Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee

Meeting date: Thursday, May 16, 2019

Official Report 518KB pdf

---

Annual Report

Agenda item 4 is consideration of, and agreement to, our annual report. Does anyone have any comments to make on the draft report, which has been circulated?

Yes. The introduction, which is on page 2 of committee paper 2, includes membership changes but not the committee’s current membership. The Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee’s report, which we looked at this week, includes its current membership.

Thanks very much, Maureen. My advice is that that will be included and will appear at the start of the report.

I may have missed this, but I did not see a breakdown of the gender balance of the witnesses who gave evidence to the committee. Would that be a helpful inclusion, given that all the parliamentary committees are, I think, reporting on that?

That is perfectly reasonable. We will look into that and get back to you. I think that there is a general direction on that, although maybe that should not be discussed in public at the moment, because it is an area of the committee’s business that we will have to consider first. However, that will certainly be looked into.

On the section on “Portfolio and general questions”, under the heading “Commission on Parliamentary Reform”, I wonder whether we need an explanation of why we

“agreed that the number of questions drawn for each portfolio would be reduced from ten to eight.”

My recollection is that eight is a more realistic number and would allow more engagement through supplementary questions. I will probably have to go back and look at how that is working on the back of our report, but I think that the issue was not about getting eight questions in during every question time every week but about encouraging more engagement through supplementary questions.

Yes. We can have that explanation added.

On the issue that Elaine Smith has raised, I noted that only five questions were asked in the second set of portfolio questions yesterday. There were eight questions, but three were not lodged, which reduced the number to five. That has always been my fear about reducing the number of questions from 10 to eight. I am well aware that I am only a committee substitute for one day—I hope—but the committee might want to keep that issue under review, as there is a very real risk of not having enough questions.

That is an important point, particularly given your previous experience as a Deputy Presiding Officer. It is very important that we keep such potential changes and actual changes under review, and it would be beneficial for us to consider that issue. We will want to bring certain elements of the report—such as those that have been mentioned—back for the committee to have a further look at.

If questions are not lodged, that enables other questions to be asked. I have had questions 9 and 10 twice and I have missed out. One gets really agitated that too many questions are pushed in, and one sits there, hoping that members will sit down.

I have been in that situation—as, I am sure, we all have—and that point is worth consideration, too. The reasons why questions have not been lodged may also need to be looked into further. It seems unfair that, when a member has a particular question that they really would like to ask in public, they do not get the opportunity to ask it.

A fine in the charity box might be a good idea.

Maybe we will not go down that route, but thank you anyway.

Are members content with the report, with those provisos?

Members indicated agreement.

Thank you. We will look into the issues that have been raised, and the report will be published on 21 May.