Seòmar agus comataidhean

I thank our second panel of witnesses for a very informative session. I hope that you continue to follow our inquiry with interest. We will, no doubt, bombard you with questions on various matters in due course.

On behalf of the committee, I once again thank Professor Childs for attending in person and I thank Dr Williamson, whom we managed, with technology allowing and the sheep and lambs being in the right place, to see very clearly by the end.

We now move into private session.

Apologies, Dr Fox. We seem to be losing the line, so I think that we will try with just audio. Do you want to try now?

Good morning. I welcome everyone to the 10th meeting in 2022 of the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee. I remind members who are attending virtually to place an R in the BlueJeans chat function if they want to come in on any issue.

Item 1 is a decision on whether to take in private item 3, which is consideration of the evidence that we will hear today. Does the committee agree to take item 3 in private?

Members indicated agreement.

I want to pursue that, Dr Fox. As a member, I came into the Parliament during Covid and never saw it in what someone described as its golden time—although I think that its golden time is still to come. Do you think that human beings just cannot get over that problem with regard to communication and simply need to meet and talk in person straight away? Are we not capable of creating a different culture that will still facilitate the creation of laws outside of chamber discussions, however that might happen? Should we be confident that human beings themselves, given their ability to communicate and articulate things, will find ways of doing that even if the ability to sit in the same room does not exist?

Bob Doris will develop the conversation.

That is interesting. The problem does not lie in the formulaic way in which legislation is created or in which committees sit but in the softer, challenging-to-measure interactions that happen face to face and in person that facilitate the greater ideal of producing legislation and getting work done.

Before I close the public part of the meeting, I would like to extend my thanks to Samantha Currie, who has served this committee as one of its clerks since 2012. In that time, she has organised 287 committee meetings, published 124 committee reports, ensured compliance for more than 300 cross-party groups and published 24 revisions to the standing orders. The clerks are an essential cog in the machine of the committees, and Sam has gone above and beyond over her time. Her knowledge of CPGs is possibly among the most detailed in the Parliament. Therefore, Sam, on behalf of myself and the whole committee and, indeed, all previous members of the committee you have worked with, I say an enormous thank you, and wish you all the very best in the future.

I now close the public part of the meeting.

That might be a challenge. In essence, there are only the reasons that are set out in rule 12.2A. Because agreement is usually reached in discussion between the convener and the individual involved, I am not sure that information on the reasons will be held centrally. However, the reason for using a substitute has to be one of the reasons that are set out in the standing orders, and I would be confident that that is the case.

That is helpful.

The letter to the committee states:

“No issues appear to have arisen as a consequence of the temporary relaxation of the rules”.

However, we do not actually know what the situation is.

There seems to be an inclination towards an agreement that we should request the Parliamentary Bureau to give its view, and perhaps we could request the clerks to look into how frequently substitutes have been used during the period. That would put us in a better position to make suggestions.

Item 2 is consideration of the rules that relate to committee substitutes, which were varied in the period from the beginning of the pandemic until the dissolution of Parliament at the end of session 5. The purpose of that was to provide more flexibility if committee members were unable to attend committee meetings and to ensure that committee work was not adversely affected by the pandemic.

The chair of the Conveners Group has written to the committee following a discussion on committee substitutes. In his letter, he has suggested that the committee might wish to consider having two named substitutes rather than one. The current situation regarding substitutes is covered in rule 12.2.A of the standing orders, which is on “Participation by substitutes”. It says:

“Where a committee member—

(a) is unavailable for a committee meeting (or any committee activity taking place other than at a meeting) because of illness, family circumstances, adverse travel conditions beyond the member’s control, a requirement to attend to other Parliamentary business or urgent constituency business”,

a substitute member may participate in their place.

I invite comments from members.