Seòmar agus comataidhean

Thank you. We have many more topics to get through, so I hand back to the convener.

My question is less about the number of chargers and more about whether we have enough rapid or ultra-rapid chargers. I think that that is the latest terminology. The vision document might cover that point—I apologise that I have not read it yet, but I am glad that Ms Hyslop is involved. As well as the roll-out of more chargers, what work is being done to upgrade existing chargers and to use the best technology to get more rapid chargers across the country?

Thank you. I have a few more questions, which are on environmental protection and biodiversity. Regarding progress with the Scottish environment strategy, what work is being undertaken to identify additional indicators, and what is your view on how the strategy and its monitoring framework can be used to have a tangible impact in the context of multiple other strategies?

It is helpful to have those timescales.

We have the biodiversity delivery plan, the investment plan and proposals for a natural environment bill. How will the Government ensure that the best effort is being made for those plans to be integrated? What resources will be allocated to them that are commensurate with the scale of the nature emergency?

Many of us might be following on Twitter the journalist Michael Crick, who spends a lot of time following the parliamentary selections of various political parties. He has noticed the trend in twinning selections that, in most instances, men are getting more votes than women. Therefore, the male candidate gets to pick the seat, which is often the more winnable one. I wonder whether my colleague has any observations on what can be done about that.

Will the member give way?

It is good to hear Martin Whitfield’s reflections as a convener of a committee of this Parliament. My colleague Alexander Stewart will know that I am a regular attender at the Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee—we like long titles. I mean no disrespect to the current membership of that committee, but it has 100 per cent white male representation. When we do our work as parliamentarians, we also present representation to the public, so surely it cannot be right that, when the public attend the committee to hear consideration of their petitions, they do not always see or hear themselves reflected. Therefore, we must ask ourselves whose voices are missing.

I understand some of the challenges that Martin Whitfield is hinting at, but it cannot be acceptable that we have committees with zero women on them and zero representation of more than half the population.

It is a privilege to be speaking at the end of today’s debate, which has been very good. I think that it shows the value of listening to colleagues and taking interventions, so hopefully we will see more of that.

It was a privilege to represent my party, Scottish Labour, on the audit board; I echo the comments that were made by my colleague Karen Adam in opening the debate by thanking all our colleagues, the participants and experts and, importantly, Parliament staff.

I am going to be a big sook now and again say a big thank you to you, Presiding Officer, for your leadership and for making this possible. You have been very clear that this is not a report that will just sit on a shelf, but is a catalyst for change and that we are on a journey. I have high hopes and expectations because, for all our differences, today has shown that Parliament is united and that we want to get this right and to do better.

That is not because we are being trailblazers; it is the norm. We should be looking beyond our borders and beyond Scotland at international good practice and at what it means to be a gender-sensitive Parliament and a gender-sensitive society. That is absolutely at the heart of what I believe is our shared vision for a fairer, more equal, healthier and happier Scotland.

We have heard a number of important contributions today. Karen Adam set the scene by setting out our collective efforts to construct a gender-sensitive Parliament. It is really important that the minister, Emma Roddick, spoke about the lessons for Government because, although the report is about Parliament, it is important to have support and buy-in from Government and from all political parties, as we have heard today.

We need to make some big changes, but Meghan Gallacher very helpfully pointed out that there are also some small things that we can consider. She made a point about the race to get out of the chamber and down the garden lobby stairs when we gather for the weekly photo call to show the people of Scotland that we support important causes and issues. We must also think about how easy it is to get around Parliament. What happens when a person uses a wheelchair or has mobility issues? We must think about that, because the small things matter. I am grateful to Meghan Gallacher for making that point.

Many colleagues from across the chamber reinforced the point about childcare. I am looking at Bob Doris, who made such points really well, as did others.

Maggie Chapman’s passion will not have been comfortable for everyone to hear, but we must all reflect on our words, language and actions. She was right to talk about the deep-rooted issues in our society that colour what happens in the chamber. We must all look closely at that.

More practically, we have heard a lot about the value of data, particularly from an intersectional perspective. I again credit the Presiding Officer for asking colleagues in Parliament to count and measure who speaks, whose voices are heard and who takes up space in our Parliament.

Before I came into the chamber today, I attended an event that was hosted and chaired by Rona Mackay. Some journalists were there to talk about the role of the media in ending male violence against women and girls, and they shared quite a staggering statistic, which is that the vast majority of commentary pieces in our print media—more than 68 per cent—are written by white men. We, and particularly the men, have to ask whether we are taking up space. We must all ask ourselves, “Am I a gatekeeper? Am I taking up space? Am I hoarding power, or am I empowering others?”

We see all-male panels and all-male committees too often. Roz McCall made really important points. It was good to hear her reflections as someone who came into Parliament after the 2021 election. Why are men more likely to make and take interventions and more likely to refer to their friends? This is not a boys’ club: this is the Parliament of Scotland and we are here to represent the people of Scotland. We must look at that. I know that women will not make interventions if time and again their interventions have not been taken. None of us wants to come here and look like a fool or like we are not as credible as other colleagues.

The report speaks for itself and the recommendations should be accepted in full. They should be welcomed by every member of this Parliament. However, it is not just about how we speak to one another in Parliament or who takes seats where—it is also about what happens long before we get here, which is why I made my interventions about the gatekeepers that exist in all political parties. No political party can stand up and boast and claim that it is getting everything right. We have heard some very visible and obvious examples of misogyny and sexism, but sometimes it is so subtle. Sometimes, there are microaggressions that make people think that they are losing their minds, and when they call them out, people do not believe them.

I am really grateful to all the women in this Parliament. It might not be seen by our colleagues, but we hold one other up, regardless of our party politics or our affiliations. This can be a tough environment; it can be brutal and our politics and our Parliament do not always show the country at its best. As others have said today, we can and must do better. I encourage everyone to get behind the report and all the recommendations, and to be part of the change.

I was going to clarify my remarks in closing, as I will be speaking shortly. There had, indeed, been a recent change, and Alexander Stewart has clarified my earlier point.

Briefly, I want to mention that, although we should encourage women to stand, all of us who are in political parties will understand it when I say that the selection process can be the most brutal experience. As parties, we might not want to talk about that, but it is often the elephant in the room. We should support people once they get elected, but the selection process can be the most brutal part of the process, and that can put people off. Does the minister recognise that point, and will she suggest to all political parties that we must do better?