Chamber and committees

Thank you. I have one more question, which is for Karen Bradley. Lord Gardiner’s point chimes with me: ministers, if they are not at the despatch box, just talk things out. If they are not there, you cannot intervene, shut them up or get them back on topic. They just waffle away for the 20 minutes that they have for questions, giving you non-answers.

Do you agree with that summation? When ministers are participating, should they be in front of the committee or the Parliament to ensure that they have no way of wriggling out of answering a question—or, at least, have less of an opportunity to do so?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I take your point on equity for members and ministers. The point that I was trying to make is that ministers and cabinet secretaries are adept at judging the number of questions that they will be asked, because the clerks will tell them when they have to start at the committee and usually when they will end, and they will take a long time to answer a specific question that they want to answer and try to talk the other questions out. I have seen it as a convener in the committee. At one stage, as convener, I had to cut off the microphone of one cabinet secretary who would not shut up, so that the other members of the committee could speak. That is the point that I was trying to make.

My second point is that I want to push back and understand slightly more about the party aspect of it. I will be clear that I am a deputy whip for my party, and it slightly concerns me that you think that it should not be the parties that control speaking slots, and I am interested to hear why. They do control speaking slots, because they are given a certain number of slots for every debate. How would we get round that to make sure that those people who are virtual all get equity? There is no doubt about it that, if you are virtual in the Scottish Parliament, you get to speak only when you have a speaking slot; you cannot intervene or do anything else. I know, convener, that you say that that will happen, but I will believe it when I see it. I would like Meg Russell’s views on that, please.

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

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

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

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

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

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

The whole of the previous panel, except for Elspeth Macdonald who had already left, lamented the loss of the inshore fisheries bill that the Government announced that it was going to introduce in 2016. It would be helpful to use such a bill as a vehicle to come up with inshore fisheries management plans. Do you agree and will you introduce such a bill?