You said that most of the public authorities and bodies say that they operate in a world of transparency, so why do users often have quite a different view and feel that exemptions are used as a default in order to withhold information? They look at it a bit sceptically.

You talked earlier about one of the frustrations for those making FOI requests being timeliness, but the committee has also had some evidence that requesters might view clarification requests with suspicion. The whole world is in that sort of place right now. Could the pause mechanism proposed in the bill reduce that perception or perhaps make it worse? Are there any other legal or procedural changes that would better support improvements to trust and transparency?

Ben Worthy, I was told to come to you first on that.

Some of the respondents to the committee’s call for views suggested that the proposal will not change the legal position of information that is disclosed under the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002, while others warned that it could downgrade the existing position. Do you consider that some of the amendments are necessary, or could they be perceived as merely symbolic?

I was looking straight at Professor Dunion. [Laughter.]

I think that the Scottish Information Commissioner suggested that it might be used tactically to delay responses.

So, do you think that the pause-the-clock mechanism will have a positive or negative effect on the workload of FOI officers?

I get what you are saying. It is the double negative.

Alex, can you help us with that?

Is there a risk to public trust if public authorities are not sufficiently resourced to meet the 20-working-day deadline?

I am pleased to speak in the debate on strengthening the effectiveness of our Parliament’s committees. I joined the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee right at the beginning of the inquiry. There was a bit of shoogling of chairs and stuff, but I remember hearing most of the evidence.

The report goes right to the heart of how we serve the people of Scotland. The Scottish Parliament’s committees are an essential part of the legislative process, and hard-working Scots deserve a Parliament that examines evidence and legislation carefully. When the Parliament was created, the committees were meant to be its engine room. They were meant to be where legislation was tested, where evidence was properly examined and where the voices of the public could be heard. Those principles are as important now as they were 25 years ago, but I think that we can all acknowledge that they have all been stretched thin in recent parliamentary sessions.

Too many bills have been rushed—we are certainly feeling the pain of that now—and too many important details have slipped through the net. Too often, the Parliament has been asked to sign off on legislation that was simply not ready. That is not what good government looks like and it is not what the people we represent expect from us. Hard-working Scots do not want politics for its own sake. They want us to be competent at what we do and they want decisions that are thought through, not thrown together to meet a deadline or make a headline. That means that our committees must be able to do their job properly.

The committee’s report sets out sensible, practical recommendations that would help us to get there. Reducing committee sizes, for example, from 15 members to around seven would make a difference. Smaller committees can get into detail and have some real discussions, rather than just managing speaking lists. Having been the convener of a large committee, I understand the pressures that members felt when I had to cut them short and not allow them to follow a train of thought that might uncover a nugget of important evidence.

The report also highlights the problem of constant churn, as we heard from Mr Carlaw and Mr Leonard. Members are moved on just as they start to understand their brief. However, to counter Mr Leonard’s comments about the lack of gender equality on his committee, I note that when some female members from the Conservatives moved on, some people stayed put, so positions could not be changed. That also contributes to the inability to get a woman into the room. The lack of continuity makes it harder to build expertise and develop the kind of trust in cross-party working that committees need to function well. If we want better scrutiny, we need more stability.

I welcome the discussion about elected conveners. The Conservatives’ submission stated that we do not believe that elected conveners alone will improve the situation in Parliament unless they are accompanied by wider reforms. We welcome the investigation into how that could move forward. When I was a convener, none of my powers or influence in that role was hindered by the fact that I was not elected to be there.

Our submission also raised practical concerns about the approach to electing conveners, which links to the use of the d’Hondt method and questions about how to deal with in-session vacancies. A lot of the churn happens when members from the governing party find themselves in ministerial roles. We find that that contributes significantly to churn.

Letting Parliament choose who leads a committee could strengthen a committee’s independence and improve accountability, but I agree with the committee’s view that that should not come with extra pay. My position is that, at a time when public finances are stretched, that would send the wrong message, because leadership is about responsibility, not necessarily remuneration. However, being convener was a lot of work and more effort than anyone can realise until they are in that role.

It is also clear that time is one of the biggest barriers to proper scrutiny, and we all feel that pressure. Committee members are juggling legislation, inquiries and constituency work, and there are just not enough hours in a week, especially if the committee sits on a Thursday. Allowing committees to meet while the chamber is sitting or to use Monday afternoons and Friday mornings for evidence sessions makes sense, because, after all, it is about giving committees the space that they need to do the job well.

My party made an important suggestion about committee witnesses. We suggested that they should have to declare where their funding comes from, including the amount of public funding, to further aid transparency about the potential influence of the Scottish Government.

The idea of committees reviewing their own performance each year is a good one. In any other workplace, teams look back on what they have achieved, what worked, what did not work well and how they might change their approach going forward. There is no reason why Parliament should not do the same. That is how we keep improving and making things better.

I referred to gender balance. I support the principle that our committees should reflect the diversity of the Parliament and of Scotland, but we must be careful not to turn that into a tick-box exercise where the women have to take on an extra workload just to fulfil the criteria. I know that the female parliamentarians who are on the gender-sensitive audit advisory group have made that point clear.

What matters most is that committees are made up of people who have the right experience, knowledge and commitment to hold the Government to account. They should also be interested in the topic, because then we would get genuine engagement. Let us aim for balance, while keeping a focus on merit and effectiveness.

The report gives us a clear route to better balance. The Scottish Parliament’s committees are an essential part of our legislative process, but scrutiny could be improved. Let us make sure that we do not have poor legislation that is rushed through in this session; we really need to get into the detail. We need to let our committees be more effective, so that our scrutiny is more meaningful and our Parliament is much more accountable to the people it serves.