The next item of business is a debate without motion on behalf of the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee on shaping parliamentary procedures and practices for the future. I invite members who wish to speak in the debate to press their request-to-speak buttons now. I call on Martin Whitfield to open the debate on behalf of the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee. Mr Whitfield, up to eight minutes. Thank you, Presiding Officer. It is a true pleasure to see you in your seat today for the first of the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee debates. We chose to debate on this in essence ourselves here in this building because, as Donald Dewar put it at the opening of this building, albeit in a different place, wisdom, justice, compassion, integrity, timeless values and honourable aspirations for this new form of democracy, born as it was at the cusp of a new century. Donald Dewar went on. I look forward to the days ahead when this chamber will sound with debate, argument and passion when men and women from all over Scotland will meet to work together for a future built from the very first principles of social justice, equity, access, participation and rights. I know that I am joined today by all of the members of the committee to offer their contributions, but the purpose of this, at the outset, at the start of the sixth session, perhaps is terrible teenage years of this Parliament where we can talk about things that our parents would gasp at, where we can suggest ideas that others may just laugh at, but to allow us within this environment to consider how we go forward to reach a maturity so that we can respect and represent the people of Scotland. A time to look at the rules and the conventions, the procedures and practices, some that have crept up on us and some that have been thrust on us by circumstances outwith our control. I would like to take this opportunity to thank those at Spice for producing a very helpful report on the changes that the Covid-19 pandemic has forced on this Parliament and the way those that operate and decide on the procedures within here took the opportunity to make sure that we stayed open, we stayed relevant, we could hold the Government to account and we could represent the people of Scotland. Here we find ourselves in this, the great debating chamber, the centrepiece of the architectural Parliament that sits here, but also the room that I think best sums up the intentions of this Parliament, not to scream and shout across a brick, not to say we have to be to sword lengths apart, not to say we have to be so far back, the shoe won't hit the speaker at the front. We are here so that we can see each other, so that we can hold a debate where we can agree, where we can disagree, where we can put to point ideas to hold other ideas to account. But is this a controlled arena, much like those who are old enough can remember the 1970s wrestling television programmes where the end was known before it started? Or are we a bear pit where we just tear to sunder anyone else's ideas?  Is this a venue to inquire of ideas, to push people further in their thinking, perhaps to make them reconsider whether they are in a cul-de-sac, because it is in this venue that the answers that the people of Scotland are looking for it to come? I am very grateful to the convener for giving way and I am doing this because I know that he was encouraging interventions while he was speaking. I think that this is the first to be I can remember where we are considering how we do our business in this place. I am very appreciative that the committee has brought this forward. I am wondering whether this is the intention of the committee to continue with this and perhaps return to the chamber at future dates so that we can contemplate how we develop on an on-going basis, not a one-off basis. I am very grateful for the intervention and indeed it allows me to offer the opportunity in the new year at the opening of the evidence session for the committee for all across this chamber to contribute their ideas and thoughts. This is the little seedling that will start with that, so that items, ideas, pros and cons can go on to the record so that we can consider them in the evidence that is going forward. Indeed, for those out with this chamber, there will be an opportunity for people across Scotland to contribute their ideas. So, what is it that we want to look at? Well, we want to look at debate, but I'm going to put that to one side having exercised my mind on various thoughts about it, but I am indeed more desperate to hear others' ideas before sharing my own. The functionality of blue jeans and teams, I raised this today with some trepidation after events of yesterday, but it goes to the heart of whether or not, as a political community, we see the value in hybrid hearings both at committee level and in chamber. Does it make us more family friendly? Does it allow a wider draw of people who may be interested in contributing within these walls? But what are the implications for that as individuals and as individual parliamentarians? Be it your work pattern, your workload, travel practices, constituency work—and I raise this because it is important—your family life? Stephen Kerr is grateful to the convener for giving way. He alluded to tea-time wrestling on world of sport earlier and likened our proceedings to a pre-baked formula. Hasn't the hybrid arrangement, particularly in this chamber, cemented that feeling that we have? Is there a little bit sterile sometimes? There is not enough engagement. What does my friend think? Martin Whitfield is an excellent interventionist and I thank Stephen Kerr for it. I am going to take the lawyer's approach, which still hives at the back of my brain, and say, let us listen to others before I throw in my conjecture, but certainly the existence and the need for IT puts a different perspective on the control that needs to happen for events to work through in their time. John Mason I thank the member for giving way. On the point of hybrid, would he accept, which is my feeling, that the norm should be to be in the chamber, but there should be exceptions for different reasons, one being constituencies that are much further away? Martin Whitfield Can I very much thank John Mason for that intervention, and indeed I will approach with the same lawyerly philosophy of thank you. I will listen and comment later on it, because you do raise a very important point about what the expectation the people of Scotland have on their MSPs. What is it to be an MSP? What are the responsibilities that go with that, and where should they be crafted and tried out in this chamber? Or, if by necessity, particularly given the very diverse nature, space and travel arrangements within Scotland, that sometimes it's impossible for people to make it into this chamber? Which brings another thing, which I have been cornered at by a number of people, and I was just simply to put on the record as a question. Should there be criteria developed in relation to circumstances under which government ministers should participate virtually in the parliamentary proceedings, be it chamber or committee, or whether they should indeed be here within the chamber or in front of the committee? The final area that I put merely as a question, not to close down any other offerings, is the question of proxy voting. Voting for members who are ill or on parental leave or maternal leave, should they still have the right to exercise their vote through a colleague, because they still represent their constituents, but they are at a time where it is fair to say possibly the debating style and the statutory instruments that come before this committee may not be at their forefront of their mind. Why should their constituents lose out on the opportunity through their representative for a vote to appear? At that point, I intend to sit and encourage contributions from as many people as possible. This is the start of the evidence session, but will help enormously. I very much look forward to the contributions that are to come. If I can just finish once again with Donald Dure, when the men and women from all over Scotland will meet to work together for a future built from the first principles of social justice. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I thank Mr Whitfield for an excellent speech and opening to this debate, because it is an extremely important debate that we are having today. I will say that I did not get his wrestling reference from the 1970s being too young, because I do not know that it was on just before the football results in any shape or form, but I welcome the committee to bring forward this debate, because we all have to admit that the last 20 months with the Covid pandemic has brought many challenges, including how the Parliament functions on its day-to-day basis, but the function must continue to be flexible. As we deal with the many challenges that we face, there is no exaggeration to say that it is essential for the delivery of democracy in Scotland that this Parliament has been able to continue to meet and hold government to account over the past 20 months. However, that has not been a simple process. Over the past 20 months, we have had all kinds of problems in understanding the new ways of working. Government has had to deal with that, MSPs have had to deal with that, parliamentary authorities have had to deal with adapting change to the ever-changing situation that we have found ourselves in. As I said, this has been a strange time for us all, for me even more so, because I love people, Presiding Officer. I love when this place is full of people and there are events and we are moving forward. You truly see the best of this place when this is a full functioning Parliament. However, we have had to deal with the challenges that have been in front of us, which is that we have had to make sure that many of us have had to be either hybrid to working from home or some of us here. It has been a difficult time for us. I have seen those changes happen. I have had a front-row seat on the Parliamentary Bureau, first as an observer, as the SNP chief whip and now as the Minister for Parliamentary Business. It has not been easy and we have had problems along the way, but I put in record my gratitude to all the members of the parliamentary staff who have managed to get us to a position where we have an option of the hybrid technology, because I know for a fact that, during the many meetings that we had in the early days, there was this came from a standing start. There was no technology for us to be able to use and to push that forward. I thank all the members of the parliamentary staff who have been able to make sure that we, as a Parliament, have been able to continue. They have kept Scotland's democracy functioning by creating a virtual Parliament from nothing. The chamber, the committee and, eventually, we were able to do hybrid. There have been many teasing issues along the way, and I will admit that, Presiding Officer, there have been times when eventually I have become extremely frustrated by it all. However, who has not at one point? Daniel Johnson I am grateful to the minister for giving me an answer. I agree with him. It is remarkable what we have managed to do in a short space of time. However, I think that it would be a mistake if we approached his debate assuming that everything was perfect prior to the pandemic. It was merely a question of adapting. Does he not think that there is a question here for how we use the chamber both prior to the pandemic and going forward? Critically, is there a question for the Government about how it uses the chamber? I would question whether the Government uses the chamber to think out loud enough—essentially using its time to congratulate itself a bit too much, rather than thinking about the big topics of the day. Is that not something that the Government needs to think about? When you look, Mr Johnson, brings up some valid points that I agree with. When you look at the actual process that we have had to deal with and work through over the past while, there are many new ways that we can find to work. There are many different ways that this place can work. We can adapt and change to some of the ideas that we have had here. However, the whole point of this debate is to step back, take a deep breath and think about how we, as a Parliament, decide that we move forward in all this. As we go back on to what has been online for most of the time, there have been many teasing issues along the way, and I have said that already. However, some of the times that yesterday, when things have happened, they have been a minority of the time. Most of the time, when things have happened, it has been the member's actual broadband that has been the issue at fault, and I have to admit that myself, because it has happened to me in many occasions. Indeed, I recall some difficulties that I have let with the minister's home broadband, but I am not sure that he gave Daniel Johnson a definite answer to the question that he asked. Does the minister accept that, prior to the emergency nature of the meetings of Parliament over the past 20 months, there were procedural issues about the business that was conducted in this chamber and elsewhere in this Parliament that could be improved or reformed? I think that I said to Mr Johnson that we can take this opportunity to look and move forward. There have been many new ways of working and many new ideas that have come up, and we have moved forward with this to make sure that we have this debate, and we move forward. I recognise, for one, the value of today's debate in reflecting the changes that we have had to make on how the Parliament has adapted during the pandemic and what issues we have had to learn during that. However, I find that, in the time of difficulty, it is good to keep a clear, positive attitude. I have always got a glass-full type of attitude when it comes to debates like this, because I think that during those tests and times we have to be positive and look at what has worked and how we can make things better as well. However, it is extremely important that the Parliament looks at what we can continue to achieve with the technology that I have a couple of points to make at the moment. I appreciate that not everyone is a fan of virtual or hybrid proceedings, and we can all acknowledge that the debates and statements have a different character under the circumstances, but they offer a clear advantage than the fact that they have kept us all safe for the past 20 months. We have worked with— Yes, I will. I will take Gillian Mackay. I thank the minister for taking the intervention. I apologise to Mr Mason. Does the minister agree with me that we need to keep this hybrid system? It has been hugely important for those of us within the chamber who have a disability and potentially for those who could have a long-term health condition in the future, and that we can congratulate ourselves on electing a diverse Parliament this time round and attracting new people who actually need to keep that hybrid way of working. Before the minister responds, I appreciate that we are discussing ways of working, but we use our names to minister. I apologise for that, Presiding Officer. I think that it is the first time in 11 years that I have made that mistake. However, I agree with the member that hybrid gives us the opportunity for those who have a different type of lifestyle. You could have an example. If I use my own wife as an example with multiple sclerosis, someone with multiple sclerosis who could be great one day in the chamber and the next day would not be able to come to work, then the hybrid system would clearly make that more accessible to them, so there is something for us all to look at it like this. However, as we look to the future, which I admit seems difficult with some of the— I will just take a break. Yes, okay, there I will do. John Mason. I thank you for his generosity. One of the things about hybrid that I find difficult is that we cannot intervene. Those of us in the chamber cannot intervene on screen and the people remotely cannot intervene in us, and that is clearly the case right now. I would just hope that there is some way around that, because I feel that that is a big disadvantage that I wonder if he agrees. Minister, this is something that the parliamentary authorities and we all need to look at is how we have often brought it up at the bureau and how we can find a way to make that technology more interact with those in the chamber as well when we are hybrids, so I do agree that it is something that we need to find a solution for. However, as we have looked forward, and I hope that I managed to get a few lines in before we end up with another intervention, but the benefits of working can be seen from a carbon footprint, the fact that many of us have stayed at home in those who live in other parts of the country, there has been a way that we can use this technology to help with other ideas and that is something that we have to look at as well. With regard to the technology and those who have difficulty with working from home or who cannot come into Parliament on a regular basis, it gives the option of a parliamentary future for someone putting their name forward for that as well. On the whole, at the end of the day, we have had a very difficult 20 months, we have had to find new and important ways of working and I think that the Parliament has done that in many cases. As we move forward, there are many other ways that we can do this, but let's not forget the fact that why we have done this is because we have tried to find a way to make CREPUZ safe, the parliamentary staff safe, our own staff phase safe, while still serve the people of Scotland. I welcome the debate. It is an enormous privilege to be a member of the Scottish Parliament. We have all been sent here to do a job, and that job is to scrutinise and hold the Scottish Government to account. That is regardless of party or constituency. I often feel that this is a task that I am personally feeling that I do with one hand tied behind my back. I would like to start by relating some of the specific issues that I am referring to. On 25 November, for example, I submitted three separate questions to the Government relating to the issue of the national transition training fund. I received a single answer on 6 December and not one of my questions was answered. I refer members to question reference S6W-04621. That is just the tip of an iceberg of unsatisfactory parliamentary answers. I thank the member very much for giving way. Would he accept that it works both ways and that some members, including himself, do misuse points of order? Stephen Kerr, I certainly do not agree, was John Mason. In the slightest inappropriate use of points of order, I think that that is ridiculous. I just go back to my comment about parliamentary answers. Funnily enough, I raised this as a point of order on 18 November, and I think that that is an appropriate point of order. I raised question S6W-0381 on the issue of suicide prevention and was told that the Government did not maintain data on the topic. The lack of data held by the Scottish Government is a matter for a different day, but it speaks volumes that it is unable to answer such significant and important questions. I think that all members deserve better answers. I say to my friend and the convener of the committee that we need a revolution in parliamentary questions. Why, for example, do we need to read out the questions that are already printed in the business bulletin? Why do we need to lodge questions so far in advance? Next week, we have to lodge specific questions to be answered three weeks from now. Why do ministers not answer questions succinctly? They read out lengthy briefings that have obviously been prepared for them by civil servants and spads. On reading out of questions, and I understand the point where he is coming from having previously served with him in Westminster, is there a different style of reading out initial questions? Does he not accept that, although we may understand what the initial question is, our constituents at home, some of them with accessibility issues, may not. Reading them out is very helpful to ensure that they know about what we are asking about and the proceedings that are coming forward. Neil Gray makes a very fair point. However, it is obvious from the answers that are given, the first answer that is given and the supplementary question, which is really the meat of the sandwich when it comes to asking parliamentary questions in a debating chamber. I am very grateful to Neil Gray, especially since he has only just got back on to his speech. Is that not really the nub of the question, in terms of the supplementaries? Supplementary should be impromptu, should be a response, and therefore it should not be read out any more than the minister's response to it. Is that not something that we really need to tackle, the reading of supplementary questions? I think that that is a first class point in the intervention that I definitely welcomed. I will come on to talk further about spontaneity, because spontaneity is what we need to develop in this chamber. I am afraid that one of the reasons that ministers stick so rigidly to their answers—I want to deal with that first—is that there is a degree of contempt from the Government towards this Parliament. I will give you a current example. The First Minister last Friday announced various new measures, restrictions and substantive policy matters relating to Covid-19 in a TV studio. That is not the first time that that has happened. Does the member not believe that what he said is complete and utter nonsense? It was not the actual case, because we have had this discussion at the Bureau on numerous occasions and he cannot just seem to let things go. Can he not accept that what he has just said is complete and utter nonsense? The Scottish Government claims that a press release, a statement issued by Public Health Scotland at 5 o'clock last Thursday after the Parliament had risen, was somehow unknown to the Scottish Government, which was renowned for its grip and control of everything to do with its remit. I would say that it is far from nonsense, and it is highly irrelevant to the debate. That is not the first time that the First Minister has resorted to a TV studio. I will give way one more time. I think that we have been trained. I thank the Presiding Officer and Stephen Kerr for giving way. On ministers reading out answers, I can understand where Stephen Kerr is coming from. However, does he not accept that this was a very similar occurrence when we were serving in Westminster where we had ministers reading out responses? There are often very good reasons for it that include legal and ensuring that correct information is given. Sometimes there has to be very carefully worded responses to some of the questions that we ask. Neil Gray knows well that, had some of the ministers at the other place attempted to read the length of answers that we get in this place, the speaker would have been all over them. That is exactly what does not happen here. I think that we need to have some temperance on the part of the ministers when it comes to their answers. This Parliament is the forum of this nation. It should be respected. It is not appropriate, in my opinion, for the Government to resort to external means of delivering substantial statements to the people of Scotland other than in front of those who have been elected to represent the people of Scotland.  I would stay after six o'clock. I would come in before two o'clock into this chamber to hear statements of such importance. I know that many members, especially my colleagues, would be delighted to do so as well. I want the members of this Parliament to know that we held six meetings of the bureau in a very short period over the weekend, all of which were attempts on the part of the Labour party and my self for the Conservatives to call a meeting of this Parliament so that the First Minister could be scrutinised on what she said in a TV studio, but all those attempts were blocked by the parties of government. That cannot be right. No Parliament should be so totally in the control of the executive that it cannot meet to scrutinise the actions of the executive. It is just not right that a journalist from the Scottish Sun or the Daily Record has the opportunity to scrutinise the First Minister and her Government, but if the Scottish Parliament didn't, and some might say cynically, that the media might ask better questions than we do, that is not the point. It is our responsibility. Can I give way one more time? I will remind members that the bureau is a private discussion until the minutes are published. The Parliamentary Bureau came to decisions that were taken forward. I will allow the meeting to continue. Is Mr Kerr asking the minister content to accept the minister's interview, Mr Kerr? I am quite happy to give Mr Kerr some time to calm down and bring it down a couple of octaves, but at the end of the day, the situation is, as you quite rightly said, we had a discussion within the bureau, but there was no point of bringing the Parliament in when there was nothing new to say. That was the whole point of discussion as we had. Mr Kerr seems to either have a lapse of memory or decides not to report what has been said. Stephen Kerr? I am only reporting factual information to the chamber about what occurred in those meetings. I respect what the Presiding Officer has said about the nature of those meetings, but when the minutes are published, if they have not already been published, they will show that we certainly have a chance to see what is going on in those meetings, and I respect what the Presiding Officer has said about the nature of those meetings, but when the minutes are published, if they have not already been published, they will show that we sought to have a meeting of Parliament. I recognise now that I am testing the patience of the Presiding Officer. Yes, please do wind up. We have time in hand to wind up. I will do my best to wind up right now. We have a culture of conformity in this place that needs to be broken. Members should feel free to stand up for principle greater than party loyalty. I remind you that I am the chief whip from my party, so I take a risk in saying this, but they should stand up for something greater than party loyalty, for an idea, for representing a constituent or for championing a cause. There are many other issues that I would like to raise. I will ask you to conclude your remarks at that point. I now call on Sarah Boyack. First of all, I want to thank the members of the committee and their clerk for the work that they have done to produce their report, because I do not think that it could be more timely. I think that the discussion that we are having this afternoon has to be part of an on-going discussion. I also want to thank all our parliamentary staff for the fantastic work that they have done to enable the change that we have taken over the last few months, and for enabling us to do safe working as an option throughout the pandemic, whether by socially distanced or virtual working. As others have said, there have been huge challenges, but we have kept this place going, and I think that that was absolutely critical, because we are here to represent our constituents, to be able to raise the issues that they need answers on urgently, and to ensure that views are properly considered by this place. Critically, we are here to hold the Scottish Government to account as effectively as possible, and as others have started to get into debate about, that means that we need to make the maximum use of the time, not just in this chamber but in our committees as well. Things such as slots for opposition days, committee debates and members' business are absolutely critical, because they are at the core of our scrutiny and representation, because they are not automatically decided by the Government, but there is a degree of conversation across the parties about how we use our time. I particularly want to focus on the issue of topical questions, because it feels in this term more flexible in terms of how topical questions are used. I think that they are an important way of members raising urgent issues rather than waiting for months for a response to a question from a minister. That is partly, I suspect, about the level of letters that we are all writing, but there is a real issue during the pandemic of urgent constituent concerns, and I think that it would be worth considering where we are adding another slot, maybe on Wednesdays, in addition to the slots that we have in Tuesdays, and the more flexibility that has been introduced on FMQs would be worthwhile. I think that there have been some very good changes. I think that one of the things that Presiding Officers and the Deputy Presiding Officers have all started saying to us is, think about the brevity of our questions, but also to ministers think about the brevity of answers. I have been in both positions, and I know that ministers get incredibly lengthy options, but there is something about editing down and trying to cut to the chase, and I think about making sure that, going back to the point that I made, we need to make the best use of our time in here because it is not infinite. I am going to come back to that. Alexander Stewart, I should say that we do have time in hand for interventions. I thank the member for taking the intervention. I very much concur with what the member is trying to indicate. There is no doubt that there is frustration from many members across the chamber that time constraints do not allow us to even sometimes get through the questions that are set by the Parliament on working days. I do believe that there is an opportunity for us to take more urgent and topical questions further during the week. I thank the member for that helpful intervention. I think that we are coming through a pandemic, and we are not through it. This is a good chance for us to think about how we do things, the fresh eye, and to think about that point, about why we are here. There is one thing that I wanted to focus on, which has already been mentioned, that we can be proud of our Parliament being diverse. It is the most diverse in our history, but that actually creates some challenges for us as well. I want to comment particularly on how we make sure that parliamentarians can fully participate in our work. I think that one of the key challenges that we have had is about the last minute changes that we quite often get in terms of parliamentary business, particularly in terms of decision times. It is hugely disruptive to members who have family or caring responsibilities. I totally understand why it happens, but I think that we need collectively to try and avoid it going forward as much as possible. I know from talking to colleagues that the impact in the last session had a massive disruption in people's family lives. I am glad to hear from Martin Whitfield that the committee is thinking about addressing the issue, but I think that it is critical, because in the last Parliament we had experienced female MSPs who decided not to stand again. I think that we can be proud of the fact that we have the most representative Parliament ever, but we have to make it work on a day-to-day basis in an effective way. Daniel Johnson, I will reiterate that there is time for interventions. I am very grateful to Sarah Boyack for giving way on that point. I would just ask if she agrees with me that not only is it important that we do not have endless flexibility of decision time, but hybrid procedure actually makes family life a lot more possible for many members who are parents, especially of younger children. I am wondering if she would agree with that point. Sarah Boyack. I can say that I am not speaking from a point of personal interest here, but I have spoken to colleagues and I think that we need to tackle this. Hybrid can also be a challenge, as I understand it, from members who have got younger members of the family who can appear unexpectedly, but we can live with that. The other thing that I was going to say was that working in a hybrid way has been really important, because it has enabled quite a few colleagues to be able to attend evening meetings, to deal with correspondence from our constituents and to prepare for our committee meetings. It has given us different options that that is something to reflect on. If it is very brief again. Finlay Carson. I thank for taking the brief intervention. As a father, the most important thing to me is certainty. If I know that it is going to be six o'clock, that is fine. Whether that is hybrid or sitting in the chamber here is to make sure that my wife or my mother-in-law know that I am going to be home at five or six o'clock. The last session, the biggest problem, was the lack of certainty over decision time, which was generally to do with the failures in the voting system. I absolutely agree with that. We should have a strong preference for keeping to our decision time and actually to keep it at a reasonable time as well. We can plan ahead by adjusting timings to give people as much advance notice as possible. It is good to see that there is cross-party agreement on that. The other thing that I wanted to mention was the provision of childcare in the Parliament when we come out of the pandemic. I think that that also needs to be considered going forward. I welcome the fact that it has been a questionnaire, but for visiting constituents, for staff and MSPs, it is something that we need to go back and look at very carefully again because there are many benefits to enabling parents and particularly women to be able to use that place as much as possible. The spice briefing is really useful to give us a sense of what we can learn from different approaches. Others have mentioned the use of proxy or remote voting for those who are ill, for maternity or paternity leave or for those who have crisis childcare or caring responsibilities. I hope that the committee will look at that issue and also as important guidance to make sure that, if we did not reduce those issues, we would have guidance to prevent people from abusing those options. There is an issue about ministers, which has been mentioned, about the unique responsibilities and duties that ministers have. If we are more flexible, we will still make sure that we have the accountability feature absolutely built into how we operate. I wanted to briefly mention the issue of travel disruption because recent floods and storms, for example, have meant that roads and public transport services were cancelled. I also think about future extreme weather issues on the capacity of colleagues to attend the Parliament. It is also worth thinking about committees where most of the discussion in the chamber thus far has been about when we are in this room. However, being able to have witnesses giving us evidence without having to be in the committee room with us is a potential bonus. In the past, it has been done as a very exceptional circumstance. I know that we once had a representative from the Northern Isles, but this morning we had witnesses from Brussels, Germany and London. It was an excellent session. I am now being wound up. I should not have taken those interventions. I am not suggesting that we do not travel in the future, but we need to make sure that we have a mix so that we still have the personal connectivity that works, while also having the option of hybrid meetings going forward. I think that post-COP26, I just want to briefly flag the issue of hybrid CPGs. I think that that is something that we should think about. The past few months, all of our worlds have been turned upside down, but this is an opportunity today to think about how we change how we work, how we work more effectively, how we use our time as effectively as possible, and hopefully the committee will think about how we can learn from other approaches across the world. Although Covid has been a massive change, we need to seize the moment, think about what changes we can make and go back to initial ambitions 20 years ago, 20 odd years ago about the Parliament, making this democratic accountable and doing that to the best of our ability. I call Maggie Chapman to be followed by Eleanor Whitham. I apologise for not being quite ready. I thank the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee for bringing this debate today. It probably will not be the most exciting debate of the year. No offence to any of the committee members or the committee and their work, but I really appreciate the opportunity to contribute this afternoon. How we conduct ourselves, how we do our business and how we deal with the issues that we have to deal with in this place and how we work are really, really important issues for us to consider. How we can build on the hope and optimism of the Parliament's beginnings, as Mark Inwood's field has already outlined, how we serve our constituents, our communities and our country. Those are vital issues because how we do our jobs is, in my view, as important as what we do in those roles. How we do what we do is about our culture, our culture of debate, our culture of engagement, our culture of inclusion and all of that contributes to the culture of politics. I do not just mean the political discussions that we have in the chamber or in committees in this building or in the email exchanges that we have or on any of the other platforms that we use regularly. More broadly, the culture that we generate and sustain in all of those processes affects the trust and confidence that the people that we are here to serve have, not only in us as in MFPs, but in politics more generally. I want to give a bit of focus about the culture of our debate and our exchanges, drawing on work done by the Young Academy of Scotland of the Royal Society of Edinburgh. Jaze's charter for responsible debate, of which I and several members in this place are secondaries, aims to create a set of norms for debate that allow us to better make decisions together. It does that by setting a number of principles that underpin responsible debate. Those principles are based on the belief that joint decision making should be informed, respectful and inclusive. They speak to issues of accuracy, diversity and honesty. They require careful, empathetic listening, the use of respectful language and acknowledgement of persuasive points. They challenge us to communicate in ways that unite rather than divide, to address imbalances of power and to seek to identify common ground. I think that we can all think of times when these principles have not been adhered to. We can all think of times when we ourselves have probably not met those high standards. We have many very significant issues on which we need to reach agreement. Maybe not unanimous agreement but some way of coming to a place where we can move forward, ranging from the climate emergency to how we govern data, how we understand artificial intelligence and the impacts that it has on our lives and our freedoms and the freedoms of those we serve. We have to create the conditions for debate where we can interact and adapt our positions. I will take Tess White. Thank you for taking the intervention. Bearing in mind, the minister used first name terms for an opposition colleague down in coalition. Do you think it is right that the Green Party should have the same allowances for questions and challenges in debate now that you are all one together? Thank you, Presiding Officer. I thank Tess White for the intervention. Everybody in the chamber should be very well aware that we have a co-operation agreement with the Scottish Government. That is not a full coalition. I know that she is very fond of using that word but that is not where we are. My colleagues in the chamber with me this afternoon remain Opposition MSPs. We have important issues on which we need to reach agreement. We need to make sure that we can get to that point of agreement or that point of moving forward in a way that not only we can live with but that takes our citizens, our constituents, with us, too. That is the aim. That is the challenge for us in this debate. We need to be informed, which means that we need to have a strong... Yes, I will take it. Stephen Kerr. I am very grateful to Maggie Chapman for giving away. Does she have any concerns about the Parliament's ability to hold the executive to account? Thank you for that question. Accountability is really important for all of us. We can all probably have been frustrated with how questions are answered and how issues are dealt with but the way to deal with those frustrations is not to shout at each other across the chamber. The way to deal with those frustrations is to speak to each other along the lines of those principles with respectful, open listening and open listening. I think that there are many examples in this place just in the past few months where that has been far from what we have seen in this room. Back to those three themes that help us to think about the ways in which we can be better at the job that we have to do. We need to be informed, which means that we need to have a strong understanding of risk. In this context, the recommendation of the Royal Society of Edinburgh's Post-Covid Commission that we create an institution to help us with foresighting and futures is vital importance. I would welcome the committee's view on that over the course of the coming months. We need to be respectful of different viewpoints, allowing each other to change our minds, allowing each other to change our positions and not be ridiculed for that change. Rather than seeking to reinforce our own position all the time. We need to be diverse, and there has been much discussion already about how we can create the structures to hear the voices that we do not always hear. Just in closing, I would like to put on record my immense thanks to the PACT team who do such incredible work for getting other voices into this building. That has to be one of the aims that we take forward over the next parliamentary term. I rise to speak on this topic as a newly appointed member of the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointment Committee, with only three meetings under my belt, but also as a new parliamentarian who has no real working experience of this place before the advent of Covid-19 and the pandemic. Of council chambers, I could write one piece, but of this Parliament I know only of social distancing, teams, masks and blue jeans. All of us who were virtually yesterday have already heard experienced what happens when a worldwide internet system crashes. It was certainly frustrating and meant some who were remote were unable to deliver their speeches and those who were in the chamber endured delays and frustrations, but I do not characterise this as the norm of the virtual hybrid space that we currently inhabit. Sure, like many, I have experienced so sudden and intense itchy ochre moments, and that is how I am going to explain them. They are itchy ochre moments when, upon joining blue jeans, when a session is already in progress and you hear that weird little swirly thing up in the right-hand corner, in the left-hand corner, sorry, of everyone's screens, you cringe when your youngest enters the room and loudly demands a snack, or the dog turns into the hound of the Baskervilles as a parcel has been delivered, or indeed your family chicken decides at once five minutes of fame and hogs the airwaves, rapidly detracting from the salient point that you were trying really hard to communicate. But, Presiding Officers, those frustrations and sometimes amusing moments have been born with levity and a sense of pragmatism. We all recognise that in order for us to represent our constituents and for us to create impactful legislation and perform our scrutiny function quickly ensuring remote working was possible has stood us in good stead. There is an old saying that is often used in Ayrshire. Hufti is a good maester. Now, in order for the Folk of Scotland to get the Folk of Scotland through the pandemic, this place and all of its component parts had to respond swiftly by suspending standing orders, amending procedures, passing emergency legislation, all with an army of amazing tech support in the background working night and day to create a virtual world previously unthinkable and often dismissed. Sometimes it takes an extreme event to provoke change and is now up to us to ponder what we want to keep and what we cannot wait to dispense with. Before coming to this place, I was caused this community wellbeing spokesperson for several years, but not just a spokesperson, a co-spokesperson. I shared that role with Councillor Kelly Parry, who requires support to be able to undertake maternity leave just like any other women right across Scotland. It was, and still is, absolutely amazing to me that that had never happened previously at COSLA, nor indeed in any council setting. It caused a bit of a stramash when the concept was first introduced, but Hufti is a good maester. With the support of officers and council group leaders, the benefit to all of sharing that role between two councillors meant that she did not lose out on her role and her earnings to have a baby. Her right as a parent and as a woman were protected. By breaking out of the custom and practice, Kelly Parry and I helped to pave the way forward and I see some parallels with what we must do now in this place. As a family-friendly legislator, we need to recognise that this country may be small, but it has constituencies in regions that mean that some members travel nearly a whole day to get home. Indeed, I am three hours to airshire between. Three hours? An hour and a half by car, but three hours by train. The crash is currently closed due to the pandemic, but votes being held later and later would still have caused issues for the parents using that facility. Some form of continued hybrid system that can allow for parents to be at home, or indeed those of us who care for older or disabled relatives, must be on the cards. Again, I am sure that many of you will have experienced the abject terror associated with remote voting when there is the usual after 5pm everybody arriving home and demanding dinner moments when you are shushing everyone and kicking them all out, including the dog from the room that you rent. As you try and vein to hear what the Presiding Officer is talking about and what we are on, especially if it is stage 3, but if that means that a member can be at home breastfeeding a new baby or getting dinner ready for their elderly mother, then those are stressful moments that are worth it. Widing access to this place for more women, young parents, those with disabilities, those with caring responsibilities is a must, and that is one way that we can do it. As Sarah Boyack has already said, we just have to look at the talent that we lost at several MSPs that did not stand again in 2021, as they could not get their balance of their work life, their constituency parliamentary duties to a place that ensured that they could remain as MSPs. Think about all that talent loss for a moment. I very much agree with her points about virtual working, but I am just wondering if she would agree with me that we also have to bear in mind that virtual proceedings can actually be a disadvantage for certain people with disabilities, such as those either with sensory impairment or indeed people like me with ADHD who really struggle to stay at a screen. Daniel Johnson for that intervention. I would absolutely agree, and I think that that is why we would need to have hybrid proceedings going forward, in my opinion, so that we actually look at everybody's needs and address them effectively. Whether that means that we need to create some kind of justification as to why you need to be that way as there has already been mentioned by another member, that is absolutely fine. So I think that it is hybrid and not one or the other, I think, is the way forward for sure. The same can also be said of those who are giving evidence to committees. We are hearing from new voices, voices for whom the trip to Edinburgh was too arduous, too expensive and took too much time out of their days. This evidence is invaluable and totally reflective of the wider population that we serve. Indeed, those international voices are hugely important, too. As we have already heard, that saves us money and costs, expenses and our carbon output. I wonder if the member might agree that, while she is making very many fair points, it is very important that Government ministers… Mr Kerr, could you address the microphone? Sorry, I beg your pardon. It is very hard to look this way and speak to someone over here, which is another thing that we could discuss. Would the member agree that, although she is making lots of fair points about the committee's structure, it is still vitally important that Government ministers appear in person before committees, rather than appear virtually, which is a very difficult format for scrutiny and holding ministers to account? I am not so sure that I agree with that. I thank Stephen Kerr for the intervention. I have taken evidence from ministers and the committees that I am on so far. I think that we have been able to scrutinise them fairly in that situation. If a minister is self-isolating or dealing with another illness, then there is an opportunity to give evidence that should not be taken away. However, I get that sometimes it is easier when they are in the room and you can see the whites of their eyes. Before I finish, I would also like to mention the fact that Stephen Kerr talked about being in here at any time and the ability to be recalled and that all of us should be up for that. I myself have a disability that means that I cannot do that and I would not be able to do that. I think that we have to remember that this is a family-friendly and an MSP-friendly situation that we are in and that we have to be mindful of everybody's situation. I look forward to hearing from colleagues that there will be conflicting views before I have seen that. It has been quite eye-opening so far. Let's get this evidence and this inquiry off to a roaring start. Thank you, Mr Whitton. I now call on Jackson Carlaw, who will be followed by Daniel Johnson for a generous six minutes. I actually come to this with no fixed agenda at all. I have been mulling over the issues involved and very interested in the introductory speech from Martin Whitfield and thank him for the debate that he has initiated. As someone, however, who has had an interest in parliamentary procedure in the years I've been here, as the last serving MSP who sat on the Commission for Parliamentary Reform in the last session, albeit Pam Duncan-Glancy was there as a lay member, but also as someone who published a report, a rather contentious report, at the end of my first session here in 2011. Contentious, as I say, because I observed as somebody had come from a business world to the Parliament that I was surprised at the number of colleagues back then who turned up for work at the crack of noon. Also, what I felt was a disproportionate workload between the work I did then as a regional member and the work constituency members appeared to do at that time. I actually think that that's balanced in many respects over the years. A lot of the points that I made subsequently were picked up and some came about in the Commission for Reform, but I was struck today when I looked at this to see on First Minister's questions I observed that what we have in First Minister's questions each week is 30 minutes of tedious, verbal torture, despite the repeated and determined efforts of the current presiding office so that there is clear need for procedural change. Well, we have reformed, Ken Macintosh made it 45 minutes of tedious, verbal torture, and today we managed over an hour. I also noted that I quoted something Lord Folx, who was a member of that Parliament, said when he said, we go through the pathetic ministers of the chamber as comprising pathetic rituals of questions that are read off and badly and answers drafted by civil servants with no apparent input from the minister delivering them. I still feel some of those criticisms are true today. I note, though, that nobody who joined this Parliament in May has yet sat in it as a full chamber of members. That's regrettable, but I'm not sure how fundamentally important I've come to believe that is, because for all the reform in the Commission, the most radical reform of this Parliament was brought about by the events of the pandemic. Reforms that we would never have contemplated in any other circumstance. I actually think that the hybrid arrangement that we have arrived at works very well. I find, as a constituency member, my time is far better deployed by not being here on a day when I have no particular contribution to make. Dylan Mackay. Would the member support retaining the hybrid working system going forward to allow more people to be able to access Parliament, as Eleanor Whitham said, either as committee witnesses or as MSPs in the future? I think that those points have been well made and I support them. That's not what I might have expected to hear myself say when we began this experiment, but I think that the hybrid arrangement has worked well. I think that it would be a retrograde step now to decide that we cannot function. It has its faults. We've seen its positives and its negatives. I think that the comment made by John Mason earlier about the ability to intervene in a hybrid arrangement is a very valid one. Sometimes, of course, the technology has failed and that has caused its own issues. I might say and may consider, do we need to have decision time at the end of business, or do we not have decision time at the start of the next day's business? Some might say that that would interrupt the vote and the passion of the debate, but we are having yesterday's votes tonight. It would give much more fixed certainty if we knew that, at 2 o'clock every day, we were going to have decision time for the previous day's business without there then being this extended uncertainty as to when decision time might come. I do think that— Yes, of course. I'm very grateful to Jackson Collier for doing this. Could I push you on a point over the way that we vote? I asked this really just to listen to your answer, which was another event that has been changed by Covid. Electronic voting. Sorry, I actually missed that. Mr Workfield, could you direct the comments through the chair? My apology, Deputy Presiding Officer. Would Jackson Collier give his view on the use of electronic voting, which was another thing brought in by Covid? I am in favour of the electronic voting. I think that it follows that in being able to deploy my time as a constituency member more efficiently and not being here on certain days where I am not contributing to the proceedings of Parliament, being able to vote remotely is a fundamental part of that. If we move to a more permanent arrangement where that is allowed, then I hope that we will be able to evolve more robust technology so that we can rely upon that. I should say that I was slightly concerned yesterday that parliamentary proceedings went ahead when it became apparent that the Blue Genes Network had failed because I'm not sure that, as a corporate body, we have approved that as an operational practice for the Parliament. My understanding is that we have approved a hybrid process for Parliament, and that hybrid process, as far as I know, does not include a provision that you can watch the proceedings on television and that that is in any way satisfactory. In some senses, if we are going to have a hybrid arrangement, it has to work within rules and not be adjusted in a completely ad hoc basis, as I think we ended up doing yesterday. However, as my time is coming to an end, I just want to finish with one particular point. It relates back to those lengthy answers and those lengthy questions. One of the problems that the commission established is that the Presiding Officer's powers are limited. It would require this Parliament to agree to enhance the power of the Presiding Officer to that equivalent to the Speaker of the Irish Republic Parliament, where he is able to set a limit of 90 seconds on ministerial responses, after which his microphone switches off, and he is also able to say to ministers that they have not answered the question. When I spoke to the Speaker, he said that in practice he never had to do either, because ministers had disciplined themselves now to answer within 90 seconds, and ministers also disciplined themselves to answer the question, because being uprated in the chamber for not doing so was seen as a serious offence against Parliament. However, for us to have something similar to come back to Sarah Boyack's point about concise answers and concise questions, I do not know what the time limit would be, but unfortunately, this voluntary arrangement or admonition to us all to proceed on that basis has never been successfully achieved or implemented. It would require us, if we think that important, to have a procedural change and to enhance the power of the chair to do it. I personally am in favour of that, because I think that, at times, as we struggle along with interminable, not questions and answers but speeches and speeches, it is undermining the cut and thrust and, I think, the import of the job that we are trying to do. I offer those contributions simply because Mr Wheatfield has said that this is the beginning of a process and a debate, and those are some of the thoughts that I have had in the time that I have been here. As we proceeded to talk about the enhancing of the powers of the Presiding Officer, I was disappointed to see you stop, but stop you must. Daniel Johnson, to be followed by Neil Gray. I found the opening remarks from my friend Martin Wheatfield, the convener of the committee, very interesting and very important. I think that the question about what kind of Parliament do we want this to be is one that we need to keep asking ourselves. I very much find myself in wonder that I am in the place that I hoped would come into being in the 1990s. I was someone that passionately believed in the need and, indeed, the importance of having a Scottish Parliament. I think that we need to ask ourselves whether or not this place lives up to both the promise of parliaments in general, but also the potential of the Scottish Parliament in particular. I think that we need to think about what makes a good Parliament, but also are we doing politics differently? I think that that is what many of us hoped would happen when we created a Scottish Parliament. Unfortunately, some of the things that we put in place to bring about the latter have actually stymied the former. I think that some of the rules and the practices and procedures have prevented the flow of debate, some of the reflection that we need and, ultimately, our ability to hold the Parliament to account. I think that we have already heard some thoughts about that from some of the contributions, but I was particularly interested by Maggie Chapman. I think that her points around the way that we conduct debate, the culture of debate being important, and particularly about reflection. Ultimately, what is important in this place is not debate per se, but reflection and dialogue. I think that something that is sometimes missed is that this place is not just a platform for delivering speeches. It is meant to be a space where ideas are exchanged and there is the possibility of changing minds. That is the difference between parliamentary democracy and presidential democracy, where all that is about holding the executive account. It is the difference between parliamentary democracy and direct democracy, where, essentially, you are just making decisions but not necessarily providing that space for reflection. I think that what is really important is that we consider whether we are doing that. Let me say one sort of slightly impudent important thing. If there is one change that I could make in this chamber, I would get rid of those things. Those lecturns hold us back. Those lecturns mean that people come here and read out speeches. I know that it is difficult, but, ultimately, if the words that you say in this space have not changed from the night before when you typed them out, we are doing something wrong. I think that it is really important that, when we debate, we give the possibility of changing our views and our minds. I will give way to Eleanor Whitton. I am forgiving way on that. The member agrees with me that there are some circumstances in which we need to have a speech in front of us. I am myself going through menopause and there will be other women in this place who are going through menopause. I lose my train of thought if a hot flesh overtakes me, as has happened several times in here. If I did not have my words in front of me, I might have ended up greeting and sitting back down. Daniel Johnson, I thank the member for that intervention. We certainly do not want to greet her after making a contribution. She makes an important point. I am not saying no words. Perhaps we can consider rules where people are encouraged to refer to other contributions in the chamber. I will give way in a moment. I am standing on to say that you have to be relevant. I would argue that by being relevant is that you should be reflecting what other members have already previously said in the chamber. I also think that we should think about the timings and whether, to get your full time, you should perhaps have to take interventions. Stephen Cair, I am grateful for that thoughtful contribution. I would point out that Winston Churchill no less wrote out his speeches and referred except for his notes. I do not think that anyone criticised his debating style. I do not think that that is what the member is saying by any stretch of the imagination. However, I would suggest to him that I invite him to give some thoughts on the very fact that the speakers who appear in this chamber in debates have been somehow chosen by their business managers. That seems very strange to me, as an incomer to Parliament, that the parties are stage managing the debates themselves. What are his thoughts on that? I very much agree with that. Some of the points made by Jackson Carlaw are really important and were points that I was going to come on to. I think that we need to think quite carefully about the role of the chair. I think that we need to empower the role of the Presiding Officer to determine whether things are relevant. I think that to shape the time given to agenda items so that, if things transpire and need to be given more importance than they are given to them, I ultimately make the determination whether or not answers as well as questions are relevant. I also do—and I have already mentioned this in an intervention—wonder whether or not. I can understand the need for notes for speeches, but for supplementaries, I really would wonder whether or not it would not be more helpful and, indeed, help spontaneity if we discouraged that practice in this place. The point around the role of the Presiding Officer is important for another point. I think that this place is at times guilty of proceduralism. When this place came into being, we were determined to get rid of the flamboyant flummary and all the nonsense that happens in Westminster, but, by the same token, I think that we have extinguished flexibility and the ability of this Parliament to be dynamic. Critically, some of the structures, such as the bureau, such as the role of the business managers and, indeed, some extent, the role of the clerks have actually stymied debate. I think that sometimes the bureau can be little more than a formalised smoke-filled room and clerks acting as gatekeepers. I think that we need to take back a bit of control as parliamentarians and, indeed, we need to empower the Presiding Officer a bit more. I realise that I am running out of time, but I think that the one point that I would just like to make is that we must hold on to hybrid proceedings. The one point that I would make, just in contrast to some of the others, the key point is that we get these things right. It is not that the issue with hybrid proceedings is not that they are remote. It is actually about those other points about relevance and making sure that people are relevant to the debate. I think that we get that right. Some of those issues we get taken care of, but I think that the points made about being able to be consistent about decision time but flexible about how we meet around it are absolutely vital. I wish I had more time, so I would like to talk more about it, but I think that these are some of the most critical points as we consider these issues. Thank you very much, Deputy Presiding Officer. Thank you very much indeed, Mr Johnson. I feel as if I ought to leap to the defence of the clerks who are unable to contribute to this debate, but I will not. I will pass on to Neil Gray who will be followed by Tess White around six minutes. Thank you, Presiding Officer. It is a pleasure to follow Daniel Johnson as I do so reading from my heavily annotated notes. When he is looking to empower the Presiding Officer, I say that there was some self-interest. Why stop there? Why not look with at the committee chairs as well? I think that those are some points that we should all be looking at. It is a pleasure to be speaking in this debate. I thank colleagues on the Standards Committee for bringing it to the chamber today. It has offered me the opportunity to reflect on my first six months here and compare it to my previous six years at Westminster. Like all workplaces, the Scottish Parliament has had to make major changes to its way of working to ensure that we keep people safe during the pandemic while also doing the important work that we do, scrutinising Government and raising concerns of our constituents. It is being crucial to keep MSPs, our staff, the staff of Parliament and everyone involved in the running of this place, safe that we have kept our hybrid proceedings going. I reiterate our thanks to the staff for everything that they have done and continue to do in implementing that. That safety first approach is now paying off as we face the rise of Omicron. Because we have a hybrid Parliament, I have been able to keep doing my work while limiting the amount of times that I have had to be here, which has also reduced the number of times that I have been using public transport to get here. It is the sensible thing for us to do. I find it crazy that, for months now, Westminster has still been cramming people into narrow benches and voting lobbies. However, hybrid working has also increased opportunities for us to engage more widely. In the social justice and social security committee that I chair, we have heard from people with lived experience of poverty and debt and fuel poverty that we otherwise would not have for a number of reasons. As welcoming an institution as this is, with wonderful staff, it can still be an intimidating place to contemplate coming to sitting opposite a group of MSPs. It can also be a major challenge to get people here with a wide enough geographical spread. It is difficult for people with disabilities or caring responsibilities to take part in our proceedings. Obviously, we want as many people as possible to visit our Parliament and to experience it, but there is no doubt that virtual proceedings have broken down many barriers and really enriched the evidence that we receive on behalf of the crucial issues that we are interrogating. I have had the pleasure of observing Neil Gray at work in the House of Commons where he has been a vibrant contributor to the House of Commons. Does he not accept that this hybrid arrangement, the virtual setting, does not facilitate the type of debate that I know he much enjoyed in the other House? Neil Gray? Yes, I did indeed, but I also lament the fact that my colleagues like Amy Callaghan have been blocked from being able to take part in debates because of their illness and because of the fact that they are not able to travel. I think that there is a real lesson to be learnt there for Westminster colleagues. From a family-friendly perspective, hybrid working has also been transformational. How many of our colleagues that we lost at the end of the last session might have stayed if virtual voting and participation had been in place prior to the pandemic? It gives us all of us much more flexibility to do our jobs well, as Jackson Carlaw rightly said. Just as being stuck in London at three or four days a week meant that I could not keep the family and constituency plates spinning as fast as the parliamentary one, so it must be for many other colleagues who have to stay overnight in Holyrood and stay overnight in Edinburgh. Of course, we all want to be here in person to make our contributions, but having the virtual option is so important for us to be effective both here and in the areas that we represent, as well as making sure that we are also being there for our families to give way to Daniel Johnson. First of all, I thank you for giving way and completely echo his points, but would he also consider that we need to reflect on how we improve hybrid working to allow interventions to ensure the relevance? I also sneak in my agreement with the committee convener point and ask him if he agrees with me that committee convener should be elected by members of this Parliament. Neil Greene I think that that is absolutely something that the standards committee should be looking into, and in terms of the debating point, in terms of intervening on colleagues using the technology again, I think that you are reflecting all that John Mason had previously said. I think that it is absolutely right that rather than trying to do away with the technology, because we want to see better debate, I think that we improve the technology, and I think that that is the way that we go about it. So we must reflect as an institution that for incredibly able MSPs in Aileen Campbell, Jenny Marra, Gail Ross and Ruth Davidson all cited an inability to balance Hollywood with family life as the reason for standing down. We should never allow ourselves to be in that situation again. It frankly shames us that we did not do more to ensure that they felt that they could stand for election again. How many more would have if we had the technology? A linked area of concern that I do have, where I feel that we have gone backwards, is around the apparent fluidity of our fixed voting time, and I absolutely concur with Sarah Boyack on that point. Having a fixed voting time gives certainty to all of us when colleagues have caring responsibilities. Sometimes there are understandable reasons for why the voting time must shift, for technical reasons outwith our control or if there is an emergency statement or a piece of legislation, but we must do better. I have to say that, as a father of four, it has certainly been challenging for me in the careful logistical childcare balancing act at home having such a shifting voting time, but it also has implications for our staff and the staff of Parliament. Again, I rate it. I am fortunate. I live a 20-minute train journey away. It is much more challenging for colleagues who are further away. Again, in response to what Sarah Boyack said regarding childcare, I welcome the fact that we have a consultation open on that, but I lament the fact that we are still only looking at a three- or four-hour window of opportunity. If we had a much longer period of time, I think that people like myself might be able to enjoy that service being available. In conclusion, I think that hybrid working has enhanced our Parliament. It has made us even more relevant, accessible and relatable. It has given all of us with caring responsibilities or geographical challenges the opportunity for more flexibility to do our jobs well, and it has helped to ensure that we can contribute equally without the discrimination that we see at Westminster. It keeps us and everyone working in Parliament safer during the pandemic. We must reflect, as Daniel Johnson said at the start of his speech, about what we want to be as a Parliament and where our priorities lie. I hope that that remains as being a family-friendly Parliament. I very much welcome the opportunity to take part in this debate. I thank Martin Whitefield for bringing it and I very much look forward to further engagement with the committee as it does its work. Thank you very much indeed, Mr Gray. I now call on Tess White to be followed by Coghab Stewart. Six minutes. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I, too, am proud to be a member of the Parliament. It's a diverse Parliament with 45 per cent women, and we're working to make it more inclusive. So I'd like to say I don't want to be dictated to and I also want my lecturn up. So starting, Presiding Officer, this debate is set against the background of public health constraints necessitated by the outbreak of Covid-19 and how the Scottish Parliament has adapted its procedures and practices to meet those challenges. I'd like to take this opportunity to thank parliamentary staff for the support that they've provided to all the MSPs, myself included, during the pandemic, which has allowed this legislator to operate safely at a time of crisis and deep uncertainty. Presiding Officer, more than two decades after the Scottish Parliament was created, today's debate is an opportunity to look at how it operates, not just during Covid-19, but more generally. It is, after all, a nascent Parliament and one steeped in history, and it does have very high expectations. There is a wide spectrum of parliamentary experience in this chamber. For my part, I'm contributing as a new MSP with what I hope is a fresh pair of eyes. The Parliament was created 22 years ago to address a perceived democratic deficit in Scottish politics. I, too, was interested in the reply from Maggie Chapman on culture. Regarding a democratic deficit, however, a different kind exists now. Rather than spontaneous debate, as my colleagues have pointed out, too often it's scripted. With the First Minister reading out prepared answers to planted questions from SNP-backed benches and responses are often drawn out to fill the time. Just a few weeks ago, when the First Minister read out the wrong prescripted answer, not once, but twice in two weeks, the Presiding Officer advised that the content of MSP's contributions is not a matter for her. MSPs are often pulled up by the Presiding Officers on the relevance of their contributions in the context of parliamentary debates. It should follow that if a representative of the Scottish Government fails to answer a question posed to them, they, too, should be reproached. As we've been reminded this week, the threat of Covid-19 still looms large. It's more important than ever that MSPs can scrutinise the decision-making and actions of the Scottish Government. But far too frequently, we have seen the First Minister announce new restrictions from a podium during a press conference, not in Parliament. In June this year, the Scottish Government's decision to impose a Scotland-Manchester travel ban had a direct bearing on the north-east of Scotland when EasyJet decided it was no longer commercially feasible to operate a new route between Aberdeen and Manchester. The travel ban was announced by the First Minister on a Friday, which was a non-sitting day during a press conference with no opportunity for scrutiny by MSPs. It was a contemptuous move. Worryingly, too, is the Scottish Government's evasiveness in written answers to parliamentary questions, as well as the time it takes to respond to them, issues highlighted by the SPPA Committee's legacy report. I lodged a question on the maintenance of hospital estates on 20 September, especially important because of what has been happening at the Queen Elizabeth University hospital in Glasgow. I did not receive a response until 15 November, almost two months later, standing orders require that written questions receive a response within 10 working days. It is just not good enough. Too often, Presiding Officer, this Parliament is sidelined by this SNP Green Government. It should not be allowed to happen. However, when the Scottish Government does engage with the parliamentary process, we often find ourselves debating matters outside of the Parliament's devolved remit as part of a grievance-stoking exercise. That is not the type of accountability that the public deserves or expects. Presiding Officer, in the limited time I have, my final comment relates to parliamentary privilege. It is well known that MSPs do not have the same parliamentary privileges as our Westminster counterparts. To facilitate free speech and have effective scrutiny, I would encourage the SPPA Committee to reflect deeply. I am in my last, you could have done it earlier. I can give you the time back. Yes, I will take an intervention. Mr Johnson, go for it. Daniel Johnson, I am very grateful and I will be very brief. The New Zealand Parliament recently passed an act entrenching parliamentary privilege. Does she believe that that could act as a model for this Parliament and should it be studied by this Parliament? Teres White. Mr Johnson, that is a very good question. There are good examples from the New Zealand Parliament. This morning, during our committee meeting, we had some good examples from the Canadian Parliament. The role of our committee is to club together different ideas. Ms Whitham joined us a few weeks ago. We have a diverse committee. We have two women members, three men, diverse with different experiences, take New Zealand, take Canada and take other parts of the world that have best practices, and we will pull that and discuss them. It is well known that MSPs do not have the same parliamentary privileges, so we do need to look at it. I am glad that the Member agrees with me here. What we need to do is extend parliamentary privileges for MSPs, and we can look at other countries. As a member of the SPPA committee, I hope that the remit of the inquiry that we will undertake in 2022 encompasses these issues and other issues. Finally, to ensure that we serve the constituents to the best of our ability to ensure that we can effectively and robustly scrutinise legislation, and to ensure that we can hold the Scottish Government to account, it follows that we must honestly evaluate how this Parliament works and how it can work better. Thank you, Presiding Officer. It is a pleasure to take part in this lively and timely debate. Words that I did not think that I would say in solidarity with Tess White I am also going to use my lectern. The inquiry has brought about the potential to make considered recommendations of how this Parliament works, and not just for us as members, but also the people that we serve as elected representatives. I would like to focus on three important issues that I would urge the committee to investigate in depth, the work of the committees, the flexible working and support for parliamentarians. As one of the newest members of the Parliament, I have only ever experienced the current procedures and practices as they stand now. I welcome the views of more experienced members and my colleague Neil Gray for his experience of the House of Commons, no matter how archaic it sounds to people like myself in particular. Mentioning the House of Commons, as often we do, is held up as a model of good governance and parliamentary effectiveness, but I can understand why the consultative steering group was adamant in 1999 that a new Scottish Parliament must be better. The CSG's principles right to paraphrase the Scottish Parliament should embody and reflect the sharing of power between the people of Scotland, the legislators and government. Be accountable to the people of Scotland, be accessible, open and participative in the development, consideration and scrutiny of policy and legislation, and the need to promote equal opportunities in all its operations. As the first woman of colour to be elected to this Parliament, I recognise that the fourth principle has taken a bit of time, but this place is looking and sanding more like the communities that we are serving, but there is much more to do, nothing about us without us. The first two principles of sharing power and being accountable to the people are often regarded as the taken for granted element of a fully functioning legislature, and I hope that we will take the time to take stock of that. However, it is the third principle, being open and accessible, that I believe that the impending inquiry is most relevant to. We truly live in a digital age. In the Covid backdrop overnight, we became accustomed to online meetings of all shapes and sizes, to online teaching, to children of all shapes and sizes, and ICT has evolved beyond expectations. Last night, I read the report of the nine original CSG members who met in 2019 at the Festival of Politics to reflect on how their original report after two decades of implementation makes for interesting reading. For instance, it was always envisaged that committees would be more powerful, consensual and innovative in developing policy. Through successive Scotland acts, the volume of legislative business has increased way beyond what the consultative steering group had envisaged. As a consequence, the more aspirational role of our committees may have got lost somewhat. Perhaps now is the time for a subject committee, which will have no involvement in scrutinising proposed legislation, but to focus purely on how the ideals of the CSG can be enacted in light of what we know now. In terms of the practicalities of conducting parliamentary business, hybrid meetings and online meetings, there have been a blessing for many, and I know that some of our most experienced members of the chamber may have misgivings. However, I have not experienced any other way. The current procedures have demonstrated to Scotland that a democracy can work from our kitchen as well as from the chamber. The Scottish Parliament's original design included the need to be more family friendly in its working hours, and, frankly, that has been eroded. In hybrid and online meetings, it can contribute to achieving that specific aim alone, then that is the lesson that we can benefit from. I know that some may have concerns about cost, but ask yourself what is the cost of not being flexible? What is the cost of not being inclusive? I hope that the committee can explore the economics of the current parliamentary practices but balances against the social cost of non-inclusive practices. Lastly, being an effective parliamentarian requires good support systems as well as the flexibility to be able to respond and engage with constituents and stakeholders. It is much about the team of staff that us parliamentarians employ to help us to carry our duties. I urge the committee to broaden its remit of the inquiry to consider the impact of the procedures and practices of Parliament on MSP staff as much as the elected members. I would like to see a broader range of data and evidence to be gathered in investigating the impact of our current practices on the staff of the corporate body, as well as the staff employed through members' resources. There is lots of anecdotal evidence, but perhaps now is the time for the committee to commission its own research, either directly or through the corporate body. In conclusion, if there is one thing that the status quo is teaching me, it is that one-size-fits-all approach to chamber and committee procedures does not necessarily make for good governance. I have not heard anything that suggests that parliamentary democracy can only be effective if it is physically present. The committee's remit should be broadened to fulfil the consultative steering group's aim, including everyone who plays a part in a democratic ecosystem. In finishing, perhaps we all need to rely more on the robustness of debate rather than on the robustness of our tables, and perhaps we all need to talk a little more softly and listen a little bit more loudly. I now call the final speaker in the open debate, Graham Simpson, for around six minutes. That is extremely generous. I was not planning on speaking for six minutes at all. Yes, it is up to six minutes. I am a rarity in this debate in that I am not on the whip. You do not often come across any speaker in this Parliament who is not on the whip, because, normally, certainly in my group, Mr Kerr would be choosing who gets to speak and who does not. I was not on that list, so I had to approach the Presiding Officer and your good office said that I could speak. That does not normally happen. That seems to me entirely wrong that all parties need to look at their practices and allow people who, like me, saw the subject of the debate and felt that I had something to contribute to do so, indeed. I thank the member for giving way, and I agree to some extent with what he says. Would he agree that it is also up to backbenchers to challenge, to some extent, the front benches of their own parties? Graham Simpson. Well, how are we refreshing to hear an SNP backbencher say that? Yes, I do agree with that. The other constraint, and this has come up, and you, Presiding Officer, said right at the start, just a sec, allow me to make this point at least. That is around the time limit of speeches, and it has come up. Actually, Stephen Kerr mentioned spontaneity during the debate. Daniel Johnson has mentioned this as well. Because MSPs are very often limited by time, and that is why they write speeches out, I think, so that they can fit in with that time, if we were more flexible. Well, I think that Mr Whitfield wanted in first. Morgan Whitfield. I'm very grateful, Deputy Presiding Officer, and I'm very grateful for Graham Simpson giving way. Would you agree with me that this is perhaps one of the conventions that has grown up with regard to individuals in parties dictating who speaks, rather than actually anything contained within the standing orders? And indeed, could I ask what his view would be if there was a declining time for people to speak later in debates, but to allow a broader number of people to contribute? Graham Simpson? I think that that's an idea worth looking at, because I think that the more contributors, the better. One of the good things about this debate so far is that I think that we've heard a lot of really good contributions, interventions have been made because people haven't felt constrained by time, and that's been really good. I believe that Mr Kerr wants it in. Stephen Kerr. I wish I had eyes in the back of my head. Not just for making those sorts of interventions, I doubt. I was going to make a very similar point to the point that Martin Whitfield made, but I wanted to point out that, in fact, it's not a convention that, as such, the parties choose the speakers, because every week they get an email asking you to submit the lists of the speakers, so it's all very controlled. Isn't that aspect of party control the very thing that's driving out the spontaneity that this place badly needs? I completely agree. Of course, Mr Kerr could take a lead in that in our own party. Perhaps introduce some reforms to our own whips office and allow more spontaneity. I look forward to that happening. The reason I wanted to speak today, Deputy Presiding Officer, is because I'll be introducing a consultation on a member's bill in January. One aspect of that bill cuts right across some of the issues that have been discussed today. Ultimately, if it gets beyond the consultation stage, we'll come to the standards committee. There are a number of aspects to the bill, but I'll just discuss briefly one aspect, which was what got me started. What I wanted to do was replicate the situation that councillors have. If councillors do not turn up for work or do not do any work for six months, then they can be removed as councillors, and that is a matter of law. That does not apply to MSPs. It struck me that that was entirely wrong. If somebody just decides not to stop work effectively, they shouldn't be allowed to do that job. Now, that simple idea occurred to me before the pandemic. Since then, of course, we have changed the way we work, but I've proceeded with the bill. The consultation will deal with some of the issues that have been discussed today. One of the big question is now, of course, what constitutes work. It was quite easy before. You just had to turn up, you had to come here, vote or take part in proceedings here. Now it's not so simple. The consultation paper will raise these questions, and I would encourage all members, certainly all members, who have taken part today, who obviously have a keen interest to contribute because I'm genuinely interested in people's views. Daniel Johnson, I'm very grateful. This is somewhat of a cheeky intervention. Is that the real point? Doing this job properly is a great deal more than simply showing up and voting. Graham Simpson. Absolutely. The consultation addresses those points, so I would encourage Mr Johnson to take part in it. I've gone over my time. I didn't expect to do that. At that point, I will sit down, but it's been a fascinating debate, and I look forward to engaging with the committee. Thank you. Thank you very much, Mr Simpson. I never doubt that you'd filled the six minutes, and we now move to the wind-up speeches. I call Paul Sweeney for around six minutes, I think. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. It's been a great pleasure to listen to members' contributions today to an extremely important debate. Of course, thanks in particular to the convener of the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee for bringing us the debate to the chamber today. His reflections on the initial ideas behind the establishment of the Scottish Parliament and the constitutional convention that gave birth to it, and particularly Donald Dure's reflections on the idea of quality of the debate being essential to the performance of the legislature. Of course, I'm also minded of Ron Davies, the former Secretary of State for Wales's comment that devolution was a process, not an event, so we can't simply be prisoners to the initial ideas about what the Parliament should be like. It should be a constant iteration. It should be a constant response of institution, and I think that this debate is necessary to reflect on how things have done well over the last 21 years but also things that can be reformed and changed as well. Members have offered some really worthwhile contributions in that regard. I think that some of the common themes that came out—certainly the green member from north-east—mentioned the tone of debate and the quality of being able to disagree well. That is something that we can all reflect on and how to do that better in the chamber. Fundamentally, the common themes that came out today from members was the role of the MSP, how does that work and the inherent tensions that the job presents. Simultaneously, a member of the Scottish Parliament is a legislator, is a scrutiny, is a scrutiny year of government in committee and also has to undertake the duties of representing the people as a constituency or regional representative in this place, and also effectively a community troubleshooter leader campaigner. It is quite a hybrid role and requires a myriad of different set of skills. Some people are better at some things than others and it does require a significant level of capacity that often comes at significant personal cost, as we have heard from members today. The Minister for Parliamentary Business has made some good points about the huge learning curves that have been achieved over the last year by the institutions as a whole and requiring to build virtually from scratch an online system for participation and then moving towards this hybrid Parliament. I think that there has been a broad consensus that that is something that has been highly effective at opening and improving the performance of the legislature and is something that we definitely want to build on and improve on in the future. I think that it is important to recognise the purpose of the Scottish Parliament and its foundations and I think that that drives at the heart some of the tensions described between the executive and the legislature and the roles performed there, and devolution was not just this big bang event in 1999 where suddenly everything was devolved from Westminster. Actually, administrative devolution effective of the Scottish Government has existed as a discrete body of power since 1885 with the creation of the Scotland office and the Secretary of State for Scotland was created in 1926. Of course, the construction of St Andrew's House up in Calton Hill was a direct result of that being built between 1935 and 1939. I think that we have to recognise that the evolution of how Scotland's governance has evolved is something that actually needs to be reflected on. What this Parliament's purpose is, is not simply to sit here as a forum for ministers to broadcast their views on things, it is very much a vigorous forum for the scrutiny of Government power and that is something that seems to be somewhat forgotten I think in the last 20 years. I am happy to give away. I am very grateful to him. Would he agree with me that we need to re-examine our standing orders in particular about what is a relevant comment and actually requiring both ministers and members that their comments are relevant and germane to the topic of debate at the moment and that might improve the quality of debate? I was struck by the member for Eastwood's mention about the Doyle and the Speaker and the Doyle's privileges and being able to hold ministers to account in terms of time limits on responses but also the relevance of the contributions and I think that is something that is well worth further inquiry. I also want to reflect on the nature of the Scottish Parliament being an evolved evolution out of what was once the Scottish Grand Committee in the House of Commons. The House of Commons is so constrained by time that the Scottish Grand Committee was not able to effectively perform the duties of a legislature hence the creation of the Scottish Parliament but there are still those constraints that we have to deal with on the capacity of the legislature to the whole Government to account and I think a lot of those frustrations were expressed today such as topical questions being able to the whole Government to account adding capacity and flexibility. The time constraints on First Minister's questions for example perhaps having the Government having prior sight of people's questions gives a degree of intelligence that is not for example afforded to the Prime Minister's questions in fact you get a sudden death hit and the Prime Minister just has to simply be very responsive at dealing with that because he doesn't have any prior or he or she doesn't have any prior knowledge of what's going to be put forward so I think there are certain tweaks to the system that can definitely improve the scrutiny of government I mean there's so many contributions to refer to and I'm just mindful that I'm already eating up five minutes of my time I'm not sure how much I have remaining but certainly for example the discussion about family life the balance and family life the member for character come they can do and bother me a very important point about life flexibility the maternity leave flexibility could be a way of reforming the chamber and how we can prove access particularly looking at proxy voting as well as another alternative and well certainly these are pressures that have been described by many women members of both parliaments in Westminster and in unholyrid about how that impinges upon their ability to perform their functions and duties as members I think the member for my friend made the point about whilst getting rid of the lectern sometimes I can be useful but I take the point that they can create a psychological gap and block in the debate but also the importance of iterative debate breaking the control of business managers I think is a point that was brought up by several members as well and allowing the Presiding Officer's office to determine who's called to speak in debates could certainly improve the quality of debate and the the role of the member as a parliamentarian first and a party hack second I think that should be another focus and trying to foster a greater culture of backbench interventions backbench contributions that aren't necessarily governed by the whips happy to give away. I can understand the point he's making about the power of the Presiding Officer would you reflect on the fact that the Speaker of the House of Commons has the power to take speeches from parliamentary colleagues at Westminster and I don't think that has particularly changed the element of party hackism at Westminster any more than it is here. That's a fair point to make but I think certainly there is something worth testing there and worth checking to see if we can improve the situation. Of course this is intended to be an iterative process and it's the beginning of a series of inquiries that will no doubt present some really interesting alternatives for how we do our business. To wind up although I have so many other notes that I've taken about other members' contributions of course which unfortunately I have time to take but our address but I think we fundamentally have to look at the question of power in this Parliament this is the role of this Parliament to hold the executive to account and there are so many more ways we can improve that capacity and ability to do so but also doing it in a way that is very powerful and including the people in that process and I think that's where the great opportunity of the reforms to create a hybrid parliament has actually shown great promise particularly in committees involving more of the people in forming and shaping the debate of the country. Thank you very much. Thank you very much Mr Sweeney. I note the comments that various members have made about the interactive debate that we've been able to have. I can though advise the chamber we've exhausted all the additional time that we had in hand so I'll have to be a bit more draconian with speeches from here on in and rather trepodatiously I invite Edward Mountain to wind up six minutes Mr Mountain. Thank you very much Presiding Officer for allowing me to give the wind up speech as you called it. Let's see if I can do just that. I welcome today's debate and I've listened to Oliver's contribution huge interest and let's be clear we have a huge impact on our constituents with the work that we do in the parliament and whilst this parliament may be 22 years of age I don't believe it's bearing that well with age. Presiding Officer this parliament presides itself on being a modern parliament but what is clear is we are poorly served by our broadcast IT and the protocols that go with that. I remember raising this very issue as convener of the rec committee in 2017 we held virtual meetings in the bowels of the parliament because there was only one screen on one room that could do it and I sometimes wondered if a tin can and a piece of string would have been a better option. The pandemic has forced us to focus our minds on resolving these issues but progress has been painfully slow. The parliament's saying continually that we have a robust system and that we have everything in hand. It doesn't work for me whilst the parliament can go virtual as you deliver a virtual speech as I am now. All you see on the screen is yourself. You can see part of the chamber, you can't see a clock, there's no way of taking interventions. Indeed Presiding Officer I tried in this debate to make an intervention and was refused and I would like nothing more than to allow interventions on what I'm saying and all this leads to a very sterile lecture and not a debate and take my word for it having been virtual for all of this session in September not through personal choice it's been pretty wish that I contributed as fully to this parliament as I could have done and this sterile lecture is now the norm I fear for this chamber. Four-minute speeches with many members not taking intervention kills debates and that is why the majority of people in Scotland are not tuning in to watch the parliament. You can blame them and when it comes to questions Presiding Officer and I'm not talking about the pats that are raised from the government benches at the back whoever gets a real answer. Presiding Officer I believe that this should fall totally within the remit of your office to resolve and I implore this parliament to drive this forward. Questions need answers not political statements and let me also remind the parliament that it's not just the Irish parliament that set time limits so does the Canadian parliament think more about this and set time notes on questions and arms and while this parliament does continue to function during the pandemic I believe it's a pale imitation of the real thing and I can say that having not been there since September I don't think it's good for democracy and accountability to do everything remotely we need more accountability we need people in the building and we need to be able to talk to each other not just across the chamber floor and we also need strong and effective committees having been a convener in the previous session it is my experience that a committee functions at its best when party politics are left at the door and I was sorely disappointed on the many occasions when that didn't happen for example let me give you a perfect one when it came to the car parking levy in the transport bill an SNP member on the rec committee publicly spoke out against the amendment for the months preceding the vote on it and then the next month when the vote came along you took party pressure he caved in and voted with the government we're thinking committees might be denied by this government but in the last session it was very clear and commonplace and that is why it is clear to me that the committee system is broken and it needs a complete overhaul a complete rethink until that happens in my opinion we will have a government who can do what they want when they want and how they want to do and to be honest that's not a good and effective way to make legislation in fact it's an embarrassment I believe to the people of Scotland and those parliamentarians who try and use the parliament to change things now turning to some of the key points raised in the debate I think our convener raised many important points perhaps the most important of which was the need for debate which by definition is when opposing ideas are discussed and not just put forward without discourse the amount of intervention proves that he took proves to me that he favours this and he is a man of his word I'm slightly disappointed that the government's minister Jordan didn't identify any of the key failings of the parliamentary procedure which are clear clearly evident to other members of the parliament and I was also taken on a point raised by Stephen Kerr that questions need answers and not just one prepared weeks in advance but I also take the point of Sarah Boyack on the verbosity of ministers it was well made and Jackson Carlaw raised some valid points and comments about the need the reform of FNQs and the format of all questions and answers I look forward to finding a way around that and I agreed with Daniel Johnson that this parliament should be about dialogue which means debate which means reaching out and talking to each other and I was taken on the plea by my colleague Tess White for the parliament to be used to make announcement so that parliament can question it and not just using the media to slip out statements that they want me now presiding officer I'm conscious my time is running short but I want to make a point entirely clear and I benefited from this I have benefited from the fact that there is a hybrid parliament and that I can take part from home I don't propose that we should change that but I don't think it should be the norm I think it should be used caringly and sparsely where it is need to allow members to contribute because after all we are better if we are negotiating with each other on a face to face basis if that's possible so I support the hybrid format but I just don't want it to be the only way we operate presiding officer I believe there's a lot that this parliament needs to do to evolve and to mature after the 22 years that it was originally set up from the chamber to committee rooms we need to see changes which nurture debate and encourage scrutiny instead of encouraging lectures blind loyalty taxi questions and no answers being given to opposition or indeed members of the government party until we have that I don't believe the parliament be working the benefit of the people of Scotland thank you presiding officer thank you mr mountain I gave you a little extra time as you had not been able to intervene during the course of the debate and I call the minister for six minutes mr adam thank you presiding officer I'd like to start with mr mountain you know it's it's good to see that his time at home hasn't stopped he's fighting us and be able to put his point of view across and I think it gives an example of how the system actually has worked for us where people have been able to use it and I know mr mountain did say that in his statement actually mr mount seen himself in the screen surely that's a good thing when he's looking at himself in the screen I know myself even someone who is as vain as myself I found it off-putting as well so it can be something we might be looking at as we go on but one of the things that was brought up during this whole debate has been Maggie Chapman in particular was about culture and how we actually work in this place and how we deal with one another mr mountain I are a perfect example we get on well and I want to one we talk we engage with each other and I want to one all the time and I think that's one of the things that we need to I think I said to Stephen Kerr when we first he was appointed chief whip I says we can fight all we like in the chamber as long as we're out of the chamber we talk to each other like human beings and we get on with the business in hand and I think that's an important part that Maggie Chapman brought up about how we could conduct ourselves and how culture is so important to us here now this has been an interesting debate a constructive debate valuable about the future and how if we go about the flexibility and how we deal with that flexibility because we have proven already that this has been extremely helpful to every one of us I have made some suggestions during the past 20 months the presiding officers have had no idea they didn't think it was a good idea I suggested putting a countdown clock from the channel for show up there and decision time to make it a wee bit more interesting and have the theme music playing at the same time just to give us that wee extra can I we can guarantee you get there and I do accept that there was times where we've lost members and it's almost ended up with the european song contest at decision time where people are phoning in from other areas and saying I didn't my app didn't work I managed to do things there and it sometimes can be as long as the european song contest but on the whole these have been not the majority of times these have been times apart from my former colleague and friend Gil Paterson where it seemed to be every single night that Gil couldn't seem to work any technology but I think this is the argument here a lot of the time I do believe is and haven't been in the bureau for these 20 months it has not been the technology in the parliament side it's been on our side the technology either the user's the user's problem or broadband issues yes Mr Kerr. Once again he is not incorrectly looking at the hybrid arrangements and discussing their merits but grateful if he could comment on the other suggestions said about the procedures of this parliament that predate any of the changes that were introduced because of the Covid emergency. Minister. I was coming to that because I was going to go through some of the bits and pieces that colleagues have already said let Ms Boyack acknowledged that we need to retain what we've already got with this hybrid system and how we move forward and she did mention the fact that the length of questions and answers you know because sometimes the questions can be equally as long let's not get ourselves on and sometimes and as a anybody would do if someone gives you a long question you will automatically want to give them value for money and give them a long answer back and we also have the situation with questions where it can be quite difficult for some because you know if we give someone a short question then someone in the opposition benches may say that was a terribly short question this is a very important issue I want you to take this seriously minister so you know there's a balance I admit there's a balance to be found on these issues as well but for me I tend to try and keep them as short as possible because I was trained under the tutelage of the president officer that was Trisha Marwick and she made sure that I cut my questions as short as possible during that period as well but one of the other things we do need the flexibility because we are dealing with the Covid situation and it is on-going you know if I use examples I think Sarah Boyack brought it up as well was the fact that there was a situation where we we changed the business quite a few members mentioned that at the last minute and I agree I try I tried to make sure the business understand everyone's got a life and everyone's got to be elsewhere and other places and they've got their constituencies to deal with as well I understand that but there are sometimes like if you look at the example of the deputy first minister statement is dorm Arwin that was something that we had to deal with right there on the Tuesday and it was last minute I grant that but on the whole I tend to try and make sure that we don't have these things at the last minute and I was completely I was completely interested in what Maggie Chapman said I've already mentioned before about culture and what we want to present and how we want to present this place to the world and I think that's extremely important because my colleague Mr Kerny had one of our usual wee barnies earlier on and that's not necessarily what the public want to see from their legislators when they're doing it we may enjoy it but it's not what really people want to see when you talk to members of the public and how we go forward so I think that that was a very interesting point that she made up she made regarding culture Elena Whitham also spoke about the practical issues of homeworking the fact that that can be difficult when you look at the screen and it goes into a buffering zone and you start to worry about that but these are things that have all got better as time has moved on and when we look at some of the things that Mr Kerr spoke about just about everything him and I have spoken about over the past two or three weeks so I'll probably have the same discussion with him next week sometime as well so I'll probably just move on to what someone else has possibly said the Jackson can I just finish there's a few members or I need to talk about some of the things Jackson Carlaw actually and I appreciate a lot what he says but when he says colleagues came in at the crack of noon because him and I working in the same industry back in the day I can understand we all had to work hard and it wasn't a case of just coming in at the last minute but I think that that's part of the culture as well is where we need to get to a place that people have to accept it this is a workplace like anywhere else and we move on but we still need to be flexible I see Mr Kerr nodding agreeing with me totally there but we do have to give the flexibility to our members so that they can actually work around their life as well so on the whole Presiding Officer this has been a very good debate it's been very interesting and it's also one that we need to have something more like this than I'm more often when we look at any form of reform for the government I just want to say closing if you look at reform we can't do it in piece meal we have to make sure I've got the ministers just winding up we can't do it in piece meal we have to look at the reform in its entirety and I hope the committee and the Parliament can look at this as a way forward and this debate is the way forward for us thank you minister and apologies to members for cutting across them but we are out of time as I said I now call on Bob Doris to wind up the debate on behalf of the standards and public appointments committee for around seven minutes Mr Doris thank you very much Presiding Officer and can I start off as others on actually by thanking parliamentary staff who the glue that I've kept this Parliament going in the most difficult of times from the cleaners to the catering staff the kitchen staff and to the IT staff who have had massive challenges and absolutely thank you to every single one of them and can I thank every single speaker in this debate I've got a variety of views I'm quite keen to express in some of the comments but I'm speaking behalf of the committee of course so I'll be reflective rather than pejorative in some of the the comments that I've heard here this afternoon but thank you to each and every speaker and a particular thank you to the convener who I think set off with a an excellent tone which mostly I think members followed mostly through the debate although at times when the convener mentioned 1970s wrestling I did think with Mr Kerr and Mr Adam if it a bit more like big daddy and giant haystacks rather than a parliamentary exchange I have to say but but the reason we're here this afternoon of course is because Parliament has reformed through necessity but what we have to do is reflect on that and we have to innovate and I think that's what we're here together as a Parliament trying to tease out from our committee this afternoon at our starting point we have to embed progress that there's been we have to be very open honest where that progress has not been what we'd have liked it to have been we have to rectify identify and rectify shortcomings and innovate differently perhaps something completely different from has been tried already and of course there are issues in Parliament before Covid and before 2007 as well but when we look through the lens of this debate let's try and do a non-tribal way and come together as a Parliament so let's shape, let's mould, let's nurture, let's develop and let's co-produce what the Scottish Parliament of the future looks like. What I spent some time talking about a hybrid Parliament I think by and large there was almost unanimity that we should stick with a hybrid Parliament we should reform how it works perhaps but we should stick with it Julie Mackay mentioned how those with disabilities can benefit and it can promote diversity as in co-cab stewards and I think the minister mentioned those who think coming to Edinburgh routinely maybe a barrier to standing for election it can encourage more people to stand for election quite frankly and Sarah Boyack was very clear about how the hybrid Parliament of the flexible management of casework for busy MSPs and constituency offices and Jackson Carlaw made a very similar point I don't spend a little bit of time in relation to the aspect of family life that Daniel Johnson and Neil Greene others mentioned I absolutely agree with that I became my dad shortly after the election for the second time and can I just say careful how I phrased this but I have found it a huge challenge to balance my parliamentary duties both here in the chamber and Parliament my constituency duties and be a good dad and husband at the same time and something's got to give and quite often what gives is my wife does more than she should ever have to do quite frankly and we have to think about the balance of family life for men and women whether they're in this place or are partners back at home we have to think about that quite bluntly yes friendly Carson thank you there I absolutely share exactly what you said there being in the same position but one of the main factors is the uncertainty because you can generally plan you know we can't have everything in our own way it's never going to be if you like a normal life who's been a elected politician but the difficulty with the Parliament in the way it is just at the moment is the uncertainty about when we can get home when we're expected to be in the chamber and that really needs to be tackled as a matter of urgency Bob Doris that finally Carson's let me go into the idea on decision time which was something I was going to go on to but I'll just deal with it yes it gets pushed back later and later many an evening and then it can change it very short notice it's not possible to plan around that and it's simply not acceptable I thought Jackson Carlawd an interesting point about a set of time but the start of business the following day could be a way forward we absolutely have to look at it but just finally in relation to hybrid working it is fair to point out that we have to make sure there is a dynamic that is not lost with hybrid working and interventions absolutely has to be part of that as well and I just want to put that on the record there was a wide-ranging debate in relation to scrutiny of government in relation to pre-prepared questions and supplementaries from both government back benchers from opposition members and from ministers themselves about the balance of opposition time about members debates about committed debates about the use of topical emergency questions and the idea of scripted speeches and I think there was an acknowledgement I think from Graham Simpson actually that those scripted speeches quite often come not just from government but from opposition as well where there's a carved out position in the advance of a debate and I think that that's a political reality in this place I want to say much more on committees because of time but I wish to focus more about committees because that is the lifeblood of this parliament in terms of scrutiny the major scrutiny will not happen in this place these are the set piece debates the committees are the absolute lifeblood of scrutiny Eleanor Whitham spoke about a jobshare example with councillor Kelly, Parry and Cozzler which I thought is something we have to start thinking about if we're realistic about what life balance and being an inclusive parliament I put that on the record as well and remote voting as well I think Eleanor Whitham and others mentioned that in relation to an elderly relative for example and caring responsibilities some people might have and Neil Gray mentioned how Amy Callaghan had been frozen out of voting at Westminster I'm not allowed to make a comment on that because I'm speaking on behalf of the committee but I just wanted to mirror that back in this chamber so Presiding Officer we do need to reform we do have to bring Parliament together and doing that and we have to get a balance hybrid proceedings must not and will not replace human face-to-face contact it must complement it and it must support it we must seize the opportunities of hybrid working but we must also address the pitfalls relationships are also the lifeblood of this parliament even where we disagree with each other and those relationships are often fostered not online or virtual but face-to-face before committee after committee in the canteen at parliamentary receptions and those relationships have still to be forced by many people in this place because they've simply not had the chance to do it and that really has to happen and that's important to put on the record as well so in the very limited time that I have left Presiding Officer let's shape parliamentary reform not based on any individuals self-interest or any party's self-interest or whether we're in government or in opposition but let's get the tone right as we shape Scotland's parliament going forward let's get the relationship right between government and opposition and legislature let's get the scrutiny rights let's make sure that Parliament remains accessible transparent and fit for purpose let's also remember there's many good things existing in this parliament right now let's not just dismiss that either but let's shape Scotland's parliament going forward in the best interests of all the people of Scotland non-tribal non-partisan open-minded bold innovative inclusive that's no small challenge for our committee mr convener but it's one I know we're up for and it's one I absolutely convinced Parliament is also up for thank you Presiding Officer that concludes the debate on behalf of the standards procedures and public appointments committee on shaping parliamentary procedures and practices for the future it is now time to move on to the next item of business the next item of business is consideration of business motion 2563 in the name of George Adam on behalf of the parliamentary bureau setting out a business programme and I call on George Adam to move the motion thank you Presiding Officer I moved thank you no member has asked to speak on the motion therefore the question is that motion 2563 be agreed are we all agreed the motion is therefore agreed the next item of business is consideration of two parliamentary bureau motions and I asked George Adam on behalf of the parliamentary bureau to move motions 2565 and 2566 on approval of SSIs thank you very much Presiding Officer and moved again thank you minister the question on these motions will be put at decision time I call Patrick Harvey for a point of order thank you Presiding Officer I wish to raise a point of order regarding exchanges at the end of yesterday's debate on backing the northeast economy now it's undeniable that feelings were running high in that debate and I was of course frustrated when Douglas Lumsden misquoted my comments about party political support for development of new fossil fuel extraction and I acknowledge that I don't know whether he had in fact ever bothered to check what I'd actually said or if he merely accepted on face value a false media report and repeated it without knowing however I do of course accept that matters of accuracy are not something that you are able to rule on you and previous presiding officers have frequently been annoyed by accuracy matters being raised in this way so I could and should have found a different way to challenge the inaccuracy and to ask Mr Lumsden to correct the record however it is very clear that what followed was far more serious than a slightly annoying use of a point of order in relation to a physical attack which took place against his local office and speaking in direct reference to me Mr Lumsden stated I am not telling the police how to do their job but perhaps they should consider that a member of this parliament instigated that attack presiding officer in both his words and his body language he made it perfectly clear that I was the member he was referring to let me be equally clear this allegation of instigating an attack on his office is utterly baseless and deeply offensive I consider it to be clearly defamatory and if it had been made anywhere else but in the chamber of parliament I would be taking legal advice however conduct in the chamber is regulated by the code of conduct and by your own role as presiding officer we surely cannot permit a situation in which a member is able to level a completely spurious allegation of serious criminal conduct against another member without consequences to do so would signal to all members that such disgraceful behaviour is acceptable so can I ask you presiding officer what are the consequences for Mr Lumsden's shocking abuse of his position in parliament and how can all members be assured that they will be protected from such behaviour in the future thank you for the advanced notice of the point of order Mr Harvey having reviewed the footage of the exchanges I spoke privately this morning to Mr Lumsden and then to yourself Mr Harvey feelings were indeed running high yesterday afternoon and some of the remarks made in the chamber fell short of the standard of conduct required of members of this parliament as part of my discussion this morning as you know I asked Mr Lumsden Mr Lumsden to reflect on his language and I do not expect any repetition but I consider the matter closed thank you there are seven questions to be put as a result of yesterday's business and today's business the first is the amendment 2552.3 in the name of Michael Matheson which seeks to amend motion 2552 in the name of Liam Kerr on backing the northeast economy be agreed are we all agreed the parliament is not agreed therefore we will move to a vote and there will be a short suspension to allow members to access the digital voting system