Seòmar agus comataidhean

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.

I am pleased that I pushed on that issue, because we got some valuable evidence from Professor Russell and Dr Fox. Thank you for your responses.

I have a more general question. It is clear that some form of hybrid Parliament will remain, and this committee’s task is to touch, feel and smell what that would look like and make recommendations to the Presiding Officer and Parliament about that. I am guessing that that will be an iterative process, so whatever the committee comes up with and Parliament agrees to would not be the end point.

Professor Russell has helpfully talked about monitoring some of the dynamics at Westminster. Whatever reforms we recommend and implement in the Scottish Parliament, we will initially want to monitor those. How can we monitor hybrid and virtual proceedings to measure how interactions have changed and whether that has been beneficial, what the benefits have been and what the drawbacks have been? We will want to monitor whatever we recommend on an on-going basis—that will not be the end of the story—so any suggestions that you could make about how we monitor the quality of those interactions and the negatives, as well as the positives, would be very helpful.

That is very helpful. Of course, the nine authorities that were already attainment challenge local authorities will have developed expertise, which I hope can be shared across local authorities. I absolutely take on board the point that was made about the guidance having just come out and that we are at the exam diets, particularly for secondary schools. Mike Corbett, when do you anticipate those conversations happening at the school level? Will there be a couple of in-service days before the summer break or early in August?

Secondly, if sizeable decisions are being made at the moment—there might not be—in how the funds should be spent, would it be better to have interim provision for the next few months, say to Christmas, so that there is time to engage with teachers and to allow for a more fundamental, effective and systematic roll-out of PEF funding that engages fully with teachers, parents and carers? Would it make sense to have those conversations as soon as possible and maybe hold off some of the decisions on how the money is spent to get it right, rather than rush to spend the money for August?

With the indulgence of the convener, I have been given permission for a brief final question. I thought it very helpful that the revised guidance says that a report should be given to parent councils at the end of each year so that it is clear what PEF has or has not achieved in that academic year. That report would also be part of the process of refreshing and changing the approach each year. I will bring in Greg Dempster for this final question. Has some of that been happening already? Is there an annual trawl of parent councils about that direct engagement? Is the approach just affirming good practice, or is it patchwork across the country? I also see that Mr Thewliss would like to come in on that—I am sure he will do so very briefly, of course—with the indulgence of the convener.