The next item of business is a debate on behalf of the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee on the committee effectiveness inquiry. I invite members who wish to participate in the debate to press their request-to-speak buttons. I call Martin Whitfield to speak on behalf of the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee.
15:02
It is a pleasure to open the debate and to see so many people eager to contribute to what is, in essence, an evidence-capturing session for what I, modestly, think is probably one of most important inquiries that any committee will undertake during this parliamentary session.
Let us turn the clock back to 1774 and listen to the words of Edmund Burke, who was trying to explain to his electorate some of the challenges that he faced and the relationship between elected representatives and their constituents. His reflection was that
“government and legislation are matters of reason and judgement, and not of inclination; and what sort of reason is that, in which the determination precedes the discussion”?
If I can be so bold, I will take those words and look at them in relation to the challenge of scrutiny. How should we, as modern-day parliamentarians, set aside our individual and party viewpoints to focus on delivering the best scrutiny that we can, in the interests of our constituents? How do we develop a culture, to quote a fellow MSP, of
“being prepared to be open and to accept that you might hear evidence over the course of the process that leads you to change your mind”?
As I open this debate on the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee’s inquiry into committee effectiveness, I am keen to make it clear that today is about hearing the views, reflections and experiences of members in the chamber on that important matter. As a committee, we do not hold a monopoly on wisdom about committee effectiveness. I wish to ensure that, whether members’ reflections are informed by their role as a committee member, convener or minister, those reflections have a chance to be aired, shared and discussed in a constructive and open debate.
There have been three strands to the committee’s work: structure, elected conveners and evaluation. Today’s debate is the final part of our evidence gathering. As well as five oral evidence sessions, in which we captured practice and academic expertise on committee operation, we held a facilitated discussion with the Conveners Group and gathered written views from the public and from other legislatures, parties and committees, so we are primed to feed what we, as a committee, hear from members today into our work and, ultimately, our inquiry conclusions and recommendations to the Parliament. I thank everyone who has engaged with our work to date.
The evidence that we have received has highlighted areas in which committees are performing well: they carry out important, if sometimes unsung work; they have an impact; they hold the Scottish Government to account; they achieve good outcomes; and they provide an opportunity for us to hear directly from those who are impacted by the decisions that we take.
Looking around the chamber, I can see conveners who have established powerful committees on the basis that Martin Whitfield has described. How important is the role of the convener? Does he agree that the convener sets the culture and tone for a committee and allows it to do exactly what he has suggested should be the role of committees?
Of course the convener holds a key piece of the jigsaw in ensuring that the committee works effectively. I will come to the evidence on that in a minute, if the member will kindly let me finish talking about the impact of our work.
To aid today’s deliberations, I would like to set out in detail the strands that the committee looked at. In relation to structure, we sought to answer the question, “Are there structural and procedural changes that would improve committee scrutiny?” We heard various views on whether the size of a committee matters. Smaller committees seem to assist with the development of a sense of cohesion, but bigger committees offer the flexibility to deploy members as reporters, to form sub-committees and to manage high workloads.
Churn in the membership of committees has been a recurring theme. As well as considering ways to reduce that churn, we heard reflections on how its impact can be mitigated by committees having mission statements that set out long-term aims and purposes, so that new members can recognise and support those from the outset.
We gave consideration to committee remits and to whether they should continue to mirror the ministerial portfolios, or whether there needs to be more flexibility for ad hoc bill committees or more cross-committee working.
We heard reflections on what is seen by many to be the ideal of a committee member leaving their party hat at the committee door, whether that is always desirable or, indeed, realistic to achieve, and how members can be empowered in their role through the provision of induction, training and support.
The committee also explored the use of parliamentary time and whether that should be utilised differently, for example by setting aside specific periods in which committee activity can be focused on or by giving committees more flexibility to meet in private session at the same time as the chamber.
The committee has agreed that, as a minimum, there should be no single-sex committees from the start of next session, and we have used the inquiry to explore the other quotas that are set out in the gender-sensitive audit regarding committee membership and convenership.
The second strand—this relates to Stephen Kerr’s intervention—was that of elected conveners.
I noted the statement that there should be no single-sex committees in the Parliament. How would Martin Whitfield ensure that that would be delivered?
That challenge will rest with members of the Scottish Parliament in the new session. We highlight the issue because of the overwhelming evidence that we have heard that having no single-sex committees is one step towards achieving a better gender balance. However, members in the next session will have to address the issue in the context of the make-up of the Parliament and the different characteristics of its members. In a sense, our recommendation that there should be no single-sex committees is a bellow from this side of a dark tunnel to those who emerge at the other side after the election, but there is genuine recognition that it will improve the process if it is adhered to.
To return to the issue of elected conveners, we reflected on experiences in Westminster and in the Senedd of moving to having elected committee chairs. There was a suggestion—and this speaks to Stephen Kerr’s intervention—that being elected gives chairs more authority and a mandate to run the committee more independently from party groups. We also explored whether having elected conveners would deliver an alternative career path for members, outside of being part of Government.
I will go back to what you said about having gender-balanced committees. That is surely down to what the gender balance will be in the chamber. If that policy was put in place as things stand just now, you would actually be giving us women more work to do, because there are more men in the chamber than there are women.
Always speak through the chair.
That intervention speaks to the very heart of the reality that the Parliament must find for itself in the next session. There has been a lot of discussion about where that responsibility rests, and much of it rests with political parties and their decisions about how to select candidates, which is, rightly, outside the scope and control of this chamber.
To go back to what I said in my response to the previous intervention, this is a cry from this side of a dark tunnel to say that the Parliament in the next session will have better committees if they are not single-sex. In a wonderful example of kicking things into the future, how that is achieved and implemented may rest with others.
I am conscious of time and will turn to evaluation, which was a key aspect throughout our inquiry. Do committees have time to look at how well they have worked? Do they have time, outside of their legislative programme, to explore what they want to explore? We also considered the merit of post-legislative scrutiny as well as the suggestion that added value should be given to pre-legislative scrutiny.
I hope that this short opening has been helpful to members. The inquiry has very much been a listening exercise by the committee. I look forward to hearing all the reflections from members across the chamber on what is—I reiterate this—an important inquiry for those who will come after us.
I advise members that we have a bit of time in hand and that they will be given the time back, should they take any interventions.
I call Kenneth Gibson to speak on behalf of the Finance and Public Administration Committee.
15:12
I am pleased to speak in this debate on committee effectiveness, because it is crucial that Parliament practices are kept under review and that we continually improve in order to carry out the most effective possible scrutiny and to meet public expectations. I therefore welcome the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee’s inquiry into committee effectiveness and the excellent work that it has undertaken to date.
The SPPA Committee asked me to discuss the approach and practices of the Finance and Public Administration Committee because it was mentioned as an example of good practice in the evidence gathered to date. Since the start of this session of Parliament, the FPA Committee has worked in a consensual, constructive and collective way to hold Government to account and to do so robustly where needed.
Party politics are largely left at the door, ensuring that our work is more impactful. For example, we have published 40 reports so far this session, and every single recommendation that we have made has been agreed consensually, with not one involving a division. Our seven members represent four political parties, and we have one member who sits as an independent.
Would Mr Gibson say, as I would, that it is an advantage for a committee to have only seven members? Will he also mention the fact that we have to read all our papers, because we are not given questions by the Scottish Parliament information centre?
You have jumped the gun, John, because I am going to touch on that as I progress through my speech.
To point to our successes, the FPA Committee has improved the transparency of the budgetary information published by the Scottish Government, created the conditions for an open debate about the need—or not, as the case may be—for commissioners, secured a full review of the national performance framework, sought to protect and enhance the time available for parliamentary scrutiny of the Scottish budget and achieved much-needed improvements to the consistency and presentation of financial memoranda.
I note that the SPPA Committee is looking into the Parliament’s current committee structure, the optimum size of committee membership and the number of committees, and I believe that our committee is exactly the right size.
Our workload includes a mix of referred items, such as pre-budget and budget scrutiny, and consideration of bills and Scottish statutory instruments, and we undertake one or two self-initiated inquiries a year. It is crucial that all committees have balanced workloads, and, in carrying out our inquiries, we have chosen subjects on which we feel that we can make the most impact and effect real change.
Our remit in the current session broadened our scope to do just that. It is the first time that public administration has been specifically included in a Scottish Parliament committee’s responsibilities. That has allowed us to shine a light on new issues such as the effectiveness of Scottish Government decision making and to embed public administration in all areas of our work, including budget scrutiny, the commissioner landscape, the cost-effectiveness of public inquiries and the Government’s public service reform programme.
The member is undoubtedly—I have said this to him privately and I am going to say it publicly—an excellent example of what a convener in this Parliament should be. He mentioned the size of the FPA Committee. However, given the size of the Parliament, is there not an issue with the size of the Government? There are nearly 30 ministers, which means that the committee workload of a back-bench member from the Government party will be that much greater. Should we not look to reduce the number of ministers in the Scottish Government?
First, you make me blush with that compliment. Secondly, I think that you have a point. I realise—
Please speak through the chair, Mr Gibson.
I realise that the Scottish Government’s remit has increased over the years. However, in 2007, there were six members of the Cabinet and 16 ministers, and we know for a fact that the numbers have increased considerably since then. That puts an increased workload on back-bench members—who, for example, have to cover two or more committees.
Our committee has sought to continuously identify where improvements can be made to parliamentary scrutiny, including through our current inquiry into the budget process and focused work that is aimed at strengthening the content of the Government’s medium-term financial strategy.
It has helped to maintain our committee’s collective approach that the churn of members has been low—five members have remained in place since the early days of the current parliamentary session. That makes a huge difference, as it enables members to build up expertise, pursue issues over a period of time and identify links between the range of topics across our remit. We also pursue lines of questioning until we get answers, even over months or longer.
As members know only too well, committees take different approaches to questioning witnesses. At the start of the session—this also happened when I chaired the 2011 to 2016 Finance Committee—the FPA Committee agreed that it did not want the Scottish Parliament information centre or our clerks to provide pre-scripted questions that would be divided among members. Instead, we have background briefings and summaries of evidence to prompt our own questioning. Those documents are always published, for openness and transparency. That sink-or-swim approach encourages members—
Will the member take an intervention?
If I will get the time back, I am more than happy to take another intervention.
There are sometimes calls for some of the less popular aspects of a bill or other scrutiny to be covered by prepared questions. Certainly, in the committee that I convene, there is a need for some questions to be asked that might not result in a clip or that do not concern aspects of the bill that members are interested in pursuing, but that does not mean that those areas do not need to be covered.
To digress slightly, I note that what usually happens in the FPA Committee is that I open and cover a number of topics, which is followed by members exploring them in greater depth. However, we do not discuss as a committee what we are going to explore; it is up to every individual member to decide that. I find that, 80 to 90 per cent of the time, everything is covered. If one or two items are left out, I tend to cover them at the end, and I always ask witnesses whether they have any further points that they wish to make.
I had started to say that that sink-or-swim approach encourages members to develop their own knowledge and pursue particular areas of interest, leading to effective and impactful scrutiny and to members feeling invested in the committee’s work.
Finally, I want to emphasise the importance of the convener setting the tone for consensual and impactful scrutiny, which Stephen Kerr emphasised in his intervention on Martin Whitfield. Leadership is important. Being from the Government party, I work hard to gain the trust of and build solid relationships with committee members from across the political divide, and I am sure that they would agree that I have never shied away from asking difficult questions of Government and other witnesses. I allow members the space and time to pursue their own lines of questioning and create opportunities for us to work together on business planning days and fact-finding visits. I seek to consult members and represent the collective view prior to meeting ministers and stakeholders and when speaking to the media on the committee’s behalf.
I understand that the SPPA Committee is considering whether elected conveners would strengthen the Parliament’s committees and, if so, how. That is not an issue that the FPA Committee has considered, but it is clear to me that conveners of all parties can already play a key role in strengthening the effectiveness of their committees. However, they must be prepared to set the tone for all members to work in a constructive, non-partisan way and ensure that the necessary processes and practices are in place to support impactful scrutiny.
I look forward to hearing the other contributions to the debate.
I call Richard Leonard to speak on behalf of the Public Audit Committee.
15:20
Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I will speak predominantly on behalf of the Public Audit Committee.
The Public Audit Committee has submitted a formal response to the call for views in the SPPA Committee’s inquiry, but I want to take a few minutes to speak about the experience that the Public Audit Committee brings, because it does have a particular remit, it does have a distinctive structure and it does have a different way of working compared to most other committees in this Parliament.
Let me begin by saying that our committee is smaller than most committees in the Parliament, with just five members, but we have found that not to be a weakness—it has proved to be a strength, because it gives every member the space to contribute properly every week. It creates the time for more in-depth questioning of witnesses, and it helps to build trust and collaboration across party lines—something that is especially important in scrutiny work. With fewer voices in the room, we are able more easily to follow the evidence, and it allows committee members not just to ask one question, but to ask a second, a third or even a fourth follow-up question of the same witness. So, it leads to more thorough scrutiny and a more constructive tone. That is why we have said in our written submission that smaller, more focused committees could improve scrutiny right across the Parliament.
As Richard Leonard will gather, I, too, am a fan of smaller committees. How do we tie that in with party representation? The more popular committees—unlike his committee—such as the Education, Children and Young People Committee are the ones that everybody wants to be on.
I am simply observing. In the previous parliamentary session, Mr Mason and I were both on the Economy, Energy and Fair Work Committee—Ash Regan was on it, too. It was quite a large committee and I have to say that, in the end, on quite a lot of reports, it broke down into tribalism and members voted along party lines. My experience on other committees in that session and on the Public Audit Committee in this session is that there tends to be much better cross-party working. I think that that is, in part but not exclusively, a function of the size of the committee.
Does that not highlight that the role of a member of the Scottish Parliament should transcend the party labels with which we are elected? Should we often not just junk the d’Hondt system? Should the jobs not be done by the best possible people to do them on behalf of the people of Scotland? Should that not be the criterion for the work of committees and for everything that we do as a Parliament?
I will come on to discuss some of that at the end of my contribution, so I will hopefully answer Mr Kerr’s question with my perspective on that.
Let me turn to something that has already come up and that I think is an issue. Low turnover in committee membership is, in my view, better for nurturing a collective and consistent approach. Gaining expertise and building relationships takes time, but the experience that we have had in the Public Audit Committee is that only two of us are original members who have been there from the start of the session. That is not a criticism; it is simply an observation—and, for the record, I say to Mr Mason that it is not because of the unpopularity of the Public Audit Committee. Also for the record, it is not because those who have left have done so to take up ministerial posts—that might be a criticism, actually. In my view, the Parliament might wish to consider the benefits of locking in stable committee membership as much as possible.
Our committee works differently from others in another significant way. Unlike most other committees, we do not routinely take evidence from ministers. Instead, we hear principally from senior civil servants—the so-called accountable officers—from the Scottish Government and from public bodies. They are defined, incidentally, in the Scottish public finance manual as “accountable officers” whose accountability is to us—the Parliament, on behalf of the people—and not to Government. These are the people with direct responsibility for how public money is spent and how public services are delivered. That allows us, in turn, to ask questions about performance, outcomes and value for money without party politics dominating the room.
It also helps us to focus on the evidence on whether service users—citizens—are getting what they have been promised. That approach has been central to some of our most high-profile work—this week, once again, on the delays and escalating costs of the Glen Sannox and Glen Rosa ferries programme and, just last week, the publication of our report on the misuse of public money by the Water Industry Commission for Scotland.
On the issue of elected conveners, our committee members held differing views, and we have submitted those individually, but on gender balance we were united. We support an end to single-sex committees. We would welcome positive action to ensure that a better gender balance exists across all the Parliament’s committees, but we also believe that this is about more than gender. We believe that diversity of background, of experience and of perspective strengthens parliamentary scrutiny, because the people who hold those in power to account should better reflect the people we are elected to serve.
Here are some final thoughts from me, Deputy Presiding Officer. We have duties that we must discharge as representatives. I am elected on a party ticket—of course I am; I would not be a member of this Parliament had I not been a Labour candidate—but we were not elected to be robots, trembling before the party whips. Ultimately, we are responsible to ourselves, to our consciences, to our values, and that, in my view, should be better reflected in the way in which we conduct ourselves in committee and in this chamber. We are not managers or would-be managers. We are elected representatives. We should have conviction in our politics and the courage of our conviction. These are questions not just about the future of this Parliament. These are not just operational matters. They are about the state of our democracy itself.
History tells us that progress comes from below and that Parliaments have to catch up. I hope that this Parliament does catch up—with the people’s hunger for more active, popular democracy not just in our Parliament, not just in our politics, but in our economy as well.
15:27
It is a pleasure to speak in the debate and, in my role as convener of the Criminal Justice Committee, to give some personal reflections on committee effectiveness. I pay tribute to the work of the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee in securing the debate following its important and interesting inquiry.
I also thank all members of the Criminal Justice Committee and those who have been members during my time as convener. I believe that we have demonstrated what an effective committee looks like. Without being immodest, I think that the committee has worked hard to secure its reputation for robust scrutiny, whether in committee-led inquiries or when scrutinising legislation that comes under our remit. My goodness, there has been a lot of legislation.
On a point that some members have raised, my view, certainly in the context of criminal justice, is that there is a need for some pre-prepared questions, which help to ensure that all aspects of a bill’s provisions are the subject of evidence taking during committee scrutiny. However, it is important to extend some flexibility to members who are interested in following their own line of questioning.
I agree with the point that Audrey Nicoll has made. Nonetheless, does she accept that, if there are pre-prepared questions, there is a temptation for some members not to do the required homework or to think for themselves and seek out the most important points?
I agree. It is the responsibility of each member to consider their own lines of questioning. However, one of the advantages of having prepared questions is that it ensures that we take evidence across a broad spectrum of provisions, particularly when we scrutinise bills.
Even as a member of the Government party, I have always taken the view that our committee is a critical friend of that Government. By that I mean that we are not frightened to criticise when improvements are needed, but we do so constructively by working with ministers and others on as much of a shared agenda as we can, across the parties. Our committee’s record demonstrates that.
In no small part, that is due to all committee members being prepared—most of the time—to set aside party politics and seek to attain real change. That is so whether it be through our scrutiny of the Victims, Witnesses, and Justice Reform (Scotland) Bill, which could make fundamental changes to our justice system, through seeking to improve the ways in which the mental wellbeing of our police officers is supported or through supporting calls to end Friday releases from prison. As its convener, I have been keen that our committee is one that, when possible, seeks consensus across political parties and that, regardless of its members’ political affiliations, considers matters in a fair way, with a focus on improving Scotland’s criminal justice system. I believe that we have done that.
I believe, too, that, in addition to working collaboratively, effective committees have excellent relationships and dialogue with the stakeholders and individuals who are relevant to their remit, and that they respond to them by tackling their concerns. By being fleet of foot and creative, our committee has always been willing to find a way to make progress on an issue by considering evidence and, when appropriate, encouraging ministers to take action.
I cannot talk about our committee’s work programme without commending our clerking team, without whom I would certainly be lost. Nothing is too much trouble for them, and the huge workload that the team carries to make our committee work so well is not lost on any of our members. The support that we receive from our Scottish Parliament information centre, communications, and participation and communities team—PACT—colleagues is second to none, and we are indebted to them all. It is worth noting the sensitivity of some of our committee’s work, which has involved our taking evidence from highly vulnerable witnesses. The complex and detailed support that the PACT team provides to make such evidence sessions happen ensures that we get the best evidence from all our witnesses.
In this parliamentary session, the Criminal Justice Committee has seen relatively few membership changes. Continuity with our members, clerks and researchers has meant that we have built up a good understanding of our remit and what needs to be done. Richard Leonard articulated that point well in his contribution.
We have also been innovative in working with two other committees to scrutinise the Scottish Government’s response to tackling drug harm and reducing the number of drug deaths, and in supporting the work of its national mission on drugs. That cross-committee work supported a people’s panel process that brought together members of the public to consider what Scotland should do differently to reduce the number of drug deaths.
I firmly believe that our committees are at their most effective when we work collectively, without fear or favour towards the Government, and when we are creative and persistent about achieving real change within our remits.
Convening a committee is an utter privilege. It is also not without its pressures and demands, but they are made so much easier by the support that is provided by all our members. For that support, I extend my grateful thanks.
15:34
I, too, thank the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee for its work in this area. The Scottish Parliament recently celebrated its 25th anniversary. As Kenny Gibson set out earlier, it is right that how the Parliament operates is kept under constant review, to ensure that the best ways of working can be identified and implemented when there is consensus to do so.
I begin with an observation. A few weeks ago, we had a debate on the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee’s inquiry into framework bills and Henry VIII powers, and that committee’s convener cited the Donoughmore report of 1932. Today, the convener of the SPPA Committee has gone further back in the annals of history to 1774, to cite Edmund Burke. I note that Mr Carlaw’s committee today published its blueprint for participation, which we will debate shortly. There is therefore a challenge to Mr Carlaw on how far back in history he can go in opening the debate on that report.
I speak in my ministerial capacity so, given the importance of protecting the principle of ministers being accountable to Parliament, I am sure that colleagues will understand my desire to avoid being seen to direct how Parliament discharges its responsibility. Instead, my principal interest is in considering how any changes might impact on the delivery of Government business.
At the outset, I acknowledge the careful way in which the SPPA Committee is going about its inquiry and its desire—as evidenced by today’s debate, which is in a different format from those that we normally hold—to ensure that a wide range of perspectives are taken into account. I also recognise the difficult challenge that the committee has set for itself by tackling committee effectiveness. Whether something is effective might not be an easy thing to reach a view on, and I know from research that the committee has commissioned that many Parliaments have had difficulties in identifying outputs and measures on effectiveness.
It is, of course, not for me to say how effective parliamentary committees are at holding Government to account, but I will draw attention to how subjective and varied effectiveness can be. For example, how should we measure effectiveness in relation to bills? Is effectiveness best measured by how much impact a committee has on a bill by making amendments? The attraction of that metric is that it has the benefit of being tangible and measurable. Is the question more about how the committee has gone about the scrutiny of a bill, investigated whether it will deliver on its purpose and considered whether there were alternatives and what stakeholders thought?
My view is that the latter question is probably more important, but we have to recognise that it is much more difficult to measure. If the Government is doing its job properly—the view on that might be felt to be subjective—in bringing forward well-crafted legislation that has stakeholders’ support, effective parliamentary scrutiny may not need to do much more than identify that such legislation is fit for its task. In other cases, particularly on issues that are politically polarising, effective parliamentary scrutiny may look very different.
I will watch with interest to see what direction the committee wants to take on the measurement of effectiveness.
The minister will no doubt be aware of Professor Mary Brennan’s letter with regard to the scrutiny of the secondary legislation on the good food nation. She finished her letter by saying:
“We strongly believe that it is incumbent on all those with responsibility to ensure the highest level of scrutiny and accountability are adhered to.”
In bringing forward legislation, the Government surely needs to take cognisance of the Parliament’s capacity to scrutinise it in that way.
Of course, and that is what we do. That has been the subject of some discussion in the context of the inquiry. I gave evidence to the SPPA Committee just last week, and I engage regularly with committee conveners. A sense is sometimes expressed that the Government is overburdening committees with workload. I put on the record last week at committee, and I am delighted that Mr Carson has given me the opportunity to place it on record now, that the average number of Government bills introduced per year has been broadly stable across all parliamentary sessions. In this session, we project introducing 12 bills per year; in session 5, we introduced 12 per year; in session 4, it was 13 per year; in session 3, it was 11 per year; in session 2, it was 13 per year; and in session 1, it was 13 per year.
The pattern is broadly similar for Scottish statutory instruments. The numbers of SSIs have been largely stable for the past few years, and this year there have been far fewer than in every other year since 2000-01.
I recognise the Government’s responsibility to ensure that committees have a manageable workload, and in terms of our legislative programme, I think that we are doing that.
The minister makes an interesting point about numbers. Does he agree that some subject committees receive more legislation than others? Indeed, we discussed that this morning during the meeting that he had with me as convener of the Education, Children and Young People Committee. Between now and the end of the parliamentary session, the committee will have very little capacity to consider anything other than legislation, given the number of non-Government bills and Government bills that are coming forward. Although the numbers may be the same, certain committees receive more legislation than others.
I absolutely recognise that. The Government looks at the range of activity that committees are undertaking, as members can see clearly from the year 5 programme that we announced in our programme for government. We are cognisant of capacity issues and aware that some committees will have more capacity than others, and we try to balance that against the need to take forward the legislative programme that meets the Government’s ambitions. Often, legislation falls under more than one committee’s remit, and we try to balance activity with that in mind.
In giving evidence to the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee last week, I made the point frequently that it is not for the Government to dictate how a committee might scrutinise legislation or any particular issue. There may be a question of how a committee could scale its approach, depending on the significance of the issues. Committees could deal with minor technical issues quickly, which would allow them to spend more time on issues that are significant, of high public interest or of longer-term impact. Of course, committees have to make those judgments for themselves.
Over time, new processes and new information requirements have built up, which have increased committee workloads. At the Parliament’s request, the volume of information that the Government must submit to the Parliament has increased and, in turn, the volume of information that the Parliament must consider has also increased. We seek to respond to such requirements accordingly. [Interruption.] Am I getting an indication from the Deputy Presiding Officer that I must conclude?
I can give you the time back for the interventions, with a bit of extra latitude.
Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer.
I will touch on whether there is scope for committees to do more pre-legislative scrutiny in order to improve their knowledge earlier in the process and to front load some of their consideration of certain issues. The Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee has looked at whether committees could front load some scrutiny while policy development is under way by engaging in consultations or discussing matters with lead ministers at an earlier stage and more regularly. That approach could ensure that less time was required to scrutinise the final product.
Of course, it is in the hands of committees to determine how much time should be allocated to scrutiny when they have been involved at an earlier stage of the process. I do not think that there would be inconsistencies in a committee being able to inform the development of legislation that was subject to its scrutiny further down the line; committees should be perfectly capable of doing that.
The minister opens an interesting question about the contribution that a committee can make to a bill’s development, as opposed to its requirement to scrutinise a bill. Is he comfortable—I phrase that carefully—that a committee would be able to, in essence, contribute to what a bill should look like and subsequently scrutinise it successfully for parliamentary needs?
In short, yes—that would be perfectly possible. It would still be in the Government’s hands to consider what the committee had said and draft its legislation accordingly. When it scrutinised a bill, the committee might feel that the points that it had raised had not been fully taken into account. I see no inconsistency in a committee being able to participate in both aspects of the scrutiny process.
I look forward to hearing what members across the chamber have to say. Again, I emphasise that it is not for the Government to dictate to Parliament on such matters but, of course, the Scottish Government is always ready, willing and happy to support such considerations in the appropriate way.
15:45
I realise that, as a child of the 1950s, I am the oldest MSP contributing to the debate this afternoon, but I assure the minister that I have no first-hand recollection of the events of 1774 or earlier, so I am not able to respond to his request in quite the way that he might have expected.
I realise that a special meeting of the Parliament is taking place this afternoon in Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse, but I am immediately impressed by the quality of the contributions that I have been able to witness so far in the debate. I do not know whether there is a collective noun for conveners, but I enjoyed hearing from Audrey Nicoll, Richard Leonard and, of course, Kenny Gibson. I join in Stephen Kerr’s tribute to Kenny Gibson. It is my job—as it was once yours, Deputy Presiding Officer—to present, on behalf of the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body, the Parliament’s budget to the Finance and Public Administration Committee each year. I am always a model of circumspection and moderation in so doing, and I am always immensely impressed by the convener’s robust handling of the issues that we discuss, especially when it comes to the issue of MSP remuneration.
Are there any changes to the Parliament’s procedures and practices that would help the committees to work more effectively? The challenge that arises from this afternoon’s discussion very much reminds me of the early days of the coalition UK Government, when it sought to embrace the challenge of House of Lords reform. One might have thought that, with a coalition rather than a majority Government, the land was best placed for some sort of collective agreement to emerge. However, in fact, each of the proposals, some of which were eminently sensible, found a different coalition of interests that was opposed to it, so nothing transpired. The challenge for the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee will be to take forward some of what I think will be a degree of agreed thinking in the chamber this afternoon and transform it into something that might lead to the Parliament being more effective.
When this Parliament was created, it joined the Parliaments of North Korea, Nicaragua, Mozambique, China and Cuba in being unicameral. The suggestion was that we did not need another chamber—of course, we do not, as we are one of the most over-governed countries in the world, and the last thing that we need is a second chamber. However, the promise was that our committee system would be the vanguard or bulwark of democratic accountability that would counteract inappropriate, badly drafted or simply wrong legislation. The question before us is, have we succeeded in doing that? The answer is that we have sometimes done so, but not always. That leads to the issues that are before us today.
I sympathise, for example, with the views that have been expressed about gender balance, and the fact that we should not have single-sex committees. I am the convener of such a committee myself now. It did not start that way, but we had a woman on the committee who was promoted to another committee, and there was not another woman available to put in her place. When another committee member left, we had two women from their party in rapid succession, after which that place was filled by a man. Then, another party changed its representative but declined to appoint a woman to the place. The way in which our committees are constructed makes it difficult to find a formula that will achieve mixed-sex committees without having a lot of red tape at the start of the session that requires parties not only to abide by d’Hondt but to nominate a member of a particular sex in order to achieve the continuity of gender balance.
I take the point that, if there is no gender balance in the Parliament, having a gender balance on committees would possibly lead to far more work falling on a handful of representatives—that would certainly have been the case with the Conservative Party in this session.
Of course, continuity is a difficult thing to achieve, partly because people are promoted within their party to take on more senior roles, which changes the face of their representation. My committee has faced problems with continuity, too. The minister referred to our report containing our final recommendations on deliberative democracy, which the Parliament will debate early in June, but I note that there are only two members of the committee who have been through the whole of that committee inquiry and taken part in every stage of the development of the recommendations.
The Conservative Party is the only party in the chamber that has never had a taste of government in the devolved era, so we do not have the same vested interests as the other parties do in maintaining certain safeguards. Our view is that we should do away with d’Hondt in the construction of committees. If that were done, the smaller parties would have greater representation across the various committees, and it would achieve the ambition of the committees being more independent of Government and being able to scrutinise with more authority. Our view is that that would give additional emphasis to the notion that the committees are, in fact, an essential part of holding the Government to account and thus of ensuring democratic accountability.
We are not altogether sure about whether there should be elected conveners. I was part of the previous Presiding Officer’s commission that first suggested electing and remunerating conveners. I am not sure about those suggestions, but I am sure that a number of conveners, particularly in the Conveners Group—which is a group that in some respects I think we could do without, because I am not quite sure what it achieves; I say that with the greatest respect to you, Deputy Presiding Officer, as the chair of it—are unsure about what their level of authority and responsibility is. Almost more important than conveners being elected or remunerated would be a clear understanding of what the authority of a committee convener is to act. I am aware that some feel able to act and others feel constrained by the committee as to what they can do. That probably interferes with the democratic accountability function.
We would also like to see the creation of a full-time post-legislative scrutiny committee. That is not an original idea, and we have gone round the houses on it. I hoped that deliberative democracy might offer an opportunity, but I do not think that the deliberative democracy model was particularly successful. We know that we are all supposed to do more post-legislative scrutiny, but we are unable to do so within the construction and constraints that exist. That is our principal view.
In relation to committee size, the smaller the committee is, the better. Five to seven members has worked better but, in our model of doing away with d’Hondt, there would probably be more opportunity for authority and for representation from other parties.
I hope that there is a general interest in this issue in Parliament. Normally in the Conservative Party, when you get the whip’s broadcast, if it says that you are speaking on Thursday afternoon and no division is expected, you rather feel that you have been consigned to the graveyard shift, because everybody else might have left. Notwithstanding the fact that we are here on a Thursday afternoon to discuss the issue, I hope that there is a genuine interest in it rather than a “you will be here to discuss it this afternoon” interest. I can see that everybody who has contributed to the debate so far wants to contribute and has genuine personal experience and ideas to contribute. I hope that we can translate those into something that committee conveners can take forward in a meaningful way so that we achieve the change that we would like to see.
Thank you, Mr Carlaw. As a small concession, I am sure that you will be delighted that the Conveners Group meeting is cancelled next month.
15:00
I thank the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee for the debate and for carrying out an inquiry into committee effectiveness.
We must review and improve our procedures to ensure that the Parliament always operates to the highest standards. Our committees exist to hold Government to account and to test legislation. Members must leave their party allegiance at the door and hold Government to account. Some would argue that the role is different for members of the governing party when they are dealing with legislation, given that they stood on a manifesto that promoted that same legislation. I do not think that anyone would expect the committee—
Will the member take an intervention on that point?
Yes.
That is a really important area. However, it is important for all of us that legislation is of quality, is robust and that it delivers for the people of Scotland. It serves no one’s interest if members of the governing party go soft on Government ministers when, in fact, they need to be more robust in specific instances.
Indeed—I was about to make that very point. Legislation must be tested to ensure that it will do what it is meant to, that it will not have unintended consequences and that it will be really good legislation. That benefits the Government as well, because it means that its legislation is all the better because of it.
At the same time, I do not think that anyone expects committee members to leave their personal beliefs at the door when they go into committee. Sometimes, that directs the approach that they take. It is difficult to see how we can leave our party politics at the door in what sometimes can be a very partisan Parliament.
A proposal is that we elect committee conveners. We believe that that would help. It would obviously have to be under the d’Hondt system, so that candidates could be only from one party. That approach would give scope for a different career path for MSPs, who could look to become a committee convener rather than a Government minister or cabinet secretary. It would also provide opportunities for those who might not be in favour with their party and might never hope to aspire to committee convenership otherwise. Excluding cabinet secretaries and ministers from casting a vote in the ballot would ensure that the Government could not unduly influence those elections.
The member will surely recognise—I must be careful of what I say here—that not every minister might remain one for the entire duration of a session of Parliament. How would she deal with the notion that those members who have been disenfranchised might then find themselves on the back benches and on a committee?
That would apply, too, to those who were promoted into ministerial and cabinet secretary positions—they would already have cast a vote and would then be subject to scrutiny by that same committee. However, we would simply have to live with that, because I do not think that any of us are so arrogant that we cast a vote expecting to be in an elevated position and none of us are probably looking at our demotion so clearly as when we are looking to cast a vote—although the minister might disagree.
We must also not shy away from setting up short-life committees. Sometimes the committee structure is so stuck that we cannot do things a bit more flexibly. We should look at setting up short-life committees and sub-committees—or joint sub-committees of two or more committees, if that would be useful. That would give us the flexibility to react to circumstances.
I absolutely agree that there should be no single-sex committees. Scottish Labour works hard to ensure that our group has gender balance, and we must never stop doing that.
I have been interested in the discussion about that issue. If I understand correctly, all the committee members on the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee, which is considering the matter, are female, apart from the convener. Would the member be comfortable if a committee had all female members and a good, female committee member had to be taken off to be replaced by a male?
I really look forward to the day when that must happen—[Laughter.] I cannot conceive of it, but I sincerely hope that it does. If that were the case, I would be willing to come off the committee.
Our Parliament should be representative of the communities that we represent. If we had gender balance in the Parliament, single-sex committees would not be an issue at all. However, signing up to the ideal of no single-sex committees without challenging parties to have better gender equality means exactly what Jackie Dunbar and Jackson Carlaw have talked about—that women would end up working harder than men. I am sure that every woman in the Parliament would argue that we already work harder than men as it is, and that we would not want to work any harder than that.
Not only would it be incredibly disappointing if we had single-sex parties; a single-sex party could not prevent a committee from being single sex if it were the last party to nominate. That would cause problems for other parties. Should they forego their committee membership? Should another woman step in? What should happen then? The simple way of avoiding that is to ensure that all parties pursue gender equality in their MSP group.
Having taken a number of interventions, I am now running out of time. It is essential that we review and refresh our procedures to keep our Parliament responsive to the needs of our communities. We need to review our committees. We also need to review legislation and build post-legislative scrutiny into our processes. There might be opportunities to do that at the start of a parliamentary session, when legislation has not yet been introduced. We need to consider using that time to train committee members, as well as let them review previous legislation. That would give them an insight into that committee’s work.
16:00
The Scottish Green group submitted a detailed paper on the inquiry, and I am grateful that this work is being undertaken. We feel that significant improvement to how our parliamentary committees work is needed in order to improve scrutiny of the Scottish Government, particularly post-legislative scrutiny, and scrutiny of public bodies. The Scottish Government is prone to setting itself targets and setting out intentions without following up and taking the action needed to meet them. We have seen that happen disastrously with Scotland’s high-level climate targets, but also with what we might call the supporting targets, such as those on recycling, the reduction of waste, the reduction of car kilometres and so on.
First, it should be the role of committees to circle back on and immediately and persistently demand implementation plans for legislation that has been passed and that sets out targets. Costs, effectiveness and progress must all be followed up diligently. Otherwise, we let the Scottish Government get away with saying “We have the most ambitious climate targets in the world” for years, which covers up the truth that they have not taken the actions needed to meet those targets to the point that they are now rushing around having to erase them.
Secondly, although committee inquiries are often of very high quality, they frequently lead to no action. There should be structured follow-up to ensure that recommendations are implemented. If follow-up is not feasible within the parliamentary session, legacy reports should explicitly recommend that successor committees prioritise it. Aligning committee work with Government priorities could help to ensure that feedback is received at a time when the Government is working on the subject. It would help ensure that work is taken into consideration at the right time.
Thirdly, the Scottish Greens feel that budget scrutiny is largely ineffective and requires a complete overhaul. Reforms were agreed between the Parliament and the Government around budget scrutiny in the previous parliamentary session, but we need to understand how those are being progressed. Within the budget scrutiny process, evaluating how budget decisions align with Government strategy and stated priorities is nearly impossible. Take, for example, the Government’s stated intention to reach net zero by 2045. How can the Parliament understand whether the budget is taking us in that direction? Some budget lines, such as those for dualling roads, will clearly increase emissions, whereas others, such as the reform of agricultural subsidies, should reduce them—but by how much? What are the trade-offs that the Government is making? Without that information, we cannot scrutinise the budget effectively. The Scottish Government will now be moving to carbon budgeting. That is an opportunity to fix the process and to match financial budget lines with carbon budget lines, so that the Parliament can clearly see how both budgets are being balanced.
Fourthly, committees should have a clearer role in monitoring progress against the national performance framework. How do we know that what the Government is doing is in line with its stated priorities?
Fifthly, the lack of post-legislative scrutiny is a significant issue. At present, the first half of parliamentary sessions can be taken up by members pursuing their personal interests, which has the result of reducing the time that is available within the term to pursue new legislation or to amend existing legislation. If the first half of each parliamentary session was dedicated to post-legislative scrutiny—ensuring that laws, especially framework legislation, are functioning as intended before committees move on to new inquiries—that would resolve the problem.
The final point that I will make in my opening speech—I will perhaps make some of the others in my closing speech—is that parliamentary committees are failing to provide adequate scrutiny of SPCB-supported bodies and public bodies beyond the Government. Important findings made by SPCB-supported bodies—and, indeed, other public bodies—are often ignored due to a lack of committee mandate to engage with their work. Parliamentary committees should have duties and mechanisms to effectively scrutinise other public bodies, such as Environmental Standards Scotland. A structured approach, similar to the Public Audit Committee’s weekly sessions with the Auditor General, would improve oversight.
There is time, so I will carry on for a bit.
In our paper, the Scottish Greens describe how committee structures and practices could be improved. More business time in the chamber should be allocated to committee-led debates, which would require committees to have ideas on what they would like to debate. Committee debates tend to be more informed and constructive and less likely to cut along party lines.
The Scottish Greens feel that, at the moment, a large amount of chamber time is wasted on repetitive and unproductive debates, partly due to the Government’s reluctance to risk losing votes, and partly because Opposition parties do not push for more substantive discussions.
Bad behaviour in committees such as badgering witnesses or talking over conveners should absolutely not be tolerated. Conveners should enforce decorum and protect witnesses from targeted attacks. Mechanisms should be in place to call out inappropriate behaviour without fear of retaliation.
Committee conveners should be elected, instead of appointed based on party agreements. The current system allows larger parties, especially the governing party, to use convenerships as a reward for back benchers, reducing the independence and effectiveness of committees. Electing conveners was a recommendation of the parliamentary commission that was established by the previous Presiding Officer, but it has not been enacted in this parliamentary session, which is disappointing.
Party and gender balance on committees should be prioritised to ensure diverse representation. Following earlier comments, I note that there is, of course, a difference between perfect gender balance and single-sex committees—wiggle room, as it were, when parties do not have good gender balance among their members in the Parliament.
The electing of conveners should be structured to avoid popularity contests and to ensure that those who are chosen are committed to rigorous scrutiny. Cross-committee collaboration should be standard practice to address issues that cut across departmental lines. That would help to overcome siloed working and ensure comprehensive scrutiny of multifaceted issues. Finally, committees should have greater powers, including the ability to compel witnesses to appear and to strengthen their oversight capabilities.
I think that Lorna Slater will find that, under the Scotland Act 2016, the committees of this Parliament have the power to compel witnesses to appear before them. I think that we already enjoy that privilege in this Parliament—something, by the way, that the Westminster Parliament does not enjoy.
I am very grateful to Stephen Kerr for correcting me on that point, if, indeed, I have got that wrong. I note that at least one United Kingdom Government minister has refused to appear before the Scottish Parliament when requested to do so in writing. Therefore, that would be a good power to have.
16:07
I want to get a couple of things out of the way before I start. First, I reassure Jackson Carlaw that nobody had to bully me to take part in the debate. You can check with my whips—I was well up for it.
Secondly, I know that many committees have done excellent work in the Parliament, and I hope that their members, their conveners and anybody who has given evidence will understand that any criticisms that I make of the structures are absolutely no criticism of the work that they have done. Indeed, it makes any successes that much more impressive.
I have sat on four committees, acted as a substitute member on two and appeared before two others as a minister, so I know that they are busy and often overloaded. The inquiries that are carried out often give much-needed air to issues that really matter to constituents and are important and worthy of time, but that are perhaps not quite as flashy when it comes to discussing them in the chamber—perhaps much like this debate. Committees do not have enough power or, I am afraid, enough respect.
My experience has taught me that the convener and their approach make a huge difference to the effectiveness of a committee and the experience of members and witnesses. A convener who does not allow members to pursue non-SPICe lines of questioning, overloads witness panels or does not show an interest in detail or in approaching difficult subjects can create a dispiriting environment. A convener who creates a culture of interest, curiosity and participation—or who brings bacon rolls to meetings—can really make a difference.
Respect from the Government and media for committees and the issues that they raise is incredibly important. I wish that I could think of an effective way to prevent party whipping in committees.
One particular example of good work was undertaken by the Social Justice and Social Security Committee under the convenership of Elena Whitham. At the end of an inquiry, we published the report, “Robbing Peter to pay Paul: low income and the debt trap”. It was hailed by third sector campaigners, those whom we took evidence from and MSPs across parties. It felt as though we had achieved something, along with the support of clerks and SPICe, in pulling together everything that we had considered into recommendations. However, the response from the Government was a huge disappointment to me, as a fairly new MSP.
One witness to the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee inquiry pointed out that it is hard to measure effectiveness. There is no key performance indicator on committee impact factor—yet. Is effectiveness measured by how many amendments the committee makes to a bill or how many reports it publishes? What about recommendations that are initially ignored by the Government but which make it in to the next budget or manifesto that is drawn up—without any credit given to the committee, with its report already forgotten?
That is an interesting question, which can only really be answered if we do more post-legislative scrutiny and follow-up work. I know from my experience that committees often do not feel that they have time to do those things, but, if we want to be more effective, they are critical.
The convener of the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee mentioned the issue of the time that committees have. We need to ask ourselves some serious questions about whether the value that we place on committees is reflected in the parliamentary timetable. There are a lot of solutions out there, from giving over some afternoons of chamber business to having separate bill committees. However, the solutions always seem to lead to a very difficult question for MSPs, including for those like me who sit on three committees: even if we have smaller committees, are there enough of us to meaningfully improve scrutiny?
I have a lot of sympathy for the issues raised about remuneration, which I believe is critical to strengthening the whole system. I have worked under many excellent conveners and I have seen the work that they are expected to do. It is a whole other job on top of being a back bencher—it is much like being a deputy presiding officer or a junior minister. If we want MSPs, particularly those who are in one of the parties of Government, to take their convenership seriously in its own right and not just to see it as a stepping stone, it must be remunerated in a way that recognises and encourages the level of work that is needed.
Committees should, and can, be incredibly effective. Issues should be spotted and fixed in committees, not in the press or with another bill in the next session. Ministers should be terrified to appear in front of us. I hope that the inquiry results in some change in structure to facilitate that.
16:11
I am pleased to contribute to this important debate on the effectiveness of our parliamentary committees. Although I am convener of the Rural Affairs and Islands Committee, I speak in a personal capacity.
The inquiry comes at a critical time, when public trust, transparency and accountability are paramount. Committees are the cornerstone of scrutiny in our unicameral legislature. They are where legislation is tested, stakeholders are heard and detail is examined, yet the evidence presented to the inquiry shows that our current system is falling short.
I recognise the dedication of committee members across the chamber, many of whom invest significant time and effort. However, we must also be honest about the structural, procedural and cultural barriers that limit our effectiveness. From my experience convening the Rural Affairs and Islands Committee—which covers agriculture, fisheries, animal welfare, rural development and island communities—I have seen how vital it is for committees to be informed and empowered, yet our ability to scrutinise is often constrained by the very structure of the committee.
Effective scrutiny requires an environment—both physical and cultural—in which decisions are well informed and solutions are robust. However, the dual role of committees as both legislative and scrutiny bodies restricts their capacity for inquiry and often turns them into mini chambers. We need structural reforms to make committees more open and less bound by party lines.
On the flawed set-up, for example, the Scottish Conservatives have been clear: the Government majorities on most committees have created a culture in which scrutiny is sidelined, legislation is nodded through and dissenting voices are drowned out—not by debate but by design.
The concern is shared across parties. The Scottish Greens noted that committee inquiries
“frequently lead to no action.”
The Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations expressed frustration at the lack of follow-through. Scottish Labour acknowledged that committees have not fulfilled their intended role.
So, what can we do? First, we must reform committee composition. The commission on parliamentary reform recommended smaller committees and elected conveners. However, smaller must not mean less representative. In a diverse Parliament, we must ensure that all voices—especially, from my perspective, those from rural and island communities—are heard.
Secondly, we must address continuity. The high rate of turnover that I have witnessed in my committee weakens institutional memory and disrupts inquiry flow. Continuity builds expertise and trust, which are essential for effective scrutiny.
Thirdly, there needs to be better follow-up and accountability. Too often, committee reports are published, debated briefly and then forgotten. We need to have structured processes so that we can track implementation and revisit inquiries.
Fourthly, committees must be properly resourced. Effective scrutiny requires time, expertise and support. That means investing in our fantastic clerks, our research staff and access to data. There also needs to be continuity in the clerking team.
Fifthly, although I welcome the committee’s commitment to achieving a gender balance and eliminating single-sex committees, we must go further—we must support participation by underrepresented groups, including members of ethnic minorities, people with disabilities and representatives of rural and island communities.
We must also reflect on whether our institutional architecture supports thoughtful, evidence-based decision making.
One thing that is buried away in standing orders is a member’s expertise to be on a committee. That is a factor that should be taken into account by the Parliamentary Bureau when it considers membership of committees. Does Finlay Carson agree that, as part of that process, consideration should be given to the geography of the area that the member represents, the skill set that they have and the lived experience that they possess? Does he agree that we should be in a position to pay far more heed to that than we can do at the moment?
I absolutely agree. I appreciate that intervention. As Martin Whitfield will know, the Rural Affairs and Islands Committee meets on a Wednesday. I believe that that decision was taken to ensure that members who represent our more remote communities could always attend without it impinging too much on their family time and without their having trouble getting to Parliament after the weekend.
Although the architects of the Parliament created physical spaces such as the infamous members’ thinking pods, our systems do not always allow time for reflection.
If consensus is our goal, why does it remain so elusive? We should explore options such as having more but smaller committees, which could meet fortnightly, or separating committees’ inquiry and legislative functions. Perhaps we could have ad hoc bill committees, as the House of Commons does.
The two Scotland acts that we have had since 1999, along with our exit from the EU, have significantly increased our policy load, as has the increasingly popular adoption of framework bills. Framework bills result in significantly more work for committees, as secondary legislation is where all the heavy lifting is done.
Has the Parliament adapted? Are we equipped to address the scale of the climate change and nature crises, or does our structure hinder us in doing so? The question is whether tweaking the existing system is enough or whether more substantial reform is needed.
Effective scrutiny is not about opposition for its own sake. It is about ensuring that legislation is well crafted, that policies are evidence based and that citizens’ voices—especially those of people who live in rural areas—are heard and respected. The Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee’s inquiry is an opportunity to reset the balance by building a committee system that is independent, effective and truly fit for purpose. I urge all members to support meaningful reform that will not simply improve our processes but strengthen our democracy.
I advise members that the generous amount of additional time that we had in hand is close to being exhausted, so I encourage members to stick slightly more closely to their allocated speaking times.
I call Foysol Choudhury. You have around four minutes, Mr Choudhury.
16:18
I extend my thanks to the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee for its work on the inquiry so far.
With our Parliament having no upper house, the work of the committees is extremely important in the scrutiny of legislation, in holding ministers to account and in bringing forward issues that matter to the public. I believe that the work of our committees can show the very best of Parliament. They were envisioned as being the engine of Parliament, but any good engine needs to be serviced.
I am a member of the Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee, which, in my biased view, is one of the best committees in Parliament. We can directly respond to and raise constituents’ concerns across portfolios. We have a varied programme—last November, we published our inquiry into the dualling of the A9, while, this week, we considered the microchipping of cats.
However, one problem that the petitions committee faces is that its membership is currently all male. We frequently hear and respond to petitions that relate to issues of which we have no lived experience. Although members often join us to give evidence on issues where they have an interest, we should be looking to embed that in the structure of the committee by mandating that no committee can be single-sex.
The evidence given highlighted the value of collaboration when members can allow themselves to put party politics aside and work together towards a committee’s common goal. The size of committees, some of which have up to 11 members, was mentioned as possibly hindering that collaboration. The petitions committee is small, with only five members, which I believe has allowed us to be agile in our work and to become less bogged down in small issues.
Electing conveners could also improve the efficiency of committees. It could give them a mandate to pursue their priorities and could motivate them to share their views about the committee’s future work in order to persuade others to vote for them. Electing conveners could also increase the profile of committees, turning them into the independent engines of Parliament that they were intended to be.
In summary, although our committees do great work, we should be looking to improve them. That could most easily be done by ending single-sex committees, but there are opportunities in bringing in elected conveners and enhancing committee powers. I again thank the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee for its work on this matter and look forward to seeing its final report in the autumn.
16:21
I am pleased to speak in this debate on an important subject that is not routinely debated in Parliament.
As a relatively new substitute member of the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee, I found its inquiry into committee effectiveness fascinating. Like Foysol Choudhury, I think that committees are the engine rooms of this wonderful Parliament, whether they are taking evidence on important legislation or initiating vitally important inquiries on subjects that affect the whole of Scotland’s population.
The questions that were central to the inquiry were about what it means for Scottish Parliament committees to be effective, how we can do better and where and how that is being communicated to the public to create maximum engagement and effect.
We took evidence from a wide range of witnesses and gained useful insights into the operation of Parliaments in other jurisdictions. We heard from academics, civil servants past and present, and representatives of all six parties in the Scottish Parliament. All that evidence helped to build a picture of how our committees operate and how, after 26 years of this Parliament, they could be improved.
As our convener and many others have said, the issue of committee size was crucial to our deliberations, with many witnesses stating that small committees work best. That has been well articulated by members from across the chamber today. The downside of having smaller committees would be that not every party could be represented under the d’Hondt system, which we have also discussed today. That system attempts to reflect the party balance in Parliament across all committees, and the Scottish Government is clear that it would be for Parliament to determine whether that system of representation should change.
The gender-sensitive audit marked the importance of having a Parliament that is representative of society. As a member of the audit panel, I fully support that, but gender balance is possible only when a Parliament has a good gender balance to start with, and that rests on the parties’ ability to attract diversity and create a good gender balance during the selection process.
We also examined how the process to elect conveners works—such a process currently operates in Westminster. The Scottish Government does not have a position on that, but I personally am not convinced that that would be the best route to take in a Parliament of 129 members, or that it could easily be introduced. Much of the evidence that we received from Westminster witnesses, although interesting, was not really relevant to Holyrood due to the different numbers of elected members.
It was agreed that churn in committee membership is not ideal but is often not preventable. Jackson Carlaw articulated that perfectly. Changes in membership can hinder members from building the expertise that they need to scrutinise legislation effectively.
We discussed post-legislative scrutiny, or the lack of time to do it, and it was felt that the legislative workload of most committees and the length of time that is now being taken to complete bills do not allow adequate time to do that important task.
It was also agreed that collaborative working between members that leaves party politics aside makes for more effective committees. As a long-standing member of the Criminal Justice Committee, I can testify to that. As others have said, that comes down to the role of the convener. We have excellent conveners in Audrey Nicoll, Martin Whitfield and Kenny Gibson. They unify their committees in a fair and considered way, which makes for far better outcomes.
Time does not allow me to give a comprehensive account of our inquiry, but I believe that we can be very proud of our committee system, which is helped by skilled back-up from our clerks and research teams. However, the structure should always be a work in progress and there will always be room for improvement.
16:26
I think that that observation is a good introduction to my remarks, so I am grateful to the member for it. We should be committed to continual improvement. Everything can get better. For example, one thing that could get better—I hope that the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee will look at this at some point—is debate management. Here we are in an important debate, and those of us who are on the back benches, who have waited an hour and 10 minutes to speak, must stick to our four minutes, whereas previously everyone took as much time as they liked. I do not think that that is a very good way to manage the time for debate in the chamber and I have given suggestions in the past about how to improve it.
I am going to model the behaviour of independent thinking and opinion that we have been speaking of, because I do not agree with everything that my party submitted to the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee for consideration in its inquiry into the future of committees. I will spell out in exactly which areas that is the case—I am sure that everyone will be absolutely scintillated to hear that.
The reality is that we have a single legislative chamber and the committees are absolutely not intended to be a supporting act but are supposed to be the engine of scrutiny. The question is whether they are, and I think that the answer is obvious, frankly.
We may take a lot of pride in the set-up of our Parliament. Much was promised in that regard: it was going to be innovative, progressive and distinctly Scottish. However, we have to be careful that our pride in what lies in the past does not prevent us from realising where the system as it stands today, after 25 years, is falling short. After such a length of time, we really should be asking ourselves whether our committees are delivering on the promise that we thought they had when the Parliament was established, or whether they have fallen under party control and become overburdened, underresourced and, frankly, too often ignored.
As I have said, there are a number of conveners in the chamber for whom I have a lot of admiration because of their independence of mind in the way that their committees go about their work. However, that is not true of every convener or every committee of this Parliament.
Let me be blunt. I believe that the current committee system is failing to meet its original purpose. Unless we act decisively, this Parliament will continue to fall short of the democratic standards that the people of Scotland deserve. The problems are structural—they are not tied to individuals—but they are not incidental. The committees are too often dominated by party tribalism and party discipline. The long reach of the whips is felt in the committees, but, as parliamentarians, we should not tolerate that. The committees should be completely independent of the control of the whips.
Does the member agree that the sterility of some committees for which SPICe and the clerks write the questions reduces their flexibility? It discourages independent thinking by members and it channels members in a certain way, rather than allowing them a much greater interpretation of what is happening before them.
I can give you the time back for the intervention, Mr Kerr.
That is a brilliant intervention. I could not agree more. The member is absolutely right. We need to encourage independent thinking, because that is the bedrock on which a Parliament exists. Unless we have that, we will fall short in our responsibilities in holding the great public office of being a member of the Scottish Parliament. I repeat: the parties need to butt out of the committees, and we all need to live up to the expectations that the people of Scotland have in us, as holders of the office of member of the Scottish Parliament.
I want to touch on a couple of other things, because my time is about to run out—actually, it has run out. I completely agree on the issue of committee changes, and I have mentioned making the committees free of the whips.
There is also a workload imbalance. There is too much regimentation in how we go about things in the Parliament. For example, there are only so many hours in which a committee can meet, apparently. We need to be more liberal in the way that we see the parliamentary week. Committees should meet as often and for as long as is necessary to do their work, but there are too many standing order restrictions around that.
Will the member give way?
I will give way—or am I not allowed to give way, Deputy Presiding Officer?
You should be winding up at this point, Mr Kerr.
I will give way.
Briefly.
On the point that Stephen Kerr has just made—Jackson Carlaw made a similar point—does he agree that conveners sometimes find it quite difficult to achieve the balance between being too liberal and flexible during a meeting and ensuring that there is the expected formality?
I agree with that. I also think that there should be proper support for conveners to allow them to grow into their role. That is very important, too. For a convener to be truly independent, they need to have the mandate of every member of the Parliament, so I am strongly in favour of elected conveners.
I am also in favour of remuneration for committee conveners. Frankly, I do not believe for one minute that the workload of a committee convener is any less than that of a Deputy Presiding Officer or a junior minister. In so many different ways, in respect of the power balance between Parliament and executive, it is even more important that we have independent, fully functional conveners.
You need to conclude.
I know that my time is up, but I make the point again that we need to do better at managing our debates.
Mr Kerr, I did not want to interrupt your flow, but I point out that the time that we had in hand earlier was not to allow members to continue well beyond their time; it was to allow for interventions—a number of which you made yourself—and to allow members to have the time back, in the same way as you have had.
16:32
This is an important inquiry, and I have enjoyed listening to the contributions this afternoon. I thank the committee for inviting me to give evidence last week. As a very small party, is good for us to be able to take part in such things. In fact, due to the system that we currently have, I am not even entitled to a committee place at the moment, as a member of a very small party.
During my time here—I think that it has been just over nine years now—I have been on eight committees. I have also been in government, so I have been on both sides of the table. I have been in and out of government, and I have been on the government benches and on the opposition benches. It is fair to say that, during the past few years, my views on committee effectiveness have very much developed. Let us leave it there.
Committees are meant to be at the heart of scrutiny in the Parliament, but I agree with some of the previous speakers. Too often, the structure that Stephen Kerr pointed out undermines the purpose that we are here to carry out. Members are often overstretched, some convenerships appear very partisan and often there is limited co-ordination between committees, which serves to weaken the quality of our legislative oversight. Smaller parties and independent MSPs—of whom we may see more in the next session of Parliament—struggle to have meaningful input.
Before I go on to the substantive part of my speech, I want to say that there are many examples of excellent work by committees in the Parliament, both on inquiries and on scrutiny of legislation, and some excellent conveners are sitting in the chamber with us this afternoon. However, unfortunately that is not always the case, and I want to use my time to put on the record an example of what I see as a very significant failure by committees and Parliament in an area that I believe is very important.
Members will not be surprised to hear me say that it relates to the Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill, which I believe showed how serious the structural flaws have become. From the outset, credible legal experts, women’s groups and statutory bodies raised what they felt were very urgent concerns about the interaction between gender recognition certificates and the Equality Act 2010. Those were not abstract legal theories; they were serious warnings about human rights and the clarity of the law. However, instead of being interrogated with care, those concerns were repeatedly dismissed.
We need to be very candid, as a Parliament, and face the fact that the Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee failed in its core duty of scrutiny. It did not fully investigate the most contentious issue in the bill and it did not challenge the Government’s legal stance.
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. Could I get your guidance, please? The member is straying far from the subject matter of the debate. This is not the place for personal recollections.
The conduct of committees is ordinarily a matter for the convener of the committee, but I am content for Ms Regan to continue.
When, during the week of stage 3 of the bill, the Court of Session issued a ruling that contradicted the Scottish Government’s position, even that was ignored. No emergency session was called and no formal briefing was given to MSPs on how the ruling might affect how they voted. Manuscript amendments that were submitted by the Conservatives seeking to address the ruling were blocked. In my opinion, that was not scrutiny but strategic avoidance of certain issues.
Worse still, the conduct of the Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee since has only deepened public unease. Some of the personnel on the committee have changed but, last month, the deputy convener publicly described the Supreme Court’s decision and, by implication, its senior judges, as being motivated by “bigotry, prejudice and hatred”. That was not a critique of the legal arguments involved. It was, I believe, a smear on the judiciary. Such rhetoric from a senior figure, charged with upholding equality standards, has brought the Parliament into disrepute and exposed the lack of checks and accountability in our committee system. The problem is clear. When committees scrutinise legislation and then mark their own homework in post-legislative review, we get defensiveness and not learning.
I am running out of time, Presiding Officer. I had much more to say about legislative impact and post-legislative scrutiny, and on things such as elected convenerships, but I am afraid that I will have to leave it there.
16:37
I do not have much more to add to my opening remarks, which I really managed to crank through. What I have heard today is cross-party agreement that we would all welcome continuous improvement. We could all reflect on how to ensure that we and our fellow committee members understand topics better, for example by taking the time to read the papers properly or coming up with our own questions. Parties may need to think about that when they are nominating people to committees.
I am interested in the conversation around smaller committees and the d’Hondt system. Being part of a smaller party, I am torn on that matter. We would love to be represented on all committees, but every one of our members is currently on at least two committees, which is a heavy workload. It is something to think about.
We have heard repeatedly about uneven workloads, with some committees being heavily burdened and others underburdened. I am interested in the New Zealand Parliament, which, like the Scottish Parliament, is a unicameral legislature with an additional member system. It has only 120 members and yet it supports around 20 committees—a mix of subject and specialist committees. Perhaps we can learn from other countries—I do not know whether there is anything to learn there—about how to share the burden out and how to set up specialist committees so that we can be more effective with the resources that we have.
16:38
I might go slightly further than that one minute and 41 seconds.
This has been a really important debate, because it has been quite a cross-party and cross-experienced debate. There have been jokes about how long people have been here. I have experienced the different dynamics of being a Cabinet member and a committee convener. We should be thinking about the role of committee conveners, because they are critical to the effectiveness of this Parliament.
People have talked about the nature of what our committees do, which is central to how this Parliament was designed. Given the number of bills that we consider, it is increasingly important that we engage with stakeholders, hold ministers to account and carry out post-legislative scrutiny.
In this parliamentary term alone, some pieces of legislation that are before us still need a huge amount of work. Some members’ bills, such as my own, have not yet gone to committees. An awful lot of work will be needed on those. We need to reflect on our approach to post-legislative scrutiny, too.
Members have made really useful comments about the importance of committees carrying out inquiries. Again, that is a really important part of their work. It should be about not just shadowing what ministers do but deciding, over the next few years, which important issues need to be discussed and which recommendations need to be made.
On committees doing cross-cutting or parallel work, a good current example is the work on Grangemouth and project willow, on which both the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee and the Economy and Fair Work Committee are taking evidence. There are various topics that cross over committees’ basic subject areas.
We could do more post-legislative scrutiny, and do it better. We could also do more joined-up, cross-government or cross-policy thinking. However, that is often difficult for committees, because they are so busy. There is a huge amount of work to do across the Parliament.
As a couple of members said, the nature of our job has changed, with regard to not only our digital capacity but that of our constituents. The ways in which we can communicate with people have greatly increased.
Overall, a huge amount has changed, and we need to reflect on how our committees could do better. Therefore, the timing of this piece of work by the SPPA Committee is really important. For me, many of the issues come down to capacity and leadership and how we can learn lessons on those aspects. Things have changed a lot over the past 25 years, so such lessons are there to be learned.
Other key aspects that members mentioned included committee structure, having elected conveners, committee size and committee responsibilities. We must ask whether we should have short-term committees or ones that are set up to deal with a particular piece of legislation. That could happen if, for example, a committee that should be dealing with a bill was simply too busy. We have lots of challenges ahead of us as we move into year 5 of this parliamentary session.
I turn to members’ views on committee size. There were good comments in favour of there being a role for smaller committees. One point that occurred to me is that we need not have that as a requirement for all committees. We have a lot more Government ministers than we have ever had, but some members of the Parliament are not on committees at all and others are substitutes rather than full-time members. That raises questions about capacity, which we should consider.
I strongly support the points that have been made about ensuring that there is a good gender balance on committees. I say that as a former planner. We need to have women involved in every policy area of life. It is not only committee members who will deliver that; important work is done by groups such as the women’s budget group. We need a balanced Parliament in terms of both representation of women and supporting other forms of diversity. Richard Leonard commented on diversity in committee membership, and others spoke about both urban and rural sectors being represented. Our approach should extend to having members from different professional backgrounds as well. We should draw on all members’ experience.
A lot of good comments were made about the need for committee conveners to be elected. I think that the time has come for that.
I have been a member of committees that were critical of the Government; I have also been a Government minister who received massive criticism from a committee.
You must conclude, Ms Boyack.
I am therefore conscious of the importance of the status of committee convener.
Given that the last report on committee effectiveness was in 2017, now is the time for change. Let us learn the lessons and get on with the job. Let us strengthen our Parliament’s accountability and make it work better and deliver for people. That is why it was set up in the first place.
16:43
In closing the debate on behalf of the Scottish Conservatives, I want to pick up on a number of points that were made by earlier speakers. First, though, I note that the debate has brought self-reflection and navel gazing to a whole new level, as members have sat for a couple of hours speaking about how good or otherwise they are on committees. However, I add that I have enjoyed listening to the debate, which has been valuable.
As both Jackson Carlaw and Foysol Choudhury mentioned, we have a unicameral Parliament. We were promised a committee process that would address any deficiencies caused by having such a system, but I am not convinced that we have that yet.
Rona Mackay mentioned that committees should be the engine rooms of our Parliament, and Finlay Carson said that they were the cornerstone of our democracy. I absolutely agree with both of those comments, but, if committees are not performing at their optimum level, they will not meet the aspirations that we had when the Parliament was reconvened in 1999 and which we have carried since then.
Martin Whitfield started us off in the debate by speaking about this being a listening exercise. When I was told that I was speaking in the debate, I quickly went to find the committee’s report and found that it had not been published yet, but this might be the way to do things: having a chamber debate to hear members’ varied views before the committee comes to a conclusion.
Kenny Gibson spoke about his committee, the Finance and Public Administration Committee, which has rightly been lauded by members across the Parliament, not just for Kenny Gibson’s convenership but for the work of every member on it. Two members of his committee—John Mason and Ross Greer—are on the education committee, which I convene. Those are substantial committees, but those members put a lot of work into the various committees that they sit on.
Richard Leonard, speaking for the Public Audit Committee, made the good point that it hears less from ministers and more from accountable officers. Although I like having ministers in front of my committee, we have had very successful evidence sessions with accountable officers in their own sphere. For example, we had the chief executive and the chair of the Scottish Qualifications Authority in front of us. When we recalled the chief executive, she resigned a few days before she was due to appear again—I am sure that the two things were not in any way linked, but it is useful to sometimes get people from outside bodies in front of us.
Audrey Nicoll made an excellent speech on behalf of the Criminal Justice Committee. She rightly spoke about the relationship that the committee is building and the dialogue that it is creating with stakeholders, who are so important to the legislation that we pass. She spoke for every convener and committee member when she praised the work of the clerks, SPICe, PACT and the media teams, which I certainly agree with.
Rhoda Grant gave an excellent response to my intervention on her, but, although I hear the calls against single-sex committees, there are dangers. I put my point again: the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee is convened by a Labour MSP, and, apart from the convener, all the members are female. If that measure were in place at the moment, the committee that is leading the debate would restrict the Scottish Labour Party to selecting a male convener, because the committee would be single-sex if the convener was female.
There are many committees on which there is only one woman, and there are some on which there are no women. That is an issue right here, right now, and it is not good.
I agree, but I am trying to say that there will be challenges with what the committee and, perhaps, the Parliament will decide.
Lorna Slater spoke about post-legislative scrutiny. I think that we all agree that there has been a lack of that and that we need to get better in that regard.
Emma Roddick said that committee appearances should not be easy or enjoyable for ministers, and I agree with that. I am not sure whether she is speaking from her experience as a former minister, but it is important that ministers are held to account.
Stephen Kerr spoke about the workload balance, which is certainly an issue given that so much legislation is being considered in this part of the parliamentary session. Ash Regan made a point about the impact on smaller parties or independent members, and the Parliament might have to consider that in the next parliamentary session.
I am not speaking as the convener of the Education, Children and Young People Committee—I am sure that some of my colleagues will be delighted about that—but I want to speak about some of my experiences on that committee. I will not lie to the Parliament and say that I am a non-partisan convener—I accept that I am extremely partisan. At times, that is important. When we have ministers in front of us, we are clearly going to ask party-political questions, and I do not think that we should try to deter members from doing that.
It is important for ministers to be held to account during committee evidence sessions. Sometimes in the chamber—I have perhaps shown this—I get unhappy about not getting a direct answer from a minister, but it is far harder for ministers to avoid questions or subjects when members can come back at them in committee.
I do not have much time, but I want to finish with this point. My Scottish Conservative colleagues outlined a number of submissions to the committee. One that has not been talked about in the debate but which I am particularly keen on is for committee witnesses to declare any relevant interests, and I made that point to the committee. Scotland is a small country, and many of the people who give evidence to committees are almost professional witnesses—they come into the Parliament time after time to give their views, which are important, but many of them are supported by the Scottish Government. When those committee witnesses give that evidence, they should—for balance, because MSPs have to declare any financial interests—declare where their funding comes from. That would help our scrutiny and our deliberations.
I look forward to continuing the debate with the committee.
16:49
I have enjoyed this debate as others have. Just like Emma Roddick, I did not need to be bullied to take part, although I think that I was required to do so.
I appreciate that Jackson Carlaw’s memory does not go back to 1774, although I would suggest, rather uncharitably, that the memory of the person who cited it might go back to 1774. Mr Whitfield will not be able to duck my challenge and I look forward to another historical reference when we come to debate his committee’s report in due course.
The debate has been a useful means for us to reflect on how committees have undertaken their business during the 26 years of the Parliament’s existence. Drawing on my 18 years of experience as a parliamentarian, there is much that I could say, but I remind everyone that I speak in the debate on behalf of the Government.
To pick up on Douglas Ross’s point, I observe that the very nature of the debate shows that we are well capable of being flexible and able to adapt the manner in which we work for a specific purpose. It is another example of how our processes do not need to be replicated in every single circumstance. There are circumstances, such as the committee’s inquiry, in which we can operate slightly differently.
I want to talk about the purpose of committees in the context of the Parliament’s structure. As has been noted, we are a unicameral entity. I enjoyed Mr Carlaw’s selective rundown of unicameral institutions in his contribution, although he neglected to mention that Sweden, Denmark, Norway, Finland and Iceland also have single-chamber legislatures. In such circumstances, I recognise that it is important that we have a strong committee system. I am here to be held to account by the Parliament, and it is enormously important that we have strong committees.
Mr Leonard made the point that people are not elected to be robots. I have never thought of him as someone who is robotic or an automaton.
I thought that Mr Mason was rather uncharitable in his assessment of the Public Audit Committee. As a former member of that committee, I can testify to the delight that I felt when I was tapped on the shoulder and asked to sit on it. Mr Gibson was rightly cited as being an effective convener of the Finance and Public Administration Committee and I can testify to that, having been a member of that committee under his convenership.
I might be slightly misquoting Emma Roddick, but she suggested that ministers should be terrified to appear before committees. I am not quite sure that terror is necessarily the most conducive to some form of exchange. However, I recognise that exchanges should be robust and that ministers should be held to account for the work that we undertake.
A number of people have mentioned Government back benchers and the role of party discipline. There has been virtually no mention of the equally negative effect of Opposition members who do not look at the merits of legislation, but simply oppose it and try to tear it down. That can be equally destructive for proper legislation. Until we get a balance and recognise both sides, does the minister agree that it is unlikely that we will make much progress?
I do not often agree with Mr Ross as much as this in any debate, but we need to be realistic and reflect on the fact that we are elected to the Parliament on a party-political ticket and, with that, comes party politics. If we are going to reflect on the conduct of back-bench members who are in the party of the Government, it is reasonable that we should also reflect on the conduct of all members, irrespective of their party and the fashion in which they approach legislation.
Will the member give way?
I have very little time to give way, and I have barely addressed any of the contributions.
You have just over one minute.
I have just over one minute, otherwise I would have given way to Mr Kerr.
I agree that churn or turnover—call it what you will—should be minimised as much as possible, but we should recognise that various factors lead to that, including appointments to ministerial office, illness and bereavement.
I should say that there is some merit in members sitting on more than one committee during a session, and some members might want the depth of experience that that provides. However, I broadly agree with the principle.
The Government has no view on the size of committees, although it is instructive to hear from those who sit on smaller committees that that is something that could be useful.
Again, the Scottish Government has no view on elected conveners. All that I can say—I made this point to the committee and I will make it again—is that the fact that, if, for example, Mr Ross, whom I met earlier today, had been elected by the entire Parliament rather than just by the committee after his appointment as a member, as conveners are at the moment, that would not change the nature of my interaction with him. For that reason, as I said, the Government does not have a strong view.
I could say much more on the issues, but I do not have the time. In any case, I am sure that we will return to the subject matter in due course, and I look forward to doing so.
16:55
This has been a fascinating debate. I thank everyone for their contributions, whether in the role of convener, convener and party representative or, more importantly, back bencher. I give a shout-out to my fellow committee members and thank them for their contributions. I will take away the reminder about bacon rolls.
My deputy convener, Ruth Maguire, has not been able to be with us for a while, but I want to put on the record my thanks for the enormous amount of work she has done in relation to our inquiry.
It is not until we sit on a committee that we realise how hard doing so can be. We have heard a lot of discussion this afternoon about members’ workload, with many members sitting on not just one or two committees, but three. We have also heard about the counterbalance to that, with the expectation of developing independence, knowledge and interest in the subject matters, which can be a difficult Realpolitik for some members.
The interesting discussion about whether to have the support of questions from SPICe has run the entire gamut of opinion. There is an important point to be borne in mind about the need for MSPs to recall that we are independent. Committees should be places in which questions that are pertinent to the inquiry and to the legislation in front of us can be asked and explored.
Given the number of issues, there is no single answer to the questions that we face. One answer is that, through the convener, the membership and the interactions around the committees, we can create a cultural environment in which we have committees that can properly hold Government to account. That may be through fear, as has been suggested, or it may be through interaction and consideration.
I hope that the convener of the committee has not lost the point that Douglas Ross made about declarations of interest by groups that appear before committees. They should declare whether they are publicly funded and say what proportion of their total income is from public funds.
Every intervention teaches those who take it whether it was the appropriate time to have taken it. I note that that intervention is now on the record.
We have had a discussion about churn, which is similarly important. We have noted from the evidence, and it has been reiterated today, that a period of time on a committee allows members to gather expertise.
I am conscious that time is short today, and I note that the issue of time has been raised by a number of speakers in terms of the amount of time that committees have in which to meet. How committees sit, when they sit and how they pursue inquiries are all issues that we are looking at, and they will form part of the report.
This has genuinely been a listening exercise by the committee to take on board evidence that we have not been able to capture, such as the points about the interesting interaction between contributions from the convener and contributions from individuals, as well as contributions from members who sit on more than one committee. There are a number of areas that we will take forward and on which we might seek to obtain further evidence.
The Parliament needs to be iterative. It did not look like it does now, other than physically, when it began in 1999, and it cannot look like this going forward. We are the session that was born in Covid, and I deeply pray that the next session will not have the challenges that we had at the start. We need to create an institution that sees itself as one that looks forward rather than back. We need to grasp the good ideas, be they from New Zealand, other legislatures or within this Parliament.
The committee is moving to the point where we will consider the recommendations of our inquiry report, which we hope to publish before the October recess. I am sure that, at that point, we can return to consideration of how to improve our processes.
That concludes the debate on behalf of the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee on its committee effectiveness inquiry.
Previous
Housing Emergency