���˿���

I should probably put it on the record that, for the past year, I have had to work in hybrid or virtual format through no choice of my own.

There are some distinct views on this, but I will come to you to start with, Karen. I would like to discuss and hear your view on spontaneity and people’s ability to make interventions and actually participate in debate when you were operating in a hybrid way. We have a wonderful system in Scotland in which we know the debates for the next three weeks, the whips choose the speakers, the speakers are notified to the Presiding Officer and the Presiding Officer calls them—and that is it. We cannot make interventions if we are participating remotely. Did you find operating in a hybrid way as sterile as that?

I turn now to Lord Gardiner. I should explain that our committee system in the Scottish Parliament is slightly different. It is, in effect, our second chamber for scrutinising legislation, and committees can take evidence very effectively.

Do you think that committees are in a position to scrutinise legislation line by line if they are doing it remotely and the members are not around a table, facing questions? If you had 200 amendments to one bill, as I had, could they be considered remotely, or would that be impossible?

I will try to keep this short, because a lot of my questions have been answered. I have a question for Denis Naughten. I am delighted to know that parliamentary privilege exists for your Parliament, Denis. It does not exist for the Scottish Parliament, so what we say is not subject to privilege.

Your point about politics and relationships is well made. I hark back to evidence that we heard from somebody else that you do not bump into people on WhatsApp. That is right—the ability to talk to people is important.

Have you watched other Parliaments debating in a hybrid format? If so, do you think that those debates are informative or sterile?

Our broadcasting services control our cameras. If we type, “Away from keyboard”, they do not turn them on.

I am always conscious when I am in the room with our convener, because you get a glare when you overstay your welcome, and I can feel that glare boring into me now, so I will hand back to him. It would be more physically threatening if I were in the room with him rather than doing this remotely.

Thank you, Karen. I agree. Having been a convener, I know that, in a committee room, it is very easy to turn off a minister’s microphone so that they shut up. You cannot do that remotely.

I am not sure that people in my office would agree with you, because, when I leave on the train at 5.30 and start firing off emails, they are not particularly pleased with that.

I have a brief question for Gerit Vermeylen. When ministers are called before a committee or before the whole Parliament, can they be held properly to account if they are appearing virtually, or do they just waffle on and run down the clock, while there is no way of controlling them? That might be difficult for you to answer, Gerit—

I will limit my questions, but can I first say how refreshing it is to hear from our two witnesses? I just put on the record that, for the past year, for medical reasons and through no choice of my own, I have had to participate in a virtual or hybrid way at nearly every meeting of the committee and the Parliament. I longed to get back, and I think that it is good to hear how important it is to make connections with people. In my week back in the Parliament, I was able to have off-the-record conversations and coffees with cabinet secretaries to discuss things in a way that was almost impossible online. Those relationships with cabinet secretaries had been built up over the previous session, so I had got to know them—that is so important, and that is a point that both witnesses have brought out.

I want to ask two very quick questions. First, do the witnesses think that there should be different arrangements for ministers who are speaking to the Parliament or giving evidence to committees? Do they need to be present so that we can see what they are saying and see how they are reacting, or should they just be allowed to do it online, where they have a habit of talking the time out?

I find what Professor Russell has just said really interesting. The fact is that I am able to see only Professor Russell talking; I cannot see the reaction of any other committee member, because, when she speaks, she is the only person on the screen. There is no way I can see what all of you are feeling or whether or not you are agreeing. Professor Russell, is your fundamental point that politicians cannot interpret other people’s opinions and the way they are swinging when people are talking?

I would say, having done it for a year, that it is not a second-class experience, but a fourth-class experience. I feel that I have not been given the chance to get into Parliament as much as I would have liked to talk in the chamber. There are no interventions and no chance of interventions, there are no interactions with other members and you cannot see anyone. I see a clock and my face on the screen. There are so many things wrong with hybrid that this Parliament would, I think, lose from it.

My next question is to both of you. I think that you are both saying that the hybrid system works for committees but that it might not work for plenary meetings. What pressure does the hybrid system put on the rest of Parliament when members are not there and cannot ask questions in the chamber but must put written questions to the Government? Does the hybrid system put pressure on the Parliament outwith the chamber and the committees? Sarah Childs is on the screen, so it is probably easier if she leads.

I say at the outset that I have some sympathy with Andy Williamson about driving from Skye to Parliament in one day, which I have done on numerous occasions because my region includes it. It is quite a slog, especially if you are behind a timber lorry.

I think that Sarah Childs’s point about Government control of time is valid, but let us be clear: the Government controls the time because it controls the Parliamentary Bureau and it can say exactly how long each debate will be or whether there will be a ministerial statement. Members have no say in that. That is something that we ought to consider a little bit more. On Tuesday this week, the bureau met. A debate had been scheduled for Thursday, but it was pinged by the Government and changed unilaterally. I think that that it is disrespectful to the Parliament after its having programmed the debate two weeks previously.

My question is twofold. I take the point that Sarah Childs and Andy Williamson made about witnesses giving evidence at committees; I think that the hybrid system is really good for that. I want to ask about the chamber system. Do you both think that the chamber comes across in hybrid meetings as being open and transparent? Perhaps Sarah Childs would like to lead on that, then Andy Williamson can come in.