Skip to main content
Loading…

Seòmar agus comataidhean

Official Report: search what was said in Parliament

The Official Report is a written record of public meetings of the Parliament and committees.  

Criathragan Hide all filters

Dates of parliamentary sessions
  1. Session 1: 12 May 1999 to 31 March 2003
  2. Session 2: 7 May 2003 to 2 April 2007
  3. Session 3: 9 May 2007 to 22 March 2011
  4. Session 4: 11 May 2011 to 23 March 2016
  5. Session 5: 12 May 2016 to 5 May 2021
  6. Current session: 12 May 2021 to 5 July 2025
Select which types of business to include


Select level of detail in results

Displaying 5973 contributions

|

Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee

“A Parliament for All: Report of the Parliament’s Gender Sensitive Audit”

Meeting date: 26 October 2023

Edward Mountain

I have been through a period when I was desperate for us to have proxy voting, because I could not vote in person. By the end of it, I was concerned that people would not know that I had not been in the Parliament or why I had not been voting, because not everyone reads through the voting lists.

The beauty of our current proxy voting system is that it requires a member to apply for such a vote for a period of time, which is important. I will not be on the committee when it makes this decision, but I think that it is important that a proxy vote be allocated for a certain period. Having a permissive system that would enable us to increase it for other things for a set period of time is, I think, right, because it would give parties and the Parliament a chance to ensure that the person who was proxy voting was being properly mentored—and not only by their party. I have always believed that the Presiding Officer has a role in mentoring members who use a proxy vote for a long period of time. We are a family even though we are divided on some issues.

I just wanted to make that observation, convener.

Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee

“A Parliament for All: Report of the Parliament’s Gender Sensitive Audit”

Meeting date: 26 October 2023

Edward Mountain

On quotas, you might be drifting away from that approach. As a Parliament, we cannot direct how parties select their candidates—that is outwith parliamentary control. It might be that a party’s selection and then election process—even if there was a 50:50 candidate split—could result in a party having one more male than female, or the other way round. You cannot direct quotas, because you cannot direct the election. Therefore, I do not understand how you feel that you can implement a quota system. How do you implement it?

Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee

“A Parliament for All: Report of the Parliament’s Gender Sensitive Audit”

Meeting date: 26 October 2023

Edward Mountain

I totally agree with that. However, if, despite my preference, I am excluded because of quotas, that is wrong.

As a committee convener, I do a huge amount of work with clerks to ensure that I do not have an all-male panel or an all-female panel. I ensure that there is balance. Setting quotas prevents that, and it worries me that the best person for the job would be prevented from doing it. I do not care whether they are male or female; I want the best person for the job.

09:45  

Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee

“A Parliament for All: Report of the Parliament’s Gender Sensitive Audit”

Meeting date: 26 October 2023

Edward Mountain

That was for committees with a much bigger structure. In such cases, it might be possible to achieve that with the gender balance that we have in the Parliament, as members are available for that.

Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee

Interests

Meeting date: 24 October 2023

Edward Mountain

Perfect. Thank you.

Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee

MV Glen Sannox (Hull 801) and MV Glen Rosa (Hull 802)

Meeting date: 24 October 2023

Edward Mountain

Item 3 is an evidence session with Ferguson Marine Port Glasgow Ltd, following the company’s latest quarterly update on the completion of the MV Glen Sannox—hull 801—and what I think will be called MV Glen Rosa but, as it has not been launched yet, I will refer to as hull 802. We will examine issues raised in Ferguson Marine’s latest quarterly update as well as other issues affecting the delivery of the two vessels.

I am pleased to welcome Andrew Miller, the chairman of Ferguson Marine Port Glasgow Ltd, and David Tydeman, its chief executive officer. Thank you for joining us. Before we begin, I believe that David wants to make a brief opening statement.

Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee

MV Glen Sannox (Hull 801) and MV Glen Rosa (Hull 802)

Meeting date: 24 October 2023

Edward Mountain

Douglas Lumsden, you have some questions and I would like to get Mark Ruskell in.

Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee

MV Glen Sannox (Hull 801) and MV Glen Rosa (Hull 802)

Meeting date: 24 October 2023

Edward Mountain

I have one or two questions on the reasons for the delay that you have given. Who within your operation speaks to the Maritime and Coastguard Agency regarding approvals? Is it you or somebody else?

Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee

MV Glen Sannox (Hull 801) and MV Glen Rosa (Hull 802)

Meeting date: 24 October 2023

Edward Mountain

Is the compliance director the same person who has run through the whole project or did the compliance director change when the issue went to the MCA?

Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee

MV Glen Sannox (Hull 801) and MV Glen Rosa (Hull 802)

Meeting date: 24 October 2023

Edward Mountain

I understand that and I understand that revisions 4 and 5 were done in November last year. However, revisions 7, 8 and 9, which I suspect are the ones that you are talking about at the moment, were submitted only in July this year. We have had a letter from the MCA, which is clear that, exactly as you have just said, it is not up to it to design out the problem; it is for you to work with it. The letter goes on to say that the regulations that it is referring to have been extant and in force since 2009. It says that there were amendments but that they made no difference. Therefore, the MCA is unclear why you are citing this as a problem—it says that it has been fully consistent on the requirements since 2009.

There seems to be a discrepancy. The MCA says that it is your fault, and you say that it is the MCA’s fault because it is interpreting in a different way. You cannot both be right; one of you has to be wrong.