The first item on the agenda is the committee's work programme. The clerk has produced a paper that sets out what work we still have to do—we have done most of it. There is one additional matter, which Carolyn Leckie raised during the committee's debate in the Parliament on 21 December and to which Karen Gillon alluded in replying to the debate. The issue concerned changes in committees' political balance as a result of members, including conveners, defecting from one party to another. I do not know what members think about that. I feel that there is an issue, but that we have no time to do anything about it in this session of Parliament. We could therefore include the issue in our legacy paper, if members agree to have a legacy paper when we discuss the next agenda item. What do colleagues think?
When I heard Carolyn Leckie mention the issue, I did not follow her logic. I thought that the way in which the Parliament operates is that the initial decisions that are made based on the distribution of support for the parties cannot be imbalanced by any changes that occur thereafter. Consequently, when, for example, a Conservative committee convener left the Conservative group in the Parliament, he remained as that committee's convener. Although that may have been an embarrassment to the Conservative group at the time, that is exactly what should happen. If that is the established process, I see no need to change it.
Alex Johnstone's point would be relevant if members themselves were given positions on committees. However, the committee convenerships are distributed using the d'Hondt method, so if a convener leaves a certain political party, that party no longer has the number of conveners that it should have. We are on committees not as individuals, but as members of political parties. I do not think that we can investigate the issue, partly because we would want to consider what happens elsewhere. However, it is worth including the issue in our legacy paper for the future committee to consider.
I agree that the issue is one for the legacy paper.
Good. Alex Johnstone has a useful argument, but an argument can be made the other way. The issues that arise about keeping stability in committees support Alex Johnstone's view. We will put the matter in our legacy paper.
No.
I think that the clerks have enough guidance on that matter. [Interruption.] If we could have only one meeting, our proceedings would prosper a bit.
Sorry.