audits have been done in other Parliaments and have had some levels of success. Anything that we can do to move forward society, our smaller communities and, indeed, our workplaces, so that we can have a better gender balance and better environments in which people can work, debate and participate must be welcomed. I thank everyone who was involved, including the experts, professionals and clerks who gave their wisdom and experience in crafting the audit.

I will start with something that has been addressed by a number of people in the Parliament. It is harsh, but I think that we have to address the code of conduct and the way that members who sit in this chamber—those who put MSP after their names—conduct themselves. It is clear in our rules, which are not rules that have been imposed on us by those outside, but rules that we have accepted ourselves, that we must act “with courtesy and respect” towards each other, our staff and staff in the Parliament. There is broader guidance about how we should treat people who are outside the chamber—in the main, that is the people of Scotland, who make up our constituents, but it includes others—with courtesy and respect. There is no hidden gender bias in that, although I feel that some male colleagues—and me—struggle with our approach towards female colleagues. However, if we take on the code of conduct on every occasion, before we stand up to intervene, chunter from a sedentary position or say something in a speech—perhaps even before we press send on that tweet from a Twitter account—we might live in a kinder and better environment. Rightly, it is for the people of Scotland to look towards us and the choices that we make in our behaviour and, indeed, to hold us to account on it, even when we fail to see those standards in others outside the Parliament.

I will turn to the gender-sensitive audit. The Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee, which I have the privilege to convene, will look at a number of recommendations. To echo some of the asks that have been made in earlier speeches, I would like to hear the chamber’s thoughts on some of those recommendations, because I think that they would be particularly important.

We have already heard discussions about the value of data. I echo Michelle Thomson’s call for more data: if we are not collecting it, we cannot analyse it and we cannot be held to account. One of the recommendations is that data is collected in a more in-depth and logical fashion so that we can measure whether we have any success with the proposals that we try. That relates particularly to committee memberships and convenerships, which I will deal with, and party spokespeople and cross-party groups. That is important. I am probably pushing at an open door in seeking the chamber’s approval to collect that data, so let me try something that might separate us slightly, although I hope in a kind and generous way.

Recommendation 18 of the audit requests that the committee:

“propose amendments to Standing Orders to specify there should be a minimum of 40% women, for the SPCB, the Parliamentary Bureau and Committee Convenerships.”

I will play devil’s advocate. One of the questions that arises is how we will measure that 40 per cent. We have already heard about the challenges that political parties have when they feel that they are being forced by people outside of them to either fill a space, appoint someone to fill a gap or put a woman on a committee because there is not one on it, whether she has any interest in it or not. In calculating that 40 per cent, what should we be looking at the make-up of political parties, the chamber—

Will the member take an intervention?

I am more than happy to.

I embrace what Martin Whitfield is saying. Although we may have an aspiration to achieve the 40 per cent target, it is difficult and it will be up to individual parties and their management to make sure that things happen. There has sometimes been a reluctance for that to happen. If we are to truly embrace that recommendation, there needs to be greater demarcation when it comes to parties’ selection proposals.

I am very grateful to Alexander Stewart for that, as for so many of his interventions and his wisdom.

It boils down to individuals. When individuals come together in different groups, they need to carry forward that responsibility to seek a massive improvement in the gender balance—ideally parity—because decisions in committee and in the chamber are better made when they are made by members who reflect the people whom those decisions will affect.

There is a question about how we calculate that 40 per cent or how we identify the pool from which that 40 per cent will be drawn. I am more than happy to take comments now, but I invite members to give wider consideration to that, because it is a very tricky problem that sometimes crosses individual political beliefs. The chamber as a whole is responsible for the make-up of the committees and the committee convenerships, but where that gift lies rests elsewhere. There could be a call for elected convenerships, for example, whereby members would have a choice in a gender-balanced ballot.

It is good to hear Martin Whitfield’s reflections as a convener of a committee of this Parliament. My colleague Alexander Stewart will know that I am a regular attender at the Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee—we like long titles. I mean no disrespect to the current membership of that committee, but it has 100 per cent white male representation. When we do our work as parliamentarians, we also present representation to the public, so surely it cannot be right that, when the public attend the committee to hear consideration of their petitions, they do not always see or hear themselves reflected. Therefore, we must ask ourselves whose voices are missing.

I understand some of the challenges that Martin Whitfield is hinting at, but it cannot be acceptable that we have committees with zero women on them and zero representation of more than half the population.

I am incredibly grateful for that intervention, as I am for a number of discussions that I have had with Monica Lennon on that issue and related matters.

The issue is one that we have to deal with in this session of Parliament. We must show that we have a way forward for the remainder of this session and, more importantly, for the Parliament in the future. We might try something that does not work, which the collection of data allows us to revisit. We must have the bravery to do that. I agree that it is absolutely unacceptable for us to do nothing.

I recognise that time is short.

We can be generous.

That is the kindest offer, Deputy Presiding Officer.

The other element that I would like to talk about is some successes that we have had. There is a recommendation in the report on the audit about having a gender balance across the Presiding Officer and the Deputy Presiding Officers. It is a fact that we have achieved that in every session of the Scottish Parliament. Given that history of always having achieved that balance and recognising the importance of that, I would like members to consider whether it should be set in stone that we continue that practice, or whether we have confidence that those who come after us will continue with a practice that has become established not because of an audit or because there has been a clamour for it, but because it is the right thing to do.

Laudable though I think what Martin Whitfield proposes is—I think that we should aim for that—bringing it about depends on and is interlinked with the level of female representation that each of the parties achieves. We must drive up the total level of female representation in the chamber. If we do not achieve more balance in that way, we will be asking a smaller group of women to do more and more work. I simply wanted to point out that those two things are related.

Absolutely—that is one of the challenges that we have in these discussions, and my colleague Monica Lennon pointed to that. We can always create a situation where doing something becomes difficult, but it is perhaps in addressing those difficult decisions that we can make the greatest advances. Irrespective of the party make-up in the Scottish Parliament and irrespective of the representation of independent members, we have managed to achieve that balance over time.

With regard to proxy voting, I confirm that the current system will be reviewed by the end of this year but, on the surface, it appears to work very successfully. We will be writing to members for their views on their experiences of using the system as casters and those who have had proxy votes cast on their behalf. It is an important step forward that any member—irrespective of gender—can, on occasion, step away because of their responsibilities to their constituency and note that that need will still be met.

Because it is the most challenging, I have left to the end my question in relation to recommendation 26, which is about who should look at the behaviour of MSPs when there is bullying and harassment. Other places have given that out to independent assessors, because of the very personal nature of victims’ allegations. Those other places have deemed it inappropriate that people should judge themselves in such cases. I am not expecting an answer to that this afternoon, but if people have views on it, I am happy to purchase a tea or coffee and sit and chat about it.

I am very grateful for the time that I have been given, Deputy Presiding Officer.

Emma Harper will be the last speaker in the open debate.

16:21  

I welcome today’s debate on the Scottish Parliament’s gender-sensitive audit and the work of the Presiding Officer and the Parliament officials who have been involved in the process. They should be commended for producing the audit and for the huge amount of background work that has gone into it. I also thank all members who are involved in the gender-sensitive Parliament advisory group for their input and experience.

I am particularly interested in the audit, as I am the only female member of the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee at this time. It has been interesting to look at its findings. For me, achieving a gender-sensitive Parliament is more about making sure that there is gender sensitivity than it is about ensuring that there is equality.

As the audit states:

“Parliaments are unique institutions. They are both places of democracy and places of work. To deliver the best outcomes for both under-represented groups and for society as a whole, women must be fairly represented, be able to fully participate in parliament, and be centrally involved in decision-making”.

It continues:

“Scotland has a record that bears international comparison: arguments for equal representation were central to wider debates over devolution and embedded into institutional ‘blueprints’ for the new Scottish Parliament”.

That included policies to ensure “family friendliness”. I also like the use of the phrase “life friendly” in the audit. This afternoon, we have already made progress: we have moved forward with our use of language to be more inclusive and to support an approach that is not just family friendly but life friendly.

We need to make sure that we enshrine a commitment to equal opportunities and to mainstream equality, including gender equality, across all areas of work. Of the 129 MSPs who were elected to the Parliament for the first time in 1999, 48 were women, which equated to 37 per cent, but, as Rhoda Grant rightly said, women now represent 45 per cent of Scotland’s 129 MSPs.

As we started the debate, I was checking the balance of our members of the Scottish Youth Parliament. Of the members who chose to say how they wanted to be identified, 54.89 per cent said that they were female versus 42.86 per cent who said that they were male. There are other interesting MSYP stats, such as LGBT+ and carer stats. We need to be cognisant of those figures for our MSYPs—both male and female—and we need to make sure that we support them in their future progress and journey in this political environment that we aim to make more gender sensitive.

Progress is being made, but the record number of women winning seats in this parliamentary session did not happen by accident or chance. During the 2021 campaign, growing pressure on political parties led to many of them introducing a range of measures to increase women’s participation in parliamentary democracy. As members know, those measures included all-women shortlists for constituency election contests and zipped lists for regional list elections, in which female and male candidates were alternated.

From the 2021 outcome, it seems that those measures have worked. Indeed, as the audit highlights, they have worked in previous elections both in the UK Parliament and in Parliaments around the globe, including in Australia.

I found the findings really interesting, especially as much of the evidence indicates that shortlists in a range of areas such as disability and ethnicity—and, in particular, gender—support people, including many women, to be empowered to consider standing for election.

I am especially interested in recommendations 13 and 14 in the report. Recommendation 14 states that the SPPA Committee should

“consider these statistics (from Recommendation 13) biennially”—

so, every other year—

“and develop new rules and/or conventions to rebalance participation, where there is evidence of inequalities of participation.”

Roz McCall highlighted that in detail in her contribution, and I thank her for doing so.

As is covered in recommendation 13, we need to look at potentially publishing intersectional data on gender participation in chamber debates; questions by type, including First Minister’s questions and statements; and interventions. The reason for doing so is that it could potentially enable us to create new rules and conventions to rebalance participation where there is evidence of inequality—for example, in particular areas such as the economy or science, technology, engineering and mathematics. I know that my colleague Michelle Thomson is vocal on economic and financial issues; she and I are on the cross-party group on the USA together. That gives us a voice that ensures that we are represented around the globe.

Rather unsurprisingly, the audit highlighted issues to do with social media. I will pick up on that issue, as other members have done. We know that there has been a massive impact from interactions on social media. At the Presiding Officer’s meeting that we attended last week, I heard Meghan Gallacher describe what has happened to her—it was absolutely shocking. We have had reports of women parliamentarians around the globe being subjected to horrific abuse on social media, including, sometimes, from other parliamentarians.

Social media can be quite toxic. I would like social media to be a valuable tool that we use to access reports, research and data—I used it during the Covid pandemic to find out so much information about what was happening around the globe. I would rather that social media was a positive thing rather than the toxic influence that it is just now. Indeed, the former First Minister recently said that social media was a significant barrier for women pursuing a political career.

Recommendation 28 in the audit report says:

“The SPCB, working with the Gender Sensitive Parliament Advisory Group, and a group of MSPs from ... under-represented ... groups ... should update”

the Parliament’s continuous professional development provisions and potentially extend that work to explore a social media policy.

I am a member of the British-Irish Parliamentary Assembly, in which the Governments and assemblies of these islands work together. I have written to the BIPA clerks to pursue the question of whether BIPA has done any inquiry work into social media policy. I know that the Welsh Parliament already has a social media policy as part of the standards that it works towards.

I have given a commitment to the convener of the SPPA Committee to share any response that I get from the BIPA clerks, and I will also write to the co-chairs, Karen Bradley MP and Brendan Smith TD, to find out whether they would like to undertake any further inquiry on the matter.

I am sure that my time is a bit out, Presiding Officer—you have been very generous with every member this afternoon. In closing, I simply state that equality for women is at the heart of the Scottish Government’s vision for an equal Scotland, and in Parliament we need to see the same approaches to look at achieving gender equality and gender sensitivity in the way that we work.

I look forward to working with colleagues across the chamber to help to make this place kinder. I absolutely agree with Monica Lennon’s intervention in that regard, and I look forward to hearing the closing speeches this afternoon.

We now move to the closing speeches. I call Paul O’Kane. We still have a bit of time in hand, Mr O’Kane, should you wish to add to your planned contribution.

16:29  

I am very grateful, Presiding Officer, as I am sure every member is, for the opportunity to take some time this afternoon to reflect on and listen to colleagues’ contributions, and to have a little bit of extra space in which to do so.

This has been a very consensual and helpful debate. There have been very considered contributions from across the chamber about the importance of the work of the gender-sensitive audit, and the importance of this conversation not just happening at a set point in time but becoming something that we move forward with together. We heard a lot of consensus on that.

The concept of a gender-sensitive Parliament is an international democratic standard. It is very welcome that our Presiding Officer commissioned the audit and took a lead in putting her own stamp on the assessment of the gender sensitivity of the Scottish Parliament in all our processes and work. Most fundamentally, as we have heard reflected in the debate and as I have just alluded to, the audit has to be more than a tick-box exercise or a moment in time; it has to provide tangible outcomes and an on-going conversation that we can all engage in, recognising that we all have a role to play in bringing some of these ideas into reality and improving our Parliament more generally.

The response to the audit’s publication cannot be focused just on the words; it also has to be about measurable actions. Already this afternoon we have had quite a good conversation about what could work and where we probably need to do a bit more to explore how it would work.

Broadly, on behalf of Labour members, I reiterate our support for the work of the gender-sensitive audit and congratulate and thank those who were involved, from across the parties, in the working group. We want to see continued engagement in that space.

As we have all heard this afternoon, it is critical that, in their composition, our democratic institutions look and sound like the people of Scotland. We have to reflect ourselves. From the beginning of our discussion, many colleagues touched on the idea that political parties can do some of this work in the first place by making sure that they increase the number of women who stand for election and who are elected to this place, in order to ensure that we have a Parliament that reflects our population and our communities. Then, because we will have more women MSPs, as Rhoda Grant rightly said, we will not have to make a few women work harder. We need to increase how many women we have in Parliament.

I am very proud that the Scottish Labour Party and the UK Labour Party led the way, even when this was not popular, on mechanisms such as all-women shortlists, twinning arrangements and zipping. We were very proud of that, but I absolutely hear my female colleagues who were in politics at that time when they talk about the challenges to those moves from men who said that it was grossly unfair that we should do those things.

Many of us might be following on Twitter the journalist Michael Crick, who spends a lot of time following the parliamentary selections of various political parties. He has noticed the trend in twinning selections that, in most instances, men are getting more votes than women. Therefore, the male candidate gets to pick the seat, which is often the more winnable one. I wonder whether my colleague has any observations on what can be done about that.

I thank Monica Lennon for that observation, and, in true Labour Party style, we could begin to have an internal discussion between us about the mechanisms that are used in the selection processes.

I think that Monica Lennon’s broad point is correct. The challenge for the Labour Party is that, now that the parliamentary Labour Party in the UK Parliament is 50 per cent women, all-women shortlists cannot be used, so it is looking at different mechanisms that work. We need to make sure that we do not think that that is the only system that can work. We need to look around the world and learn from other political parties that use different systems and try to find the systems that give us broad scope and allow us to think about what will we do.

I have a brief intervention. I would not dream of commenting on Labour Party selection procedures and equalities mechanisms. More generally in politics, the challenge for political parties with regard to equality is getting more women and people with other characteristics to become active in parties in the first place. There are some wonderful trailblazers out there, but we need more people who have joined political parties to remove the barriers to being active in the first place.

Bob Doris makes a very good point. It is about encouraging more diversity and activism at the grass-roots level.

Will the member give way?

I will just finish this point and then give way.

We can all be guilty in politics of getting caught up in running from one campaign to the next. We think about what needs to be done and not about how sensitive we are to the barriers that exist for a lot of people, even in going to chap at a door or to deliver a leaflet, for example. We need to think about that, and about how toxic our political campaigns and election time can be. We have heard a lot about the toxicity that often exists in the chamber. That is absolutely true, too, outside the chamber and on social media.

I am sure that all political parties have a female organisation in them to nurture, help and support women. We have Women2Win, and I am sure that other political parties have similar organisations. Do they need to be more robust with the political parties to try to encourage more women to stand for election? Should we all, as elected members, be pushing for that in our respective parties?

I certainly think that we need to acknowledge that. As I said at the outset, we all have a role to play in encouraging more women and working with our organisations and our party structures in order to make that a reality. Perhaps we should not be afraid to talk to one another about those things and about what happens in other parties.

I am conscious that I have been given a generous allowance of time, but I do not want to stray into going over the score slightly.

In the past few days, I have hosted a number of politicians from Northern Ireland who were involved in the Good Friday agreement and the peace process. Professor Monica McWilliams was one of those people. On Tuesday night, she spoke very passionately in the Parliament about the role of women in that peace process and the barriers that existed to her even being at the table—or to women even being at the table—and the tropes that we heard 25 years ago about going back and being a housewife and that the housewives of Ulster should go back to the kitchen.

We heard such things in the creation of the Scottish Parliament. We are about to mark the 25th anniversary of this institution. We have to reflect on how we will continue to challenge some of the attitudes that persist. We can learn a lot from other people internationally about what to do. We could learn a lot from Monica McWilliams about how to take out toxicity and find common ground and purpose, and to do that in a gender-sensitive way that respects the fact that we need to have everyone at the table.

We had a good conversation in the debate about our sitting times and the time of decision time—I do not want to fall foul by running over into decision time, which we might have at 5 o’clock today. New Zealand and other countries around the world have structures that we could look at. The Presiding Officer and I have spoken about that in the past. There is a lot of potential in that work.

To conclude, colleagues often hear me say this, but this is not a full stop in the discussion; it is a comma. It is about us taking a pause in the debate to begin to think about some of those ideas and initiatives. We must continue those discussions and move them forward in our various roles, and ensure that we have a gender-sensitive Parliament that is ready for the next 25 years and beyond and that encourages more women—particularly more young women—to come in and feel safe in this space and contribute to our important democratic life.

16:38  

I am delighted to sum up on behalf of the Scottish Conservatives in this debate. The debate has been a really good one, with lots of very interesting comments by members across the chamber. Parliament is at its best when we discuss such issues. We can all become enthusiastic, and we wish to see things improve and get better. I pay tribute to, and commend and congratulate, all those who were involved in the audit.

The Scottish Parliament has always striven to be an institution that is open, welcoming and inclusive. Indeed, when it was created back in 1999, the level of female representation was one of the things that were praised most. Although female representation has continued to improve in the years following that, the gender-sensitive audit has been an opportunity for us to take stock of the progress that we have made, and to identify potential areas for further improvement.

A growing number of countries around the world are actively engaging with the issue of gender equality, and they wish to see their political systems embrace that. We want to see that here, too. Organisations worldwide, such as the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, the Inter-Parliamentary Union and UN Women, to name a few, are attempting to ensure that gender-sensitive Parliaments exist across the globe.

Given that it is the right time and the right place for us to do that work, I commend and congratulate all those who have talked about inclusiveness and have given instruction to try to make things happen. We have come a long way from where we were; we still have a journey to make, but we are all trying to do so. Each party has made clear that they want to see progress and improvement; we all have that work on our agendas. Some have come later to it—my party probably has—but Meghan Gallacher and Roz McCall have indicated that we as a party have embraced the Women2Win organisation, which has done a lot of work and is trying to identify how we could get more women actively involved in standing for Parliament and council, and at all levels in our party.

We talked about councils earlier. That was where I first became involved in politics, and I think that my colleagues Meghan and Roz did the same. We need to encourage more women to get in at council level, because it is a stepping stone to somewhere such as here, Westminster or other Parliaments. A blockage still exists there because the lifestyle that a councillor needs to live can be very demanding with regards to timetable, salary and so on.

The member makes a valid point. I, like him and other members, served as a local authority councillor. Councils can have real challenges, from timings of meetings and accessibility to, again, appropriate times for childcare. Does the member agree that it is shocking that, until recently, we still had councils that had no female councillors at all?

I agree. It is a disaster, and it is shocking that we have council chambers that do not have any female representation. The job itself needs to change and can no longer be a role for someone who has another occupation or for a retired individual—we have to encourage younger people. I had 18 years as a councillor and I know the challenges of trying to balance the lifestyle, which can be a real barrier for younger people. Those points are vital.

Our current pilot of proxy voting is a really good example of what we are trying to do to accommodate people and to be more equal in this place. It is clear that there is still work to do when it comes to gender equality. There are 34 separate recommendations in the report, some of which will be easier to achieve than others. Each one has a role to play, however, and it is particularly important that we look at recommendations that apply to the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee, of which I am a member.

We have already discussed single-sex committees. The Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee is one, but I need to mention to Monica Lennon, who observed that it was all male and all white, that we have Foysol Choudhury in the group, too, so we have some representation of an ethnic minority.

I was going to clarify my remarks in closing, as I will be speaking shortly. There had, indeed, been a recent change, and Alexander Stewart has clarified my earlier point.

I am happy to make that clarification and to support Monica Lennon on that point.

Given the gender balance of the current Parliament and Scottish Government, it could prove difficult to implement some of the recommendations in this parliamentary session, although there is of course an intention to continue to develop recommendations for future parliamentary sessions.

Recommendation 20 proposes that a party’s membership of a committee “must be mixed” when it appoints more than one member. Although that recommendation will ensure more balanced committees in the future, it is important that such a rule does not prevent party groups from appointing the members whom they feel are best suited to that committee, because that is vital in itself.

I would like to mention one or two of the many contributions that have been made. Karen Adam spoke about the frustration and the rules as well as the participation and respect that are required. That is all vitally important. As Karen Adam and many others talked about, we cannot get away from the abuse that women receive, which is absolutely appalling.

The minister talked about accessibility and being family friendly and accessible to individuals, supporting people and ensuring that we have that balance. There is much more work to do on that.

My colleague Meghan Gallacher talked about her journey as a young woman coming into the political fray and how difficult it can be to deal with some of the challenges. Once again, the issues of social media and abuse featured heavily in Meghan’s interventions and involvement in the debate. It is a real shame that young women come here and are subjected to abuse from individuals within and outwith this organisation. That must be called out at every opportunity, and we must stamp it out as much as we can.

Rhoda Grant talked about the flexibility of what happened during Covid and the ideas that we could develop. That is vital. We must learn from the experiences that we have had.

Alex Cole-Hamilton talked about the level of representation, practices and being life friendly, what we can do with the crèche and other facilities. Those are all vital issues, too.

My colleague Roz McCall is a new member. In her nine months of being a member, she has experienced and seen things and looked with fresh eyes at this environment. She has identified areas of concern and areas that she would like to see changed.

There is also the whole issue of interventions and how we play within this room. How we are perceived in this chamber is vitally important with regard to how we move forward.

In conclusion, it is clear that all parties in the Parliament are united in their aim to achieve a Parliament that is truly gender neutral. As such, the debate has shown that we have real goals and ambitions that we want to achieve.

As a member of the SPPA Committee, I look forward to the role that I will play in the process to ensure that the workings of this chamber and Parliament can remove many of the barriers that we know still remain. As was said earlier, we need a kinder and happier environment because, in that way, we will encourage and we will also inspire, which is vitally important.

I call Emma Roddick. Minister, you have about six minutes.

16:47  

I am glad that we have had a consensual debate, and I hope that we can look back on this session of Parliament as an important mark in our journey towards being a life-friendly place.

Change is clearly necessary, and it is possible, too. It is important to recognise that we are not starting from nothing: we have made progress and we are building on good work and knowledge. I have been glad to hear intersectionality coming through as a clear theme today. The report contains an important reflection that it was not until 2021 that any women of colour were elected to Holyrood and that we had our first permanent wheelchair user. Women who are disabled, LGBTQ, mothers, carers or young and women of colour or who are otherwise subject to racism and prejudice face additional barriers, and we need to consider removing all of them.

I was glad to hear Emma Harper mention mainstreaming, which is an important part of Government work in my portfolio. I agree that it is vital if we are going to succeed in being inclusive. Equality has to be a fact and a habit, not something that those who most need it have to spend their valuable time forcing in at every stage.

It will benefit everyone to make the Parliament accessible, to make it possible for carers to come here and to make it sensitive to equalities issues. Even if you do not need it yourself, nobody is going to complain about it being easy to get around the building or knowing what time they will be available after voting for the day.

I am grateful to Emma Roddick for giving way on that point. I want to hark back to a comment that Karen Adam made about the role of hybrid working in making this place more accessible. I think that—I am phrasing this carefully—any political party that tries to find anything in the rules that says that you can or cannot use hybrid working is looking in vain. I think that the minister has more power to use it, when it is needed, than perhaps she feels that she has. The minister should look to the standing orders and the guidance on when she can attend remotely.

I congratulate Martin Whitfield on his new role as Scottish National Party whip. He knows that I have enjoyed using the hybrid system—it worked very well for me in the early days. He will remember me giving evidence and saying that it is far more difficult for ministers to make use of it due to criticism about not being in the building, and here I am. It might be a while before members see me on a screen again.

Many members have also talked about online abuse, which reflects the impact that the extensive abuse that women here are receiving online is having on our health and our confidence. There is nothing that we can do to avoid it. We will get, “Why has she got time to put make-up on?” or “Could she not be bothered to put make-up on?” We get, “Those clothes look cheap,” or, “Oh, I bet that dress was expensive.” We get, “She doesn’t speak enough,” or, “She’s too loud.” Folk will shout for us to be normal, relatable human beings and then tear us down for everything that makes us just that.

That puts people off. We have no way of counting the women who did not stand because of the environment and danger that they would be putting themselves in. However, we know that they exist. I want more Karen Adams in Parliament, and I want more Monica Lennons, Emma Harpers and Pam Duncan-Glancys—women representing women from all walks of life and different political beliefs. However, I get why many people look at this place and go, “Absolutely not.”

It is really hard to be something other than a white middle-aged man in politics. When I stood for the Highland Council in 2019, the campaign had yellow posters up that said “Roddick”. I gave an interview and afterwards, the interviewer said to me, “Do you know him?” I said, “Sorry, who?” and he goes, “Roddick.” Also during that campaign, I was bundling leaflets on my own when an activist came in. I was glad of the help, so I asked him to keep bundling them into 50s while I went to print something. I turned around to see him counting the ones that I had already counted. I said, “No, no, those are in bundles already; it’s these ones that you need to count”. He said, “No, I know, but I need to check that you’ve done it right first.”

I was coming in to work the other day and my private office asked someone to open a locked door. They said, “I’m with the minister,” and I could see him look at me and look around us both, looking for this minister that he was supposed to let in. I say this because impostor syndrome is a very real issue that many of us here suffer from, and things like that do not help the feeling that we do not belong. I know that it will take time for people to recognise that a politician can and should look like anyone, because anyone can and should be able to be a politician. In the meantime, I beg colleagues to make a concerted effort not to contribute to it.

We have heard a lot today, and I know that the men who are here believe in advancing gender equality at work. I commend Bob Doris, Alexander Stewart, Martin Whitfield and Paul O’Kane for their tone and their considered contributions, all with the required self-awareness that they are speaking in this debate as men. I trust the passion for the issue that the men who have spoken today have shown, and that they want to do their bit, but I am going to have to tell them a tough thing: we are not doing enough. Women—accomplished, confident, strong women—in this place are having a hell of a time, from being belittled 100 times a day all the way to sexual harassment and assault. That is going on in our workplace. It could be worse, but it could be a lot better too.

Men have a huge part to play, so I ask them to please call it out; stop speaking over us in committees, in the chamber or in meetings; stop making jokes about what we are wearing or using ableist and sexist language to put us down; and stop inviting only men to events, mentioning only their male colleagues when they make speeches, or standing in front of me and Meghan Gallacher at photo calls. I ask men to notice when it is happening around them and to support us. I say to them: whoever you are, you can do more. Allyship is vital.

I will end by saying that having a female Presiding Officer is, in itself, a good thing. Presiding Officer, you might have missed Paul O’Kane giving you a compliment earlier on, but it is so important that the Presiding Officer this session has decided to prioritise auditing the Parliament in this way, to put that on the agenda and make lasting change for women.

The vision that we have discussed today is ambitious, but I look forward to seeing the Scottish Parliament reformed for the better, to better serve and reflect the public.

I call Monica Lennon to wind up the debate on behalf of the board.

16:54  

It is a privilege to be speaking at the end of today’s debate, which has been very good. I think that it shows the value of listening to colleagues and taking interventions, so hopefully we will see more of that.

It was a privilege to represent my party, Scottish Labour, on the audit board; I echo the comments that were made by my colleague Karen Adam in opening the debate by thanking all our colleagues, the participants and experts and, importantly, Parliament staff.

I am going to be a big sook now and again say a big thank you to you, Presiding Officer, for your leadership and for making this possible. You have been very clear that this is not a report that will just sit on a shelf, but is a catalyst for change and that we are on a journey. I have high hopes and expectations because, for all our differences, today has shown that Parliament is united and that we want to get this right and to do better.

That is not because we are being trailblazers; it is the norm. We should be looking beyond our borders and beyond Scotland at international good practice and at what it means to be a gender-sensitive Parliament and a gender-sensitive society. That is absolutely at the heart of what I believe is our shared vision for a fairer, more equal, healthier and happier Scotland.

We have heard a number of important contributions today. Karen Adam set the scene by setting out our collective efforts to construct a gender-sensitive Parliament. It is really important that the minister, Emma Roddick, spoke about the lessons for Government because, although the report is about Parliament, it is important to have support and buy-in from Government and from all political parties, as we have heard today.

We need to make some big changes, but Meghan Gallacher very helpfully pointed out that there are also some small things that we can consider. She made a point about the race to get out of the chamber and down the garden lobby stairs when we gather for the weekly photo call to show the people of Scotland that we support important causes and issues. We must also think about how easy it is to get around Parliament. What happens when a person uses a wheelchair or has mobility issues? We must think about that, because the small things matter. I am grateful to Meghan Gallacher for making that point.

Many colleagues from across the chamber reinforced the point about childcare. I am looking at Bob Doris, who made such points really well, as did others.

Maggie Chapman’s passion will not have been comfortable for everyone to hear, but we must all reflect on our words, language and actions. She was right to talk about the deep-rooted issues in our society that colour what happens in the chamber. We must all look closely at that.

More practically, we have heard a lot about the value of data, particularly from an intersectional perspective. I again credit the Presiding Officer for asking colleagues in Parliament to count and measure who speaks, whose voices are heard and who takes up space in our Parliament.

Before I came into the chamber today, I attended an event that was hosted and chaired by Rona Mackay. Some journalists were there to talk about the role of the media in ending male violence against women and girls, and they shared quite a staggering statistic, which is that the vast majority of commentary pieces in our print media—more than 68 per cent—are written by white men. We, and particularly the men, have to ask whether we are taking up space. We must all ask ourselves, “Am I a gatekeeper? Am I taking up space? Am I hoarding power, or am I empowering others?”

We see all-male panels and all-male committees too often. Roz McCall made really important points. It was good to hear her reflections as someone who came into Parliament after the 2021 election. Why are men more likely to make and take interventions and more likely to refer to their friends? This is not a boys’ club: this is the Parliament of Scotland and we are here to represent the people of Scotland. We must look at that. I know that women will not make interventions if time and again their interventions have not been taken. None of us wants to come here and look like a fool or like we are not as credible as other colleagues.

The report speaks for itself and the recommendations should be accepted in full. They should be welcomed by every member of this Parliament. However, it is not just about how we speak to one another in Parliament or who takes seats where—it is also about what happens long before we get here, which is why I made my interventions about the gatekeepers that exist in all political parties. No political party can stand up and boast and claim that it is getting everything right. We have heard some very visible and obvious examples of misogyny and sexism, but sometimes it is so subtle. Sometimes, there are microaggressions that make people think that they are losing their minds, and when they call them out, people do not believe them.

I am really grateful to all the women in this Parliament. It might not be seen by our colleagues, but we hold one other up, regardless of our party politics or our affiliations. This can be a tough environment; it can be brutal and our politics and our Parliament do not always show the country at its best. As others have said today, we can and must do better. I encourage everyone to get behind the report and all the recommendations, and to be part of the change.

That concludes the debate on the Scottish Parliament’s gender-sensitive audit. It is now time to move on to the next item of business.