Seòmar agus comataidhean

I am not surprised by those answers, which is even more reason why we should go to the Minister for Social Care, Mental Wellbeing and Sport to see whether she could come up with a definition for a non-statutory mental health crisis.

Good morning. Thank you for inviting me to discuss the addition of the new national smart ticketing advisory board—NSTAB—to the Gender Representation on Public Boards (Scotland) Act 2018. The NSTAB is a product of the Transport (Scotland) Act 2019 and will advise Scottish ministers on topics including smart ticketing arrangements, a national technological standard for smart ticketing and the strategic development of smart ticketing in Scotland. Adding the NSTAB to the 2018 act is intended to address the historical and persistent underrepresentation of women in public life and in the transport sector. The 2018 act sets a gender representation objective for listed public authorities, which is that 50 per cent of non-executive members are women. The act imposes on listed public authorities and those who are making appointments a duty that is related to the achievement of the gender representation objective.

Regarding gender balance in the transport sector, the 2011 Scottish census found that women accounted for only 24 per cent of all people who are employed in the transport and communications industry. Similarly, in 2020-21, the annual population survey found that women accounted for only 19.8 per cent of people who were employed in the transport and storage industry in Scotland. As such, Women in Transport, Sustrans and the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe have all called for greater representation of women in transport planning and delivery. As a new public body formed by the Scottish Government, the NSTAB should lead the way in improving gender representation in the transport industry, helping to make policy more inclusive and representative of Scotland’s population. The NSTAB should be a role model for the industry, encouraging more women to be part of the future of transport.

Regarding the gender balance of public appointments in Scotland, data from the Commissioner for Ethical Standards in Public Life in Scotland showed that, between 2005 and 2021, the percentage of women on public boards in Scotland increased from 35 per cent to around 51 per cent. Although that shows that significant improvements have been made, the momentum needs to be maintained. That can be supported by adding the NSTAB to the 2018 act.

The financial impact of adding the NSTAB to the 2018 act is expected to be minimal, primarily relating to outreach work to encourage women to apply for positions.

I thank the committee for its time and look forward to hearing members’ questions.

We will look at all of that. In my previous ministerial roles, we have looked to see what we can do to help people who have caring responsibilities, whether that is women or men. It is important that we are as inclusive as possible in attracting the right folk to fill roles. The same applies to this board as to all the others that I have dealt with.

That is not unusual. As Mr Kerr points out, regulation 5 sets out how the Government will look to deal with that, which includes that

“Scottish Ministers may pay members of the Board such remuneration as the Scottish Ministers may determine appropriate.”

As the convener has pointed out, regulation 5(3) says that ministers

“must pay or reimburse members of the Board any expenses which have been reasonably incurred by them in connection with the Board’s functions.”

As I have said, we will look to ensure that that includes people who have caring responsibilities. That is not unusual for such instruments.

We will look at remuneration for those roles as we move forward and will update the committee accordingly.

I will forego that privilege, convener.

Absolutely. I am more than willing to share that information with the committee as we move forward.

I should say that the national health service was dealt with in exactly the same way at its inception—there was a framework bill with regulations.

As Mr Balfour is aware—I will probably bore him by repeating myself from other committees here—the reason for doing it that way and using secondary legislation for a number of areas is so that we have the ability to change legislation much more quickly. One thing that we have found over the years in relation to our social care integration journey is that although—as I have said previously—we have put in place good legislation, we have been unable to amend that legislation when we have found out that there are flaws or loopholes that have not been right for service delivery. This approach will give us the ability to be much more flexible in making those amendments when we require to.

The use of secondary legislation is not quite as black and white as Mr Balfour said. As members of this committee well know, there are other alternatives when it comes to secondary legislation. As I have said to others, I am more than willing to consider how we approach that secondary legislation.

Mr Balfour has heard me being questioned about such issues at other committees as well. As always, in any legislation in which I have been involved, I want to ensure that there is full collaboration, co-operation and communication at every stage. I will have an open door in terms of listening to what MSPs have to say and, of course, listening to what stakeholders and other people have to say about the bill.

I will outline the co-design stages, which I think are extremely important. There is understanding co-design, sense making, agreeing, drafting the regulations and consultation on those regulations. We have said that we want folk to be involved at every stage, and they will be. I am very sincere about all of that and, as I said, my door is always open in that regard.

I have not made any comments about the Faculty of Advocates.