Chamber and committees

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.

Good morning, and welcome to the fifth meeting in 2025 of the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee. I have received apologies from Ruth Maguire. I welcome Rona Mackay as her substitute. I understand that Annie Wells is running slightly late. We will see whether she makes it. If not, she extends her apologies as well.

Before we turn to our main agenda item, I note for the Official Report that, further to our meeting on 20 February, the committee has agreed to re-accord recognition to the cross-party group on Taiwan following further examination of records regarding the group’s compliance with the code of conduct.

Our first item is a decision on whether to take in private item 3, which is a discussion on the evidence that—I hope—we are about to hear. Does the committee agree to do so?

Members indicated agreement.

If such work was done earlier in whatever process we are talking about, from that early sharing of postbags to the role of petitions, we would have the advantage of being able to say, “This Parliament is prioritising you, the public, and your issues.” However, that interesting idea of a committee reaching out much earlier to ask what the public would like us to do would be helpful for doing that, too. Would that be a fair conclusion to draw? I hope so—no pressure.

That is very helpful. There have been a number of questions and discussions about the balance between the expertise of MSPs and the specialism that sits around them. As Tom Caygill pointed out, there is a value in the institutional memory that MSPs sometimes have of the journey that a piece of legislation has taken. However, as Cristina Leston-Bandeira pointed out, there are experts from the public who can, all the way through, offset the need for specialism. As Ken Hughes said, perhaps we want specialists not to make the decisions but to give the evidence.