 Will the members of the public who are in the gallery and making their way out, please do so quickly and quietly because we are about to go into session. I thank you in advance for your co-operation. The next item of business is a Members Business debate on 4-point motion 9401 yng Nghymru John Swinney o'r 100th anniversariad Catheryn Stuart Murray, Duchess of Athol's election to the UK Parliament. The debate will be concluded without any questions being put, and I would invite those members who would wish to speak in the debate to please press the request-to-speak buttons, and I call on John Swinney to open the debate. I am grateful to members who have signed this motion to commemorate the centenary yesterday of the election to the House of Commons of Catherine Murray, the Duchess of Athol, as the MP for Cynros in West Perthshire, and the first woman to be elected to the Commons from a Scottish constituency. It is not unreasonable for members of Parliament to wonder why on earth a lifelong Scottish nationalist has put down a motion and is leading a debate, a member's debate, in the Scottish Parliament to mark the centenary of the election of a Conservative and Unionist to the House of Commons, and I feel that Parliament requires a bit of an explanation. Firstly, I do so because I believe it is vital in our politics that we look at people for who they are and what they do rather than simply judging them from their party affiliation. I've always believed that, and I believe it ever more in today's rather toxic political climate. Secondly, Catherine Murray led an extraordinary and in many ways enigmatic political life that merits greater understanding and appreciation because she did not act as we might all at first sight have expected a Conservative MP who was also the Duchess of Athol to act. Thirdly, as one of our parliamentary successors in the House of Commons and here in the Scottish Parliament, I think that it's a bit incumbent on me to make sure that this parliamentary acknowledgement takes place. No political life is straightforward or without question or challenge. I'm sure that there will be parts of the political life of Catherine Murray with which we will not all agree, but I believe that this continually marks an opportunity to ensure that there is a greater awareness of a fascinating individual who made a contribution to our politics and whose work raises important questions of real validity for us today. The very election of Catherine Murray in the 1923 Westminster general election was remarkable in at least two respects. Firstly, just a decade earlier, she had been a vehement opponent of the right of women to vote, yet ten years later her mind had been changed and she was elected to Westminster. Secondly, the election was a bit of a local cliffhanger. She won the seat from the Liberals with a majority of just 150 in a two-horse race. One of our current Conservative colleagues Liz Smith was herself involved in a cliffhanger election in a Perthshire seat back at the 2001 Westminster election. Mercifully, the majority of 48 on that occasion was in favour of my party and not her party, and the Deputy Presiding Officer may have had more than a passing interest in the outcome. Catherine Murray was one of only eight female MPs elected out of 615 to the House of Commons in 1923 and went on to make a significant contribution to business at Westminster. She took a close interest in how people were treated in the British Empire and was shouted down by male MPs for sharing with the House of Commons the horrific detail of female genital mutilation all those years ago. She believed that if women in India were living under the umbrella of the British Empire, they should be protected from practices that were not approved of by the British Government. Her talent and her industriousness were recognised and she went on to become the first female Conservative minister as an education minister. She championed the power of education to safeguard the future of children and the wellbeing of children became a central feature of her political contribution. When the Conservatives went into opposition, she went to the back benches and her political outlook began to take a new course. She took a keen interest in matters of international policy and became increasingly alarmed by the rise of fascism in Europe. There were strands of the British establishment in the 1930s who were entirely relaxed by this growing spectre in Europe and did not believe the United Kingdom needed to address this threat. Catherine Murray railed against the sentiment that she saw as a direct threat to democracy and to human rights. She travelled extensively in Europe to understand the events that were taking place and to try to comprehend the fear and the alarm that was spreading in a growing number of countries as the threat from fascism materialised. She warned of the dangers but was increasingly marginalised and dismissed in the domestic debate. As the Spanish Civil War took its ferocious course, she was horrified by what she witnessed. She was especially alarmed by the dangers faced by children and the effects of the warfare on them. She worked at speed with others to arrange for 4,000 children to be brought to the safety of the United Kingdom and to avoid the horror of the Spanish Civil War. Her actions were necessary in the 1930s but they contain important lessons for us today. Can I thank John Swinney for bringing this debate to the Parliament and also for hosting the event last night, which I attended, where there was a huge array of different perspectives brought upon the life of Catherine Murray? She was, of course, a Scottish unionist and had a very difficult relationship with the Conservative Party as time went on and represented a very important theme in my party's tradition of patriotic liberal unionism that was shared by people like Walter Elliott and John Buchan. In terms of the wellbeing of children, he will have heard last night the fascinating evidence of one of his speakers about the experience of coming over from Spain. I just wondered if he had any further observations on that. Donald Cameron's timely intervention brings me to the event last night that I hosted in Parliament, where we welcomed to the Scottish Parliament some of the children of the children who were brought out of the turmoil of the Spanish Civil War to the safety of the United Kingdom by the Duchess of Athol. They told the stories of their parents' survival and wanted to say one thing to the family of the Duchess of Athol who were present last night. They wanted to express their thanks for the actions of the Duchess of Athol, because quite simply without them, those children would not be here today and those lessons are vital for us as we wrestle with those challenges in our society at this moment. The Duchess of Athol's acute interest in the rise of fascism led her to closely study the contents of Hitler's words in Mein Kampf. She read the original text in German, she was a German speaker, and felt that the English translation that was originally on offer did not properly convey the contents of Hitler's full plan. She therefore arranged for a full English translation and agitated to get the United Kingdom Government of the Time to take seriously the threat that was emerging. She became increasingly frustrated that she could not convince the British Government to act, so she tried to force her hand. She triggered a by-election in Cynross in West Persia on 21 December 1938, a very cold winter night apparently, to try to address the issue. The huge might of the Conservative Party was deployed against her, and she lost the by-election but only very gnarly. She may have lost the by-election, but events would prove that her concerns were valid and legitimate. I suspect that few people would know if they were asked in the street who was the first female MP elected in Scotland. I think that it would be a surprise for them to find that that individual was married to a aristocrat, opposed suffrage for women, a Conservative unionist who campaigned for educational opportunities for all, helped refugee children to safety from the Spanish Civil War and ended her political career to press the alarm about the rise of fascism. That, however, is the enigmatic life of the Duchess of Athol, the MP for Cynross in West Persia, Catherine Murray, the Red Duchess. I congratulate John Swinney on bringing this really interesting debate to the Parliament, and I also offer my apologies for being unable to attend the event last night. Unlike John Swinney, I think that you do question yourself when you have a debate such as this, and the subject matter, as John Swinney said in relation to being an SNP member talking about a Duchess, and I think that in relation to this debate, as Robert Browning said, this will be my last Duchess. I think that I'll debate in the Parliament, but it's a very worthwhile subject for debate. My connection is a bit more personal, and I'll try not to repeat some of the points that John Swinney speaks about from a position of far greater authority. After the 2011 election, we went, myself and the current Minister for Culture, to Pitlochry for a break after the election, and during that time visited Blair Athol and found out about the Red Duchess, and we were blown away just by the history, and I have to say completely unaware of the background before that point. Also, from my own point of view, my grandfather from Pitlochry, he gave my father the name Athol, as I've given to my son, and my brother, although it's a second name. There's that family connection with Blair Athol. I learned during that visit to Pitlochry in 2011 about the importance of the immense historical figure that is Catherine Stuart Murray and her contribution to Scottish life. It's important that we pay reference to that, even if it's just on the issue of the fact that it's the first woman to be elected to the House of Commons from Scotland. It was in itself an immense achievement when we considered that the franchise had only been expanded to include some women just five years prior and would not be expanded to all women for another five years subsequent to the Duchess's election. During her time in the Parliament, she embarked on a trailblazing political journey marked by a distinctively feminist outlook that might be a feminism of a different brand to that which some feminists today would recognise, but all the more difficult for that reason. Her feminism did not stop at Gretin or Dover, as we've heard, it also explicitly was international during the Spanish Civil War, which is an event intimately tied to Scotland's own history. Catherine Stuart Murray saw the impact of the conflict, especially on women and girls, and made this the focus of her book, Searchlight on Spain, which was instrumental in persuading the British Government to accept the child refugees that have been mentioned from the Spanish Civil War. In other words, she sits within that tradition of strong women who broke the status quo of Scottish politics, and there are many that we can look to, both our contemporaries. One search being Lavinia Malcolm, who was the first woman councillor and first woman Lord Provost in Scotland within my own constituency, in fact, within the village dollar in which I live, lodged a motion on that on my election in 2007. Also, Florence Marion McNeill, a leading Scottish suffragist, one of the leading flights of the Scottish literary renaissance of the 20th century, and also a founding member of the SNP. We've also heard, we all know of Elsie Ingalls, the well-known doctor, surgeon, teacher and Scottish suffragist Mary Barber, the Glasgow councillor who famously organised the rent strikes. Those who came after Catherine Stuart Murray's time like, of course, Winnie Ewing or Margaret MacDonald, both of whom won stunning by-election victories against very significant odds, and championed difficult causes in need of a champion for the rest of their lives, much as Catherine Stuart Murray did. Of course, our first female First Minister, Nicola Sturgeon, among many, many more, far too many to mention in this short speech. Catherine Stuart Murray sits firmly within that tradition of strong Scottish women of independent mind, who, against all odds, achieved—I know that that's a phrase that we used just now, but if you think about the realities of electoral politics even 100 years ago, how difficult it was to break the mold, either as a woman or as an independent, to which she may have been seen to have been subsequently. But no instance shows that resilience more than her stance against authoritarian regimes, especially her opposition to Franco-Spain, to Mussolini's Italy, the Soviet Union and lastly Hitler and Nazi Germany, which ultimately, as we've heard, led to her deselection from what was then the Scottish Unionist Party as it was out of step with the then Prime Minister Chamberlain's policy of appeasement. Appeasing Hitler, of course, is now widely regarded to have been a strategic mistake in the build-up to the Second World War, and even that is understating it to a large extent. But it is a timely reminder that even when something at the time may not be popular, it may also be the right thing to do. Today, the Parliament and our Government are amongst the most representative in the world for women. I'm very pleased that my party now has more female MSPs than male MSPs, and that's contributed to a more balanced Scottish Parliament. We have among the most representatives in the world for women. Let's see if today's debate is an opportunity to celebrate how far we have come in the 100 years since Catherine Stewart Murray's election as her first woman MP, but also how much further we have to go and to also use today to reaffirm her commitment to continue to work towards true gender equality, not just nationally or at UK level but internationally as well. I now call Mardo Fraser, who is joining us remotely, to be followed by Richard Leonard. I congratulate John Swinney on securing this debate today and thank him for his overview of the life of the Duchess of Athol. I'm not able to be there in person in the chamber today, and I'm sorry that I wasn't able to join the event last night for which we have to blame Black Ice on the Edinburgh pavements, but we should also recognise the efforts of Jane Anderson, the former archivist at Blair Castle, and Paul Ramsey in keeping her memory alive, and of course Elizabeth Quigley, who has presented a very good BBC report on the Duchess's life. This is an important date to mark, both in the context of Perthshire and Scottish politics as a whole. Today, we are commemorating the life of a true pioneer in Scottish politics, the first female MP in Scotland. Elected to the King Ross and West Perthshire seat in 1923 as a member of the Unionist Party, Catherine Stuart-Marie retained her seat until the 1938 general election. She was, as we have already heard, a complex and controversial character in her own time. She was a rare independent thinker at a period when the existing order of the international system was both turbulent and volatile, and her views were often out of step with the consensus of the day, not least in her own party. Catherine Marjorie Ramsey was born in 1874 and married John Stuart Murray, who was the Marquis of Tullibarddon, later the 8th Duke of Athol in 1899. He was, at that point, the Unionist MP for West Perthshire, but had to surrender his seat in 1917 on inheriting the Dukedom. At that point, the seat was won by the Liberals, but Catherine herself won the seat in 1923 to serve in government as parliamentary secretary to the Board of Education and was the first woman, other than a mistress of the Robes, to serve any British Conservative government as a minister. As John Swinney reminded us, the Duchess had been a vigorous opponent of female suffrage, in fact one of the leading campaigners against female suffrage in Scotland, but that did not stop her standing for Parliament when the opportunity arose, and that position was one of a number of controversial positions that she would hold. And famously, she would align herself to a number of causes that did not endear itself to the Conservative leadership of the time. She was an active supporter of the Republicans in the Spanish Civil War, which earned her the nickname, The Red Duchess. She was closely involved in humanitarian efforts, becoming chairwoman of the National Joint Committee for Spanish Relief, and in that capacity was successful in persuading the British Government to admit child refugees from Spain. The Duchess was very concerned about the rise of fascism in Italy and Germany. Her willingness to go against the prevailing view adopted by the appeasement wing of her party in relation to recognising the threat posed by Nazi Germany is one that proved not only commendable but also right. It was this decision to side with the likes of Winston Churchill and Anthony Eden that would later cost her seat in the House of Commons. She faced a deselection process orchestrated from the top of her party and subsequently stood as an independent candidate. She faced an exceptionally nasty campaign in which her former party threw everything at to try and ensure she was defeated. Despite numerous accounts of irregularities, including threatening behaviour within the constituency, she was only narrowly defeated by 5.8 percentage points. Had the election been held just a few weeks later, some have argued that it would very likely have resulted in the opposite outcome, had the confirmation of Hitler's intent in Europe been projected to the world earlier. What she had long argued for then became indisputable, where Nazi Germany presented an existential threat to Britain, to stability in Europe and the existing world order. Like Churchill, she was proven right. So, at Scotland's first female MP, she was certainly a trailblazer. The Duchess was not someone loved by party managers. She was someone who knew her own mind and was prepared to be outspoken for the causes she believed in. We could perhaps do with a few more cast in her mould today. So, she was a woman with a remarkable story. It is right that we should remember the anniversary of her first election and join together to pay tribute to her legacy. I now call Richard Leonard to be followed by Jim Fairlie. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer, and I thank John Swinney for bringing this motion on Catherine Stewart Murray before us. I do not think that it would be breaching a confidence. If I recall a conversation that I had with John Swinney just after he stepped down as Deputy First Minister, I will spend all my time on the backbenches, he told me, attacking the Tories. And yet here we are in only his second member's debate from the backbenches, asking us to praise one of them. So, I think what he said earlier on is quite important. I also have to make a confession, Deputy Presiding Officer. The Duchess of Athl does not figure very prominently on my bookshelves, so my reading and my speech might be a little selective. Of course, the firebrand MP Jenny Lee was a contemporary, first elected to Parliament for North Lanark in 1929, at the age of 24, when there were still very few women in the House of Commons. Jenny Lee's biographer, Patricia Hollis, records that while Catherine Stewart Murray had actively opposed women's suffrage, she, I quote Patricia Hollis, found herself radicalised by her time in the House. Tom Johnson also recalls the Duchess in a Footnote in his 1952 publication Memories, but is rather more polemical, notorious and so memorable book, Our Scots Noble Families, nearly half a century earlier, made a rather different point. He said, the history of the Stewart Murrays reads like an Arabian romance of successful crime. His chapter on the family begins with the Edward Carp into a couplet, a robber band has seized the land and we are exiles here. The most virulent critic, Johnson goes on to declare, of our hereditary rent-drawers and land grabbers, could never honestly deny that the Athol family motto of furth, fortune and fill the fetters had been scrupulously acted up to. The only unfortunate thing being said, Tom Johnson, was that it was always other people who filled the fetters. On a brighter note, the Duchess also appears, as a footnote, in Hugh Thomas' seminal work on the Spanish Civil War. Hugh Thomas concludes that the red Duchess's searchlight on Spain, published in 1938, selling over 100,000 copies, was the most successful of all the propaganda books on the Spanish War. She chaired the National Joint Committee for Spanish Relief and it was in that role helping to rescue 4,000 refugee children from the Basque country that the Duchess made a real, a practical, humanitarian difference. I agree with respected writers like Daniel Gray that in truth I do not think the ennobled upper-class blue-blooded Catherine Stuart Murray was red at all, but she certainly distinguished herself as a member of parliament who was anti-franco, anti-fascist and anti-appeasement, a stance which made her unpopular among the British political establishment in the 1930s. Patricia Hollis also describes how in her words the culture of the commons was of course exaggeratedly masculine, rowdy, boozy, assertive and quarrelsome. It is a culture still too prevalent in politics today. Into this the first woman MP elected in Scotland had to fight to be heard, but in so doing she became the first woman ever to hold office in a Conservative government. She resigned the Conservative whip in 1935, in part over its position on constitutional reform in India, and when she fell out with her party for the last time in 1938 over, let's remember, the Munich agreement, she possessed the political principles to resign her seat and fight a by-election were only those same principles applied today. So I want to thank John Swinney for tabling this motion, and in conclusion I hope that in return he and other MSPs will sign up to motions that I've submitted in the last few days, on last week's centenary of the death of the great red-clad side socialist John McLean on the 25th anniversary of the passing of the heroic minus leader and political visionary Mick Magahey, because it is important that this Parliament marks the lives of those noble leaders of the working class, and it is right that we find a place in this Parliament for history which is made not just by those from selected stock, but history which is made by the masses. Thank you Mr Leonard, and I now call Jim Fairlie to be followed by Stephen Kerr, Mr Fairlie. Thank you Presiding Officer. It is my great pleasure to take part in today's debate, and I heartily congratulate John Swinney for not only bringing the debate to the chamber, but also for the fabulous event that I attended last night, which has already been referenced. Hearing from her great-nephew Paul Ramsey and the children of the youngster she brought over here, truly was a mesmerising experience. More importantly though, I must thank him for bringing the said lady to my attention. For like many, I have to say to my great shame, I had no idea who she was, despite her relevance to my constituency of Persia, South England and Russia, but more importantly of all what she accomplished in a quite remarkable lifetime. As John Swinney has already said, the fact that she became a member of Parliament is all the more remarkable that her initial stance was against women's suffrage, and even after an election she voted against lowering the age of women's right to vote. To say that she is complex is a bit of an understatement. There is also the dichotomy of her privilege and her upbringing and the causes that she chose to pursue, but for me that demonstrated her humanity, rather than her heritage. None of us chooses the family or lifestyle that we are born into, and the important thing when we are in that life is what we do with it and how we shape our circumstances. We, as a nation, laud great men of entrepreneurial spirit, who have helped to shape our country, especially the self-made ones, and yet I did not even know who she was, so that is a societal problem that we still have to challenge ourselves with to this day. Kitty Murray may well have been born into privilege, but she used that privilege to great effect in helping others, as other colleagues have stated, despite the fact that she got herself into considerable problems in the process. She lost the election that she forced, but she had the considerable public support. There is a book by a gentleman called Mike Levi, the red duchess, Catherine Duchess of Athol. He quotes her in a response to the local Conservative and Unionist CA leader asking her to tone down her support for the Spanish revolutionaries. She said, "...I am sorry to hear of objections from constituents about my visit to Spain, but I hope these will gradually lessen. I think public opinion down here is turning a good deal since the destruction of Garnicia, and I hope that my letters to the newspapers will help to enlighten opinion a little. This fracture with her local party would become unbridgeable the following year." She clearly did have support, however, because during the election campaign that she had forced and was fighting—this was written in the Scotsman, I think it was, by John Dick of Glasgow—defy the fascist hordes with challenge strong and clear. They'll loud their drums and bright their swords, they're sick at heart with fear. Scorn Hitler's blatant nose and Mussolini's fray, and when they hear a manly voice, the cards will slink away. They'll listen on the air in Berlin, London, Rome, then tell the rogues that these mountains bear are still the free man's home. The world is on the rack, oh Scottish hearts be true, and send the noble lady back, or endless shame on you." History has shown that she was absolutely correct. There is another book that is currently being written by the author Amy Gray, which is due to be published in 2025. I don't normally look forward that length of time for the release of the book, but this is one that I will definitely be pre-ordering to learn even more about the remarkable Kitty Murray, the Duchess of Athol. I'd like to begin by congratulating John Swinney not only on bringing the motion to chamber for debate, but also on his speech, which I could agree with. I thought that it was very interesting to hear Richard Leonard make that revelation known to the chamber that what motivates John Swinney today is to be on the back benches to attack the Tories. That makes the motion even more remarkable. I pay tribute to him for organising the event last night, and I also wish to give belated apologies for my absence. Catherine Stuart Murray, the Duchess of Athol, stands as a figure of rare courage and principle. Her legacy is etched not only in her groundbreaking political milestones, which have been referenced in the speeches that we have heard, but in the unwavering stance that she took against the tide of popular opinion within her own party. I think that Donald Cameron was quite right when he identified the fundamental tension that sometimes existed between the Scottish Unionist Members of Parliament and the Conservative Party. However, it is her commitment, her convictions that such a steep price, her seat in Parliament, draws my admiration. That actually outstrips the constraints of time. In 1923, she engraved her name in history, becoming, as we have heard, Scotland's first female member of Parliament. She did not rely on quotas or all women short lists. It was on the basis of sheer force of personality, her dedication, hard work and prowess, a testament to her talent. The 1930s were difficult times for the world and Scotland. We have heard all about that. There was support for totalitarianism around the world, and it was manifest in the United Kingdom. Perhaps we should approach the subject of viewing that period of history from the point of view that the people involved at that time may not have known the full extent of the horrors that were to be unleashed on the world by the forces of fascism and communism, yet we must learn from those mistakes. It is absolutely right to say, as a couple of speakers have said, that the British establishment had somewhat nuanced views towards fascism and Nazism. The SNP itself has an interesting and colourful period of its history, where leading figures within its ranks were known to have sympathies for fascism and, indeed, for Hitler. But Catherine Stuart Murray saw through the forces of totalitarianism she knew by instinct and by principle that she was against them. She was a vocal critic of regimes like Stalin's Soviet Union, abhorring the very notion of a state dictating the private lives of its citizens. Her belief and the individual freedoms and the right to self-determination was unwavering and manifested itself in vocal condemnation. For example, of the Italian invasion of Ethiopia. As has been mentioned, in 1937 she went to Spain with other parliamentarians from the House of Commons. She then registered her open dissent against the non-intervention policies of the then British Government in the Spanish Civil War and that led her to chair the National Joint Committee for Spanish Relief. In her book, referenced earlier by Richard Leonard, such like on Spain, a bestseller, was also a bold critique of the conflict and it flew in the face of the Conservative Party's then prevailing sentiments and drew considerable opposition from the leadership of the party. That's what led eventually to sadly her demise politically. She was no stranger to conflict with the Conservative Party. Her resignations over the Indian Bill, her opposition to the Government's domestic policies in 1935, 1938, her opposition to the policy of appeasement against Nazi Germany, all these highlighted her unyielding commitment to her beliefs. Her unwavering stance against prevailing party lines led, as has been mentioned, to her eventual ousting. She resigned. There was an orchestrated campaign against her before she resigned and then there was an orchestrated campaign to unseat her when she stood as an independent in the by-election that's been referenced. Her political life, in conclusion, speaks volumes. Her message transcends historical context. The truth is that in our Parliament, in many of Parliament, the weight of party machines and whips at times stifles authentic debate. As we commemorate a century since the election of Catherine Stuart Murray, Duchess of Athol, I think that the singular lesson that I take to heart is that there is an imperative that we as individual parliamentarians stand firm for what we believe in and have as a right as individuals to believe in, even if it means diverging from the prevailing consensus within this chamber, within popular opinion, within establishments and even within our parties. Thank you, Mr Kerr, and I now call on Minister Emma Roddick to respond to the debate. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I just want to start by saying that I am really grateful to John Swinney for bringing this motion today and giving us the opportunity to mark the centenary of Catherine Stuart Murray's election as we've heard an unusual character. I doubt that she and I have a great deal in common, but I did feel a connection with her journey from campaigning against women's suffrage to then standing for election herself. I've never been opposed to women having the vote, but back in 2014 I did argue against the vote being given to me and to other 16 and 17-year-olds in the independence referendum. I genuinely and strongly believed that I should not be given the vote. Going from that to becoming the youngest member of this Parliament and Government and now a firm supporter of the right of 16 and 17-year-olds to vote, I understand that journey. It shows the impact that enfranchising people can have and how the best of us can internalise misogyny and inequalities, including those of us who are victims of it. I'm sure that she was genuine in her opposition to women's suffrage in the beginning, but the context in which she lived, where it was accepted that women were not equal and then the vote being extended, clearly had an impact on her belief system and perhaps her view of herself as well. I enjoyed the suggestion from Richard Leonard of radicalisation by exposure to men in politics. I think that that's something that a lot of women and now feminists in politics nowadays can sympathise with, which really leads me on to the other reason I welcome this motion. It gives us an opportunity to reflect more widely on how women's experiences and representation in politics has evolved in the last century. It's easy for us to see that things are certainly better after 100 years, but that's a considerable time frame and change has been very slow. We often hear from those who don't want to talk about or perhaps accept the problem of under representation of any groups that it needs to be the best person for the job, as if that's who we can possibly get every time when there are inequalities picked into the system. If we are going to get the best person for the job, there needs to be equal footing for all genders for disabled and able-bodied and neurotypical for all ethnicities and sexual orientations. While that does not exist, we are only likely to get the best white male for the job. In 2021, there was an historic high of 58 women elected as MSPs—that's 45 per cent of the chamber—but it was not until 2021 that any women of colour were elected to Holyrood and that we had our first permanent wheelchair user. We know now what the impact of women in government is. The Scottish Government has introduced a number of important policies, which likely would not have been possible without strong representation of women in government. Those include free period products for all, 1140 hours of funded early learning and childcare for all eligible children, our ambitious women's health plan to reduce inequality and health outcomes for women and to improve information and services for women. We have also got a number of initiatives to support more women into politics. In genders equal representation project works with political parties to increase diverse representation of women. They have produced a toolkit to enable political parties to assess their diversity and policies around inclusion and receive an individualised action plan to improve the participation of underrepresented groups. That project, importantly, brings together stakeholders working for representation of racialised minorities, disabled people and the LGBTQI plus community, recognising that intersectional representation is needed. Elect her support and equip women to stand for political office through hands-on workshop and peer support circles. 54 women were supported by Elect her in the 2022 Scottish local authority elections with 27 winnings. However, to accurately understand the situation, it is very important that we look at not just the number of women elected each time around but how many stay on and are retained for a full or more than one term. We see this across politics. Only 35 per cent of Scottish councillors are women. We just had FMQs out of five party leaders in here. Only one is a woman, of course, a co-leader in a position that cannot be filled by a man. That is not necessarily a problem in itself. We have got some excellent men in this Parliament who do what they can for women's issues. I note that John Swinney, Keith Brown, Richard Leonard and Jim Fairlie are all wearing white ribbons today. We have a male First Minister committed to tackling all the qualities with an understanding of intersectional issues, and everyone but me to speak in this debate today has been a man. However, when a pattern begins to emerge of women citing similar reasons for stepping back from public life, when the impact of equality's mechanisms disappears, when the mechanisms do rather than having a long-term impact, that shows that there is a problem to solve. I am interviewing because, thus far, the minister has not really referenced the primary topic of the motion, which is the life of this remarkable lady, the Duchess of Athl. I wonder whether she can draw some inspiration from the fact that this lady, the first Scottish woman to sit in the House of Commons representing a Scottish constituency, did so showing great tenacity and great self-belief. She also showed great principle. Does she draw anything from that political life that could inform us in this chamber to make us all better parliamentarians? Absolutely. That is what I am discussing here, because we see a remarkable woman who fought and fought and fought, but she should not have had to. The problem is that many women are still having to fight the party system, the Parliament system, to contribute to public life, as she did. We are seeing that women who are getting elected are finding barriers that they did not expect once they get here, whether it is misogyny and harassment or struggling to access child care or health such as menopause support away from home. We see at the end of every session successful women citing family or caring responsibilities and what they have discovered is the incompatibility of those and their role here as the reason that they are not seeking re-election. The Parliament's gender sensitive audit made more than 30 recommendations on how to improve the Parliament's rules, practices and culture. It is important that we keep the progress going in here internally to improve the experience of women and other underrepresented groups, because we know that the problem is wider and deeper and there remains a need for societal change. If we are listening today to stories of a woman 100 years ago in Parliament and being able to connect those to the lived experience of women who sit in this modern Parliament today, then that shows us just how far we need to go. We may be able to confidently say that our parties would not act the same way towards women who dare to think for themselves as happened to Catherine Stuart Murray, but much of that attitude remains and is still visible. We will not effectively make societal change without women who understand both the equalities at play and how it impacts them being part of the process. They are being removed from that process due to our own structures and attitudes. I thank all the men in the room who are engaging with the likes of White Ribbon and who are listening to female colleagues because all of those issues are connected. I encourage everyone to take notice of the remaining inequalities at play and do whatever is in their power to tackle them.