Chamber and committees

I acknowledge that.

I think that there is an amazing amount of common ground between members of the Parliament on how small changes could bring about dramatic improvements in how we operate.

If I may make one last point—

I am concerned about that happening where the husband and wife are not a package, which is probably the case for the majority of politicians in this Parliament and in other Parliaments. I have a colleague whose wife, because of votes that have been held recently in this Parliament, has been openly threatened because of the way in which he chose to vote on a particular issue.

I wonder whether we should be reviewing the criminal law in relation to protecting candidates, so that people feel that there is at least some deterrent barrier in place that might—I stress “might”—make people think twice about what they say or write. Would you have any sympathy with that line of thinking?

I have a short follow-up question, because the word “culture” was mentioned and I have always been interested in organisational culture. Some kind of culture change seems to be happening among the ministers and the spads as well as within the civil service. Is that a fair comment?

It is interesting that, in the Scottish Information Commissioner’s report, the commissioner basically says that it is a game of two halves. Up to spring this year, there was not a very good record at all. In fact, I think that you used the word “abysmal”. There was a change of Government leadership in spring, and I note with interest that Fiona Hyslop said to the Public Audit Committee—it was widely reported—that official record keeping, by which I assume she means on the part of ministers, spads and others, has improved compared with when she was last in Government, which was under the previous First Minister. What exactly has changed?

Right.

I completely agree with you, convener, and I agree with the minister. Cultural change happens because of leadership—it takes leadership. I think that the new permanent secretary has been in place from around the time when the improvements began to become apparent. However, there is a long way to go. We acknowledge that there has been some improvement, but there is a long way to go on perhaps more strictly conforming adherence to the need for proper records to be kept in Government.

My concern about freedom of information, which I ask the minister to comment on, is that, when record keeping becomes a core function of the civil service and ministers see that appropriate records are kept—that is a very topical issue, and we will not engage with any of those topical issues; I have just been reminded not to engage with any of them—there is a danger that some information that ought to be recorded in documented records will no longer be recorded because it will be presented in a different way and not captured by the civil service requirement to record the information. I do not know whether the minister shares that concern. Does that make sense? That was very convoluted. I am simply concerned that some things will no longer be there because FOI and enhanced record keeping will mean that some of those conversations will simply disappear into the ether.

I did not mention deleted WhatsApp messages there.

The issue is about the advice that is being given. I think that the convener was going in this direction, too. Spads were specifically mentioned. The general discussion about how the three options are arrived at should be a matter of ministerial record, too.

I am grateful that you still think of me as middle-aged. [Laughter.]

I do not think that anyone will disagree with what you have just said. I completely agree that all the political parties in Scotland that are serious about engaging with the people of Scotland—and their priorities—have to look like the people of Scotland. The Scottish Conservatives have certainly taken some positive decisions in that direction, and I know that other parties have done so as well.

I also agree with your comments about not shoehorning people—on the basis of their sex—into specific committees. There is a natural dimension to that. People have passions and interests that they want to pursue, and, although they will curtail those in order to be part of the team, it is important that they also have opportunities to express themselves. That is why they came into public life.

On the issue of parliamentary reform in general, we have lots of discussions about how we could make very small adjustments to how we do things in the Parliament that would create all kinds of additional freedoms for members, including through expression in the chamber and opportunities to engage further with ministers through scrutiny—I know that you are a big advocate of ministerial scrutiny. What is your appetite in that regard, and what is the appetite of the Government for coming together with members across all parties so that we can agree that some of the proposed adjustments can be implemented?