Seòmar agus comataidhean

That point is well made. I am not sure that anyone has suggested exclusively remote participation, but you make a good point that relationships must first be built, fostered and nurtured before there can be a positive dynamic for hybrid work. We are grappling with that here, in the Scottish Parliament. Thank you for putting that on the record.

Gerit, do you have any observations?

Thank you.

I do not think that I was in any way creating a false concept of participation. This is a hybrid meeting that we are involved in. We are having such interaction at the moment.

It took me a long time to get there, but the question that I was asking was whether you think that the advantages of a hybrid Parliament from the point of view of the opportunities that it provides for underrepresented groups far outweigh some of the limitations that you mentioned, which I note seem to have been observed through a Westminster lens and seem to relate to a Westminster culture.

Thank you.

I have one final question about the unintended negative consequences of hybrid working. I was at a hybrid conference where we used a platform called Remo. I will not go into it, but the platform was fantastic in allowing people to table-hop and mingle with each other. However, what might the unintended negative consequences of hybrid working be, and how can those be mitigated? We have heard a lot about informal chats that cannot happen unless people are face to face. Nothing replaces face-to-face interactions, but mitigations can be put in place. What mitigations can be put in place to combat negative consequences?

Also, I meant to ask in my initial question—it was remiss of me not to do so—whether the reforms will make it more likely that people from underrepresented groups will stand for election.

That is helpful. Dr Williamson, it would also be helpful to hear in your response whether, going forward, we should conduct equality impact assessments. If so, should that happen before we evolve our hybrid Parliament, or, as you have mentioned, should that be an iterative process whereby we measure those things in real time?

Dr Fox, I am not sure whether you have finished, as your connection was intermittent.

Yes.

I thank both witnesses, as it has been a very interesting discussion.

One of the things about virtual meetings—this meeting is a kind of hybrid version—is that, when I make a facial expression or twist uncomfortably in my chair, the witnesses cannot read my body language. A lot of the commentary has been made through a Westminster lens on a Westminster culture, and I think that things are very different in the Scottish Parliament. First of all, there are 129 members of the Scottish Parliament. I think that, across parties, it has been understood that it is much easier to get access to ministers and to feed in views extremely quickly. For example, we are in a hybrid meeting but I could see Edward Mountain shaking his head. It is a positive strength of a hybrid meeting that I could read Edward Mountain’s body language.

Before I move things on a bit, Professor Russell said a lot about equality, but there are various strands to that. There is equality of opportunity as well as equality of access. If some women are deterred from getting into Parliament in the first place because they do not see it as being family friendly, that means that they do not have the same opportunity as men have to be elected representatives. There are questions of equality of opportunity for carers and for dads—I have a young child in the house, so I know about this—to still have contact with their young children from time to time.

I think that this Parliament is talking about having a hybrid Parliament rather than a virtual Parliament and that there is a cross-party will to not put the hybrid Parliament that we have now back in its box, but to get right the balance between inclusion on the parliamentary campus and the dynamic that Professor Russell and Dr Fox explained extremely well, while ensuring that we do not deny underrepresented groups the opportunity to participate or to be supported as members.

Do you think that, for people to have opportunities to be elected representatives in the first place or to sustain their incumbency as an elected representative—for example, some women gave up being an MSP in the previous session because they did not see it as being family friendly enough—it is important that the hybrid arrangement endures, rather than being thrown out? I put that to Professor Russell in the first instance.

This is a really interesting discussion. I was particularly taken with Dr Childs’s points about the technology that we have today. The immediate is not the future, and Dr Childs and Dr Williamson were very strong about looking forward to where we want Parliament to be.

One of the things that we want Parliament to be is more accessible, including for existing MSPs, and I will come on to people who might stand for election. There is a whole list of groups that we could talk about, including women, carers, parents, disabled people, those who are in remote and rural areas, and black, Asian and minority ethnic members of the community. I am keen to get a flavour of what both witnesses think are the opportunities for current MSPs with those characteristics to get a better balance in their lives and to have greater access to Parliament as things stand or perhaps in the future. I should note that the committee paper talks about unintended consequences as well—with every upside there could be a downside. Any comments from both witnesses about that would be very helpful.