The next item of business is consideration of motion S6M-21049, in the name of Martin Whitfield, on the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee’s eighth report of 2026. [Interruption.] I invite members who wish to participate not to do so from a sedentary position but to press their request-to speak-button.
19:04
In these challenging times, we need to remember that the proposals for amendments to standing orders are about getting the next session of Parliament off to the best possible start without any periods of wondering.
This final report is the committee’s eighth report of 2026. It recommends that the Parliament agree to standing order rule changes in order to provide for conveners of the subject and mandatory committees to be elected by the whole Parliament.
During the course of our committee effectiveness inquiry, those in favour of elected conveners emphasised that having conveners elected by the whole chamber can bring a degree of confidence and visibility to the role. We also heard that, for conveners, that can create a sense of legitimacy and of accountability for the activities of their committee. It can also support public perception that committees operate independently of the Government and political parties, and it can afford committees the opportunity to create a distinct identity.
I have been a convener four times. I have long campaigned not only for conveners to be elected but for them to receive responsibility pay for the role. That is because a good convener makes for a good, effective committee. Conveners deserve that status. What were the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee’s reflections on responsibility pay for conveners? I have no idea what amount might have been discussed, but I wonder whether, in principle, the committee was agreeable to it.
Christine Grahame’s intervention picks up on the workload that conveners have to take on. As an innocent, naive convener at the start of the session, I had not appreciated the phenomenal workload. I accepted that as I became experienced, because, as Christine Grahame says, a good convener can make for a very good committee.
A number of people who responded to our call for evidence suggested that there should be recompense to reflect that workload. However, after discussion, we thought that that was a step too far and was too challenging at this stage. The process of electing conveners would allow for such a discussion in the future if members wanted to pursue it.
Does Martin Whitfield appreciate that, although we all expect the best from our parliamentarians, the proposed model might allow for majority-holding parties to veto candidates until they come up with one that they want? If such a rule had been in place for this session, we might not have seen the award-winning convener Douglas Ross being appointed.
We spent a great deal of time listening to evidence—not necessarily specifically about any award-winning convener but about the challenges of such a process potentially being open to manipulation. Members will see that, under the proposed rules, where there is only one proposed candidate from a party that holds the convenership pen for that committee, there would be an election only if somebody put their hand up and said, “I object.”
The other important element is that there are very few secret votes in the Scottish Parliament. The Presiding Officer and the deputy presiding officers have the privilege of being appointed in an anonymous vote. The process for electing conveners of committees would be the same. That approach was deliberately chosen to reflect what the evidence showed happens in other Assemblies and Parliaments—it removes the party’s ability to dictate the vote unless the individual who is voting wants to accept that. We have heard, and have seen in debates and votes over the past few weeks, including the stage 3 debate that we have just had, that there should perhaps be room for more separation between the party or Government and individuals. I am confident that the changes that have been proposed will allow such separation for MSPs who remember who sent them to the Scottish Parliament and who their responsibility is to.
Martin Whitfield made a comparison with the election of deputy presiding officers. Will he confirm that he does not envisage more rounds of exhaustive balloting for every single committee convener?
I am very grateful for that intervention, which gives me the opportunity to thank Emma Roddick for her service on my committee and to draw me back to the purpose of the proposals that we are considering tonight.
It is right to say that it is not envisaged that there will be many rounds of elections for the post of convener. Only a member of the party that holds the pen of convenership of the committee in question will be able to put themselves forward to be nominated, but their nomination will require the support of a member of another political party or a member who is not a member of a political party in the Parliament. If only one member is nominated and there are no objections, they would become convener. If there is an objection, a secret ballot would be held. In addition, it is proposed that,
“If more than one chair role is being considered in a single meeting, no member may be nominated for more than one role”.
The proposed new rules detail the manner in which votes would be cast at the election for the convener, which would depend on the number of candidates in the election. Under our proposals,
“Committee members can vote to recommend removal of a convener, but that removal only occurs if a motion is agreed by the Parliament.”
Should the proposed changes be agreed to, we have recommended that they be reviewed during the first half of session 7. Such a review should include consideration of the operation of the standing orders relating to temporary, deputy and acting conveners of committees. That would allow for consideration of the matter that Christine Grahame raised. [Interruption.]
Will the member give way?
If the intervention is very quick.
I will allow a brief intervention from Christine Grahame, but I encourage other members to settle down a bit.
This is a really stupid question, because I am really tired. I want to check something. Is it the case that, if we vote for the committee’s report, we will not be voting for all the elements within it, and that, at some point, the Parliament will debate the recommendations in your report? I am not clear about issues such as anonymity of voting and so on. I just want to know what we will be voting on tonight.
I ask the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee to reinforce the point that members should always speak through the chair.
I believe that the Deputy Presiding Officer is fully aware that the committee that will follow the present Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee, which had its final meeting today, would be open to any such recommendation.
The vote tonight is on a proposed standing order rule change that will amend rule 6.3 and insert after rule 11.10A rule 11.10B, which provides for the election of subject and mandatory committee conveners. Members will be making a decision on the proposal that, starting at the start of the next session, conveners should be elected in the way that is outlined in our report and in the proposed amendments to standing orders. The final part of what we are recommending is that the operation of the proposed system of elected conveners be reviewed not later than halfway through the next session.
With that, I rest.
I move,
That the Parliament notes the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee’s 8th Report, 2026 (Session 6), Standing Orders rule changes – Elected Conveners (SP Paper 1033), and agrees that the changes to Standing Orders set out in Annexe A of the report be made with effect from 11 May 2026.
The question on the motion will be put at decision time.