Procedure and House Affairs Committee on Oct. 25th, 2022

[Matthew Hamlyn]

Thank you very much, Chair.

I'd almost finished my introductory comments, which were quite limited. I was just going to mention changes in the way in which we record MPs' names when we have votes.

Our traditional method was for MPs to file through division lobbies and for their names to be recorded by staff members. We stopped doing that during the pandemic, for obvious public health reasons. Members instead now record their names on pass readers using their security passes, which capture their names and automatically import them into our divisions administration system. That generates the list of names, which we then publish after each vote.

That has had quite a few technical advantages. That's the main technical legacy as far as chamber proceedings are concerned, which are otherwise completely back to normal.

I'll stop now.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Thank you very much for those comments and for sharing those insights.

Now we'll move on to David McGill. Welcome to PROC.

[David McGill, Clerk and Chief Executive, Scottish Parliament]

Thank you very much, Chair.

I want to address my remarks today to the future of hybrid proceedings in the Scottish Parliament, and I hope the committee finds this useful.

Since I last spoke to the committee in 2020, our procedures committee has conducted an inquiry into the future of hybrid proceedings, and that inquiry was bookended by two chamber debates, one at the outset to help inform the remit and one on the publication of its report last month.

The main headlines of the report were that the hybrid facility should be retained indefinitely, partly to ensure the resilience of parliamentary business and partly to allow members to participate when they're unable to be physically present in the chamber; that the commitment to hybrid proceedings should make the Parliament more inclusive and encourage a wider diversity in candidates to become members; that the Parliament should commit to continual improvement of hybrid infrastructure and technology to support hybrid meetings and support a culture of iterative change and innovation; and that a pilot of a proxy voting system should be launched.

Despite the support for the retention of hybrid proceedings, the committee noted the general feeling that it's preferable for members, and especially ministers, to be present for proceedings, and also that the vast majority of our contributions are already physical ones. On that basis, it decided against having a system for seeking permission to remotely enter into proceedings involving set criteria. The committee strongly supported views that physical participation facilitates better collaboration and better scrutiny, but as physical participation was already the norm, it believed that other benefits could be achieved alongside that default way of working by retaining the hybrid facility.

The committee's—and ultimately the Parliament's—support for retaining hybrid was in part based on a vision for the future. In making its recommendations, the committee felt that the Parliament would be out of step with the rest of society if it didn't embrace change and simply reverted to pre-COVID ways of working. It also took the view that future technology would likely support more optimal participation in parliamentary business and that completely abandoning hybrid now would inhibit and restrain the development of technology in that direction. Finally, the committee took a strong view that retaining hybrid would allow Parliament to engage with people in the way in which they are engaging in their everyday lives.

That's not to say the committee wasn't cognizant of the potential downsides of hybrid participation in parliamentary business. As mentioned, it felt that hybrid does not replicate in-person participation, considering that the dynamic in parliamentary debate is altered and informal contacts between parliamentarians are reduced. That being the case, the committee suggests that the impact of hybrid should be monitored over the longer term, particularly in regard to the extent to which it supports equal participation and promotes diversity.

Our next steps, in line with the committee's call for continuous improvement, are to roll out a new platform that supports remote intervention in debates and to launch a pilot of the proxy voting system.

On the former, I expect that to happen next week, and that the platform will enable interventions both to and from the physical and virtual space and therefore reintroduce some of the dynamic that is lost in remote participation in debates.

On proxy voting, the committee is currently consulting on what the scheme should include, with a view to launching a 12-month pilot in the near future.

As things currently stand, therefore, the Scottish Parliament is, to all intents and purposes, now a hybrid Parliament, albeit one in which the vast majority of contributions are made in person rather than remotely.

I'll leave my remarks there. I hope that helps the committee. I'll be happy to answer any questions that members have.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

We look forward to hearing those answers. Thank you.

I'd like to welcome Siwan Davies. The floor is yours.

[Siwan Davies, Director of Senedd Business, Welsh Parliament]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

Good afternoon, everybody, from Cardiff, Wales.

Since my last appearance at the committee was in 2020, I'm going to outline the experience of the Senedd in virtual proceedings in terms of what we currently do, how we do it and why.

In terms of what the Senedd is doing, the chamber proceedings are now fully hybrid—that's a permanent position going forward—and voting is by a remote voting app that was designed in-house.

Our committees have a choice: They can determine for themselves if they meet physically, in hybrid or virtually. I'll remind you that the Senedd is, like the Canadian Parliament, a bilingual institution. We operate through the mediums of English and Welsh, so our physical, hybrid and virtual proceedings are all translated.

How do we do this? Like yourselves, we have a licensed version of Zoom that is incorporated with our broadcast and web-based technology. We're digital by default, so since its inception, the Senedd has had electronic voting and electronic papers, and that has continued. We have no legal or procedural barrier to participation not being physical, so that has always enabled us to meet as a virtual or a hybrid entity.

In terms of the why, initially, as with many other legislatures, it was the requirement of the pandemic and the public health requirements that drove us to have virtual and then hybrid participation. We were the first U.K. legislature to meet virtually during the pandemic to continue our proceedings. As in Scotland, we've had a review by one of our committees of future virtual participation.

The views were in support, but in terms of the pros and the cons, the pros were in relation to the accessibility and the inclusivity of virtual proceedings, particularly around diversity of witnesses and also future diversity of parliamentary candidates; being family-friendly in terms of balance with caring responsibilities of members; better use of time in constituencies; and a cost benefit in terms of savings on travel and reducing the carbon footprint.

The downsides of virtual participation were found to be some aspects of the quality of debate, particularly around the ability to scrutinize legislation and ministers in committees on a virtual basis, and also a debate around whether ministers should have the right to attend virtually or if they should be required to attend in physical form.

We hope that we have a new way of working here that is the best of both worlds. It retains the advantages of a virtual environment but also brings with it some of the advantages of the physical way of proceeding.

I'll finish my contribution by pointing out that we had an election last year in which a third of our membership changed over, so a third of our members have never known any other way of meeting other than either virtually or in hybrid. It's very much around the way of the Senedd determining its future ways of working as moving forward and learning from the lessons of the pandemic rather than reverting to things as they were before.

Hopefully, Madam Chair and committee, that gives you an indication of where we're at in Wales. We're a hybrid institution by default, with choice for the committees and a fully functioning translation capability throughout all of our proceedings, as is required by statute.

I'll finish there. I'm very happy to answer any questions you may have.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Thank you for your opening comments and those insights.

We will now start our six-minute rounds with Mr. Nater, followed by Ms. Sahota, Madame Gaudreau and Madame Blaney.

Go ahead, Mr. Nater.

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

Wonderful. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you to our witnesses joining us from the various parts of Canada and the world.

I'm going to start with Ms. Davies.

You mentioned in your comments that the Welsh assembly is fully bilingual and has the capability to speak in either English or Welsh. I'm curious whether your interpreters or translators have encountered some of the same issues that ours have here in Canada with regard to health difficulties and various problems. We had an interpreter who was, unfortunately, rushed to the hospital last week after an injury suffered from the interpretation, so I'm curious to know whether you've encountered any similar problems in the Welsh assembly.

[Siwan Davies]

I'm very pleased to report that no, we have not had any problems at all. When I spoke to the head of translation prior to this session, she wanted me to report that it was a seamless transition here, that we've had no issues at all, and that we've maintained the capability to provide simultaneous interpretation throughout our virtual and hybrid proceedings while at the same time providing our written translation—because, obviously, our documentation is also available bilingually.

In fact, we were used as an exemplar by the Welsh language commissioner in a recent case study as to how organizations in Wales could adopt virtual technology. Whilst we're not subject to the auspices of the commissioner, we wanted to show leadership as a Senedd in terms of how one can operate in a bilingual environment using modern technology. I think it's of great credit to our translation service here and our IT people that they've enabled our Senedd members to continue to meet throughout the pandemic in accordance with our statutory requirements for bilingualism.

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

Thank you for that. Perhaps it would be possible for you to undertake to provide us with some of the technological capacity that exists in the Welsh Parliament. Perhaps we can learn some best practices. If you might undertake to provide us with those details at a future date, in writing, we would very much appreciate that.

[Siwan Davies]

I certainly can.

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

Thank you.

I want to turn to Mr. Hamlyn. My understanding is that even prior to the pandemic, there was a degree of proxy voting that was available for new parents or for those imminently expecting a child's birth. I believe that in the last little while, that option was extended to include those who were unwell for a longer period of time due to illness or an injury. Can you briefly walk us through how that process, that proxy voting, works currently?

[Matthew Hamlyn]

Yes, you're quite right. For several years now, MPs who are expecting a baby or whose partner is expecting a baby have had the ability to apply to the speaker for a proxy vote.

It's pretty straightforward. They request it and they don't need to provide medical evidence. We take their word that they're definitely going to have a baby, because there's no reason they would be untruthful about that. The Speaker issues what we call a proxy voting certificate, which is recorded in our formal business papers. It says that a particular member will vote on behalf of another member for a set period of time.

In our voting system, which I mentioned earlier, if an MP is holding a proxy vote for another MP, when they go to vote, they tap their pass and they are invited to vote on behalf of that proxy member as well, so the technology captures that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Sorry; I'm going to have to interrupt and ask that the rest of that answer be provided in writing.

Mr. Nater, if you could go to another witness, that would be great.

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

Madam Chair, is this a sound quality issue?

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

It is a sound quality issue.

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair. Perhaps if I could just follow up with Mr. Hamlyn, he could provide a written response to my follow-up question as well.

You mentioned that it is the Speaker who holds the authority to grant that proxy certificate. I just want to clarify that the whip of the respective parties does not have a role to play in terms of approving or denying that proxy. I see Mr. Hamlyn shaking his head, which is—

[An hon. member]

Yes or no?

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

Yes, the whip does not have a role to play. Is that correct?

[Matthew Hamlyn]

I think I'd better provide the answer in writing, but the whip plays no role in providing the certificate.

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

Thank you. That's wonderful, and I appreciate any follow-up you could provide in a written response.

Mr. McGill, I want to address a couple of questions to you as well. I understand that your equivalent of our committee, the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee, did have a recent report.

One of the points in that report is about where remote access should or should not be undertaken. One of the issues was that constituency business, for example—things that happen in our respective constituencies—shouldn't be undertaken on sitting days unless it's urgent or exceptional in nature.

I was wondering if you could expand on the committee's thinking and the Parliament's thinking on that type of thing. For what types of issues would it be considered appropriate to use remote access, and for what types of issues would it be considered not to be appropriate?

[David McGill]

Thank you for the question.

As you understand, the committee has stopped short of recommending that there be any set criteria or any rules that need to be complied with, but it did set out its views based on evidence that heard of the likely circumstances that would make it appropriate for people to contribute remotely, and those were around illness, bereavement, parental leave and these kinds of issues. At the moment, they've left that to a kind of self-denying ordinance and have simply expressed their views on the types of circumstances in which it would be appropriate to do that, but their expectation is that the very high levels of physical participation that we have at the moment will continue.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Thank you.

Ms. Sahota, you have six minutes.

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

Thank you, Madam Speaker.

I have a quick question. Is asking Mr. Hamlyn questions not in order at this point?

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

I think I'm going to have to say no, it's not, because it just consumes more time, but if you do want to ask Mr. Hamlyn questions, I think it's fair to do so.

Mr. Hamlyn, I regret the inconvenience that this is posing. Your insights are very valuable to this committee. If it is suitable, we would appreciate the answers in writing, and then we can circulate them around. Can you give me a head nod if that's okay?

Thank you for accepting. I will write you a personal card and tell you my appreciation. I am really sorry about this.

Please do ask Mr. Hamlyn questions, but the responses will come in writing.

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

My first question for Mr. Hamlyn is this: During the time of the use of the remote application for voting and the hybrid Parliament application, was the U.K. democracy served well? Were members of Parliament and senators able to effectively use those applications, and were the legislation and work of the day getting done through the hybrid provisions?

Next, I think I'm going to move to Mr. McGill. It's going to be easier to have an interaction.

Mr. McGill, I was quite interested to hear that you are starting this pilot next week. Our Parliament here has begun this pilot already and is going to continue until June 2023. I'd love to be able to have our two Parliaments exchange what we've learned. I think a lot of what you said is similar to what we are feeling here as well in terms of not wanting to be out of step with the rest of society, being able to provide options and providing more diversity in Parliament.

I was wondering if you could elaborate a little on other things came out of the debates that occurred in the two chambers. Why is it that the committee has made these recommendations? Do you feel, at the end of this pilot, that you will most likely be moving into a permanent hybrid situation?