 The next item of business is a debate on the Scottish Parliament's gender-sensitive audit. I would ask those members who would wish to speak in the debate to please press the request to speak buttons. Members may wish to be aware that the format for today's debate indeed allows some flexibility for longer interventions to be taken, should members wish to so proceed. I call on Karen Adam to open the debate on behalf of the board. A generous eight minutes, Ms Adam. Fantastic. Thank you, Presiding Officer. It's a privilege to open this debate today 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. Women's representation in Parliament is sadly not reflective of our representation in society, and even here, where the decisions about Scotland are made, women are denied real power. This Parliament's gender-sensitive audit, launched by the Presiding Officer in 2022, looked at our rules, practices and culture to examine how women are or aren't included and represented here. The new report, which I encourage every member of the Scottish Parliament to read, makes a number of recommendations to address the issues 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 today talking about the obstacles many of my colleagues cross-party here today may have faced. In the 2021 election, I stood on an all-women candidate list in Bamshire and Buckingham coast, and on many occasions in that election, I was challenged by a small but vocal minority nut on my ability, nor my values, nor what I could bring to the debate, but on the fact that I stood on an all-women short list. For that small yet vocal minority, it didn't matter what experience I could bring when discussing the many issues faced by those across Bamshire and Buckingham coast. For them, it didn't matter that I was working class, it didn't matter that I was brought up in an LGBT home, it didn't matter that I had experience of translating for my deaf father or caring for my children with additional sport needs, or that I had succeeded in many voluntary positions while juggling a degree as a councillor and parent, single parent to six children. For them, it didn't matter that I had the opportunity of bringing those experiences and being a voice for so many others like me who we rarely see themselves reflected in parliaments like this one. All that mattered was that I was on an all-women short list that I had somehow skipped the queue. So while we discuss how we support women in this parliament, I hope every party leader is also giving pause for thought to the uphill struggles, the misogyny, the abuse and the harassment that women face on their journeys into this place. The audit carried out by Dr Fiona Mackay found that there had been fluctuations over time in the number of women in leadership and decision making roles. For example, on the Scottish Parliament corporate body in the parliamentary bureau and in committee convenerships, this suggests that equal representation of women and men is not embedded within the Parliament nor is it guaranteed going forward. We can and do better. The audit also found that the number of women and men on committees does not always reflect the gender balance in the 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 responsible for equalities, currently the Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee on which I sit. On the level of participation in Parliament, it 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 both by men and women. To the surprise, I'm sure of no women in the chamber today, the audit found that while there appears to be a positive shift in terms of attitudes towards women in politics, women MSPs still encounter sexism. I won't go into full detail here, but I have lost count of the number of times I've been told what I should or shouldn't say, what I shouldn't do and where I should or shouldn't sit. I've lost count of the number of times I've been spoken over or expected to explain myself. We know full well that this has seldom been the case for our male colleagues, so I call on my male colleagues to challenge this behaviour wherever you see it. It is only this way that we can change the culture for good. Absolutely. Alexander Stewart. I acknowledge what Karen is saying here today, and I think she makes a very valid point about the respect that women should be given when they come into a role in Parliament, and that respect has not always been there. As she identifies, it is up to all of us to do our bit for the men in this Parliament to stand up and be counted for, because it is the men in this Parliament who are, at times, not treating women with the respect that they deserve. Karen Adam. I thank my colleague for that intervention, and he is absolutely right. Firstly, I want to thank him for always being respectful to me, and I thank him for acknowledging that. I think that we can all spread on that message to our other male colleagues to do that bit better. Sitting a good example is a good way to do that. As a mother of six children with Karen responsible ease for my children and father, I was particularly interested in the reports finding on childcare provision and our often lauded family-friendly Parliament. It is exceptionally hard for parents, particularly single parents, to be a Parliamentarian. I welcome the return of the crush, and I hope that greater provision and more flexible childcare will become available in the future. Bob Doris. I'm really conscious that the second person to seek interventions a man. I'm pleased that we've entered it. It's my interest in the debate rather than seeking to have my voice magnified any more than anyone else's. As a working dad, which actually puts greater constraints on my wife, because it impacts on her job as a nurse in Glasgow, I'm very interested in seeing the crush extend beyond four-hour slots, perhaps into a partnership nursery status and much more flexibility. I'm just wondering whether, through the gender-sensitive audit, any of that come out. I have seen not just for my benefit but for my family, so we can get that balance right in our lives to have proper equality in everything that we do. Karen Adam. Thank you, and yes, I agree with the comments there. I think that four hours is a good start, but we certainly need to go further, and I think a more flexible approach. As you said, the more childcare that we can provide for families as a whole and for men, it means there's less burden of childcare on women. The retention of hybrid and remote systems was seen, the report says, 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 this Parliament when I have been unable to be in Edinburgh, but we must be mindful that it is often at the discretion of individual parties to allow remote or hybrid participation. I'm proud that my party is invested in supporting more women into politics at every level of government, and I am proud that under Nicholas Sturgeon's leadership we introduced the first gender balance cabinet in the United Kingdom, and under Humza Yousaf's premiership we now see more women in government than ever before. We must celebrate that, but we can't and do more. In government and both as a party and as a Parliament, particularly on the unprecedented levels of abuse 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 I've spoken to have told me they have no desire to put themselves in the crosshairs of keyboard warriors, and this breaks my heart. It was an honour to be a member of the Gender Sensitive Audit Board, and I would like to 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, and also the experts who have helped to shape this important report, including Professor Sarah Childs, Dr Merle Kenny and Professor Fiona Mackay from the Universities of Edinburgh and Strathclyde, Susan Duffie and Tracy White from the Scottish Parliament, Catherine Murphy of Engender and Ailey Dixon. As is the case with the pursuit of equality, change is never instant and efforts to not change must be continuous. We need political commitment over the long term so that not only the quick wins and the short term goals are reached, but 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. Further changes made as inequalities are identified. I am encouraged by the enthusiasm and commitment of this Parliament's staff. I fervently believe that we will make the change for better and I look forward to working with all to enact the recommendations of this report and to conclude, Presiding Officer, this year we celebrate the centenary of the first women from Scotland being elected to the UK Parliament. I note that my colleague John Swinney has celebrated the remarkable Catherine Stuart 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 want to start just by welcoming the report and also thanking Karen Adam for her contribution today and to the report itself. Being elected at the same time as Karen, I know that these have not been an easy couple of years. We've both faced quite a lot of online abuse and the obstacles that she described and yet she's not been able to contribute to this really valuable report, so absolutely fair play to her. I've genuinely been looking forward to this debate because I know it is one where there are lots of serious issues to be raised and a spotlight to shine on the experiences of women in this place and politics in general. I know that there are a lot of serious issues to be raised and a spotlight to shine on the experiences of women in this place and politics in general. I know that there are a lot of serious issues to be raised and politics in general but also that there's likely going to be a lot of cross-party consensus which I hope means we can get into the details rather than just focusing on the headline issues. The Scottish Government has consistently held the position that it is for the Parliament to consider any proposals relevant to its internal operation, membership and working practices but we do routinely monitor proposed development of parliamentary policy and operation to assess any potential impacts on ministerial interests and are happy to provide assistance if invited to do so. Although the report is for the Parliament to act on, I'm here as a minister to offer support on the work that this will lead to and also to pick up on any lessons that the Scottish Government can learn as well. I think it would look pretty daft if I got up here and didn't acknowledge the obvious that I am also a woman in politics and a queer disabled woman and as many know I have had my struggles 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 the meeting to unacceptable comments and abuse I do face misogyny and sexism at work from folk in other parties and sometimes my own. If that surprises anyone they're not paying attention. Sexism is so rooted in our society that is not an issue with a party or politics or one workplace. It is a problem everywhere. Not one single party or area of society is free of it and we have to recognise and accept that fact first if we stand any chance of dealing with the issue. Certainly. Alex Cole-Hamilton. I'm very grateful to Emma Roddick for taking my intervention. She talked about her roots into politics. I'm very glad that she's in politics. I think that she brings a lot to this chamber. I was struck by her excellent address to the outgoing First Minister just a few weeks ago where she talked about her own routine and being asked to stand by a senior politician. Does she recognise that that responsibility falls to all of us to identify strong talented women to suggest that they run for politics and to find ways to help them? Minister. Absolutely and it's an important point that Karen Adam actually touched on as well. I struggled too with telling women that they should stand because I know what they're going to come up against. So yes, we have to encourage women to stand but we have to make sure that once we're here we're doing the work to make sure that this is a safe space for them and that politics is not putting them in danger. Yes. Monica Lennon. Thank you. Just a point that I'd like to mention briefly is also that as well as encouraging women to stand all of us who are in political parties will understand the point that I'm about to make that the selection process itself can actually be the most brutal experience. And as parties we might not want to talk about that but it's often the elephant in the room. So as well as support once you get elected the selection process can be the most brutal part and that can put people off. So is that a point that the minister would recognise and suggest back to all political parties that we must do better? Absolutely and I think that's important not only because of how difficult selection processes are but because being a candidate does not mean you're necessarily going to be elected but you can still face an awful lot of conflict. You may have trauma from the things you've experienced and some people who were not successful in election still managed to attract abuse long after the contest is over. So more than happy to speak with my own party and all other parties about suggestions of how we can do better by candidates. We do have to acknowledge that there is such a long history of sexism, discrimination and inequality and 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 do have a responsibility here both to set an example but 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 have something to contribute to public life. The Scottish Government is playing a part in that and I do want to highlight the work of the First Minister's National Advisory Council on Women and Girls off the back of its important recommendations. We've made progress on ensuring consistent access to self-referral for forensic medical examinations after a result. We're funding Engenders Development Manager posts to support gender, equal and gender sensitive representation in media and we're delivering on our commitment to expand entitlement to 1140 hours of funded early learning and childcare to name just a few of our very long list of important advances. I'm going to talk now specifically about a few recommendations from the report. The report discusses, as Karen said, the goal of a family-friendly parliament. It's a term we use often in here when there are late-sittings or unreasonable expectations placed on people with caring responsibilities or when plans change unexpectedly and at short notice. I'm very aware there are different ideas across the chamber of what exactly family-friendly means. I did like the alternative phrase in the report, life-friendly, not only because it likely gives us more room for flexibility but because whether you have a family or not, this place can often be very unfriendly to the idea that you have a real life going on as well. I also welcome the suggestion of a disability audit of the parliament. Our reputation for being an accessible liberal parliament makes sense when you're contrasting us with Westminster but in many ways it's not entirely deserved. If you've ever tried to get around this building and it's winding undulating corridors with any kind of mobility aid, you will understand that it is not accessible. Everyone in this chamber has sat in these chairs for hours and hours on end which they do not meet basic recommendations about desk height. They're incredibly uncomfortable yet uniformity is often prioritised over health and safety. The general public is not uniformed so we can't expect their representatives to be. There is work to be done if this building is able to accommodate a full variety of physical needs. I'll take the intervention. Thank you very much to the minister for taking the intervention. I think that in relation to the media and access is really important. One of the things that I know that members of the parliament have struggled with is when we're getting group photos. Again, that might be something else that we can look at to make sure that everyone can participate because I know there has been times when, for example, we're rushing after FMQs and people with mobility issues can't get down in time in order to get the group photos. That's another thing that we can look at to make it more inclusive. Absolutely. That's one of many things that we should be looking at. I think that what's always clear to me at the end of FMQs at the photo calls as well is that some people have grown up learning how to elbow others out of the way and that's not necessarily what I've learned to do. There are very basic everyday challenges for women in here. I am a member of a majority female government and I don't mind folk celebrating that. It is a good thing but we do have to be clear about what it actually tells us. It tells us that we have a First Minister who promotes, supports and values women in his team and that's big. It tells us that a lot of women have overcome a lot of barriers and made it into this place. But it doesn't tell us anything about system change. We need to come back and talk in five years and say how many women that are here today across the chamber are still in politics in five years' time. How many left and why? Because retention will tell you a lot more about the state of play than a snapshot number of female ministers or MSPs at any given time. I'm aware we're having this debate at a time when colleagues who've been here longer than I have admit that the conduct in and out of the chamber, the behaviour that we're seeing directed at women in particular has never been so bad. There's sexist and ableist language directed at women including dog whistles and downright abuse 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 may think their comments are, if you're relying on a culture of misogyny to give your words the effect of getting one up on someone, then you are putting people in danger. Misogyny is killing women and there is no space for making any form of it acceptable. I'll conclude just by saying, that it's great to see detailed consideration of proposals to change the workings of the parliamentary estate which are not gender sensitive. All those tangible changes have to come alongside attitude changes and I know that's a lot harder to implement but we all have to be a part of it. I look forward to everyone's contributions. I would like to begin by offering my apologies to the chair and the chamber for being late to the debate today. I would like to begin by welcoming the Parliament's gender sensitive audit report and thanking those who contributed to its findings. I am delighted to be leading in this debate for the Scottish Conservatives. 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, we have had 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 as I became the first female group leader of a political group since its creation. Regardless of your political persuasion those are achievements that we should all be proud of. But as I said, the political landscape has changed and it is not always for the better. For a young woman who entered politics at the peak of the Scottish independence referendum campaign I quickly learned that politics was not for the faint hearted. I will admit that I was not prepared for the online abuse that I would receive. It was personal. It was sexual in nature. It was grim. And this was before I was even elected as a councillor in North Lanarkshire. But after my election the abuse escalated and the sad reality is that there is not a day that goes by where I don't receive some form of abuse and I'm sure colleagues across this chamber will share a similar experience. I've had to get the police involved in not one but two separate occasions because of other people's inappropriate behaviours and the abuse regretfully I've received is heightened again in recent months because of the debates that we've been having here in this chamber. But as I said, I know I'm not the only person in the chamber who has been wrongly stereotyped or labelled all for standing up for what you think is right for what your constituents wanted you to fight for. I'm not sharing this with the chamber today as a always me story because I know we can and we must do better. This Parliament needs to understand why women do not want to stand for election but abuse on social media is one of those reasons. So until we provide better support to those entering politics I'm afraid we will prevent talent from entering this chamber. Presiding Officer, turning to the report findings there appears to be a lot of focus on the number of men and women on committees that do not always reflect the balance of MSPs in the Parliament. I'm less concerned about this aspect because I do feel that people within the Parliament will naturally gravitate to issues that they care about. For example, I myself are passionate about education related issues but that doesn't mean that I don't have interests in other areas of devolved government. So I'm not entirely sold on the recommendation of not having single sex committees as I don't think the Parliament should necessarily dictate to political parties who they think is best to represent on different boards and in different committees. I hope that the Parliament would rather have people on committees with genuine interest. Within the report it's also stated that women tend to make fewer contributions during the Parliament business such as First Minister's questions and debates but I'm afraid and it has been mentioned before this comes down to behaviours. We as women are often accused of being shouty or being mouthy when we're being robust. Although comments like this, and I'm sure other MSPs will agree, that kind of spurs me on a little bit because I do like to try to improve people wrong. Presiding Officer, if I may, I do have a question for the chamber today. Is Holyrood's family friendly? It is something that I have pondered over since my election to this Parliament and following the birth of my daughter Charlotte. The conclusion that I have reached as it stands, that this Parliament is not family or life friendly. For balance, I appreciate and commend Parliament for introducing proxy voting, something that previous MSPs have called on for quite some time. I'm often drawn to the article that was published by Holyrood magazine in 2021 that interviewed four MSPs, that was Aileen Campbell, Ruth Davidson, Gail Ross and Jenny Marra. I read it for the first time before I went on maternity leave last year. All of those talented women politicians decided not to seek re-election because it was difficult to balance being an MSP in family life. They shared their feelings of guilt, not being able to spend time with their family and the impact that that had on them mentally. They also shared the reasons why this Parliament isn't family friendly. It relates to the working day, voting times being moved at the last minute. I have lost count of the number of times I've had to phone a family member because I won't be home when expected. It puts pressure on the MSP and their family. Travelling is another factor, whether you rely on public transport or you battle the MA every morning. If you do not have accommodation here in Edinburgh, you are up at the crack of dawn and you don't get home usually until very late in the evening. Yes, certainly. I'm grateful to Megan Gallagher for giving way and I have to associate myself with virtually everything that has been said today. I think it's a very powerful debate. Will you share with me that one of the challenges is that we don't have a unified definition of family, of child-friendly or family-friendly, probably more importantly, life-friendly? And actually people tend to see in it what they want, rather than an agreed balance that we should have between what is our job, representing the constituents and our family or outwith Parliament life. Megan Gallagher? It's a really interesting point, but I think it's more of a discussion that we should have. This is the beginning, I think, of this discussion. It's certainly the first discussion that I've been involved with in a debate in Parliament, but I think we need to crack down and define that, but I really like the phrase that Emma Roddick used, which was life-friendly, because it's not just about MSPs with children, it's about MSPs with various different things going on in their life. I appreciate that I'm pushing it, Presiding Officer. No, I can be very generous, Ms Gallagher. Thank you very much, Bill. I'll continue on then. Then there is the creche. We have a facility in this Parliament that is suitable for childcare that you can use for a maximum of four hours. This is great for those visiting the Parliament. Please don't get me wrong on that, but I do have to ask the question what use is the creche? We all got the leaflet through to MSPs, MSPs staff and Parliament staff, as the vast majority work longer than four hours. I think that was something that Bob Dorris mentioned earlier on. Yes, I will. Bob Dorris? I have less barriers than the women in this chamber, but trying to have a partnership of equals in your marriage can be tough. This morning, I was remote in committee, went to my constituency office and my two-year-old daughter was in the room with me. I'd much rather have went to Parliament, used the childcare facility in the Parliament, had my daughter here with me. That would have better supported my daughter and better supported my wife quite frankly. We have to think again about a four-hour service. As positive as that is, it doesn't quite meet it for all staff, not just MSPs, all staff in this place. I couldn't agree more and I've been in exactly the same position as yourself. It is now getting to the stage where we do need to be bold in terms of what we want to do if we are telling particularly young people, our people of all ages, if they're starting a family, they've got a disability from various different walks of life as the Parliament for them. We need to make sure that we mean it and I just don't think we're there at this point in time. If you do contrast this with Westminster, they do have a full-time nursery and I think that is something that perhaps we could look at because I don't buy fully into the hybrid system making the role of an MSP with young children easier. I can give an example, I would ask colleagues to try and vote on a bill for example at stage 3 with all the amendments, with a baby in one arm while trying to concentrate and vote with the other. You can make mistakes and you don't want to make mistakes because you're trying to do your job, but that happened to me in December of last year as I broke my eternity leave to vote on legislation at that point in time. I also don't feel that those participating remotely get the same experience that MSPs who are physically in the chamber do or even at committee level. I do think that further work needs to be undertaken to make this Parliament more life-friendly. I don't think that that advice history unfortunately will continue to repeat itself. We will lose talented MSPs, and I don't want to tell any more young women that it's difficult to balance being a mum and being a parliamentarian. To conclude, I do feel as though I have pushed it today. I agree with the principle of the gender sensitive audit and the majority of the recommendations set out in the report. I also applaud the continuation of events in Holyrood to make sure that Parliament reflects our society. It is key to monitor progress, but we need to address the culture and behaviours in this chamber. Support our MSPs who receive online abuse and to finally make this family family, but I like that phrase better, life-friendly. Only then will we see more women into the world of politics. 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 some of those recommendations forward. It's right that the Parliament takes steps to ensure equal representation. However, to make a real and lasting difference equal representation must start before any of us get here. The Scottish Labour Party from the outset took seriously the need for equal representation and ensured gender balance in our candidates. In the early days, this was met with derision, with one male MSP calling Scottish Labour women on a front to democracy. We have come a long way. We have further to go, but we have come a long way. Needless to say, those fearless women who were being insulted made sure that he very soon learned a very valuable lesson. One aspect of the audit, which I found particularly interesting, was that on committee representation. More so, the point made regarding the conveners group and the power that they hold as a link between the bureau and committees and the need to ensure that this group has adequate female representation. Sadly, I believe that until there is equality of representation across the Parliament we cannot get equal representation on committees because to do so without equal representation in the Parliament simply means that women are being asked to work harder. I do, however, view the findings of representation on key committees powerful and we need to address that, but it must not be at the expense of women or indeed 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. This is not just about committees, but we are being asked to take part in panels and programmes because they need a woman for gender balance. Those parties that persistently choose their representatives from misogynistic standpoints should lose their right to be represented on committees and panels. If we did that, that would soon change their ways. Our society is not equal and therefore there are barriers for women taking part and the greatest is caring responsibilities and of that being a mother is probably the greatest. Whether we like it or not, this falls predominantly on women and until that changes we need to recognise it as a barrier and provide solutions. At the end of the last Parliament, as I mentioned, we lost a number of young women who found it difficult to balance caring responsibilities and their parliamentary duties. Due to Covid, we have a much more flexible system of work where we can facilitate that to make a better work-life balance. We should not stop there. We need to recognise that, by working remotely, people miss out and they miss the conversations, for example, around the chamber, meeting stakeholders at CPGs 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 and that is interesting, but again, I would sound a note of caution. I know that there are not enough hours in the day and I know that I am not alone in thinking that, or indeed days in the week to fulfil my role. I seem to skim across the top, leaving behind more work than I have been able to tackle. If we look at job share, 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 of parents having fluid decision times. A 10-minute change can mean a mistrain 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 p.m.? Does the Parliament really need to sit in afternoons? Could they maybe sit in mornings instead? Should the Parliament crash be adapted to meet the needs of members, as Megan Gallacher pointed out, as well as meeting 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 their timetable for months in advance, but only shares it with the Parliament 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 to book flights. They need to incorporate travelling time into their diaries weeks in advance. Therefore, it would be helpful to know what they are expected to do weeks in advance. Alice Rowling. I have some sympathy with what the member says, in particular with the difficulties for members in the Highlands and Islands. Would she also accept that what goes for the Government also goes for the Opposition and generally titled Opposition debates in Opposition time, which are then explained 24 hours before the debate, also create problems for people who are moving around the country? Rhoda Grant. Indeed, unplanning beforehand is really important. Again, the Parliament has to be flexible to deal with issues that are up and coming and an emergency, but we do have a virtual system that can allow people to do that if we know what people should and shouldn't be here. Presiding Officer, the 2021 Scottish elections resulted in 45 per cent of MSPs being women. That's the highest since devolution. It's still not 50-50, so we can't be complacent. We need to ensure equal representation for all underrepresented groups. It's only when people see MSPs that they can relate to that they'll see the possibility that they themselves can step forward into these roles. Embracing that diversity must be a rain. I would like to place on record my gratitude to all those who participated in and supported the board, those who contributed to the research undertaken by Dr Fiona Mackay and the wider discussions that have been going on around these issues over the last year or so. This report, which I and my Scottish Green colleagues warmly welcome, highlights many of the ways in which this Parliament structures, processes and proceedings disadvantage women and also identifies some of the ways in which those imbalances can be redressed. Much of the injustice and discrimination identified is structural, a result of deep-rooted societal attitudes, traditions and assumptions. Misogyny, as we've been exploring over the months and years past, can often be institutional, embedded and unconscious. Education, awareness raising, data collection and the sharing of best practice regionally and globally can go a long way towards uncovering and alleviating these forms of gender bias. But, Presiding Officer, we will fail in our duty if we do not acknowledge that this is not always the case. Expressions of misogyny in this place and in this chamber in particular are not always unconscious, unwitting or accidental. I will be specific. I need to be specific for the sake of my women colleagues here now and for those who I hope will join us in the future. If they are not repulsed by the less than pleasant reception 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 distract attention from their own shortcomings and their party's current chaotic depravity. Last week, for example, I dared to critique the Tory legend of infinite growth on a finite planet. Its view of tourism is yet another extractive industry and its baseless opposition to a policy which has been successful throughout the world. I present a division of a different kind of tourism, one which works with local communities, economies and ecosystems for the common good and wellbeing of all. Murdo Fraser, in his summing up of the debate, made no response to my substantive points, dismissing me with a comment that I was and I quote, wired to the moon and on a different planet from the rest of us. I've heard far worse, of course, in this place and elsewhere. One incident that sticks in my mind was in 2007 when, as a newly elected councillor, a Conservative elected representative told me that he did not believe women should be in politics but basically should be pregnant, barefoot and in the kitchen. Others have already mentioned the disproportionate levels of online abuse women receive, or being talked over and ignored, or our points only being taken seriously when repeated by a man. And these are not one-off incidents. My women colleagues and I regularly are the objects of Tory ad hominem attacks, of shouting and sedentary chantering while we are speaking and of aggressive interventions. The figures in this report showing that women's speakers accept 72 per cent of men's interventions, with only 53 per cent of women's interventions being accepted by men, indicate something of this power imbalance. Emma Harper. I thank Maggie Chapman for giving way. I know you're describing experience in this place. Would you agree with me that it's quite worrying when we hear that's what's happening in other places, like in Westminster, that female colleagues are mood at across the chamber from opposition? That would worry me also. Thank you. We need to speak through the chair, Maggie Chapman. I think absolutely. I share Emma Harper's deep concern at those comments. I think that it can only do to reduce what politics is and what politics should be, and further discourage women from taking part and being in this place. Yes. I thank Maggie Chapman for giving way and I don't want to do tip for tat today. However, there has been occasions where I myself have been subjected to abuse, but this time it's been from Scottish Green members. On the day 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 behaviours from across the chamber need to change? Maggie Chapman? Absolutely. I recognise that. I am sorry for that. If I'd seen that or heard that, I hope I would have had the courage to call it out, 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 both of people with mental illness and of women, both wired to the moon by their vulnerabilities or their reproductive systems. But he and his party didn't seem to mind that at the time. In fact, I'm quite sure that many relished it, because now that was 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 wasn't the real victim of the words that day, only their 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's a stimulating game for the boys perhaps, but the Scottish Tories didn't make it up. Donald Trump's response to his criminal charges, Boris Johnson's accusations against the Privileges Committee all follow the populist playbook of defensive masculinity. If there's a woman to be blamed, as Harriet Harman knows, that's pretty near perfect for them. We can do better than that. We should do better than that here. A few years ago, the Young Academy of Scotland drew up a charter for responsible debate, principles to enable discussion that is informed, accurate, broadly evidenced and honest, discussion that is respectful, empathetic, judicious and open to change. Discussion that is inclusive, identifying common ground and addressing imbalances of power. I would urge all of my colleagues from across the chamber to look at those principles and I would ask ourselves how fully we uphold them, both in what we say ourselves and in the standards 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 Scotland of the day. We'll thank us for our courage. Thank you, Ms Chapman. Could I remind all members who are seeking to speak in the debate to ensure that they have in fact pressed the request to speak buttons? I call Alex Cole-Hamilton and a generous six minutes please. Thank you very much indeed, Presiding Officer. I've really enjoyed listening to the contributions so far. The chamber is always at its best when we find such a rich theme of consensus as it appears that we have done this afternoon. It is an honour for me to represent the Liberal Democrats in this debate. It was an honour for me to have taken part on the Audit Commission. In its simplest terms, this Parliament, like any other, exists to represent the people of our country, to reflect them as best we possibly can. That can only be achieved when all groups in society are proportionally represented and are able to do so free from any kind of structural barriers or cultural barriers. Gender equality is intrinsic to achieving that level of representation and proportionality. Therefore, it is also intrinsic to this Parliament and the work that we all do. This audit has set to explore the way that gender impacts individual experience in Parliament, which bears serious attention. However, we must ensure that we remain mindful of how other intersections, such as race, sexuality and disability, also affect those experiences. As we've already heard quite eloquently so far, this current Parliament is the most diverse it has ever been, with women constituting towards 45 per cent of our MSPs. That is a fantastic achievement. However, as this audit is explored and as we all know, we cannot be one that we take for granted. We are only as good as the current Parliament in which we find ourselves. Equality itself can never be taken for granted. Although that report lies within the remit of Holyrood, it bears mentioning that the gender representation of other elected layers of government remain worryingly low, particularly in local government. 65 per cent of Scottish councillors are male and a quarter of all wards in Scotland have no female representation whatsoever. Perhaps the report completed by this audit could feed into gender-sensitive audit work for local government in the future. I know that I'll be taking that back as a suggestion within my own party. Representation is crucial. However, it is not sustainable without accessibility. Politics should be a career accessible to everyone, but we all know that as sadly far from the case. The long hours associated with this job often clash with family or caring responsibilities, and we must try to mitigate this as much as possible. One such method is increased parental leave, which is an issue that Scottish Liberal Democrats have campaigned fiercely on for many years. Indeed, it was a Liberal Democrat minister that brought in new arrangements for shared parental leave, which is something that I'm very pleased that the Scottish Parliament has taken up. It is also why the recent reopening of the Parliament crash is such a vital move. I also echo the points made about the availability to all staff in this place. It also allows anyone who works or visits the Parliament to do some more easily, taking some of the burden off the tricky logistics that we all know can be associated with childcare. Such flexibility is... I'd be happy to give way to Martin Whitfield. I'm very grateful to Alex Cole-Hamilton to give way on that point. If we look at maternity and paternity leave, would he welcome funding for an MSP to appoint an additional member of staff during that period so that the support in the constituency office can actually reflect the loss of a worker in the form of the MSP so that the constituents out there are still serviced to the best of their ability? I realise there are challenges within this chamber itself, but to put those to one side, simply to be able to give the same level of service to the constituents in an area. Alex Cole-Hamilton. I think absolutely. We have to recognise that many of us employ staff who are in their early twenties or mid-twenties and are very likely to entertain the prospect of barrenhood anytime soon. I think that Martin Whitfield makes an excellent point. Such flexibility is crucial to making this Parliament agenda sensitive one. It could also be bolstered by this report's recommendation of proxy voting, which we have trialled, but could include grounds such as parental leave, caring responsibilities and ill health. Presiding Officer, this 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. While we all experience hostility, female politicians receive a disproportionate amount of abuse. I will. Kevin Stewart. I wonder what Mr Cole-Hamilton thinks of the phrase F-U-Marie and how that fits into gender sensitivity. Alex Cole-Hamilton. I am dismayed that Kevin Stewart is short to shatter the consensus that we have worked hard to foster this afternoon. Members, could we let Mr Cole-Hamilton speak? It is a matter of public record that I said. It is also a matter of public record that I have apologised in this chamber to the committees of the Parliament. Antony Meritodd, herself, I reiterate that apology today. I am not a saint, but I recognise the shortcomings in my own character. I have sought to address those shortcomings in my own character. One of the reasons why I sought out membership of this gender-sensitive audit board is because I recognise the distance that I personally and we as a Parliament still need to travel in addressing all of the issues that are described here. That abuse in so doing, the female MSPs in particular, are faced with a higher level of vitriol than male politicians, including myself, will have to contend with it. It is essential that we investigate the effect such hostility is currently having to limit further impacts. That is why recommendations within this report, such as interviewing any outgoing MSP, could prove extremely useful. The aim of creating a gender-sensitive Parliament encompasses not only the experiences of female MSPs, but everyone that works here from our own staff, our facilities team, our catering staff and civil servants, to name just a few. The audit has produced overwhelming evidence that there is still a dominant masculine culture prevalent within this Parliament. It is having an adverse impact on women working here. In fact, evidence from 2017, and we all know this, we found that a fifth of women in Parliament had experienced sexual harassment or unwanted behaviour whilst working here. That is just simply unacceptable. We must increase our measures to tackle such behaviour. It is good to have a debate where we have a bit of time for interventions. I am grateful to Alex Cole-Hamilton for his role on the board and his reflections today. It is also nice to see Kevin Stewart in the chamber and wish him well. I think that we would all benefit from more kindness in our politics and our Parliament, because that often seems a weakness, but actually it is a strength. What I wanted to say to colleagues, as well as being a political chamber, is that it is also a workplace. The words that we say here and the tone that we take can have an impact on colleagues who write down their words, who work across this chamber. Given that it is a workplace, shouldn't we all take more care, not just to reflect and look back, but to make that commitment that we will be respectful and more constructive in the language that we all use? Alex Cole-Hamilton? A typically eloquent intervention from Monica Lennon there, and I heartily agree with everything that she said. Presiding Officer, the aim of creating a gender-sensitive Parliament encompasses not just the experience of female MSPs, but everyone who works here. In fact, to evidence, we know that we still have a long way to travel. I talked briefly before Monica Lennon's intervention about the nature of sexual, 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 people responsible for creating that culture are people who are responsible. It is especially incumbent on male MSPs, like 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 this by listening, by learning. It has been a privilege to be able to be part of that by being involved in this order and by implementing the recommendations within 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. Thank you. Thank you, Mr Cole-Hamilton. We will now move to the open debate. We still have some time in hand for interventions. Should members be so inclined? I call Michelle Thompson to be followed by Ros McAll. Ms Thompson. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I welcome this debate. To be honest, I'm proud to be part of a Scottish Parliament who seeks to lead in this way, and I pay credit to the Presiding Officer for her leadership. I elected to speak today for several reasons. Firstly, 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'm 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 written by Ailey Dixon of Engender. In advance, she set out some of the challenges that the report should need, but fundamentally she points out that this is not just a recognition of the need and value of creating shared equity for women, but the need to embed inequality for women in all aspects of its work. Implicit in the blog was the need for structural solutions for systemic problems. I regard this change process as a continuum. At its most basic, we must build knowledge, awareness and a habit of conscious consideration that permeate throughout every process. For example, only the other day in one of my committees we were discussing the frame of inquiry and I noted that it had to explicitly include a gender focus lens, otherwise we wouldn't 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 and this is an inherent feature of developing a wellbeing economy and the distribution of money must be equitable. In our representation here we need far more women with a background in business, finance or economics for what it 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 and I am pleased to see the report acknowledged that this 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 and I was very struck by some of the speeches that have been made here today. There are many recommendations around the likes of making the Parliament family friendly, job sharing, representation committee, proxy voting and I will not mention them all but another nod to the fact that it proves men still dominate in roles that involve finance when you look across the board. Although the report concentrates on us as MSPs and our supporting structures, the wider environment is still further to go and I would include in this special advisers where 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 the power to articulate the reality and I was delighted to see at least seven recommendations focused on that. If we cannot collect it, we cannot measure the status quo and we cannot start to move beyond base camp in the change. Many of the recommendations are for quantitative data such as the gathering of basic diversity and intersectional data monitoring. Importantly, there is also provision for qualitative data such as the planned exit interviews for women MSPs and often it is this type of exercise that the key insights are obtained. Even better is that we have the commissioning of research via academic fellowship. The forum meetings that the Presiding offers has already started to hold go form a valuable resource for us all to share as we proceed. The guidance about split by sex and committees and other groups is complex and I am sensitive to the fact that each political party is in a different place on their 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 politics toolkit and those kinds of toolkits are always worthwhile. My final point is about culture and the role that we all play in it, especially in this chamber. This is a theatre brimming with passion and strongly held views and it is quite right that we debate matters of state in the most robust and vigorous way. In 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 where the essential requirement to use that Glasgow phrase can hear and say that and bullies being cowardly, they often did not, has had to be deployed. I do not say this with pride, it is more a recognition that perhaps it has become second nature to me. Progress for me is not measured by other younger women having to learn and adopt the same strategies as I have for that would be failure. Progress for me will be where women take their rightful place, are represented fairly and squarely throughout all our decision making processes with their needs at the forefront at all times. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Thank you, Ms Thomson. I now call Rose McCall to be followed by Martin Whitfield. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Just to let the chamber know, I'm having an ocular issue today. I've forgotten my glasses, so bear with me. I'm delighted that the Scottish Parliament is taking the issues from the gender sensitive audit so seriously and I'm pleased to be adding my contribution to the debate. I want to start by focusing on the wording gender sensitive, as I believe it's important that we recognise what we're actually looking at so that we can properly make moves to change it and hopefully change our culture too. Because in this situation specifically, it's not what is intended but what is happening that needs to be recognised, called out and eradicated from our processes. From the eyes of a new recruited member of this illustrious establishment, I want to go on the record by saying that within the last nine months, I found the Parliament, processes and staff, the members and the general procedures to be open, welcoming and encouraging. I recognise the work that's been done and continue to be done to eradicate forms of prejudice including sexism and gender bias. I want to highlight a couple of points from the report that particularly stood out to me and therefore I've selected some facts that I believe that we collectively should address. The report highlights that women are less likely to intervene and to have their interventions taken. It states that out of the 293 interventions during the period observed, in that time 110 interventions were made by women which equates to 38 per cent and 183 were made by men, 63 per cent. It seems that women are almost half as likely to make a point in debate than our male counterparts. As someone who hasn't fully embraced the intervention process yet, I note that I literally have to step up and be heard. How many interventions are taken and by what gender can only be changed if we make more, take more and loudly state our intention to intervention? I will take an intervention. I'm very grateful for Rosa McColl to take an intervention on that point. I feel that the practicalities of how an intervention is achieved is one of the boundaries to stop that. If there were other methods of drawing speaker's attention to your desire to intervene, it may in fact be easier and perhaps, as we've heard earlier, make for a happier or kinder environment. Rosa McColl. Thank you very much. I'm all for a happier and kinder environment. I would agree with that because in many cases, over the last nine months, I have seen women stand but not quite loudly enough to be recognised and sometimes that intervention goes by. I would highlight that because I'm going very much from what I have observed for the last nine months. I would encourage all female representatives in this place to do that. 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 whereas women are down at 53. Equally, the stats for women taking interventions are just as disparaging with women more likely to accept a man's intervention at 72 per cent of the time and interventions by women at 52 per cent. It seems that across the board, women's interventions are taken only in half the time. I want to highlight an example of exactly that situation of a man that happened earlier on in a debate this week. Whilst listening to the lively and interesting education children and young people committee debate on college regionalisation on Tuesday, I noted that there were far more engagement from the male members present. We had 18 interventions from male MSPs taken in the discussion which is in stark contrast to the three interventions from the female attendees. It seemed to me, apparently, that my talented and knowledgeable female colleagues tried to find the points they wanted to come in on. The early part of the debate, therefore, was dominated by men. I certainly wouldn't presume to know why this was the case, but the pattern of later interventions from female MSPs has been something that I have openly observed. Unfortunately, that means that we are run out by the clock considering the timed debate structure operated here within the Scottish Parliament. I mentioned in my opening remarks that it is important that we 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. Embrace interventions in a timely and early manner and, at the very least, 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 terms of attitudes towards women in politics, and I gratefully welcome that we have progressed down a long road when it comes to public opinion. It is concerning, if not unsurprising, that the report finds 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 for them both. One of the MSPs was male, one of the MSPs was female. The same member of staff, the same tone of post, the same type of content, but according to this gentleman the replies and responses to the female MSP are more aggressive, more personal and more disparaging. A reason, if one was needed, that we have to do more. It is up to each and every one of us in this chamber to be accountable, reasonable and ready to step in where necessary to ensure 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. I will. Keith Brown. I want to ask whether she would support the Parliament through its presenting officers and its structures becoming more involved in monitoring that kind of behaviour where they can, where it relates to MSPs. I know that that has been talked about across different parties. Is that something that she would support or is that going too far? Ross McCall. Maisham, so certainly monitoring will allow us to see where issues are coming from and how that proceeds, so I would certainly be interested to see a little bit more about that. I'm going to conclude now. I know, Presiding Officer, that if we are united in this objective, then we can carry on with the good work of the gender sensitive audit. Not only in Parliament, but hopefully progress to an inclusive Scotland for everyone. Thank you. Thank you, Mr McCall. I now call Martin Whitfield to be followed by Emma Harper. Mr Whitfield. I'm very grateful, Deputy Presiding Officer, and it is a pleasure to speak in this debate. Can I start by thanking all of those who were involved in the gender sensitive audit, but also to call out entirely biasly the PO for instigating this. Gender sensitive audits have happened in other parliaments and have seen some levels of success. Anything that we can do to move forward society as a whole, our own smaller communities and indeed the places where we work to see a better gender balance, to see a better environment in which people can work, debate and participate has got to be welcomed. So can I thank all involved, including those experts, professionals and clerks who gave their wisdom and experience in crafting it. I would like to start with something that's been addressed by a number of people here and it's harsh, but I think we have to address it, which is the code of conduct in the way that members who sit in this chamber, members who put MSP after their names conduct themselves and it is very clear in our rules, not rules that are imposed on us by those outside, but rules that we have accepted ourselves that we must act with courtesy and respect towards each other, towards staff in this Parliament, towards our own staff and then through broader guidance how we should treat people outside of this chamber. That is the people of Scotland in the main who make up our constituents but also others to treat with courtesy and respect. There is no hidden gender bias in that, although I have to say, I feel that some, including myself, male colleagues struggle with that sometimes towards female colleagues. However, I think if we take that upon ourselves on every occasion, before we stand up to intervene, before we chunter from a sedentary position, before we say something in a speech, perhaps even before we press send on that Twitter account, we may live in a kinder and better environment and it is for the people of Scotland to rightly look towards us and the choices we make in our behaviour and indeed perhaps to hold us to account on that even when we fail to see that in others outside of this place. To turn to the gender sense of audit itself, there are a number of recommendations that the committee that I have the privilege to convene will look at and in essence to echo some of the earlier asks and speeches. I would like to hear the chamber's thoughts on some of these things because I think it's particularly important. We've already heard discussions about the value of data and I echo Michelle Thompson's call that if we are not collecting this data, we cannot analyse it, we cannot be held to account. One of the recommendations is that data continue to be collected and in a more in-depth, more logical fashion so that we can look to see and indeed measure whether we have any success in the proposals that we try. In particularly with regard to committee membership, convenerships which I'd like to deal with, party spokespeople and cross-party groups is important. I think I probably am pushing it and open door to seek the chamber's approval of that collecting of data. Let me try something that may separate us slightly but I hope in a kind and generous way. Recommendation 18 requests that the committee propose amendments to standing orders to specify there should be a minimum of 40% of women for the SPCB, the parliamentary bureau and committee convenerships. Playing in part the devil's advocate, one of the questions that arises is how we measure that 40%. We've already heard the challenge that political parties have when they feel that they are being forced by those outside of them to either fill a space or point a gap, put a woman on a committee because there isn't one there whether or not she has any interest in that. So, in the calculation of that 40%, should we be looking at the make-up of individual political parties, the chamber excluding those who have... Exactly embrace what he's saying this afternoon with reference to the point that you're making. It is very difficult. We may have an aspiration to achieve that but it is up to and it will be up to individual parties and their management to make sure that things do happen. And there has sometimes been a reluctance for that to take place. And if we are to truly embrace this, there needs to be some more demarcation when it comes to party and their selection and their proposals. I'm very grateful to Alexander Stewart for that as I am for so many of his interventions and wisdom. This actually just boils down to individuals and it's when those individuals come together in different groups, carrying forward that responsibility to seek an improvement, ideally a parity but certainly to seek a massive improvement because committees, chamber decisions are better made when they're made by people that reflect on whom those decisions will affect. So there is a question about how we calculate that 40% and indeed how we calculate or how we identify the pool in which we calculate that. And I realise I'm more than happy to take comments now but I would also invite members both within the chamber this afternoon but on a wider field to consider that because it is a very tricky problem that sometimes crosses individual political beliefs and the chamber as a whole is responsible for the make-up in particular of the committees and the committee convenerships but where that gift lies rests elsewhere. So there may be a call for elected convenerships, for example, where you have a gender-balanced ballot to choose from. So there are answers, more than happy to... Monica Lennon. I'm grateful to Martin, what Fielden is good to have his reflections as a convener of this Parliament as well. My colleague Alexander Stewart will know that I'm a regular attender at the Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee. We like long titles and this is no disrespect to the current membership but 100% male, 100% white male representation. So when we are doing our work as parliamentarians but also trying to present representation to the public surely it can't be right that when the public attend their petitions they don't always hear themselves reflected. So we have to ask ourselves whose voices are missing. So I understand some of the challenges that I think the member is hinting at but it cannot be acceptable that we have committees with zero women and zero representation for what is more than half the population. Martin Whitfield. Again incredibly grateful for that intervention along with a number of discussions that we've had on this and other related matters. And it is something that this session of Parliament has to deal with. We have to show that we have a way forward both for the remainder of this session but also more importantly for the Scottish Parliament to go forward and it may be we try something and it doesn't work and we have the bravery through the collection of data to revisit it. But to do nothing I agree is absolutely unacceptable. I recognise time is short and I wonder whether... We can be generous Mr Whitfield. That is the kindest off as deputy presiding officer because the other element that I would like to talk about is in respect of some successes that we have. In particular there's a recommendation about balancing the gender across the presiding officers and the deputy presiding officers and it is a fact that we have achieved that in every session of this Scottish Parliament. And one of the questions that I would like people to consider is whether with that history of always having achieved that balance and recognising that importance whether it should be struck in stone to continue forward or do we have confidence that those that will come after us will continue with something that has become established not because of an audit, not because of clamour but because it is the right thing to do in that balance. Keith Brown. Can I thank Mark Whitfield for taking intervention? I just wonder, laudable though I think what he proposes is and I think that's what we should aim for. It really does depend on and is interlinked with the level of female representation that each of the parties achieves. We have to drive up the total level and the balance within the chamber if we're going to do that because if we don't what you'll be doing is asking a smaller group of women to do more and more work. So just to say that two things are related. Mark Whitfield. Absolutely and that's one of the challenges that we have in these discussions and I think it's one to which my colleague Monica Lennon pointed out. You can always create a situation where it becomes difficult but it's actually in addressing those difficult decisions that perhaps we can make the most advances forward. It is something irrespective of the party make-up within the Scottish Parliament, irrespective of the representation of independent members, we have managed to achieve over time. With regard to proxy voting confirm that obviously the current system will come to an end, will be reviewed by the end of this year but I can say it would appear on the surface to work very successfully. We'll be writing out to take people's comments and views on their experience both of using it as a caster and using it as those that have taken on a proxy vote because it is an important step forward to say that any member and this is actually I think irrespective of gender can on occasion step away for their responsibilities to their constituents here but still note that that will be served. My very final question which I've left to the end because it is the most challenging is in relation to recommendation 26 is to do with the behaviour of MSPs and who should look at that when there is bullying and harassment. There are other places that have given that out to independent people to make an assessment because of the very personal nature of those allegations that are made from the victim's point of view and that in that case others have deemed it inappropriate that people should judge themselves. Not expecting an answer this afternoon because people do have views on it and I'm more than happy to purchase a tea or a coffee and sit and chat about it. I'm very grateful for the time given Deputy Presiding Officer. Thank you Mr Whitfield. I now call Emma Harper who will be the last speaker in the open debate. Ms Harper. Thank you Presiding Officer. I welcome the debate today this afternoon on the Scottish Parliament's Gender Sensitive Audit and I welcome the work of the Presiding Officer and the Parliament officials who have been involved in this process. The committee commended for producing the Audit and for the huge amount of background work that has gone into this. I also thank all members involved in the Gender Sensitive Advisory Group for their input and experience. I'm particularly interested in the Audit because I am a member, I'm the only female member of the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee at this time. It's been interesting to look at the findings from the Audit and achieving a Gender Sensitive Parliament is more about making sure there is, it's more about gender sensitivity in the Parliament than making sure there is equality in the Parliament. Presiding Officer, 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 underrepresented groups and for societies as a whole, women must be fairly represented and they must be able to participate in Parliament and be centrally involved in decision making. Scotland has a record that bears international comparison and arguments for equal representation were central to wider debates over devolution and embedded into the institutional blueprints for this new Scottish Parliament. This included policies to ensure family friendliness but I do like the life friendly word. I think we've already progressed this afternoon to move forward our language to be more inclusive and support a life friendly approach, not just for family friendliness. We need to make sure that we enshrine a commitment for equal opportunities and to mainstream equality, including gender equality across all areas of work. Of the 129 MSPs elected to the Parliament for the first time in 1999, 48 were women. That was equating to 37 per cent. Rhoda Grant's right, women now represent 45 per cent of Scotland's 129 MSPs. I was checking, as we started the debate, the balance of our members of the Scottish Youth Parliament. The members of the Youth Parliament, those who chose to say how they wanted to be identified, 54.89 per cent said female versus 42.86 per cent male. There are other interesting MSYP stats as well such as LGBT plus stats as well as carer stats. We need to be cognisant of those figures for our MSYPs, for both the males and the females. We need to make sure that we support them in their future progress and journey in this political environment that we are aiming to make more gender sensitive. Progress has been made, however, the record number of women winning seats in this session didn't happen by accident or chance. In the 2021 campaign, growing pressure on political parties led to many introducing a range of measures to try to increase women participation in parliamentary democracy. As members will know, this included all women shortlist for constituent selection contests, zip lists where females and male candidates were alternated for regional elections. From 2021 outcome, those measures have worked and indeed, as the audit report shows, have worked in previous elections both in the UK Parliament and across the globe, including Australia. I found those findings really interesting, in particular as much of the evidence indicates that shortlist on a range of areas such as disability and ethnicity, but particularly gender, supports people including many women to be empowered to consider standing for election. Presiding Officer, I've been particularly interested in recommendation number 13 and 14 of the report, which states that the SPPA committee is to consider the statistics from recommendation 13 by NLA, so every other year to develop new rules and or conventions to rebalance participation where there is evidence of inequalities in participation. Ross McCall highlighted that in detail in her contribution, so I thank you for that. We need to look at potentially publishing intersectional data on gender participation in chamber debates, questions by type, including First Minister's questions, statements and indeed interventions. The reason for doing that could potentially create new rules and conventions to rebalance participation where there is evidence of inequality in participation, in particular areas, for example, on economy, engineering or STEM, but I know my colleague Michelle Thompson is very vocal on economic issues and financial issues and her and I are on the USA cross-party group together with a voice that makes sure that we are represented across the globe also. Presiding Officer, rather unsurprisingly, the audit did highlight issues around social media and that's something that I was going to pick up on and others have done that as well. We know that there's been massive impact of interactions on social media and when I heard Megan Gallacher describe what had happened to her at the Presiding Officer meeting that we were at last week, it was absolutely quite shocking and we have had reports of women parliamentarians across the globe being subjected to horrific abuse on social media, including sometimes from other parliamentarians. Social media can be quite toxic and for me, I'd like social media to be a valuable tool that we use to access reports and research and data. I used it during Covid to find out so much information about what was happening across the globe during the pandemic so I'd rather see social media be a positive thing rather than the toxic thing that it has right now. Indeed, the former First Minister recently said that it was a significant barrier for women pursuing a political career. Recommendation 28 in the audit says that the SPCB, working with the Gender Sensitive Advisory Group and a group of MSPs from underrepresented groups should update continued professional development provisions of the Parliament to extend that to potentially explore a social media policy. I'm a member of the British Irish Parliamentary Assembly, where the Governments and the Assemblies of these islands work together. I've written to the BIPA clerks to pursue whether BIPA has done any inquiry work into social media policy. I know Wales has already, in the Welsh Assembly, got a social media policy as part of their standards that they work towards, but I have given a commitment to the convener of the Standards Committee to share any response that I get from the BIPA clerks and I also will write to the co-chairs, Karen Bradley MP and Brendan Smith TD, to find out if they would like to do any further inquiry on that. In closing, Presiding Officer, I'm sure my time is about out. You've been very generous this afternoon for everybody. Equality for women is at the heart of the Scottish Government's vision for an equal Scotland. 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 chamber to help to make this place more kinder. I absolutely agree with Monica Lennon on that intervention that she made, and I look forward to hearing the closing speeches this afternoon. Thank you. Thank you, Ms Harper. Can we now indeed move to closing speeches? I call firstly on Paul O'Kane, and we still have a bit of time in hand. Mr O'Kane, should you wish to add to your already pre-planned contribution? I am very grateful to you, Presiding Officer, as I'm sure everyone is for the opportunity in the debate this afternoon to take some time to reflect and to listen to colleagues and have that little bit of extra space to do. I think it's been a very consensual and helpful debate. It's been very considered contributions, I think, from across the chamber about the work of the gender sensitive audit and the importance of that. I think the importance of this conversation moving forward and not just becoming a set point in time, but actually being something that we're going to move forward together. I think we've heard lots of, as I say, consensus in that. Because the concept of a gender sensitive parliament is an international democratic standard, I think it's very welcome that our Presiding Officer commissioned the audit and took a lead in putting her own stamp on that to assess the gender sensitivity of parliament in all of our processes and all of our work. I think most fundamentally, as we've heard reflected in the debate and as I've just alluded to, the audit has to be more than just a tick box exercise or a moment in time. It actually has to provide tangible outcomes and has to be an ongoing conversation that we can all engage in. I recognise that we all have a role to play in bringing some of those ideas into reality and improving our parliament more generally. The publication of the audit can't be focused just on the words. It has to be about measurable actions. I think that we've had quite a good conversation already this afternoon in the debate about what could work, where we probably need to do a bit more in terms of exploring how it would work and discussion indeed. Broadly, on behalf of this side of the chamber, I want to reiterate once again our support for the work of the gender sensitive audit and congratulate and thank those who were involved across party in the working group and we want to see continued engagement in that space. I think that it's critical and we've all heard this this afternoon that in the composition our democratic institutions have to look like and sound like the people of Scotland and we have to reflect on ourselves. I thought at the beginning of our discussion in contributions from many colleagues about political parties doing some of that work in the first place. We're making sure that we broaden 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, what we're not having to do, because we have more women MSPs, is not having to as a grant, I think rightly said, make a few women work harder in a sense. Actually, it's about saying we need to broaden how many women we have in this place. Now, I'm very proud that the Scottish Labour Party and the Labour Party at UK level led the way when it wasn't always popular on mechanisms like all women short lists, like twinning arrangements and like zipping. We were very proud of that, but I absolutely hear from my female colleagues who were in politics at that time the challenges that were proposed and put forward by men about why it was grossly unfair that we should do these things. And attitudes, I think, have... Sorry, of course I'll take Monica Lennon. Monica Lennon. I'm grateful to Paula Cain for giving way. Many of us might be following on Twitter the journalist Michael Crick, who spends a lot of time following parliamentary selections of various political parties, but he's noticed a trend in twinning selections that men, in most examples, are getting more votes than women. Therefore, the male candidate gets to pick the seat, which is often the more winnable one. I wonder if my colleague has any observations on that and what can be done about it. Paula Cain. I thank Monica Lennon for that observation and, in true Labour Party style, we can begin to have an internal discussion between us about the mechanisms that are used in the selection processes, but I think that Monica Lennon's point and our broad point is correct. The challenge, of course, of the Labour Party is that now that the parliamentary Labour Party in the UK Parliament has 50% of women... that all women shortlist are now unable to be used, so it's actually looking at different mechanisms at work. I think what we need to do is make sure that we don't see that's the only system that can work. We need to perhaps look around the world and learn from other political parties where they use different systems and try to find the systems that give us that broad scope, essentially, and allow us to think about what we do. I'll take Bob Doris, certainly. Bob Doris. Brief intervention, Presiding Officer. I wouldn't dream of commenting on Labour Party selection procedures and equalities mechanisms, but more generally, in politics, one of the challenges, I think, for political parties and equality is getting more women and other particular characteristics to actually be active within parties in the first place. There are some wonderful tailblazers out there, but we need more people who have actually joined political parties to have barriers removed to be active in the first place, I think. Oh, okay. Thank Bob Doris for that intervention. I think he makes a very good point, and I think it is about that grassroots level as well and encouraging more diversity in activism. I think we can all be guilty... I'll just finish this point there. I will give way to Megan Gallacher, but I think we can all be guilty in politics sometimes because we are caught up in the... We're running from one campaign to the next. You know, you're thinking about what needs to be done, and you're not actually thinking about how are we sensitive towards the barriers that exist for a lot of people even to go and chap a door or deliver a leaflet or, you know, and those sorts of things. So we do really think about that and think about how toxic are political campaigns and election time can be as well. And we've heard a lot of that today about the toxicity that often exists in this chamber. I think that's absolutely true outside this chamber and on social media as well. And I'll give way to Megan Gallacher. Megan Gallacher. Thank you. I'm Paul O'Kane for giving way. I'm sure all political parties have a female organisation within their parties in order to nurture, help and support women. We have women to win. I'm sure other political parties have similar organisations. Do you think they need to be more robust perhaps with the political parties to try and encourage more women to stand for election? And do you think that that should be something we should all as elected members just now be pushing for within our respected political parties? Paul O'Kane. I mean, this is certainly, I think, we need to acknowledge that. As I said at the outset, we all have a role to play to encourage more women and to work with our organisations and our party structures in order to make that a reality. So it's certainly something and perhaps we shouldn't be afraid to talk to one another about those things sometimes and actually what happens in other parties as well. I'm very conscious, Presiding Officer, that I've been giving a generous allowance of time but I don't want to stray into going over the score slightly. So I was just reflecting, I think, that in the last few days I've been hosting a number of politicians from Northern Ireland who were involved in the Good Friday agreement and the peace process and Monica McWilliams, Professor Monica McWilliams of one of those people. And she spoke in this Parliament on Tuesday night very passantly about the role of women in that peace process and the barriers that existed to her even being at the table or women even being at the table and the tropes that we heard 25 years ago about going back and be a housewife and the housewife of Ulster should go back to the kitchen. And we heard some of that indication in this place. We're about to mark the 25th anniversary of this institution. I think we have to reflect how do we start to continue to challenge some of those attitudes that still persist. And I think we can learn a lot from other people and the international dimension about what we do and I think Monica McWilliams would be someone who I think we could learn a lot about how to take the toxicity out and to find common ground, to find common purpose and to do that in a really gender sensitive way that respects we need to have everyone at the table. I think also we had a good conversation in the debate about our sitting times and certainly yes and what time decision time is and I don't want to fall foul of running over decision time when we might have a five o'clock one today but I think New Zealand and other countries around the world have structures we could look at and I know the Presiding Officer and I have spoken about that in the past so there is so much potential I think in this work. So perhaps to conclude Presiding Officer it really just to say colleagues often hear me say this about things but this isn't a full stop in the discussion it's a comma and it's about us taking a pause in this debate to begin to think about some of these ideas and initiatives but now it's for us to continue those discussions to move them forward all in our various roles and to ensure that we do have a gender sensitive parliament ready for the next 25 years and beyond and encourages more women and particularly more young women to come in and feel safe in this space and contribute to our important democratic life. I'm very grateful Presiding Officer. Thank you and I call on Alexander Stewart. Thank you Presiding Officer. I'm delighted to be summing up on behalf of the Scottish Conservatives in this debate and this has been a really good debate with lots of very interesting comments by members across the chamber. The Parliament at its best, Presiding Officer, when we discuss the issues like these that we can all become enthusiastic and a wish to see things improve and want to see things better and I pay tribute and commend and congratulate all those who have been involved in the audit. The Scottish Parliament has always striven to be an institution that is open, that is welcoming and is inclusive. Indeed this Parliament when it was created back in 1999 at the level of female representation was one thing that was praised the most at that time. While 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've made and identify potential areas for further and look for improvement. A growing number of countries around the world are actively engaging in a gender equality and wish to see their political system embrace that. We want to see that here as well. Organisations like the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, the Inter-parliamentary Union and UN Women are to name but a few of organisations worldwide that are attempting to do that, to ensure that there are gender sensitive parliaments across the globe. Given that this is the right time and the right place for us to do that, I commend and congratulate all those who have talked about inclusiveness, who have talked about the instruction to try and make things happen. We have come a long way from where we were. We have still got a journey to go, but we are all trying to. Each party has made that very clear that they want to see progress, that they want to see improvement and we have that all within our agendas. Some are later to it and my party probably was. As Megan Gallach has also indicated today, women to win is an organisation that we have embraced as a party and have done a lot of work and are trying to identify at all levels within our party that we get more women actively involved in standing and standing for Parliament and standing for council. We talked about council earlier on today. That was where I got my view first to become involved in politics. My colleagues Megan and Ross did the same, but we need to encourage more women to get into the council level as well because it is a stepping stone to somewhere like here or Westminster or other parliaments, but there is still a blockage at some of that because the timescale, the salary, the lifestyle that needs to be achieved by a councillor can be very demanding on all of that. We need to think about it absolutely. Paul O'Kane. I am very grateful to Alexander Stewart for taking the intervention. He is making a very valid point. I, like him and others, served as a local authority councillor. I think that councils can have real challenges in terms of timing of meetings, in terms of accessibility to appropriate times for childcare. Does he also agree with me that it is shocking that we still have councils in Scotland or are we still until recently had councils in Scotland that had no female councillors at all? Alexander Stewart. I thank Paul for the intervention and I do agree that it is a disaster and it is shocking that we have council chambers that do not have any female representation. I think that the job itself needs to be embraced and needs to change. It can no longer be a role for someone who has another occupation or a tired individual. It has to be encouraging younger people. I did 18 years myself as a councillor and know the challenges that it came trying to balance lifestyle, but it is vitally important and for younger ones it can be a real barrier. Those are very important. The current pilot that we have here on proxy voting is a really good example of what we are trying to do to accommodate and be more equal in this place. It is clear that there is still work to do when that comes to agenda equality. However, there are 34 separate recommendations that are in the report and some of them will be easier to achieve than others. However, I think that each one of them has a place to play and it is particularly important that we look at recommendations that come in front of the standards, procedures and public appointments committee of which I am a member. Recommendation 19, for example, proposes the new rule to prevent single sex committees. We have already had some discussion about single sex committees today within that and the Citizen Participation and Petitions Committee is one. I need to just mention to Monica Lennon when she did make her observation that it's all male and it's all white. No, we do have falso-trowdry in the group as well. We do have some representation that is of an ethnic minority. I'm happy to take an intervention if you want to. Monica Lennon. I was going to clarify my remarks and closing because I will be speaking shortly but there had been a recent change and I'm not sure I clarified that point immediately. I'm happy to make that clarification and support Monica Lennon on that. Given the gender balance of the current Parliament and the current Scottish Government, it may prove difficult to implement some of those recommendations in this parliamentary session. It is our intention to continue to develop recommendations for future parliamentary sessions. Recommendation 20 proposes that party membership of a committee must be mixed with a party of points more than one member. While ensuring more balanced committees in the future, it is important that such a rule not prevents party groups from appointing members who they may feel are best suited for that committee because that in itself is vitally important. We've had many contributions and I would like to mention one or two. Can Adam start off this afternoon talking about the frustrations and the rules and the participation and respect that's required. I think that all of that is vitally important. We cannot get away as Cardin started and many others have talked about the abuse that women receive is absolutely appalling. The minister herself talked about accessibility, being family-friendly, being accessible to individuals, supporting and making sure that we have that balance. Yes, there is much more work to do on that. My colleague Megan Gallacher talked about her journey as a young woman coming into the political of free and how difficult it could be attempting to deal with some of the challenges. Once again, social media and abuse feature very heavily in Megan's interventions and her involvement. That is a real shame that we have young women who come here and they are subjected to abuse from individuals within the organisation and out with it. That has to be called out at every opportunity. We have to start that out as much as we can. Amiroda Grant talked about the flexibility in what happened during Covid and the ideas that we could develop things. I think that that's vitally important. We have to learn from the experiences we've taken on board. Hamilton talked about the level and the practice and life-friendly and what we can do with the question and what we can do with the facilities. They are also vitally important that we talk about. My colleague Ross McCall, who is a new member within her nine months of being here, has experienced things and has seen and is looking as new eyes that come into this environment. She has identified areas of concern and areas that she would like to see change. The whole idea about interventions and how we play within this room and how we are perceived within this chamber is vitally important as to how we go forward. In conclusion, it's very clear that all parties in this Parliament are united in their aim to achieve a Parliament that is truly gender neutral. As such, the debate today has shown that we have real goals, we have real ambitions that we want to achieve. As a member of the SBA committee, I look forward to the role that I will play in this process to ensure that the workings of this chamber and the workings of this Parliament can remove and get rid of many of the barriers that we still know are here. We need to be, as has been said earlier on today, a kinder and a more happier environment because by doing that we will encourage but we will also inspire and that's vitally important. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Thank you and I call on Emma Roddick up to six minutes or so, Minister. Thank you. I am glad we've had a consensual debate today 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's possible too and it's important to recognise that we're not starting from nothing. We have made progress and we're building on good work and knowledge here. I've been glad to hear intersectionality coming through as a clear theme today. There's an important reflection in the report that it was not until 2021 that any woman of colour were elected to Hollywood and that we had our first permanent wheelchair user. Women who are disabled, LGBTQ, mothers, carers, young or women of colour or otherwise subject to racism and prejudice all face additional barriers and we need to consider removing all of them. I was glad to hear Emma Harper mention mainstreaming as well. It's an important part of Government work in my portfolio and I agree it's vital if we're 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. Making the Parliament accessible, making it possible for carers to come here, making it sensitive to equality's issues, benefits everyone. Even if you do not need it yourself nobody is going to complain about it being easy to get around the building when they are going to be available after voting for the day. Many... Yes, sure. Martin Whitfield. I'm very grateful to Emma Roddick to give away on that point. It's actually to heart back to a comment that Karen Adam made about the role of hybrid making this place more accessible. I would say that I think... I'm phrasing this carefully. Any political party that finds anything in the rules that says you can or can't use the hybrid are looking in vain. I think you have more power when it's needed to take it than perhaps you feel. But look to the standing orders and to the guidance on when you can use remote attendance. Minister. I'm grateful for this. I congratulate Martin Whitfield on his new role as SNP Whitfield. He knows that I myself have enjoyed using the hybrid system and it worked very well for me in the early days. He'll remember me giving evidence and saying it's far more difficult for ministers to make use of it due to criticism about not being in the building and here I am. So it might be a while before he sees me on a screen again. Many members have also talked about online abuse and I think that reflects the impact that the extensive abuse women here are receiving online is having on our health and our confidence. There is nothing that you can do to avoid it. You'll get why she got time to put make-up on. Could she not be bothered to put make-up on? You could get those clothes look cheap or, oh, I bet that dress was expensive. You get she doesn't speak enough, she's too loud. Folk will shout for you to be a normal, relatable human being and then tear you down for everything that makes you just that. And that puts people off. We have no way of counting the women who did not stand because of the environment that they'd be putting themselves in. The danger as well that they'd be putting themselves in. But we know they exist and I want more Karen Adams in Parliament. I want more Monica Lennon's Emma Harper's, Pam Duncan Glant says, women representing women from all walks of life and different political beliefs. But 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. I recall when I stood for the Highland Council in 2019, the campaign hub had these yellow posters up that said, Roddick and it gave this interview and afterwards the interviewer says to me, do you know him? And I said, sorry, who? And he goes, Roddick. And also in 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 go and print something. And I turned around to see him counting the ones that I'd already counted. And I said, no, no, those are in bundles already. It's these ones that you need to count. And he says, no, I know, but I need to check that you've done it right first. And I was coming in to work the other day and my private office asked someone to open a locked door, says I'm with the minister. And you could see him just look at me, look around us both, looking for this minister that he was supposed to let in. And I say this because imposter syndrome is a very real issue that many of us here suffer from. Things like this do not help the feeling that you don't belong. And I know it will take time for people to recognise that a politician can and should look like anyone because anyone can and should be a politician. In the meantime, I would beg colleagues to make a concerted effort not to contribute to it. We've heard a lot today and I know the men who are here believe in advancing gender equality at work. Can I commend Bob Doris, Alexander Stewart, Martin Whitfield? Paolo came for their tone and their considered contributions all with the required self-awareness. I think that they are speaking in this debate as men. And I trust the passion for the issue that the men who've spoken today have shown. And that they want to do their bit. But I'm going to have to tell them a tough thing. We're not doing enough. Women and accomplished, confident, strong women in this place are having a hell of a time. From just being belittled 100 times a day all the way to sexual harassment and assault, this is going on in our workplace. And it could be worse, but it could be a lot better too. And men have a huge part to play. So please call it out. Stop speaking over us in committee or in the chamber or in meetings. Stop making jokes about what we're wearing or using ableist and sexist language to put us down. Stop only inviting other men to events and only mentioning your male colleagues when you do speeches or standing in front of me and Megan Gallacher at photo calls. Notice it when it is happening around you and support us. Whoever you are, you can do more and allyship is vital. I'm just going to end by saying that having a female Presiding Officer is in itself a good thing, but it's important to recognise that you might have missed Paul O'Kane giving you the compliment earlier on, but it is so important that the Presiding Officer has decided to prioritise auditing the Parliament in this way, putting that on the agenda and making lasting change for women. The vision that we've 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 on Monica Lennon to wind up the debate on behalf of the board. Thank you, Presiding Officer, and it is a privilege to be speaking at the end of today's debate, which has been a very good debate. I think that it shows the value of listening to colleagues and taking interventions, so hopefully we will see more of this. However, it is a privilege to represent my party Scottish Labour on the board and I echo the comments made by my colleague Karen Adam in opening the debate today and thanking all colleagues and all the experts and participants and, importantly, the Parliament staff. I'm also going to be a big sick now and also say again a big thank you to you, Presiding Officer, for your leadership and for making this possible. You've been very clear that this is not just a report, it's to sit on a shelf, this is a catalyst for change and it is a journey, so I do have high hopes and expectations because for all the differences that we do have, I think that today has shown at the Parliament, is united that we want to get this right and do better. It's not because we're being trailblazers, this is the norm and it is about looking beyond our borders, Scotland and looking internationally at good practice and what it means to be a gender sensitive Parliament but also to be a gender sensitive society. This absolutely is at the heart of what I believe is our shared vision for a fairer, more equal, healthier and indeed happier Scotland. So there's been a number of really important contributions made today. We did set the scene setting out our collective efforts to construct a gender sensitive Parliament and it's really important that we heard from the Minister from Emirodic about the lessons for government because although this report is about Parliament, it is really important that we have that support and buy-in from government and of course all political parties as we've heard today. So there are some big changes we need to make but as Megan Gallacher really hopefully pointed out, there's also some small things that we can look at and Megan Gallacher made that point about the race to get out of the chamber, down to the garden lobby steps to show our support to the people of Scotland for important causes and issues when we gather for the weekly photo call that we have to think about how easy it is to get around this Parliament. What if you are a wheelchair user, what if you have mobility issues so we do need to think about that because the small things actually matter as well so grateful to Megan Gallacher for making her point. Many points were reinforced by colleagues across the chamber the point about childcare. I'm looking at Bob Dorris because he made those points really well as did others. I think the passion that we heard from Maggie Chapman would not have been comfortable for everyone to hear but we all have to reflect on words, language and actions. Maggie Chapman was right to talk about the deep-rooted issues in our society which of course then colour what happens in the chamber so we all have to look at that very closely. On more practical terms we heard a lot today about the value of data particularly from an intersectional point of view and again credit to the Presiding Officer for taking the time to ask colleagues in Parliament to actually count and measure who speaks, whose voices are heard, who takes up space in our Parliament. Before I come into the chamber today there was an event that was hosted and chaired by Rona Mackay. I'm not sure what she is in the chamber. Rona Mackay MSP and journalists in the room were there to talk about the role of the media and how we can help to end male violence against women and girls. There was quite a staggering statistic shared and that was the vast majority of commentary pieces in our print media. I think it was over 68 per cent are written by white men. Again we have to ask ourselves but particularly the men have to ask themselves are they taking up space? I think we all have to ask ourselves am I a gatekeeper? Am I taking up space? Am I hoarding power? Or am I empowering others? Too often we see all male panels, all male committees and maybe that is why to speak to the really important points made by Royce McCall and again really good to hear her reflections of someone who came in after the election 2021. Why is it that men are more likely to take interventions and refer to their friends? So this is not a boys club, this is the Parliament of Scotland and we are here to represent the people of Scotland. So we have to look at that because I know that women are not going to make interventions if their interventions haven't been taken time and time again. None of us want to come here and look like fools or to look like we're not as credible as other colleagues. So these are all really important points. I think that the report speaks for itself. The recommendations should be accepted and full. They should be welcomed by every member of this Parliament. But what happens in this Parliament isn't just about how we speak to each other in here and who takes up seats where. It's about what happens long before we get here which is why I made those interventions about the gatekeepers that exist in all political parties. No political party can stand up in boasts and claim they're getting everything right because we heard about some of the very visible and obvious examples of misogyny and sexism. But sometimes it's so subtle and it's a microaggression that you think you're actually losing your mind and when you do call it out people don't believe you. So I'm really grateful to all the women in this Parliament who is sometimes not seen by our colleagues but hold each other up regardless of our party politics regardless of our affiliations because this can be a tough environment it can be brittle. Our politics and our Parliament is not always showing the country at its best but as others have said today we can and must do better. So I would encourage everyone to get behind this report and all the recommendations and be part of that change. Thank you. 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 and there are no questions to be put as a result of today's business. Therefore that concludes decision time and I close this meeting.