Seòmar agus comataidhean

I apologise, Bob. I need to cut across you because of time. Does Lord Gardiner of Kimble have any comments? He needs to leave the meeting soon.

I hope that witnesses will not mind if our clerks correspond with them so that they can place more evidence about other matters on the record. I thank the Rt Hon Karen Bradley and Lord Gardiner of Kimble for attending and giving evidence. It has been most helpful.

I suspend the meeting briefly so that we can change witnesses

Thank you. That is incredibly helpful.

As you would both expect, I will move around the committee members, who have various areas of interest to explore. However, first, I will use my convener’s privilege to kick off by discussing the matter of proxy voting, which rightly predates the pandemic.

Proxy voting does not exist in the Scottish Parliament. Karen Bradley, will you briefly explain for the record how proxy voting works in the House of Commons?

That is very helpful. Part of the intention of this morning’s meeting is to explore that issue. I would like to use convener’s privilege to ask the first question, which is about proxy voting. Mr Naughten, I understand that your constitution prevents proxy voting. Is there a growing tide towards having proxy voting to allow access at times when elected members should perhaps be able to take off their elected member’s hat due to personal circumstances, but in a way that allows their constituents to still be represented? Do you have any thoughts on that?

Do you think that that comes from the cultural importance of your Parliament physically meeting in set spaces? As you say, it is one of the fundamental precepts of the constitution that the Parliament should physically meet. Does the demand for transparency and understanding drive and perhaps overshadow individual circumstances that mean that the members cannot attend Parliament?

We can hear you now, Dr Fox. I am waiting to see whether Professor Russell can join us.

Yes, we can hear you now.

Relationship politics and—I will use this word carefully and then regret it immediately—the reality of how Parliaments work, which perhaps is not transparent to constituents outside of them, are so important. There is a risk that, with hybrid, certainly at this stage, technology is unable to provide anything near equivalent. Is that fair?

Item 2 is the inquiry that we are doing on future parliamentary procedure and practice. For this evidence session, we are joined by Dr Ruth Fox, who is a director of the Hansard Society. Ruth Fox is responsible for the strategic direction and performance of the society and leads on its research programmes. We are also joined by Professor Meg Russell from University College London. Meg Russell is professor of British and comparative politics and is a director of the constitution unit. I hope that I will be able to welcome them—remotely—to the committee. I can see Dr Ruth Fox. Good morning, Dr Fox.

I think that you ended your response on a very useful note, Dr Williamson. We should not artificially create barriers in the inevitable—or certainly enthusiastic—move to digital and end up excluding other groups in that way.

My final question was going to be about the advantages of virtual proceedings, but, after listening to the evidence from both our panels, I want to change that slightly and ask whether we should be afraid of virtual change or whether we should be brave enough to take risks. Indeed, that is partly why this Parliament was originally founded. By being this close to the people of Scotland and our constituents and by making them such an important part of it, we find ways of bringing them on. Should we be scared of this change or should we embrace it? We might make mistakes, but is the end goal more advantageous?