The next item of business is a debate on motion 5983, in the name of Martin Whitfield, on behalf of the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee, on future parliamentary procedures and practices. I would ask those members who wish to speak in the debate to please press the request to speak buttons now, and I call on Martin Whitfield on behalf of the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee to open the debate. Around nine minutes please, Mr Whitfield. I'm very grateful, Deputy Presiding Officer, and it is a pleasure to open this, our second committee debate into the future parliamentary procedures and practices of this, both our chamber but also our institution. I move the motion in my name on behalf of the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee. Can I thank the committee members, both those present, those recent and those less recent, for all of their work in respect of this report? And it's a great pleasure to see so many familiar faces around the chamber today, and I look forward to their contributions coming on. I would also like to thank the clerks both present and recently passed for their efforts and work in the preparation of this report. But most of all I would like to thank those members who are here today. The report was published on the 6th of July, a mere 41 pages, a small trivial report by committee standards, a mere 207 paragraphs. So I hope the same has been well digested, well thought through, and indeed people have come today with questions. One of the lessons of the pandemic is that change should not be shied away from. The ways in which the people of Scotland work and engage has changed profoundly since the beginning of 2020, and this Parliament would be out of step with those changes if it reverted to its previous practices. It is important in the committee's view to be mindful of the kind of institution this Parliament will want to be in 10 years time, not just in the next six months, two years or shorter. Evidence has been gathered from members here across this chamber, from parliaments and fellow parliamentarians across the United Kingdom, including our own youth parliament, and indeed much wider. We have spoken with experts in democracy and change, and we have spoken to those who speak of those who are challenged at the moment to engage with this Parliament because of geography, because of disability or reasons of feeling excluded. Daniel Johnson. I am very thankful to my friend for giving way. I was struck by the contributions in the report that reflect on the importance of face-to-face discourse in debate. I wonder if some of those comments might lead on to future work from his committee about how we can maximise face-to-face discourse as that is clearly a core role of this Parliament. I am very grateful for that intervention, and indeed, almost in anticipation, my speech will come to that. Can I just also formally put on the record my thanks to everyone who contributed their evidence to this report? Stephen Care. He says that much has changed because of the pandemic, and of course we all accept that. However, some things should not be scrapped. They should not be changed. For example, we have this bill that we are going to put through this place in a matter of a few hours with minimal scrutiny. The Cost of Living Protection of Tenant Scotland Bill is a complete coach in horses through any kind of scrutiny that this Parliament can give. Does he agree? Martin Pitfield. To anticipate the scrutiny of the bill that will arrive next week is probably slightly perfunct for me at this stage in all honesty. As I stand here as convener, however, on the question of how the Government is overviewed by this Chamber, I will make comment later. I am very grateful to the two interventions, because I was going to give a slight signposting for people so that they could slip in for their own social media interventions in the areas that I am going to cover. Principally, I would like to look at the hybrid nature of this Chamber, but also the hybrid nature of our committees. Finally, I was going to raise the question of proxy voting. You will have your headlines, wait, bear or indeed leap up to intervene if I haven't covered something that you would like me to. Regarding the hybrid debate in this Chamber, evidence presented shows that the Scottish Parliament did great work to ensure that members were enabled to speak to ask questions and to vote. However, by enabling, and this to answer the most recent intervention, does not mean the same as prior to hybrid, and we did recognise that there has been a challenge in conducting scrutiny using the hybrid method. The committee notes that in comparison, however, with other legislatures, we introduced more measures to ensure that its members were able to participate in parliamentary business, that all types of parliamentary business in fact continued and that all MSPs were able to vote. This has been an important achievement and it should be acknowledged, thankful, but it should also endure. The conclusions and recommendations in this report confirm that the continuation of hybrid meetings and provide for and enable iterative change in the future is important. Rather than return fully to the previous practices, the committee considers that there is potential to build on a gradual, progressive change as technology improves that can bring the Parliament closer to the people of Scotland in accordance with those key principles that underpin the work of setting up the Parliament since 1999. On the point of voting, it was at times cumbersome and we have to recognise that. However, it is extremely important in allowing every member to vote on every occasion. The statistics show that the level of voting matched prior to the pandemic during the pandemic and post our return, which, although some consider still cumbersome, is proof indeed that people have been able to exercise their democratic right for the reason that they were sent to this place. The committee very much welcomes the specific plans to introduce the new platform for hybrid meetings and, as indicated earlier, considers this will help improve the ability of members to debate by allowing interventions to be made or taken by both members in the chamber and also those participating remotely. This committee believes and indeed heard a substantial amount of evidence that the Parliament is currently most effective when its members come to Holyrood to represent their constituents and participate in person in the chamber. However, we also recognise from evidence that there are a number of circumstances in which members should have the option to participate remotely. These circumstances may include situations in which illness, bereavement, caring commitments, travel, weather disruption, who can imagine that here in Scotland, or indeed personal commitments inhibit their ability to come to Parliament. However, the committee heard very strong arguments for requiring ministers to always be present in person in Parliament. The committee agrees that this is important for scrutiny and calls on the Scottish Government to ensure that ministers are present, apart from exceptional circumstances while they are being scrutinised by this Parliament. There is a further reason for continuing the hybrid arrangement as a means of encouraging a more diverse range of people to stand for election in Parliament. It will provide the Parliament with the flexibility in the future to offer alternative means of participating in parliamentary business rather than requiring elected members to fit into an established method of working, notwithstanding their own personal circumstances. I appreciate the points that he is making about better representation in the chamber, but considering that the exception will be ministers, does he realise that this will create an unattainability of being a minister for those who are disabled or face other challenges? I am indeed very grateful for that intervention, and it does raise a really extremely important position about how is it that every person who wishes to seek election here can move through the system up in, should you wish it, the grandeur heights of government? It is a point of scrutiny and review, and it is why the report and the committee talk about iteration, slow movements of change to confront the problems that are in front of us, and indeed for the system to be flexible enough to allow for that. So, absolutely, I understand what the member raises by way of the intervention, but our report and supporting our report, I would suggest, does not prevent that iteration occurring as we are confronted with it, and we indeed need the flexibility to be able to do that. So, thank you. I am conscious of time. So on committees, let me just say, we feel very much the same. They need to remain in hybrid. There needs to be a responsibility on our members to be present at committee meetings, and indeed there are different committees across this Parliament with different remits. So, it is important that each committee retains the flexibility that hybrid gives, but most importantly, for committees' point of view, I am slightly conscious of time, but I am... Briefly, Mr Mountain. I wondered, as a convener of the committee that I was on as well, is whether we've considered fully enough how members who are attending virtual committee meetings and are getting classified papers should get those when it's not possible to send them out in advance by email under the current parliamentary system. I'm very grateful indeed for that intervention, and indeed within the report, the convener's group have asked for guidance on how to deal with a variety of matters within committee. I think some conveners sought that to support their right to say, please can you come and be here? Other conveners sought that advice to give them evidence to say, this is how we want matters to be dealt with, and I envisage having witnessed challenges with regard to papers that that is one of the areas that is addressed. I am now desperately conscious of time, so I'm going to seek the chamber's indulgence just to raise the question of proxy voting. Following consultation, the committee will propose a temporary rule change, which will provide for a scheme that will permit members in certain defined circumstances, including parental leave and long-term illness, to nominate a proxy. Such a scheme, we believe, should be allowed to run for a period of 12 months or so and monitored during that time before we reevaluate the system for any permanent rule changes. My lovely poetic platitudes that was going to go on and explain about the wonders and the need for proxy voting, I will put to one side, Deputy Presiding Officer. So let me conclude. The committee during the course of this inquiry said it's thinking about what the Parliament should look like in 10 years time. We believe that this Parliament should commit to a culture of iterative change, to allow it to be more representative, to allow it to be more open and allow it to be more accessible in 10 years time. I'm grateful, Deputy Presiding Officer. Thank you, Mr Whitfield. I now call on George Adam to open on behalf of the Scottish Government around seven minutes, please, Minister. Thank you, Presiding Officer, and thank you for the convener's opening there for this debate. Presiding Officer, I welcome the opportunity to participate in this debate on behalf of the Scottish Government. Whilst instances of a national emergency are never welcome, they do necessitate real life action during what is inherently challenging circumstances for all concerned. It is vital that this Parliament maintains not only its scrutiny function but is equipped and available to pass any emergency legislation required to protect the public interest. The Scottish public quite rightly looked to both government and Parliament to protect those interests and even more so during times of trouble and to do so swiftly, flexibly and effectively. Stephen Kerr. The Minister very sincerely believes that this Parliament should fulfil its scrutiny function, as he just mentioned. But how on earth is that the case in relation to the cost of living protection of Tenant Scotland Bill? I mean, it is a complete coach and horses to the conventions and procedures of this place. Minister Kerr is never one to labour a point of phrase. I think that, as others have said during this debate earlier on, let's wait to see what's in front of us and we can take it from there as well. But it is important that this emergency legislation goes through because we are talking about real people and real life issues in this scenario. Moving on, although the pandemic led to a steep learning curve for all and presented us all many challenges, the operational adaptions that the Parliament has subsequently developed and adopted have proven essential towards maintaining the good governance of Scotland. I thank everyone in the Parliament for the close working partnership that we have enjoyed during that period. That partnership has helped us during Covid and will no doubt be important in helping to respond quickly and flexibly to all future challenges. The finding in the committee's report that, despite recent events, the Parliament was able to fulfil its scrutiny function was especially welcomed by the Scottish Government, a principle around which the Government has worked constructively with Parliament to ensure. At this point, I would like to concentrate on the committee's report itself. The Government welcomes the finding of the committee's recent inquiry into virtual and hybrid procedures and the recognition that the committee's report that working practices of all Scots have changed is well observed by us. The overarching principle that the Parliament should maintain the flexibility of arrangements to enable hybrid and virtual proceedings is very much supported by the Scottish Government. The new ways of working were borne out of necessity. Many of those who gave evidence on the committee noted the opportunities that arise for increasing participation in proceedings and for Parliament to engage generally with the public. Those aims have been featured strongly in governance principles that we aspire to in Scotland. The committee's report shines a light on the possibilities that might develop for increased flexibility in our business methods. Business has clearly had to adapt under hybrid or virtual circumstances, but the continuity of Parliament's ability to function and act is paramount. I remember, Presiding Officer, the parliamentary bureau in the early days when I was chief whip when we first dealt with this challenge and we effectively moved for having absolutely nothing in place to a system that may have been clunky at times but was functional and Parliament was still able to commit to its duties. I know that the committee's findings concerning what action it considers that the Parliament should take to build upon and improve virtual and hybrid proceedings going forward. The Government stands ready to assist the Parliament in whatever measures it sees fit to pursue. One on-going issue, and sometimes seen as a thorny one, is the attendance of ministers in person in Parliament. I touched earlier on the committee's findings that the Parliament was able to fulfil its scrutiny function despite recent events. The availability of ministers is clearly crucial to achieving that objective. The Government is aware of its accountability to this Parliament and its membership. That responsibility applies wherever the prevailing circumstance and whatever the prevailing circumstance is. Given the recent pressures that we have all experienced, it is especially welcomed that the committee found that scrutiny had been fulfilled despite the impacts of the Covid pandemic. I am very grateful to the minister to give way and indeed possibly to reflect that the minister in a better position to give the Government's assurance with regard to people who are differently challenged to attend this Parliament. Who would not prevent anyone succeeding in government if their ability allowed them to do so simply because of their inability to attend in the way that was referred to earlier? Coming from my own background with my wife, I have multiple sclerosis and me being a primary carer although sometimes she wonders who cares after who. I come from a position where I think that it is always positive to ensure that people have the opportunity to achieve all they can when they come to this place. A testament to the excellent partnership between the Government and the Parliament is that we managed to get ourselves into a place where we could continue. The default position remains one of caution for everyone in here. However, ministers operate on the basis of physical attendance in the Parliament wherever possible, consistent with the findings in the committee's report. That brings me to proxy voting and it is for the Parliament to consider any proposals in relation to its operation, including any changes to its voting arrangements. The merits of a proxy voting scheme are clearly outlined in the committee's report, as is the need to ensure that such arrangements are robust and fit for purpose. In my role as a member of the bureau, I am aware that the committee has already sought comments and some of the finer details of any such proposal. One key aspect could be the criteria for seeking a proxy and the period of time for which it is sought. Also, the definition of illness is not altogether straightforward. Clarity in that issue would be central to the management of the scheme and evaluating its fairness. I am very grateful to the minister for giving way. I wonder whether the parameters of that proxy, i.e. whether there are particular issues when the member is giving, are also important to consider as parameters as well as the duration and the circumstances? Mr Johnson brings me to the next line in my speech. A balance also requires between recognising the personal circumstances of the member and the representations of the constituent's interests in the Parliament. The Scottish Government notes that the House of Commons has oversight in the equivalent arrangements down there as well. Whether proxy voting is to be permitted for all types of parliamentary business also requires careful consideration. The Scottish Government will closely follow developments in this area, including the operation and experience of the pilot scheme. Presiding Officer and the chamber will be pleased to hear that I do not propose to take up much more time. I consider it beneficial for many members as possible to offer their thoughts on this committee's report. In conclusion, the Scottish Government commends the standards, procedures and public appointments committee for its work on these matters. We welcome the committee's report, its findings and direction of its recommendations for Parliament's further consideration. We also note the scope for the Parliament to derive long-term benefits for many new ways of working and, in so doing, build further resilience into not only the operation of the Parliament but also into the Scottish Governance in general. I look forward to hearing other contributions in this very important debate. I now call on Stephen Kerr to open on behalf of the Scottish Conservatives around six minutes. I, too, would add my congratulations to the convener and the committee on their report and their on-going work. I am really pleased to be able to speak on the topic of parliamentary reform, although the minister might have thought he had seen the last of me as a sparring partner. Here we go again. I want to assure him that my interest in parliamentary reform means as strong as ever. I repeat that I have always found the minister to be someone who genuinely believes in the scrutinising powers and the powers and the authorities of this Parliament. I respect that enormously. The committee's report covers a number of issues such as hybrid working and proxy voting, as we have heard. In my time in the Parliamentary Bureau, I consider both of those issues when drafting the Conservative Unionist Party's response to the committee. Personally, though, while I know that hybrid working is here to stay, I do not think that it has necessarily changed everything for the better, and I absolutely believe that there is no adequate substitution online for an in-person debate. However, I do believe in proxy voting, and I think that it should exist fundamentally in the case of parental leave. I also believe that the party whips office should not be in charge of allocating proxy votes. The member on leave should be the one to choose who will vote for them, and I look forward to seeing how any upcoming trial might progress. I think that we should start that trial as quickly as possible so that we can make the assessment. The report also mentions the iterative approach that Parliament will take in identifying and implementing reform going forward, and I fully support that as well. My concern is that, in the past, on behalf of the Scottish Government, the Minister has raised a view that changes to Parliament would need to be done in one goal instead of as what he described as a piecemeal approach. First, I would point out gently that parliamentary reforms are not his or the Scottish Government's gift to give. His comment highlighted something that I am deeply concerned about, which is the blurred lines between Government, the executive and Parliament, and how that has been allowed to happen over the last couple of decades since devolution. He simply assumed in the answer that he gave in a previous debate that the Government's word would be final in respect of parliamentary reform. The SNP view—sometimes I'm afraid, and this is the perception that I have to the minister—that the SNP view this Parliament as a branch of government, and I fear that Parliament sometimes has started to succumb to this view. Of course I will. There's nothing I can do about Mr Kerr's perceptions of what I say in his interpretations, but I fear that he has veered quite far from what my intention was. If that misunderstanding was because of anything I've said, I apologise, Mr Kerr, but I fear that it might have been Mr Kerr's interpretation. I'm very grateful for the minister's clarification. Once again, he's been true to the colours that I did paint on him at the beginning of my speech, which is someone who is a genuine parliamentarian. What I would say about the iterative process of improvement and reform is that anyone who has any connection with any kind of project management knows full well that this process has its merits, delivers change in an agile way, which allows for greater focus on individual changes. I was very pleased to see the committee back at it, and I'm even more pleased to hear the minister agree with it. Thirdly, it's no surprise to me that the Scottish Government at one time—and I accept the minister's correction—might have wanted this done in one fell swoop, because that would have been a great excuse for not doing anything. However, I receive his word as a man of honour that that is not the position of the Scottish Government, and he, as a minister, has spoken it into the official record. Minister, I fear, Presiding Officer, that Mr Kerr has reinterpreted his reinterpretation of what I said previously. What I did say was at that meeting that we were at that there was better to do parliamentary reform in the one big area. At no time did I say that it was in the Scottish Government's control to do it. I have said throughout my speech here today and any other time that it is the Scottish Parliament that makes these decisions on how Parliament works. Stephen Kerr. The minister is showing admirable accountability to Parliament in the way that he is allowing me to be corrected through his interventions. I am pleased to hear all of these interventions and welcome them. I hope that the minister, because I know that his position is genuine, but I also hope that it reflects that of his party. Sometimes I think that the SNP quite likes a weakened Parliament, so that they as an executive can go roughshod over procedures and practices and conventions, such as I have mentioned in two interventions in relation to a forthcoming bill. What should this Parliament be, Presiding Officer? I have long argued that the powers of this Parliament to scrutinise Government are too weak. Government has ignored motions that they do not like. Government has imposed its will on our acclaimed committee system. I am afraid too often that it appears to me that I will. Katie Clark. The member has got experience of another place. Does he not accept that all Governments do that? Whilst he is absolutely correct in what he is saying, that that is a feature of the executive, which is something that we collectively need to address? I completely agree with that. Whether I was speaking here or in another Parliament, I would say the same thing. Parliament provides an absolutely crucially important constitutional role in checking and holding to account the powers of the executive. That is true here at Westminster. However, I do not like to think that the Government whips its committee members, but sometimes, frankly, I am left with that conclusion because of the evidence of my experience in this place since elected. I do not think that it is right, because of the design of the committee system, that we should be led by anything other than evidence that builds consensus in committees that produces reports that are based on evidence and not on political dogma. The committee rooms cannot simply turn out to be echo chambers for Government orthodoxy. Bob Doris? I will be summing up later on his deputy chair of the committee, but I am just wondering if you think that the Standards Committee has done its best to, without political interferes, political dogmas, a balanced view to reflect the views of Parliament in a very measured responsible way. Stephen Kerr. I absolutely do, and I am very pleased to be able to agree with that, Bob Doris on that point. I have wider concerns that come from this report in terms of the spontaneity of Parliament, and I am afraid sometimes that, and it is not true today before anyone intervenes, that sometimes the proceedings of this chamber sometimes feel like a stage-managed scripted puppet show. Because of that, we are not getting the respect of people that observe our proceedings. It is quite hard to observe our proceedings. This debate, if you wanted to watch it, you would have to go through a myriad number of Google searches and clicks to be able to find it. That in itself causes me concern, because this Parliament needs to have the respect, should earn the respect of the people of Scotland, but the people of Scotland need to be able to see the proceedings of this place. And it needs to be more spontaneous and more responsive. So, for example, the Presiding Officer has the power to call urgent questions. Why doesn't the Presiding Officer have the power to call an urgent debate? I think they should have that power. I said to the Presiding Officer the other day on leaving the Bureau, my motto is more power to the Presiding Officer. I am in that regard to the Presiding Officer who will now seek the co-operation of the Member in bringing his remarks to close, because I have been generous. As the Member has indeed has been generous himself into a huge mention. You have indeed. I have much more, but I want you to say. But I will simply close on this point, the need for this place to be rigorous in its debate. The programme for government. May I close with the example of the programme for government? We all sat through a half hour where the First Minister enjoyed intervention-free speaking time, but the first response to that statement was a speech from Douglas Ross, which was subject to interventions and interruptions. I don't think that government should have protection from the rigours of this place. I don't think that the First Minister needs the protection of the Presiding Officer to have that kind of time. So, I would simply say, in drawing a comparison with Westminster, with the Prime Minister, who gave that very important energy statement on the 8th of September. Mr Kerr, you are digressing us a wee bit in terms of where you said you would end up, so we do want to allow other members. I am sure that there will be opportunities in intervening across the afternoon. I appreciate that point. I think that I have made my point about rigour, spontaneity and debate, which this place needs to get a deserved reputation for. Thank you, Mr Kerr. I now call on Rhoda Grant to open on behalf of Scottish Labour. Around five minutes, please, Ms Grant. Thank you, Presiding Officer, and I want to start by thanking the committee for their report. It's right that the Parliament keeps its procedures under review and ensures that they are modernised as required. That said, none of us could have possibly foreseen the impact of Covid-19 on our procedures. That the Parliament successfully found and implemented a system to enable people to participate in parliamentary business so quickly is down to our support staff. Those people behind the scenes who work hard to find solutions and I want on behalf of the Scottish Labour Party and I'm sure other parties would also concur to thank them for that. I also want to thank them for their patience while we all got the hang of the system and indeed some of us are still grappling with it. There must be so looking forward to the new system coming online as well. Meeting online in a hybrid format or in person is always a balance. Each system has benefits and drawbacks. We took meeting in person for granted as we have seen during the pandemic. There are times that that's not possible or even safe. Before the pandemic and people came into the building, they were quite often unwell, but they had to come in simply to take part in proceedings colds and viruses spread because of that. And if they didn't come in, they weren't able to represent their constituents because we now have a hybrid system set up to deal with Covid-19 people who would otherwise not have been able to participate, can. However, those taken part remotely do lose out. The flow of the debate is more stilted. It's difficult to read the mood of the debate if you're working remotely. And our system, I'm hoping that the new system will enable people online to intervene and indeed those in the chamber to intervene on those online. What you can't replicate is the meeting and chatting with people around the debate, exchanging more information or even having informal chats with ministers and cabinet secretaries. All activities that are really useful in enabling us to represent our constituents. So we need a balance to balance that against the benefit of those who are unwell or who have caring responsibilities being able to take part. And certainly from my point of view, allowing people at a distance to take part in giving evidence to committees has been really successful as well because often I would suggest people from the Highlands and Islands to come to committee only to discover they couldn't commit that time. So it also allows the Parliament to open up and take evidence from all over Scotland. Briefly. Stephen Kerr. Rhoda Grant is making very important points about the nature of debate. Does Rhoda Grant think that it would be helpful in this place in terms of the flow of debate if we banned laptops, iPads and the use of iPhones in the chamber? Rhoda Grant. As someone who is pretty much chained to my, not my iPhone, I would have to say, my Samsung, I don't think I would like that. I would feel absolutely bereft if it were to be banned from the chamber. And I'm warning up to that. I've got support. Thank you. My colleague has supported me. Presiding Officer, the last Parliament saw a number of women standing down because the Parliament really was not family friendly as to allow them to bring up their children in the way they were happy with and be parliamentarians at the same time and I think that's really disappointing. However, rather than responding to this positively to find solutions, the Parliament appears to have become even less family friendly. Here we are in a new term, yet late sittings and variable decision times are causing real problems to members. A decision time running a few minutes late can impact on what train a member can catch or indeed a member of staff and whether they can pick up their children as organised. As can adding statements at the last minute and pushing decision time way back, we should adhere to a set decision time if we're going to be family friendly. The Scottish Government needs to be more organised with regard to business planning and support the family friendly ethos that this Parliament was set up to deliver. I really don't want to see a system where those with caring responsibilities need to remain remote because the Scottish Parliament cannot be more disciplined. As I said before, people who are working remotely lose out with other activities of the Parliament, so they must have the choice and flexibility. Due to fluctuating decision times, a number of members have indicated to me that they drive rather than take the train because of this, and I include myself in that. For people who live away from home, though, while attending the Parliament, it never was family friendly and remote working could provide an alternative to that. Turning quickly, if I may, to proxy voting, I believe that there is a place for this within our system. I think that we currently have a pairing system for those on maternity leave, but a proxy system could work just as well, and it could be used at times of sick leave and compassionate leave where remote voting does not work. I'm glad the committee are going to pursue this, albeit with some caution. I'm also pleased that the committee are keeping an eye on future developments and what the Parliament should look like in 10 years. One of the advantages of the new Parliament is that there were no traditions or cultures, and over the years I've seen that each new Parliament is very different from the last. I like that. I hope that the Scottish Parliament continues to evolve due to circumstances and challenges remaining fresh and modern while retaining its founding ethos. We will now move to the open debate at speeches of around four minutes. I call Emma Roddick to be followed by Jackson Karnaw. I apologise to Stephen Kerr for having the audacity to read this off the screen. I want to start by saying that I really welcome not only the report but the fact that an inquiry was carried out at all. Given the talent that this place has lost due to working practices that many consider anachronistic, it is, in my opinion, overdue. I'm aware that many would have liked to see it happen in around never's time, so I thank the committee for doing it and for allowing me to give evidence. I think that this place really can be a bubble, things that wouldn't even register as an issue for most feel like the battle of the day. Who gets called for a supplementary, which reception your colleague chose to go to, whether your synonym made it into a committee report, all of these things I've seen cause serious rage and upset, and those listening know who they are. This bubble is more pronounced when you live far from this building. Last year, in my first few weeks as an MSP, I realised that sitting on the train somewhere around Dalwini, I would feel like I'd passed through a portal and returned to Earth from some other planet where we'd breathed coffee and said, instead of air, and used votes as currency. Central belt politicians, with few exceptions, do not understand the different challenges experienced by representatives of other places before you even consider caring responsibilities, disability or other factors. They do not understand the travel, the extra time needed just to get around and speak to constituents. My work travel so far this year has been the equivalent of 50 per cent of the circumference of the Earth. For many that I want to meet in my island communities, my recess is their holidays, and they often shut up shops and businesses with many using the Scottish Government's annual gift of two return ferry journeys to come over to the mainland for a bit. And when explaining that being here on a Tuesday morning and then later than five on a Thursday means that I can't carry out regional work on a Monday or a Friday, the so-called constituency days, I've been told that my constituents want to see me here every day. And it's not true. For the most part, in Highlanders and Islander's minds, being here every week is a sign that I am not doing my job. The north of my region is further away from this building than the House of Commons is. That's as the crow flies before you even take into consideration transport routes. Presiding Officer, I represent people who live further away from your seat than Liz Trusses when she does PMQs. And I'm sure that my colleagues, particularly my SNP colleagues, will understand why folk living there maybe don't feel connected to decisions made this far away from those they affect. In 2015, the then Scottish Cabinet came to Inverness to listen and be visible. I went along and I asked Nicola Sturgeon how she was encouraging 18-year-old tutors like me to be politically involved. Being there is how she was doing that. That was progress, but we need to keep it going. Technology now allows us to vote, to contribute to debates, to scrutinise legislation and ministers from anywhere within internet connection. If we want the Highlands and Islands to feel represented, to feel heard, if we want Highlands and Islands representatives to be able to connect to people out with this bubble and know what's going on on the ground, we need to be able to be reliably in our region. In my very first speech in this place, I applauded the hybrid system and I said that I was looking forward to doing my job from here, but also from Sky, Sutherland and Shetland from time to time. Acceptance in this place of more flexible, more inclusive and, frankly, better working practices is not where it needs to be. I hope that this report and all its detail will mean that next time we don't lose more Gail Rosses, more Aileen Campbells and maybe some more of the rural and island voices that we've been hearing are so important to Government decisions over recent weeks can dial into the conversation as well. I'm not sure if I've got anything terribly useful to say and before some of you say there's no change there then, let me say that I do have a number of observations. The first really was, I think, something I said in the original first debate was that I actually didn't think I would be open to change but then to my surprise found that I thought it actually worked perfectly well and to the benefit of the Parliament. I'm not going to become, therefore, quite a fan and quite an advocate of it, but I think the first point I would start from is when do you take the view that we are at a settled position on which to make any judgments. I reflect that it's really only, take out the summer recess, quite a short working period for this Parliament since we resumed back to an environment in which we didn't have social distancing within the chamber. Therefore, what has become almost quite normal again quite quickly is actually not a practice that we've lived with for very long. I noticed that the number of contributions that are now being made remotely has shrunk to very, very few altogether. Again, I reflect that who knows what's coming this winter. We could find that there is a major flu epidemic or a revival of some other instance or very bad weather, as Martin Whitfield said. The whole remote engagement of members within the chamber could change again. I think that we just have to be very careful and watch how this all develops over a period of time and not rush to any settled views as to when we are at the point where we can say, this is now how it should be. Let's keep an open mind. Daniel Johnson. Does it not also exemplify, though, that we can actually change quite quickly and well by the very remarks that he's just given? Yes, we can, and I think that that's the point. But I think that we have to be careful that we don't close down the point at which we think we are now in a position to say, these are the ways in which we think this Parliament could work better, because I think that they could continue to evolve and change. I do actually have some sympathy, Mr Whitfield. Martin Whitfield? I'm very grateful, Deputy Presiding Officer. Do you not also agree that part of the value in this report is the empowerment that in particular backbenchers have when the situation is correct, just as we've heard about distances, that that hybrid nature is still available to them? And just because not necessarily you see it every day does not mean it's not available when circumstances mean, and they're very broad circumstances, that you need to use it to represent your constituents on an important matter that's happening here in this chamber? I absolutely do agree with that, and I don't think you have to be at a great remote distance. I can say, as a constituency member in the central belt, that there are days when I feel I could have much more productively represented my constituents by being in the constituency and actually participating in a number of things that were taking place, which would directly have benefitted them than actually being, as I was historically here, sometimes to participate in five minutes of business and then hang around till five o'clock for a decision time, which was a wholly unproductive use of time. And I think that, yes, that is one of the real advantages that has been demonstrated during the hybrid working arrangements. I do want to agree with Mr Kerr on one point, though, and that is the use of remote technology in the chamber, because I do believe that people should put up or shut up. And one of the things that I don't like is when members do not intervene in a debate but from a sedentary position then tweet out from the chamber that what somebody else in the chamber said was absolute rubbish and they fundamentally disagreed with it. I mean, I just don't think that's quite right and I think therefore we should start to consider our fresh just in what way social media should be used if we want this place to have the respect and to sort of evolve in terms not just of the infrastructure but the way in which we conduct ourselves. Because certainly in the years that I've been a member of the Parliament I think that has declined in terms of the courtesy that is shown and also the wider understanding of parliamentary business. We all used to get a written official report and actually people used to read what had been said in other debates beyond their own particular focus or discipline and I think a lot of that's been lost. I would also just briefly like to say that in 2024 we will have been 25 years old as a Parliament. I think we should work towards that date, not necessarily 10 years hence but towards that date to see what more we can actually radically do to improve the way in which the Parliament works and the way in which we operate. I have just sitting above that the fact that the Citizens Participation and Public Petitions Committee has been charged with the whole investigation into deliberative democracy. We obviously are awaiting the Scottish Government's response to its own working group on this but that too is going to provide some challenging questions for members in this Parliament as to how we sit alongside a culture of deliberative engagement in our politics. My view is if I can finish because Mr Greer was here for the last session I know he's a big fan of Churchill. Can I just therefore say this isn't the end it's not even the beginning of the end but maybe it is the end of the beginning of our consideration as to how we might evolve as a Parliament. Thank you Mr Carlaw. I now call Paul MacLennan to be followed by Katie Clark. Thank you Deputy Presiding Officer. Can I thank the committee for bringing forward the support to Parliament this afternoon? Can I take this chance to commend the convener Martin Whitfield and the vice convener Bob Dorris along with the committee members for the report? In May last year there were 43 new MSPs elected, one-third of all MSPs. It was a much more diverse Parliament and we need to ensure that that continues. We were all elected in the midst of Covid and alternative forms of working was a norm for many months. It's great that the Standards Committee agreed to look at future parliamentary procedures and practices and I had the opportunity to debate this afternoon. I was fortunate enough to be a member of the Standards Committee for a period and I know how much work went into that report. In December last year, as the convener said, there was a debate held by the committee to inform key areas for the inquiry. A range of issues were debated and the committee agreed to look at some of the fallen areas. We talked about scrutiny and debate and what was it best conducted in hybrid or virtual formats. The resource implication of virtual participation has not really been touched upon. Wider changes to procedures and practices would improve parliamentary scrutiny and of course it's been touched on different methods of voting including proxy voting. I want to look at some of those in the short time that I have this afternoon. On hybrid and virtual meetings, I think when we came into the Parliament we were straight into the virtual meetings and I think that went quite well. Of course it made the Parliament, I think, more inclusive and accessible for everybody and my Rodex touched on that as well. That's surely a key issue. The report also says that it will provide the Parliament with the flexibility in the future to offer alternative means of participating in parliamentary business, rather than acquiring elected members to fit into established methods of working notwithstanding the personal circumstances. Again, Jackson Carlaw touched on that as well and I think that's really important. The committee also stated that the impact of hybrid working should be monitored over the longer term to assess the extent to which it provides for equal participation in parliamentary business, promote diversity and support participation levels. Again, it's very, very important. On the virtual participation, the committee was out of the view that committees like the chamber should continue to have the capacity to hold hybrid meetings. I think probably over that period of time that I've been involved in various committees, the virtual meetings have gone very well and I think that that's something that needs to continue and it gives more flexibility to witnesses in that regard as well and I think that's incredibly helpful. I think that's one of the key things. The committee also believes that members being present supports effective and collaborative work and undertaking scrutiny for this reason, considers the normal expectation should the members be come to the Parliament to participate in committee meetings. Again, that might be a bit debate and we've kind of heard that and that might be something for the committee to consider in that regard. The committee also welcomed the introduction of the new platform for remote participation in committee meetings as well as on the chamber. On proxy voting, and that's been touched by a couple of people, but it's something that I want to look at a wee bit. The committee considered there is valiant pilot in the proxy voting scheme and the member had given evidence to the committee that this was an issue that was brought up and well-debated at that particular time. Personally, for myself, that's something that I would very much support in that regard. In terms of consulting how a scheme would work with the function, with a view to proposing a temporary rule, which would provide for a scheme that would permit members in certain defined circumstances, including parental leave and illness, to nominate a proxy. The committee suggested that such a scheme should be allowed to run for a period of around 12 months and any permanent changes to provide proxy voting should be considered following a full evaluation of the scheme and I think that's quite direct in that approach and probably come back to this or within the chamber itself. In conclusion, the committee quoted a witness saying that this inquiry, we should be thinking about what the Parliament should look like in 10 years time and the Parliament should commit to a culture of iterative change to allow it to be more representative, more open and more accessible. For me, this was the key closing line in the report. This will allow us to attract a more diverse range of candidates to stand for election to the Parliament. It also hopes that the Parliament can be more inclusive, seeking evidence from it. This is all over Scotland who reflects Scottish society more fully. I welcome the report and the recommendations in relation to hybrid working and remote voting, which I believe enable MSPs to better balance their responsibilities in this Parliament, in their constituencies and support family-friendly practices. I agree with the point that Rhoda Grant has made in relation to fixed times for decision making, helping for those who have caring responsibilities but, indeed, for other commitments also. The proposals for a pilot for proxy voting, I believe, are something that we should support, particularly for members suffering long-term illness, having an operation or on maternity leave. I agree with the point that was made by Stephen Carr that it should be for the member themselves to choose who that proxy should be. I think that it's fair to say that I do think that the way that this Parliament operated remote voting during the pandemic maximised the participation of members, particularly in voting, and that didn't always happen in other parliaments. In particular, I think that the use of the point of order, where the technology failed, was a feature that was used in this Parliament that wasn't always used in other parliaments. I think that skepticism and cynicism about the reliability of technology is also something that we need to incorporate in our working patterns, because we're very reliant on the technology that we have available to us. I look forward to the day where we have the technology that interventions are possible. I think that that will make a considerable difference both in relation to the person intervening and able to intervene perhaps on somebody who is making a virtual contribution, but also, indeed, those making contributions in this chamber. I believe that any move towards hybrid working has to be done in a way that allows for effective scrutiny so that ministers and key witnesses should continue to need to be present to be scrutinised in person. I think that it's worth noting that these proposals have come out of consensus, but it may well be that many of the changes that this Parliament needs are not necessarily fully agreed or would lead to a consensus in this Parliament now. I think that we need to recognise that we have to debate how we ensure that this Parliament operates in a more effective way and that we listen to some of the criticisms that have been made and have already been referred to. I think that there are wider changes that are needed. We need to look at how we scrutinise legislation about the quality of some of the legislation that the Parliament is asked to look at. We need to look at why some are calling for a second chamber to provide that scrutiny function. We need to take on board some of the criticisms that are being made about the lack of spontaneity, about stage management that has been referred to and increasing choreography. That is partly the result of the way that we organise ourselves. I think that we are right to be positive about what is successful in this Parliament. There is much about this culture, which is a massive step forward, but we also have to look at the criticisms. I hope that we will look at the founding principles of this Parliament. We will look at how we can, for example, improve the freedom of information legislation. There is a presumption in favour of publication that we will look at the rights of individual MPs, how this place operates, how speakers are chosen and how committees can be more effective. I hope very much that the committee will look at the issues that we have a transparent review of this Parliament's processes and that these are debates that continue to happen. As the only female member of the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee, I am happy to speak in this debate. I want to focus on the challenges and opportunities of hybrid working. I thank the committee clerks for all their help in getting us to this stage. In our report, we noted that the Scottish Parliament was ahead of the game compared to other institutions with appropriate measures to ensure that committee and chamber business continued and that members were able to participate sufficiently and vote. I want to pay tribute to all the Scottish Parliament staff who were instrumental in making the switch to digital chamber sessions at the beginning of the pandemic and who have continued to work hard to improve this and develop the hybrid model that we now have. Many of the committee's conclusions focused on the need to continue with hybrid arrangements to give members the flexibility to participate remotely. I think that it is important that we build on the lessons learned over the course of the remote and hybrid participation and to try to improve the experience as a new platform should do. The potential for proxy voting was also considered as part of this inquiry. It will be interesting to see what happens next with that, including any pilot trial. For committee meetings, the ability to have witnesses join remotely brings clear benefits and possibly makes it easier to facilitate evidence sessions. For cross-party groups, a permanent hybrid model for meetings could ensure that we maximise public engagement with the Parliament and ensure that CPGs are as accessible as possible to members of the public. When it comes to accessibility for MSPs and members of the public, there is a need to consider people with disabilities, women and people from rural or remote areas. I know that, both as a committee and from my point of view, returning to the gender balance of committees is not far in the future, so I give warning on that, because it is an important element. Does she not agree that one of the interesting aspects of the evidence that we have heard about witnesses are those who are challenged by the nature of the building to come in, and that being able to give evidence remotely with support from officers within the Parliament often allows people to share their experiences that otherwise would go silent in the chamber? We see that regularly in the attendance as well, compared to having to be able to come in and attend the building. For example, we know that in general, women are disproportionately impacted when it comes to caring responsibilities, so hybrid work in the Parliament could ease some of the burden. I also very much welcome the Presiding Officer's gender sensitive audit, which will investigate the representation and participation of women in the Scottish Parliament. The SPPA committee will commission an academic to do a full analysis and consider who is participating virtually and see what else can be done. An interesting bit of evidence that we received was from Karen Bradley MP, chair of the House of Commons Procedure Committee, who told us that female MPs were participating more during virtual proceedings than they had previously. We also heard from Professor Meg Russell, who cautioned that on-going hybrid work should be well defined so that we avoid a situation where the only people attending Parliament in person are the non-disabled white men. Overall, in our report, we have recognised that Parliament is most effective when MSPs are in Holyroods. However, there are circumstances where remote participation is necessary, as has been pointed out by several members in the debate today. For example, during periods of illness, bereavement or particularly winter approaching, and if there are any travel or weather disruptions, members could still be able to vote and participate. One possibility could be that every member engages virtually once per month so that remote participation is normalised and others can do more if required. I've got very little time left, I'm sorry. The member is already over time, I'm afraid. Would you recognise that the virtual working does exclude some people with some disabilities? I'll try to move on as quickly as possible. There are a lot of things to think about in terms of that and what you pointed out about how Parliament adapts, but any change is an iterative process that has already been pointed out and not an end of parliamentary reform. This report sets out many sound recommendations and I hope that members and others find it useful. I call Gillian Mackay to be followed by Alexander Stewart. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I, too, would like to thank the members of the SPPA Committee for their work on this inquiry and all who gave evidence. One of the key points from the report was that the Scottish Parliament compared to other legislators introduced more measures to ensure that their members could continue to participate. Functions of Parliament could continue. I'd like to place on record our thanks to all those who made that possible and worked to ensure that the Parliament could continue to function. As a new MSP and an MSP with a disability, the hybrid system has allowed me to participate when I otherwise may have struggled to be here or may have exacerbated my condition as a result of trying to get here or indeed like this week when I'm recovering from a cold. We rightly were proud at the start of this session when Scotland elected its most diverse Parliament yet. I hope that by continuing and improving remote participation that we may have more people considering putting themselves forward to stand. We cannot be complacent or content with the progress that we've made so far. As well as diversity within elected representatives, the hybrid system has allowed committees to take evidence from those that we may otherwise have been unable to have physically present. It opens up opportunities to hear either formally or informally from groups and individuals who, for health reasons, caring responsibilities or travel implications could not normally have attended Parliament. Remote participation is also one way to move towards the Parliament's net zero ambitions, as was pointed out by the corporate body's contribution to the committee's report. I hope that, in committee, those factors will continue to be taken into consideration and remote participation offered as a genuine alternative rather than simply seeing a default return to in-person participation. I do take on board the comments in the report that, particularly for committee proceedings, the current system is not ideal for discussion compared to having everyone in the room. I hope that the upcoming roll-out of the new system will allow hybrid proceedings to more accurately reflect how chamber and committee business functions. I agree with the committee that there should not be a system to request remote participation and that that should be left to the discretion of individuals. Putting in a system to request remote participation would, in my view, be onerous. Proxy voting has been mentioned and was mentioned in the report and would, in my view, be a good addition to the adaptions so far. The report notes that the committee considers that there is value in piloting a proxy voting system and that the committee would consult on how a scheme would function. Proxy voting would allow those who are unable to attend remote sessions to still have their votes cast and their constituents represented. In paragraph 194, the report refers to certain defined circumstances, including parental leave and illness. I would ask that, in the consultation, the committee adds bereavement leave into the list of eligibility for a proxy vote. I do not think that anyone in the chamber would expect a member to have to be present after the loss of a loved one. We believe that the system used for requesting proxy voting mirror HR practices conducted elsewhere in Parliament. We expect our staff teams to give sick notes and, while I respect everyone's right to privacy, especially in terms of their health, this would provide a straightforward way to request proxy voting. We should be aware, however, that caring or parental responsibilities that would stop a member from being able to vote can happen suddenly and whatever process we design should be adaptable to those situations. I also recognise the comments made by those early-on parameters for a scheme, and this will take careful consideration and is probably not something that we will sort this afternoon. Finally, Presiding Officer, on committee substitutes, we would very much welcome a wider conversation on substitute arrangements for committees. The suspension of standing orders during the first part of this session allowed parties to adapt quickly where someone was ill or unavailable. We would like to see the flexibility made permanent. It provides greater flexibility to parties and has the potential to stop knock-on disruption to multiple committees from one MSP absence. Presiding Officer, I am pleased that there is agreement to keep the hybrid system. I believe that it will not only allow the current chamber the ability to deal with their workload, health and families in a way that is flexible and manageable. However, if we continue to make progress, it may be the change required to ensure that more people consider standing for elected office in 2026. I call Alexander Stewart to be followed by Rona Mackay. I am pleased to be able to speak in this debate as this Parliament considers how it will carry out its business in the most effective way possible, just as the Scottish public rightly expect. As with many modern Parliaments, the Scottish Parliament has always strived to be flexible, open and accommodating to members from all different backgrounds as possible. It is therefore to the Parliament's credit that Scotland was ahead of the curve in responding to the pandemic and introducing changes that made all members and that could participate in parliamentary business. While remote or virtual contributions were originally introduced as a necessity, members will be in agreement that the period helped to shine a light on what were seen as old ways of thinking. For example, in committee sessions, the hybrid format has significantly expanded the potential pool of witnesses at any session. The committee process is a vital part of the scrutiny provided by this Parliament, and there is no doubt that the certain aspects of the process are now much more effective because of the hybrid format. However, it is clear that the introduction of virtual contributions to the chamber, particularly during debates, has not been entirely unproblematic. While those contributions were clearly made seamless, it was first introduced back in 2020, it is clear that the divide between contributions made here in the chamber and those remotely were problematic. There have been many important improvements and contributions that were made through the virtual format, even though it cannot be said that any heartfelt contribution did not deeply be involved in the debate because they were not here in the chamber. They may have been on a remote situation, but the chamber is sometimes where the current thrust was able to be participated. As often was pointed out, it was only made worse by the fact that contributions could neither receive or have interventions. Losing that spontaneity remarked people felt that it was a price to pay, but one that they were not prepared to go forward with. As such, I hope that the proposed hybrid platform is able to properly address the issue, and I look forward to seeing that happen. Going forward, it should be up to members and ensure that the member's contributions within debates. The Scottish public expects to see MSPs representing them as effectively as possible in the Parliament, and they will be able to judge for themselves whether that is the case. Given the Parliament's role in holding the Government to account, it would be reasonable that it is discarded from the extent to ministers in the same way. It is important that ministers are subject to the highest possible level of scrutiny, something that can only take place, I believe, here in the chamber. The Parliament has already a better place as a result of the hybrid measures introduced two years ago, but there is still much more work to be done to ensure that there is a complemention about business and we do not detract or diminish the role that takes place within here. That remains to be seen, and the in-person contributions in the Parliament will be very much to the fore as we move forward. In conclusion, we all want to see a Parliament that can accommodate members from as many different backgrounds as possible. I know that it can be achieved without diluting the Parliament's vital role in our democracy. By setting aside time for this debate today, we have set a clear goal that we are trying to achieve. Alongside other members of the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee, I will continue to work collectively and correspondent to make sure that we strive to strike the balance that is required. There is a balance to be required to ensure that we accommodate, that we support, but we also encourage new members. As we have heard, many new members have come to this Parliament, and it has taken them some time to get used to the format, because the format has not been the same as it has been in previous sessions. We have a lot to learn, but we have also a lot to give. The situation to see the Covid pandemic has changed all of our lives forever. We had no choice but to make changes to our lives, while restrictions were put in place to keep us safe. Working at home, where possible, was the key to keeping businesses going, and people adapted well to that. So well, in fact, that many employers have changed their business model to accommodate that. Like everything else, there are negatives as well as positives, but at least now there is choice. Out of necessity and not before time, we are looking at family-friendly options, a better work-life balance and doing business differently. As we have heard, the Standards Committee took time to strike a balance when it came to adapting the working practice in the Parliament. With an eye in the future, the committee decided that the pandemic had been a watershed and it was an opportune time to examine practices since Parliament began in 1999. All praise must go to Parliament authorities who reacted quickly to introduce a remote voting system to enable normal business to continue while most staff were working from home. There were tearing problems, of course, but these were largely overcome as time went on. The report shows that there was a variety of views and opinions when it came to deciding whether hybrid meetings should continue, which is hardly surprising in a place full of opinionated politicians. The majority view had to prevail and that was to seize the opportunity for greater flexibility and to become more accessible and inclusive to encourage diversity. Hybrid voting allows members with caring responsibilities to fulfil their duties, those who are willing to take into account unforeseen family emergencies or travel difficulties. As the committee report says, and my colleague Collette Stevenson also, it is important to note that in comparison to other legislators, according to the evidence taken by the committee, the Scottish Parliament has introduced more measures to allow important business and scrutiny to continue, and I welcome that. Proxy voting was another issue of important focus for the committee and, again, as we have heard, this is the subject of a pilot that can be fully evaluated for any permanent changes to the Parliament's rules and procedures are made. I look forward to that. This would be an important development and I really do hope that this comes to fruition. I am fully supportive of the proposals in this excellent support and I think that it does strike a sensible and realistic balance. However, the hybrid platform does not and should not replicate in-person participation in parliamentary business. There is no doubt that fewer interventions, not possible yet in the remote system, reduces the quality of debate. Those participating remotely can feel isolated and lose out on the atmosphere of any debate. Committee work in Parliament is crucial for introducing legislation, conducting inquiries and scrutiny on the issues that keep Scotland running. However, remote participation can be limiting, both for members and witnesses, giving evidence and should always be a last resort in my view. However, the committee notes that the convener's group supports the production of guidance to accompany the formalisation of long-term hybrid capability for committees and suggests that guidance on committees be updated, which is eminently sensible in my view. Members in this chamber were elected to represent our constituents in Scotland's Parliament and it is vital that we do just that. Unless exceptional or urgent constituency work and inter-parliamentary business should be undertaken on non-sitting days, we should be here. The default position is that parliamentarians should be at their place of work on Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Thursdays, allowing time in the constituencies on Mondays and Fridays. I think that the public deserve nothing less. Technology has given us options which I welcome and I believe that this report sets out the way ahead. Thank you. We move to winding up speeches and I call on Daniel Johnson. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. Can I thank the committee for its excellent work, but more importantly thank them for the opportunity that they've given us all to actually talk about the way that we work but most importantly how we can make this place better. I think that it's only by having the time and the space to talk about ideas, about what works and what doesn't, that we can do that. I think that I would reflect that we have too few of these opportunities. I would encourage the committee to think about what future reports it can bring forward to the Parliament so that we can have further opportunities to discuss this because it's important that we make progress. I'm also very thankful for the broad scope of the report itself. While looking at the proposals of accessibility, the use of technology and proxy voting, I thought some of the reflections about the nature of what takes place in this place, the broader nature of discourse, the fact that debates aren't just confined to the chamber or the committee room. That actually face-to-face is important too, is important. I think that's one of the things that we've been discussing this afternoon. I think it's also important to be very mindful that there is a difference between the work that we do here in the chamber and the committee and the demands of scrutiny and actually the varied nature of what different forms of technology enable us to do. There is no doubt that virtual working makes this place more accessible and that is a very good thing. Emma Roddick's contribution was excellent about reminding us what is important about the job that we do because it is fundamentally important to serve our constituents, to hear what they have got to say, to understand their concerns and to represent them. If technology makes that more feasible, I think that she's absolutely right that we must embrace it and really entrench it in the way that we work. Indeed, as a central belt, it's only two minutes' walk to my constituency. That makes me ever more mindful about the fact that I can nip out of an afternoon and do a constituency engagement, which most other members cannot. In fact, I get home to my own house every night when I'm in this place and that is something that most people do not get to do. That is a true privilege, but it does make me think about what more we can do to make sure that happens. However, it is not a panacea. As Rhoda Grant pointed out, it is important to be able to take part in that wider participation. I would caution the thought that virtual work is the only way that we make this place family-friendly or accessible. Actually, the things that we do in terms of our timetabling about the other provisions and the support that we've had in this place are just as important, if not more so. Indeed, I'm very happy to be able to play. Stephen Kerr. Can I attempt the member on to the subject of decision time? A number of colleagues, in relation to family-friendly hours, have mentioned this constant moving of decision time. Will it not be better, given the fact that decision time only moves because of the business that's allotted at the time the chamber is sitting? Will it not be better if there was one thing that we could do? Will it not be better if there was one night a week where we sat for longer and then had a set decision time? Maybe it's seven or even eight? I can see he's going to have something to say, so I'll give up. Daniel Johnson. I was almost with the member up until the point that he was putting forward seven o'clock or eight o'clock decision times. What I do think is that perhaps our flexibility isn't about the timing of decision time but what decisions we take at what points in time. If business has to continue further, it could perhaps continue after decision time for those members who want to continue to do so and that the decisions could take place later. That's probably an equally bad idea to other members. My point being is that there are options that we could look at about how and when we actually take the decisions in comparison to when that business has been heard. Likewise, I think that the issue of a proxy voting is critically important. I think for all manner of different reasons, whether that's bereavement, illness, maternity, paternity, I think it's vitally important that we give members the ability to do the most fundamental part of our job, which is to vote while we are not here. I think that proxy voting is the best way to do that but that has to have caveats. I think that other members have pointed out that it should not be about giving the vote to the whip. You will need to conclude Mr Johnson. Likewise, I think that there should be very specific mandates. I think that we should embrace technology, we should welcome flexibility and I think that we should look forward to further opportunities to discuss how we work in this place in the future. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Unsurprisingly, as a member of this committee, I think our report is spot on and I'd like to thank the clerking team and the convener for all their support in driving the inquiry forward and I'd like to actually welcome today's debate, which I found really interesting. I think we all agree that Parliament must embrace change and that change must always be there to protect the core values that the Parliament was set up for. I think the biggest change we've experienced recently is the introduction of virtual technology in this chamber. It was forced on us by the pandemic and prior to the pandemic, if we're honest, our IT in this Parliament was poor. Remote working would not have been possible. In fact, I remember holding a committee meeting in a room below the canteen with five committee members huddled round a screen trying to take evidence from Transport for London and they couldn't see us and we could hardly see them. But we've been through a change and that change was really important because it stopped what was our democracy becoming an autocracy. But when we went through that change, we struggled with it. Members will not ever forget the technical issues that led to voting delays in the robust system that we were told we were working with. There was a complete disconnect as well in delivering virtual speeches without being able to see a live feed to the chamber. I speak from some experience having been remotely forced into remote working for six months. Perhaps pleasing in my case than looking at the screen and seeing myself, but I would have liked to have seen how the speech was going down in the chamber and that wasn't possible. And it certainly wasn't possible to take an intervention. And the ongoing development of the hybrid Parliament is now something that we can control and we should control that. And I'm pleased to hear that post recess MSPs attending debates virtually will be able to make interventions in the chamber and they'll actually be able to see how their speech is going down in the chamber, which I think is really, really important. It will stop them feeling detached because you do feel detached speaking to a computer for what appears to be hours on end if you've got the chance and the presiding officer didn't cut you off. So I think there's a lot to be done on that. But I do think that virtual meetings and virtual sessions of the Parliament should stop parliamentarians coming in. Physically attending the Parliament remains crucial in my mind and why? Well, because you can't bump into somebody for a coffee or sand them out on an idea on Zoom. It just doesn't happen.  Meeting people, talking to people, building trust, cross-party relationships and hybrid working can complement that. But it will never replace the actual ability to look somebody in the eye and see how things are going. Now, another way I think that the Parliament can improve the system is by allowing proxy voting. And there's been a lot of talk about this and I would probably just concur by saying, as an ex-member of a whips team, it is not the place of the whips to hold the proxy vote. The proxy vote should be held by somebody, the person who gives it to believes will represent their views. One of the issues we failed to address, I believe, is the issue of how parliamentary business is carried out. I believe the domination of parliamentary business by the Bureau is not satisfactory. And I would ask those members present, have you ever been to a Bureau meeting? Because you can go if you want to. You have to ask permission and get approval from the whips. But you ought to go. You ought to see whether it's as edifying as you think it might be or might not be. My other big bug there is that members come to this Chamber and we haven't discussed this with prepared speeches along party lines with patsy questions. I don't believe that, also, that many members are prepared to take interventions and engage. Debate is about just that, debating issues and having a forum discussion. And I think it's really important and I think this Parliament needs to mature to allow that to happen. Of course I'll give way. I thought I might take up some... Daniel Johnson, briefly. Invitation. Does he think that membership at the very least reflect previous speakers in their contributions when they're making rather than just reading out speeches? Of course. And Mr Johnson won't be surprised that I now come to doing that. But I'm sure my deputy convener will do exactly that. I agreed with my convener that we should be looking forward to 10 years' france. And I agree with the Minister that it shouldn't be the Government that dictates the way that Parliament changes. And I agree also with Mr Kerr that Parliament should make the changes and agree the changes in what they want to see. And I'm delighted to hear from Jackson Carlaw that he is progressive and open to change. And that he did have actually quite a lot to say, despite the fact at the beginning he thought he wouldn't. Now there's one area that I would just like to drift on. If you could do that very briefly, Mr Mountain. Very briefly, if I may. The issue of decision time, and I think it's something that we need to discuss, because I do believe that limiting debate to a set time is wrong. And it might be that decision time is carried forward to the next day rather than doing it later. That might be something worth considering. So, Presiding Officer, in summary, I think the Parliament needed to evolve, and it has evolved, and we need to go further. And we need to make our IT work for Parliamentarians. But our IT can never replace this Parliament. And we should never lose sight of the fact that the best way we're going to work together on work as a Parliament and work as parties, which may have different ideas, is by sitting down, talking to us, trying to find consensus and realising that we don't have a monopoly of good ideas. Thank you. Thank you. I call on George Adam, Minister. Thank you, Presiding Officer.  And you've mentioned to us all how you want open debates where people intervene and we have full of ideas and push things forward. And I feel today is probably an example. So, having seen you earlier on today, I feel I've delivered exactly what you wanted, Presiding Officer, to have a debate full of ideas, not always agreeing with one another, but ensuring that we can actually take things forward. Yes. Martin Whitfield. I'm very grateful, Presiding Officer. I'm very grateful for the Minister giving way. And it isn't interesting that we saw an example of a remote contribution where a member in the chamber sought to intervene, unfortunately, unable to because of technology, but no one seemed to bat an eyelid and actually the flow of debate did carry on. Yes, and indeed I look forward to the technology being available to us where that can actually happen. And we can have that debate and that intervention, that said, and the intervention as well, because it does make a difference for the debate. I'm also, okay, I've got hundreds to say here, but no problem, Mr Kerr. Stephen Kerr. I just think the debate has been a good example. And the idea, for example, that's been put forward in relation to the problem around decision time, of deferred divisions. I think it's a cracking idea. Does the minister agree? Minister, decision time is in my notes and if I can get myself to there, we'll get to that point. So, basically, I understand some of the criticism of the technology because, as I said before, I was in Bureau where we effectively went for, there is a major worldwide pandemic happening, Parliament has shut up shop, we need to do something about it. And what happened with the parliamentary officials during that period was quite short of, not short of remarkable, of how we got a system. Yesterday, if problems, was it difficult at times? Yes, it was, but it gave us an opportunity, as I said in my opening speech, to still have government scrutinised for the Parliament to continue. At a very important time for the people of Scotland, the Parliament was still being able to do and do what it has to do. But, basically, the operational adaption developed and adopted by the Parliament like a Covid have been essential towards maintaining a good governance of Scotland. I welcome the committee's view that the Parliament should maintain the flexibility to enable hybrid and virtual precedence. A principle very much supported by the Scottish Government, which will no doubt be important in helping to respond quickly and effectively in the future. The findings of the committee's report that, despite recent events, the Parliament was able to fulfil that scrutiny are especially welcome to the Government. If I can talk about some of the contributions that we had here today as well, Martin Whitfield, the convener, spoke about the fact that, in 10 years in the future, how we will deal with things in the Parliament. I think that we do have to challenge ourselves that way, because we don't want to be in a position, regardless of what happens in the future, of having to go from a standing start and develop new ways of working. I think that we have seen that the technology works and we need to find other ways of making it better. The technology itself, as we have all experienced from the technology that should have been starting just now, with the ability to intervene, has to be in place and it has to be robust for us to do it. A lot of the time we have to make sure that the technology is working with us. Mr Mountain brought that up in particular, because he has been a critic at times where he has been from a rural location, he was unable to attend for six months and he had to rely on that and it was quite difficult as well. Daniel Johnson brought up an important part when he talked about the maximum amount of time for face-to-face. I know that I have not worked in sat next to Mr Johnson in a committee. I know the reasons why Mr Johnson wants to do that and he asked the question during the debate. I am probably one of the few people who understood why, because it is exactly what Rhoda Grant said about the fact that how you judge the feeling of what is happening in the room and for yourself, that is even more so, to be able to make a contribution. I understand why that can be difficult when we are not physically in the same room, because we could all find ourselves before all online mis-judging what we say and all of us going down a completely different place. There needs to be a balance and we need to ensure that you, Presiding Officer, are not sitting there in that chair on your own with an empty chamber here, because that is hardly a good look for the Scotland's Parliament. Kate Clark and Rhoda Grant brought up the fact that the decision times, in all honesty, and you will be aware of this, I do try to keep them within certain ways, but there are certain challenges for me from a Government perspective, but not always. The challenges sometimes come from others who possibly can push things a certain way. I do want to see my grandchildren before they go into high school, so I do want the family-friendly hours so that I can go back and spend time with them as well. Rhoda Grant. I understand that you understand to an extent, however it must be terrifying for a parent sitting here watching the clock tick by and knowing that their childcare is finished and they may be standing outside in the rain on their own waiting for their parent to turn up, and that must be really difficult for a parent. Minister. Totally appreciative of that situation and, as I say, I do try to work to that. Now there's always the challenges from my perspective where we have a situation where we all know, because we've been here for many years, December and June will always be the end of legislation, the stage 3s and times will be pushed there, but, yes, we need to find a way that when we're doing in between these busier times, we find a way that five o'clock or the family-friendly ideals, as you quite rightly mentioned, Ms Grant, of this place, I think Katie Clark did as well, are important that we stick to that, and it's one of the points we continue to bring up. Presiding Officer, this has been a very good debate. I hope you've enjoyed after you were asking us for many weeks to have an idea, a debate full of ideas, and these are ideas that the Scottish Government will listen to. And take forward, of course, the Parliament authorities are the ones that make these decisions, and we will engage in whatever way we can to ensure that we can be constructive within that. Thank you. I now call on Bob Doris to wind up the debate on behalf of the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee. Thank you very much, convener. My thanks to all members for their contributions this afternoon, just as Parliamentaries did a few months ago in an earlier debate which kick-started their committee inquiry. Today's debate has been valuable and informative. It demonstrates the commitment of the Standards Committee to have an on-going dialogue with MSPs and wider society about how any reforms to working practices in this place may change. The committee heard from MSPs within focus group sessions and through its survey. It was clear that there was a spectrum of views, just as there has been in the chamber this afternoon. Those range from those who wish to return completely to previous practices—there were some— and those who wish to embrace all the changes unquestionably immediately. The debate today has been much more meongst, it has been much more balanced, I feel. On balanced MSPs and others that we spoke to, with caveats and safeguards, of course, we wished to build upon the innovations of the last couple of years, innovations necessitated by a global pandemic, but innovations which offer a great opportunity to further develop a modern and inclusive Scottish Parliament gradual, iterative, monitored, careful and considered, but changes are absolutely required. Inclusive in how we support those individuals and groups across Scotland and beyond who wish to offer evidence to our parliamentary committees or participate more generally with the life of this Parliament, the hybrid Parliament offers a wonderful opportunity in relation to that. Rhoda Grant, Paul McClellan, Alexander Shute Millie, Gillian Mackay and others spoke warmly about the opportunity for witnesses to be involved. I would say from today's debate and from the surveys we had, that that is pretty much a vote on for a way forward in relation to committees, but also inclusive to those who are watching Parliament today, who would consider standing for election, but perhaps think that there are too many hurdles to overcome or deter from standing for election in the first place, be that due to family circumstances, health concerns are a variety of other barriers that may exist. Indeed, we heard from MSPs today that MSPs have left this place because it was not suitably family friendly, a point made by Rhoda Grant, Emma Roddick and Collette Stevenson, among others. The Scottish Parliament is at the forefront of embracing change and continuing to provide for hybrid meetings and virtual voting. Not as an everyday occurrence, of course. We still believe that face-to-face interactions have significant benefits and enduring benefits for Parliamentarians. Rather, a hybrid Parliament has a reasonable adjustment and an embedded adjustment when circumstances dictate. The exception, not the rule. Daniel Johnson and Steven Kerr were very strong in this point during their contributions and I thought Rhoda Grant and Edward Rownton made really important points. We heard the committee as well about the informal chats, to read a room within a debate, the quiet corners where MSPs across all parties can have a discussion and just build up those relationships. That can't happen by a virtual Parliament. We also heard, I thought, from Rhoda Grant, Collette Stevenson. I think that Rona Mackay also made this point that because we have a hybrid function, hybrid function should not mean that we do not make this Parliament the physical building as accessible and family-friendly as possible to all MSPs. We did hear there was a danger that by saying, well, you can go hybrid, means Parliament has to stop being physically accessible to all and that must not be allowed to happen and that was reflected in the contributions here this afternoon also. We heard quite a lot about proxy voting and just to remind Parliament, the intention is to propose a scheme for proxy voting in this place that will be piloted on a basis of a temporary rule change and the committee recommended that a pilot should cover parental leave and illness. If the evaluation of the pilot, a pilot which we consulted upon before, we embarked upon either, if successful, would seek to propose a permanent rule change. But already this afternoon, that will not be straightforward. We've heard that already. What will the definition of an illness be? Who will have oversight in relation to that? One MSP said, well, Stephen Kerr, Katie Clark, Edward Mountain and myself included, my personal view, absolutely not would be my view in relation to that and I think that that was a broad swell of opinion amongst Parliament. We also heard from Gillian Mackay about should we extend that list to where proxy voting could be used perhaps to bereavement leave and that's hard to argue against but that's not what the report said but just intuitively that feels hard to argue against. I should point out that, of course, we will soon have the ability in the technology in this place for when there is a hybrid contribution to have that two-way interaction for interventions for those at home and those in this place to improve that flow of debate and the technology in this place has always been modernised to facilitate more smooth voting and things like that but what I would point out is that we need to move the working practices. We also heard other things if I can find my notes here because there was things that weren't in the report, Presiding Officer, that I do want to give a mention to. We didn't look at the wider scrutiny role of Parliament. We didn't look at the role of social media that some people mentioned. We didn't look particularly spontaneity within debates and we didn't look at a variety of other matters including when decision time should be decided to other days. We've heard today from, I think, Stephen Cairn, Edward Mountain that they would like to see decision time one night a week been longer to give certainty with the rest of weeks. I agree with all those three suggestions. The problem is that it's three conservatives, Presiding Officer, that I'm agreeing with, but there we are. I'm speaking on behalf of the committee. But in finishing off, I want to thank the clerks that I didn't do at the outset for their work and for their support. I'm also conscious that most MSPs were not in this chamber for the start of this debate or for the bulk of this debate. Get involved in it, get active, scrutinise this debate, have your say, because our committee has to a measured and balanced view which will garner the maximum support for changes that we want to bring forward. Not for MSPs, Presiding Officer, but for the people of Scotland who we all serve to make sure that this Parliament is accessible and accountable way. Thank you, Presiding Officer. That concludes the debate on future parliamentary procedures and practices. It's now time to move on to the next item of business which is consideration of two parliamentary bureau motions. I asked George Adam on behalf of the parliamentary bureau to move the motions 6034 on committee membership and 6035 on a committee substitute. After all that excitement, Minister, the question on these motions will be put at decision time. There are two questions to be put as a result of today's business. The first is the motion 5983 in the name of Martin Whitfield on behalf of the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee on future parliamentary procedures and practices be agreed. Are we all agreed? The motion is therefore agreed. I propose to ask a single question on two parliamentary bureau motions. Does any member object? No member objects, therefore the final question is that motions 6034 on committee membership and 6035 on a committee substitute be agreed. Are we all agreed? The motion is therefore agreed. That concludes decision time and we'll now move on to members' business.