Chamber and committees

There are different things. The most obvious and probably most substantial single event that might drive it is the First Minister—any First Minister—determining that there should be a Government reshuffle. Some people leave Government and some people come into it, and that would clearly drive churn.

There are other good reasons, too. Sometimes people are ill and have to take a leave of absence from Parliament. There can be bereavement or other reasons why someone might not be able to attend Parliament for a while. The Parliament has adapted its processes—for example, with proxy voting and remote voting—to accommodate that so that those situations do not impact parliamentary proceedings.

Given that committees consider matters in depth, there is only so much that I can do to assist those proceedings. If members are not able to attend Parliament for a while, inevitably that will lead to committee membership changes. That has certainly been the case during this parliamentary session.

Again, probably frustratingly, the Government does not have a direct perspective on that. Looking at it objectively, most people would instinctively say that it should be avoided as much as possible, because we would want people to build up a certain level of expertise and understanding of the subject matter. That has to be balanced, because members will also want to broaden their experience and understand different facets of parliamentary proceedings and Government activity, which is another driver of churn. Some members may want to move to a different committee because they want to benefit from broader exposure.

Broadly, most people would say instinctively that we should try to minimise churn, but there is some inevitability that it will happen during a parliamentary session. That is not new; it has been the case throughout my time in the Parliament. Before I was a minister, I was on numerous committees.

I would not necessarily say that. I have conceded that a reshuffle, which would be a one-off event, would create turnover or churn—whatever we might call it. I am not as convinced that Government activity in and of itself is the driver of that churn. I would be interested in the evidence that suggests that the business or the activity of the Government is the driver of the issue.

No, it does not. That would be a matter for the Parliament. I have heard that there is a perception that the Government is making great requirements of committees because of its legislative programme, which makes it hard for committees to handle their workload. A document that I have in front of me notes the average number of Government bills that were introduced per year per session. In session 1, it was 13; in session 2, it was 13; in session 3, it was 11; in session 4, it was 13; in session 5, it was 12; and in session 6, it is 12. The evidence suggests that we are not burdening committees with lots of activity in a way that we did not before.

I know that the average time that it takes to pass a Government bill is much longer now than it was before. This is based on only an initial look at the data, and there might need to be some sense check of the figures, but in session 1 it took 145 days calendar days—not sitting days—to pass a bill, whereas in this session it has taken 290 days. The time taken for stage 2 and stage 3 proceedings has been broadly stable across the parliamentary sessions, but stage 1 proceedings have taken much longer during this session. Stage 1 proceedings are not in the hands of the Government, as they are a matter for committees. I do not know whether that is something that the committee is considering.

I do not think that that poses any challenges for the Government. You are probably referring to a situation in which a bill might touch on the remit of more than one committee. It could be a matter of perspective, but I am struggling to think of a time when it could be felt that a committee had to deal with a bill that was not within its remit at all.

The Dog Theft (Scotland) Bill is before the Criminal Justice Committee, is it not?

I think that that makes the point, though. I have misremembered it, so you will have to forgive me, but that bill touches on more than one committee’s remit. I make the point that the Government—it is ultimately for Parliament to determine, but Government has a role—will look across the range of committee business and try to ensure that the workload is being spread evenly.

Jim Fairlie reports to two cabinet secretaries, and the remits tend to be structured along the lines of the cabinet secretaries’ portfolios.

I think that there would be merit in that suggestion, although ministerial responsibilities change. I do not think that we would suggest—again, it would be a matter for Parliament, but I do not think that I detect any sense that it would be desirable—that, each time there are changes in ministerial responsibilities, we should fundamentally alter the committees that we have, although I know that responsibilities and remits might sometimes adapt accordingly.

To a smaller or larger extent, however, it is a bit of a moot point. I or any minister can be called before any committee—and rightly so. Whatever responsibilities are identified and invested in any individual committee, if it wants to speak to a minister, I would urge and expect ministers to agree to that. Not so long ago, I was before the Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee, which might not be a committee that you would expect the Minister for Parliamentary Business to attend.

I go back to the point that I just made. I am not abrogating the Government’s responsibility to consider that, because it is to do with legislation. We introduce legislation at a certain stage, so we need to consider that, and we look across the range of activities in committees when we are thinking through how we might frame legislation.

Once legislation is introduced to Parliament, however, it is not in the Government’s hands. Of course, we will have a role—my officials will engage with the committee clerks and with the Parliament’s business team to work through the process. Nonetheless, once legislation is in Parliament, the timetabling is in Parliament’s hands.

I am trying to think. I was first appointed as a minister in November 2014 and, earnestly and honestly, I cannot remember any form of induction beyond relying on the professionalism and expertise of civil servants who were there to support me and working with more experienced colleagues, who had been in Government for some time, to understand what it was all about. If I recall correctly, I was initially appointed Minister for Sport and Health Improvement, and the next week I was giving stage 1 evidence on a bill that I had not been involved in introducing. The officials who supported me had pulled together a briefing to get me ready for the meeting, and I relied on them.

More widely, I have observed that it is down to each individual to determine what type of additional support they might require for colleagues in Government to provide it. I had been a parliamentarian for seven years before I became a minister, which brought me a certain level of experience in parliamentary proceedings.