Chamber and committees

I do not know whether the petition needs to come back to us if we get that information. We could frame the response in the light of the further information that we receive.

Yes, we can, and I think that that is the point. However, we had better be careful that we do not close down the point at which we think that we are in a position to say, “These are the ways in which we think the Parliament could work better”, because I think that things could continue to evolve and change.

I absolutely agree with that, and I do not think that a member has to be somewhere remote or at a great distance to need that option. As a member who represents a central belt constituency, I note that there are days when I feel that I could represent my constituents much more productively by being in the constituency and participating in a number of events that are taking place, which would directly benefit them, than by being in the chamber. Historically, I have sometimes been in Parliament only to participate in five minutes of business before hanging around until 5 o’clock for decision time, which is a wholly unproductive use of time. The virtual option is one of the real advantages that has been demonstrated during the hybrid working arrangements.

I agree with Stephen Kerr on one point: the use of remote technology in the chamber. I believe that people should put up or shut up, and I do not like it when members do not intervene in a debate but then, from a sedentary position, tweet out that what somebody else in the chamber has just said is absolute rubbish and they fundamentally disagree with it. I do not think that that is quite right.

We should start to consider afresh in what way social media should be used, if we want the Parliament to have respect and to evolve not just through its infrastructure but in the way in which we conduct ourselves. During the years in which I have been a member of the Parliament, the level of courtesy that is shown has declined, as has the wider understanding of parliamentary business. We all used to get a written Official Report and people used to read what had been said in other debates beyond their particular focus and discipline. A lot of that has been lost.

In 2024, the Parliament will be 25 years old. We should work towards that date, not necessarily 10 years hence, to see what more we can do to radically improve the way in which the Parliament works and the way in which we operate.

Sitting above that is the fact that the Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee has been charged with carrying out an investigation into deliberative democracy. We are currently awaiting the Scottish Government’s response to its own working group on that, but that, too, will provide some challenging questions for members as to how we sit alongside a culture of deliberative engagement in our politics.

Ross Greer was here for the previous debate—he is not here now, but I know that he is a big fan of Churchill. I say, therefore, that

“This is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning”

of our consideration of how we might evolve as a Parliament.

I come to this debate not sure whether I have anything terribly useful to say—before some members say, “There’s no change there, then,” I do have a number of observations. The first observation is something that I said in the original debate on this topic. I did not think that I would be open to change, but then, to my surprise, I found that it actually worked perfectly well and to the benefit of the Parliament and I have therefore become quite a fan and quite an advocate of it.

However, the point that I would start from is this: when do we take the view that we are at a settled position in which to make any judgments? If we take out the summer recess, the Parliament has had really quite a short working period since we returned to an environment in which we did not have social distancing in the chamber. Therefore, what has become almost quite normal again quite quickly is actually not a practice that we have lived with for very long.

I notice that the number of contributions that are now being made remotely has shrunk to very few altogether, but who knows what is coming this winter? There could be a major flu epidemic, a revival of some other issue or very bad weather, as Martin Whitfield said, and the remote engagement of members in the chamber could change again.

We have to be very careful and watch how things develop over time. We should not rush to any settled view as to when we are at the point at which we can say, “This is now how it should be.” Let us keep an open mind.

It is a pleasure to follow Roz McCall, to welcome her to the chamber and to wish her every success in the years ahead.

As others have said, what is there left to say? What has not been expressed? What has not been said? What has not been demonstrated over the past two weeks? What was not represented in the majesty of yesterday’s occasion—not just in the casket with the instruments of state, but in the magnificent floral tribute, which was so vibrant and full of colour, and so redolent of Her Majesty?

I reflected that, when Her Majesty came to the throne in 1952, there were just 2.5 billion people on the planet. Seven years later, when I was born, there were 3 billion people. Now, there are 8 billion people on the planet, and 96 per cent of them have, until now, known no sovereign or head of state in the United Kingdom other than Her Majesty the Queen. She was a point of reference—a point of continuity—for the whole world. I think that that is partly why so many people have been affected and have followed the events of the past week.

For me, it was about her quiet humour. I will give three examples, two of which I know to be true and one of which I hope to be true.

Those who were here in the 2007 to 2011 parliamentary session will recall that, when our late colleague Alex Fergusson, as Presiding Officer, introduced Her Majesty, he referred to the fact that his father had been privileged to deliver a sermon at Crathie kirk. Alex told how his father had written out the whole sermon very carefully and, when he turned over the first page in delivering it, all the other pages tumbled on to the floor in front of him and he was completely lost for words. In her response, Her Majesty said that she remembered his father and that she recalled saying to Prince Philip how commendably brief his sermon had been.

My second example, which I have always treasured, relates to Edward Heath. Many people may have seen this—it was in a documentary to mark the 40th anniversary of Her Majesty’s accession. Edward Heath was a man who was very full of himself—any of us who had dealings with him can testify to that. He was lambasting the American Secretary of State because, in long years out of office, he—Edward Health—had been to Iraq and had negotiated with Saddam Hussein, and he told the American Secretary of State that he really needed to be doing that, too. He was still saying that when the documentary came back to him after cutting away to some other bit. When Her Majesty wandered up to him, he said that he was explaining to the Secretary of State that he needed to get over to Iraq and negotiate, to which she responded, “Yes, but you’re expendable and he isn’t.” I have commended that advice to some of my regional colleagues when they have been a little bit uppity from time to time.

I do not know whether the final example is true, but I hope that it is. When Her Majesty was addressing a family gathering, she went to sit down, only to find that the footman had removed her chair. She tumbled on to the floor, and she and the whole family simply burst into hysterical laughter at the entire event.

That sums up what I think is true—that Her Majesty did not take herself seriously; she took her role seriously, and she brought dignity, duty, service, integrity and faith to that role. I think that, in the moment when she passed, there was a collective anxiety that perhaps those qualities were going to die with her. There was almost a reaching out of the public to embrace those qualities and ensure that they were not lost. Maybe, just for a moment, we all thought that we, too, should think about dignity, duty, service, integrity and faith, but then there was reassurance. Was it in the Earl and Countess of Wessex and their two children, Viscount Severn and Lady Louise Mountbatten-Windsor—the Queen’s youngest son and the Queen’s youngest grandchildren? Was it in the duty and dignity of the Princess Royal? Was it in the calm grace of the Duchess of Rothesay? Was it in the composure of her two children—Prince George and Princess Charlotte—or was it in the example over the past 10 days of the Duke of Rothesay and the King? Suddenly we felt that those qualities were safe. We felt safe, and life goes on.

God bless the Queen. God save the King.

Did you have a sense that they wanted simply to dispense with the issue, rather than redress the concern or the—

I have a final question, and then I will invite colleagues to speak. Has your experience and the petition that you have lodged led you to understand the experience of others as well?

The next continued petition is PE1860, lodged by Jennifer Morrison-Holdham. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to amend the Prescription and Limitation (Scotland) Act 1973 to allow retrospective claims to be made.

We last considered this petition on 18 May 2022 and we agreed to write to the Scottish Government. Following our previous consideration, we have received a response from the Minister for Community Safety, which members will have noted in their papers. Do members have any comments or suggestions for action?

I am quite happy that we do that, because I agree with what you say about the issues that were raised; you are quite correct. We will incorporate that as well.

Are we content with those suggestions?

Members indicated agreement.

I am happy to incorporate that as well. Are members content with that proposed action?

Members indicated agreement.