Seòmar agus comataidhean

Agenda item 1 is “A Parliament for All: Report of the Parliament’s Gender Sensitive Audit”, on publication of which the Presiding Officer wrote to the committee on 2 March 2023 to highlight a number of the report’s recommendations for the committee to consider. The committee considered the recommendations in private discussions at meetings on 9 March 2023 and 1 June 2023. The committee agreed that it would take oral evidence on the report from external experts and officials. A chamber debate on the report was held on 15 June 2023. Today’s session is to take oral evidence from experts.

I welcome to the committee Professor Sarah Childs and Professor Meryl Kenny, who are professors of gender and politics at the University of Edinburgh, and Susan Duffy, who is the head of engagement and communications at the Scottish Parliament. I also welcome Karen Adam MSP, who is a member of the Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee and has an interest in the matter. She is attending to listen and to inquire later about the evidence that she hears, should she need to do so.

I come to Susan Duffy first, for an introduction and a synopsis of what we are likely to explore today.

Evelyn, do you have any other questions?

Professor Kenny, would you like to respond to Karen Adam?

That was excellent.

I am afraid to say that I have some nerdy questions. I am going to plump for this one to begin with, given that, at the minute, the committee is reviewing the proxy voting procedure that has been brought in. I am asking this not so much with regard to the gender-sensitive audit but to allow you to contribute to the evidence that we will consider in due course.

You have suggested that proxy voting be extended on the same grounds as remote voting. Would you like to speak to that? After all, it is a big step on from the trial that we have run. One of our early discussions was about the fact that in this iterative Parliament—to pick up on an earlier comment—we have the ability to vote remotely and it is a choice for the individual MSP. Was there a reason for that suggestion? If I am honest, I am not aware of the reasons for extending proxy voting on the same grounds as remote voting.

That is fine. I am grateful for that response.

The other part—[Interruption.] Oh—I see that Evelyn Tweed would like to come back in.

Excellent. The idea of 40 per cent, a 50-50 split or whatever is—I do not say this in a derogatory way—slightly arbitrary. We actually need to look at the problem that is in front of us, and our solution might be different for each of the issues of gender balance on committees, the gender balance of conveners and gender balance on various other committees. As long as the solutions are moving us iteratively down the road—obviously, subject to what we actually come up with—that would be welcomed as a step in the right direction for the gender audit.

I see that you agree, which is good.

You may be glad to know that I have come to the end of my slightly nerdy questions. Unless any of you would like to make a short final comment, I will close this part of the meeting. Thank you very much for coming. It has been an incredibly interesting dialogue and discussion. Should the committee have other questions, I hope that you will be open to writing to us to submit your thoughts. As always, the clerks are open to discussions in a two-way format to ensure that the committee has the evidence that it needs to make the best decisions. On behalf of the committee, I thank you for your attendance.

Good morning. I welcome everyone to the 17th meeting in 2023 of the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee?. We have received apologies from two committee members—Stephen Kerr and Annie Wells—and Evelyn Tweed will join us remotely.

I welcome back Edward Mountain in a slightly different role, as he is attending as the Scottish Conservatives’ substitute. Before I turn to the first agenda item, I invite Edward first to grant his hellos back to us and, secondly, to put on the record any declaration of registered interests.

To pick up on what Evelyn Tweed said about the need for substantial change, there is incredible value in shifting the culture by shifting the smaller rules of the jigsaw without having to rebuild the entire jigsaw at the same time. In the iterative nature of Parliament, those forward steps, although they may seem small and insignificant in their own right, are part of a pathway to something that, on a significant number of occasions, all members and the Presiding Officers have indicated is the goal that we want to achieve.

That is very useful. You mentioned a number of examples of how we could calculate quotas, whether we call them that or something else. Is there value in having different ways of assessing the success of different elements of the proposals in the gender audit? I am acutely aware of our discussion about changes in committee membership, which are frequently driven by understandable Government change. The Government has worked extremely hard to always have a gender balance. In relation to how people view things from the outside, a gender-balanced Government is incredibly important.

Is there value in accepting that change is needed—as, I think, we do—but then having different elements of how we achieve that, depending on the question that is in front of us?

We are joined by Karen Adam MSP. Is there anything that you would like to say, Karen? I think it only right that, having been quoted by Evelyn Tweed earlier, you should have the chance to make a rebuttal or ask further questions.

I suggest that there is perhaps a difference in Scotland between a constituency MSP, whereby an individual choice could be made, and a list member, whereby it is a political party vote that is extended.