Chamber and committees

That is very helpful. Interestingly, you talked about the resource imbalance. If there were unlimited resources, we could say, “Great, let’s have a massive Parliament and a massive Government.” However, is there something in the procedures about the timing of things? Could resource be created by lengthening the time between things?

We are looking at committee effectiveness. Part of that is to do with when committees get bills to scrutinise. Is there something to be said for looking at that wider issue? You mentioned the four-year session. We are now in the fourth year and approaching the fifth year of our session of Parliament. That latter stage is when a bulk of legislation always comes through, which is understandable. Is it worth looking at those timeframes and making them more explicit in order to balance out things? Would it be reasonable for a Government to have to operate under that constraint?

I am sure that we will come to that in the range of issues that we want to talk about.

In our previous evidence session for our inquiry, there was an interesting discussion about whom committees have a responsibility to. There was also a fascinating discussion about the perspective of the public being made front and centre in the work of committees, particularly with regard to scrutiny.

I have a broader question for all the panel members. Is there a view that the Scottish Parliament is achieving the prioritisation of public issues over party-political issues and the subjective issues of MSPs? Are we giving enough weight to what is worrying the public?

Ken Hughes, do you want to chip in?

We have an outward-looking vehicle that reaches out to the public: the Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee. By many accounts, it is well received and effective. Do we need to take the next step, which is to use the skills that we have to be outward-looking in involving the public—including in the Parliament building—and mine that resource for the purpose of bill scrutiny at a much more specific individual committee level? Would that assist?

On the concept of building partnerships, you have already given us a lot of examples of how successfully the Scottish Parliament reaches out to different groups, which is one of the things that we can be very proud of in the Parliament. There will always be more to do to give the public confidence about where they fit in, but do you have any comments about the cultural precursors that are needed for effective scrutiny? It goes back to my earlier point about committee remits. What makes a committee really work well with regard to scrutiny? In simple terms, is it the written-down procedures and the set of questions that are going to be asked or, actually, is it a cultural connection within a committee that brings it together? I know that it is not one or the other; it is a balance, but it is about where the balance lies.

Who wants to come in first? I am looking across the room—this takes me back to being a primary school teacher. [Laughter.] Excellent, Ken—I will come to you.

Also, sometimes, no feedback is given to the public about why nothing happened.

It is fair to say that there is evidence of that happening—certainly at Westminster—but procedures are in place that result in conveners changing. A loop of protection is in place in other Parliaments, which works, and there is confidence that there are ways of preventing the issue getting out of control. However, no one describes what the issue is—it is a bit like sausage making and laws, is it not?

I want to go back to rapporteurs and their role, because they were mentioned earlier. In other parliaments around the world, that role is far more developed than it is here. As was said, a rapporteur is, in essence, an individual who takes responsibility for looking at something in depth, beyond the time that the committee has to do such work, and then—surprise, surprise—reports back to the committee. Is the rapporteur role better suited to committees’ own inquiries or should it form part of scrutiny—or is it something that fits depending on the question that is being asked?

Cristina Leston-Bandeira, may I put that to you first? You have an awareness of the role of rapporteurs in other places.

Yes, it does, and it prompts another question. In fulfilling that role, does a rapporteur square the circle of the tension that you talked about, Ken, in that a committee that is scrutinising a bill cannot be seen to have assisted in drafting it? I am putting committee bills aside for the moment. Would that help to keep the dynamic workable and justifiable to the Scottish public?

Would that be more limited than only pre-legislative scrutiny? Or, as Cristina Leston-Bandeira pointed out, could it be used elsewhere, provided that the committee is separated from the reporter, who is always identified as such and takes a different stance in decision making?

Thank you very much.

The other thing that I want to touch on—I will raise the issue and then pass over to Sue Webber—is how we define the remits of committees and whether doing so helps and assists. Not to curtail answers in the next bit, but Joe FitzPatrick has rightly mentioned the wonderment of the Lobbying (Scotland) Bill in its pre-legislative form. We will look next at post-legislative scrutiny and the Lobbying (Scotland) Bill is perhaps an example of when that should have happened but has not.