That is a good idea. A written response to the committee would be very helpful. If you could forward it to the clerk, that would be very useful.

Monica, you are on the ball. You were expecting the information and reminded the cabinet secretary. Unless members have any other questions, I would like to ask about the issue that Liam Kerr raised. Before I do, I remind the committee that I own properties that are available for rental and that I am a chartered surveyor by training.

In this country, we use energy performance certificates. Are you happy, cabinet secretary, that EPCs are worth while, do what they are said to do and are useful to home owners in working out whether their houses are energy efficient?

I am keen on every house being as energy efficient as possible. I know from doing EPCs that, sometimes, changing to LED light bulbs gets you more points than putting in double-glazed windows. To me, that questions the point of EPCs. As part of moving to net zero, which is important, would the Government consider reviewing how we do energy efficiency in homes and how we achieve it? Gas prices are going up. Is the EPC system relevant?

Katy Clark mentioned the issue of decision time, which is something that we need to discuss. I believe that limiting a debate to a set time is wrong, although that might mean that decision time is carried forward to the next day. That might be worth considering.

In summary, the Parliament needed to evolve, and it has evolved. We need to go further and make our IT work for parliamentarians. However, our IT can never replace the Parliament, and we should never lose sight of the fact that the best way to work together as a Parliament and as parties—which might have different ideas—is by sitting down, talking to one another, trying to find consensus and realising that we do not have a monopoly on good ideas.

Of course I will give way.

Unsurprisingly, as a member of the committee, I think that our report is spot on and I thank the clerking team and the convener for all their support in driving the inquiry forward. I welcome the debate, which I have found really interesting. I think we all agree that Parliament must embrace change and that change must always protect the core values on the basis of which the Parliament was set up.

The biggest change that we have experienced recently is the introduction of virtual technology in the chamber. That was forced on us by the pandemic. If we are honest, the technology in Parliament prior to the pandemic was poor and remote working would not have been possible. I remember holding a committee meeting in a room below the canteen, with five committee members huddled round a screen trying to take evidence from witnesses from Transport for London. They could not see us and we could hardly see them.

We have been through a change that was really important because it stopped our democracy from becoming an autocracy, but we struggled as we went through that change. Members will never forget the technical issues that led to voting delays in the “robust” system that we were told we were working with. There was also a complete disconnect in delivering virtual speeches without being able to see a live feed to the chamber. I speak from experience, having been forced into remote working for six months. It was perhaps pleasing in my case to look at the screen and see myself, but I would have liked to see how the speech was going down in the chamber, which was not possible, and it was certainly not possible to take interventions.

The on-going development of the hybrid Parliament is something that we can now control, as we should. I am pleased to hear that MSPs who are attending debates virtually after recess will be able to make interventions and will actually be able to see how their speech is going down in the chamber, which I think is really important. It will stop them feeling detached, because you do feel detached if you are speaking to a computer for what seems to be hours on end, if you get the chance and the Presiding Officer does not cut you off. There is a lot to be done on that.

I do not think that having virtual meetings of Parliament should stop parliamentarians from coming in. To my mind, it remains crucial to attend Parliament physically. You cannot bump into someone for a coffee or sound them out on an idea on Zoom—that just does not happen. To me, that is what politics is all about: meeting and talking to people and building trust and cross-party relationships. Hybrid working can complement that, but it will never replace the ability to look someone in the eye and see how things are going.

Another way in which Parliament could improve the system would be by allowing proxy voting. There has been a lot of talk about that. I concur by saying, as a former member of a whip’s team, that it is not the place of whips to hold the proxy vote. That vote should be held by someone that the person who gives it believes will represent their views.

I believe that we have failed to address the issue of how parliamentary business is carried out. I believe that the domination of business by the Parliamentary Bureau is not satisfactory. I ask members who are present if they have ever been to a Bureau meeting. You can go if you want to. You have to ask permission and get approval from the whips, but you ought to go and to see whether it is as edifying as you think it might, or might not, be.

My other big bugbear, which we have not discussed, is that members come to this chamber with prepared speeches along party lines and with patsy questions. I do not believe that many members are prepared to take interventions or to engage. Debate is about just that: it is about debating issues and having an informed discussion. I think that is really important and I think that Parliament needs to mature to allow that to happen.

Has the committee, which I was on previously, fully considered how members who are attending virtual committee meetings should get classified papers, given that it is not possible to send them out in advance by email under the current parliamentary system?

Of course, and Mr Johnson will not be surprised that I now come to do that, and I am sure that the deputy convener will also do exactly that.

I agree with the convener that we should be looking forward 10 years, and I agree with the minister that it should not be the Government that dictates the way in which the Parliament changes. I also agree with Stephen Kerr that Parliament should agree on and make the changes that it wants to see.

I was delighted to hear from Jackson Carlaw that he is progressive and open to change. He did actually have quite a lot to say, despite the fact that, at the beginning, he thought that he would not.

There is one area that I would like to drift on to—

Will the member take an intervention?

I am glad that we did not have a vote on gas boilers, because we in the Highlands do not see many of those.

Monica, do you want to come back in very briefly?