Item 7 concerns the Procedures Committee's inquiry into the application of the consultative steering group's principles in the Scottish Parliament. The deadline for submissions is 26 June and this is our last meeting before then. If we want to make a submission, we must get it under way now.
This may be the same for every committee, but in my view the work of this committee has been a good demonstration of the CSG principles in action. On a number of occasions we have used the committee to uphold the principles that are listed by the Procedures Committee: by changing things, we have forced power to be shared; we have, quite properly, called people to account; and we have been accessible—many groups say that they are impressed by our accessibility. Without saying that we are wonderful and that the Parliament is wonderful, it would be legitimate for us to respond by saying that in our experience the committee system has succeeded in upholding the CSG principles. I do not know whether all members agree, but that is my view of the work of this committee and its predecessor over the past two years. Perhaps we could say that in a wee letter. It would be better than saying nothing.
We will draft a letter and e-mail it to members of the committee. If it meets with everyone's approval, we will send it to the Procedures Committee.
I go along with what Gordon Jackson said, but I am not sure that we have done as much as we could to make ourselves accessible. The committee meets predominantly in Edinburgh. We may want to reconsider that. I am conscious that we will be the lead committee on the land reform bill. We should probably meet more outside Edinburgh when we take evidence on that. We have had only two meetings outside Edinburgh—another one was cancelled. I do not know how often the other committees meet outwith Edinburgh—their practice may be similar to ours—but I feel that we have done so very rarely.
Moving around does not necessarily equate to greater accessibility.
That is true. When we met in Glasgow hardly anyone was there, but I would like to raise the issue.
I do not disagree with Michael Matheson. I am not saying that we are wonderful, but I do not like the idea of our failing to respond to the Procedures Committee. If members want, we can make a warts-and-all response.
We will draft a response, e-mail it to members and, if we get a consensus, we will send it to the Procedures Committee.
I am sorry—I have just given somebody more work.