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

[David McGill]

Thank you for the questions.

I'll just jump immediately to your final question. I think it's highly likely that we will retain hybrid facilities into the longer term. I think we're already going down that track, although the committee has asked for the implications of working in a hybrid way to be monitored in the longer term.

In relation to proxy voting, yes, I'd really welcome sharing information with you on our pilot once it gets up and running. I don't have a start date for that yet, but I would expect it to be up and running in the very near future and to run for 12 months. I think there's a good opportunity here for an exchange between us on that.

In terms of the evidence the committee heard, there was a broad spectrum. The balance of evidence was for retaining hybrid in the longer term for reasons of inclusivity. Just before the last election—we had an election at the same time colleagues in Wales did last year—we had several women who stood down and were critical of the fact that they were finding it very difficult to balance their responsibilities of caring for young families with those of being a parliamentarian. That weighed very heavily on the committee's thinking when it was balancing the evidence it heard.

It was also very persuaded by societal developments and wanted Parliament to keep pace with those, rather than reverting to where it was before. That was all in the context of a very strong view across the piece that parliamentary scrutiny is better served when people come physically together, so there's a balancing act that the committee struck, but we're certainly putting ourselves on a path to being a permanent hybrid parliament.

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

Absolutely. I couldn't agree more. I think we're trying to figure out that balancing act here as well.

Would you say that the Scottish Parliament has been served well thus far by hybrid and virtual proceedings? Were you able to effectively carry on with the business of the day?

[David McGill]

I would say yes.

Like everyone else, I think, we very quickly moved to virtual proceedings. In what were the very early days, it was simply party leaders questioning the first minister of Scotland. We then built on that small start by allowing other members to participate. Then, as soon as the rules allowed, we brought people back physically, albeit socially distanced. That limited the numbers in the chambers.

One of the things that Parliament was very keen to do was to ensure that every member was able to vote. Prepandemic voting was done using consoles in the chamber. That meant physical participation. We moved as quickly as we possibly could—as did colleagues in Wales—to develop an app that allowed all members, not just those who could be physically present in the chamber, to vote via this app. That was done very much from the point of view of supporting our democracy. There was a very strong feeling that it was just not acceptable for elected members not to be able to exercise the vote that they were sent to the Parliament to deliver.

Those are the kinds of principles that we bore in mind from very early on in the pandemic. I think by and large we were able to make sure that our democracy was as healthy and strong as it could possibly be during the pandemic.

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

Ms. Davies, has your Parliament been able to keep up with the work—in an adequate manner—that you were doing before the pandemic through the hybrid proceedings you have in place?

[Siwan Davies]

Yes, it has. To some extent, I think we might say it's even enhanced its ability to do so, particularly with regard to committees and diversity of witnesses. We're able to reach out to people who perhaps would not have the time to attend physical meetings or indeed, as we're doing today, reach out to witnesses who might be in other countries. You're able to reach a bigger audience of people.

I think there's been no diminution of the ability of committees to perform their legislative scrutiny and policy development roles—

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Thank you.

[Siwan Davies]

—which is why we've retained the hybrid.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Thank you.

I will say to everyone participating that if you want to expand on answers or provide more information, this committee would welcome that information, through the chair.

Madame Gaudreau, you have up to six minutes.

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I have six questions to ask and six minutes.

Mr. Hamlyn, I will ask you three questions verbally, but I would like to receive your answers in writing.

Why did you permanently establish a hybrid Parliament? I would like to know all the reasons, please.

What are the advantages of conducting parliamentary business in person?

Does a Westminster-style Parliament better preserve the rules of democracy?

I thank you in advance for your responses.

I now turn to you, Ms. Davies. My question is about interpretation. We can compare our situations, as you said at the outset.

Do you have enough interpreters for the work of Parliament?

[Siwan Davies]

There are no concerns. We have adequate interpreters to undertake the work. We're able to meet our requirements without any issues of industrial relations. In fact, our recent—

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Just a moment, please.

I have had no interpretation since Ms. Davies began to answer. I am sorry.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

There is no problem.

Do we have interpretation now? Can you hear the interpretation at the current time?

Madame Gaudreau cannot hear it, but Mrs. Romanado does hear it.

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

I have selected the French channel.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Can we keep speaking to make sure you can hear it?

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

I now hear the interpretation.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Ms. Romanado can hear it but you cannot.

Can you hear the interpretation now, Madame Gaudreau?

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Now I can hear it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Now you can hear it. That's interesting to note that one system was providing interpretation while another one wasn't.

Ms. Davies, can you start your answer from the top? I will continue the clock.

[Siwan Davies]

For sure. I was answering to say that we've not had any issues in terms of our resource capabilities for interpretation. We've managed to meet our statutory requirements and we have a very happy workforce in our translation service.

I was just pointing out that in a well-being survey that we undertake every few months, recently our translation service came out at the top in terms of their satisfaction and well-being in the workforce. That goes to show that we have put a great deal of care into ensuring that all of the staff in the centres are able to do their roles, whether it be in a physical, virtual or hybrid environment.

We've managed to meet the needs of the institution and keep our staff safe during the pandemic, and also now ensure that they have adequate resources to do their jobs. However, we haven't increased the resources for interpretation as a result of moving to hybrid.

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Thank you, Ms. Davies.

Could we have that survey? It would allow us to isolate some of the things that our Parliament has to deal with. Here, there is a lack of succession. There has been an increase in staffing to meet quality standards, but there is still a shortage.

In terms of connectivity, how good is the broadband? Is this a problem or is everything working well in your Parliament?

[Siwan Davies]

We haven't had any issues with connectivity. We've had the periodic issue, as I think you did recently, of the Internet dropping out altogether, and then there's a suspension of proceedings. However, that's been very rare.

In relation to how our interpreters function, if we're having physical or hybrid meetings, they are present in the interpretation booths around the chamber and the committees. If we're having virtual proceedings, then translators and interpreters work from home. We've not had any issues around people's ability to be able to perform their roles. We've not had, as far as I'm aware, any health or—

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Thank you, Ms. Davies. I have just two minutes left and I would like to ask Mr. Gill a question.

Your report seems to say that parameters need to be established to justify remote participation by MPs. As you said at the outset, there are cases such as illness, bereavement or other disruptions.

It says in point 22 that, unless there is an exceptional or urgent situation, constituency work and inter-parliamentary business should be undertaken on days when there is no sitting.

Is the use of the hybrid Parliament at the discretion of MPs or do you have to justify it?

How do things work?

I would like you to give me, in a short time, as much detail as possible.

[David McGill]

Sure. I can do that.

It's very much left up to the discretion of members. I think the guidance in the committee's report is really to allow people to challenge that, if they suspect that a member is beginning to overuse hybrid or to use it for inappropriate reasons.

This will all be self-policing, so it's very much an individual discretion about the decision to use the hybrid facility.

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Since I didn't get the full interpretation, I'd like to make sure I understood correctly. Did you say it was at the discretion of the MPs, not the government administration or the whip in question? Is that correct?

[David McGill]

That's entirely correct, yes.