Chamber and committees

My question is for Bruce Farquharson. You said that muirburn is one of the most effective—if the riskiest—ways of managing wildfire. From your experience, can you suggest any other tools that would be useful in this respect? Is the regulatory framework appropriately designed for that kind of activity?

Should there be a duty on people to manage the fuel load? You talked about people’s duty to mitigate fire risk in public buildings. Should there be a duty on land managers to mitigate fire risk?

My reading of the regulations is that, if something happens, the provision can be brought back into force, and the five-year period is to allow the agriculture bill to put in place something that will take over from it. Perhaps we can ask for confirmation of that. Moreover, we should make a note to look at this issue when we come to consider the agriculture bill, to ensure that it is doing what we have assumed to be the plan.

So, you are not able to provide that at the moment.

I have a small supplementary on Robbie Kernahan’s answer about tracking muirburn. You said that you could not tell whether it was muirburn fires or wildfires. Are you perhaps able to track that by making reference to the fire service? It would be aware of what was a wildfire and would not be involved in a managed muirburn.

Will the new licensing scheme that is proposed in the bill strengthen the role of the muirburn code, and will that mean that best practice is more prevalent?

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.

The cabinet secretary will be aware that Creative Scotland is cutting funding to organisations in the Highlands and Islands. In addition, the community cashback fund is providing funding to only one organisation based in the region. Given our rich culture, those cuts will have a devastating impact. Pivotal organisations such Eden Court theatre and its outreach programme could be affected. Will the cabinet secretary go back to the drawing board and reconsider those allocations?

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.

You talked earlier about the science around muirburn and whether it was beneficial and what the impact was. Why did you come to the conclusion that it should be subject to increased legal regulation?