On a point of order, Presiding Officer. This is indeed a point of order but, for a change, you will not be asked who was right and who was wrong in today’s debate.
I was grateful, as I am sure other members were, for a copy of the text of your speech to the David Hume Institute this week on the subject of parliamentary reform. A great many members and many people outside the Parliament recognise that we need to do scrutiny better in the Parliament, and that you are right to raise the issue of reform.
I believe that at whatever pace the debate continues and in whatever direction it goes—there will be a range of views about that—it is important to be subject to some degree of public, transparent scrutiny.
Motions and the subject may be discussed at the Parliamentary Bureau, but the bureau does not meet in public or on the record. What process do you have in mind for some public and transparent debate on the matter, which includes all members and others with an interest in the quality of the scrutiny that the Parliament provides?
I thank Patrick Harvie for advance notice of his point of order. As the member will have noted from my speech on Monday, I gave my personal view on changes that I think we could make. To date, I have had discussions with the Conveners Group, business managers and colleagues from across the Parliament.
At this stage, I am seeking the views and ideas of all members. I would very much welcome input from Mr Harvie or any other colleagues. My office is available at all times.
Previous
Economy and FinancesNext
Business Motions