Chamber and committees

Will the member give way?

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.

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.

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?

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?

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 very grateful to you, convener, and to the committee, the Lord Advocate and Mr Shanks. Thank you for taking this petition very seriously and for bringing us to this point.

We have heard a lot of evidence over many months and, as you said at the start, convener, real issues of substance have arisen. Most recently, the evidence-taking session with the coroner and the pathology and radiology teams was really important and helped to set out in our minds that different practices are emerging—and, indeed, have been in place for a few years now—that still provide an effective and accurate service and system, but with people and families at the heart of things.

I am very heartened to hear the Lord Advocate’s commitment to humane and progressive practice. We all want to hear the committee’s recommendations on the matter, because, convener, you are right: operationally speaking, changes could be made to policy and practice. People need to be corralled a bit so that we can have that dialogue and direction.

The Lord Advocate is correct to say that the royal colleges play a very important role, but the Royal College of Pathologists is only one stakeholder and partner. It might want to protect the way in which things are done right now, but as we have heard, the reason for the change in practice in Lancashire—which is about 150 miles from Lanarkshire in my region, where the Stark family live—was the shortage of pathologists. There were also those who were electing to become pathologists but who did not want to do post mortems, because they wanted to do other important work.

We have heard about the opportunities to speed things up in order to alleviate workforce pressures. We do need to get the correct equipment for this work, but I would point out that what has been done in England has proved to be cost neutral, which is very important for us parliamentarians who are thinking not only about the law but about the public finances.

I appreciate the fact that the committee has been able to hear directly from the Lord Advocate today, but this issue needs to go to the top of the agenda. I am sure that health and justice ministers will be very interested in this—I note that we have not yet heard from them. I know that Mrs Stark has been busy engaging with MSPs and, indeed, has had a number of meetings since we last met. I am quite encouraged that colleagues from across the Parliament, irrespective of party politics, have been able to understand the very human issues that lie at the heart of this. No one is looking for short-cuts or is seeking to undermine the Lord Advocate’s important role or the duties that she and her team have to carry out.

I again thank the committee for its time. It is important to bear in mind what can be changed now, with very little resource required. We might need to have that change in the law, particularly with regard to the retention of tissue samples; the petitioner has set out a number of proposals in that respect and I know that the committee is looking at the issue very carefully. I am encouraged not just by the practice that is emerging in other parts of the United Kingdom but by what is happening internationally. Indeed, I think that the committee is aware of practice in Japan as well as in Australia, where there is now a faculty of post-mortem imaging.

It therefore seems to me, if we are to have the humane and progressive system that we all want, we might need to be a bit more proactive in ensuring that we keep pace with such developments. I am sure that we are doing things in Scotland that are cutting edge and innovative and that people can learn from, but we need to look outwards and I thank the committee for its efforts in doing that.

Will the member give way?

What I had wanted to say in my intervention on Mr MacGregor, if he had taken it, was that this is not about the political bubble. This week, I have been speaking to young people in Lanarkshire who have come here from Ukraine seeking sanctuary. They said to me that it is easier and quicker for them to get healthcare by travelling back to Ukraine than it is to get it in Lanarkshire or elsewhere in central Scotland. That is the reality that we are facing.

What does my colleague say to that? I think that people in Scotland expect us to have very strong responses—

Will the member take a brief intervention on that point?