Chamber and committees

I see no reason why that should not be possible. Again, that would be for Parliament to determine. You are asking me to talk about these things in a personal capacity, and I would say that, quite rightly, many such issues are driven by the Presiding Officer in each session. I was first elected in 2007, and I do not recall any form of induction. I do not know whether there was one in 2011, but what happened in 2016 was probably very much driven by the outgoing Presiding Officer, Trish Marwick, and 2021 was, obviously, a different context.

It would be for Parliament to decide, but, if you are asking me whether, objectively, that sort of induction would be of assistance, I would say yes, almost self-evidently, it would be sensible to do it. However, that is for Parliament, not for Government.

Is that your way of saying that I have to be quicker?

Sitting here as a Government minister, it is very difficult to answer whether a committee exercises enough discipline when holding the Government to account. I have never thought of Ms Mackay as a shark, as you suggested she might be, convener, but answering that would put me in a rather invidious position.

As a Government, we could not set out a perspective on that question. Privately, we might have a candid perspective, but, as a Government, we do not have an overt collective perspective.

The question is hypothetical. If that were to happen, perhaps it would aid things in the way that you describe, but, given how things work just now—with conveners of the Parliament’s committees being elected by committees, once members have been appointed, and with places being allocated party by party—I do not see anything in the manner in which the Government interacts with them that would fundamentally change as a consequence of conveners being elected by means of a vote of Parliament.

I do not think that it would change the manner in which we interact with committees except in what the committees might require of us. I do not think that their size would change the dynamic or the nature of the relationship between the Government, as the executive branch, and Parliament, as the legislative branch. I do not think that the size of committees particularly drives that. I say that while sitting here now, but, if the committees were made smaller, maybe we would find, through practical experience, that it changed the dynamic. However, I cannot think of any reason why it would change the relationship between the Government and the committees of Parliament.

It is similar to the earlier question about whether having elected conveners would change that relationship. My answer to that was that I cannot see any reason why it would, and, again, I cannot see any reason why the size of committees would alter that relationship.

There is evidence to assess that right now in so far as we have committees of various sizes. This committee is fairly small but perfectly formed, I should probably say, convener—although that could get me into trouble with the larger committees, so I withdraw that remark. The education committee is much bigger, and I am not aware of anything that, in and of itself, drives a different interaction because one of the two committees is larger than the other. Interaction is driven by the demands of the individual committees.

The Government does not have a majority in Parliament.

Although that brings pressure to bear on back-bench members of the Government party—which we should recognise, although it is inescapable—the important thing is that, after there is a parliamentary election, committee membership should broadly reflect the composition of Parliament. That is my perspective on the matter.

It could be argued that having smaller committees would be more challenging, because not every party could be represented, but, by its nature, that is down to the size of the parties. We try to reflect parties’ allocation in Parliament across all the committees, and it would be for Parliament to determine whether that should change.

That could be an option—it has happened before—although I observe that we have only so many members to comprise committees. Therefore, although one might think that that would reduce the pressure on a committee, it might not reduce the pressure on the individuals who comprise the committees.

Yes, I absolutely recognise that some committees will be more legislation intensive, but that is not new in the current parliamentary session—it has always been the case.

Of course.

I recognise that that is taking too long; I will not suggest otherwise. Work is on-going on a proposed section 93 order under the Scotland Act 1998 that will correct the error in the 2019 order. One of the challenges that we face, which has raised some complications, is that there is another proposed instrument in play that is interlinked, so that needs to be worked through. That involves us having to interact with the UK Government, which inevitably adds a layer of complexity. I am not trying to suggest that there is fault at either end, but that is an inevitable part of the complexity of the process.

I am looking to meet with my counterpart in the UK Government’s Scotland Office, Kirsty McNeill, in due course. This issue is one of the specific things that I want to discuss to try to make sure that we make some substantial progress so that, the next time that I am before the committee, I hope that I will be able to report that we have achieved such.

I will come back to the committee on that as soon as possible. I need to engage with the UK Government to be able to give a more definitive answer.