Chamber and committees

As minister, I say quite clearly that the Scottish Government has no position in respect of whether there should be elected conveners. It is a matter for Parliament.

Well, yes. There are concerns about their effectiveness right now, but I go back to my initial observation that it is not for the Government to say whether or not committees are being effective. However, of course we would want that.

No, I cannot earnestly say that it has changed drastically. There is a degree of rough and tumble with politics, and we all bring our own perspectives. We have all been elected as party politicians, and that will inevitably come into play, in committee or otherwise. By and large, however, I do not think that things have changed too drastically.

I must also be candid in saying that, because I am in the Government, I do not sit on a committee, so I do not know about the dark secrets that the convener talked about—and I will keep mine to myself. I do not know precisely how committees operate when they meet in private session, and nor should I. The Government should not know that.

Looking from the outside in, it does not look as though things have changed drastically. However, of course, I have not sat on a committee since 2014.

If you are asking me whether the Government has any concern about that, the answer is no. If you are asking me whether the Government has a perspective on whether that should change or not, then I would say that the Government does not have a perspective on that.

This may be a matter of frustration, but I will probably say this a number of times: we need to be careful, as I cannot sit here as a Government minister and say what the best way for Parliament to operate would be. Parliament needs to make that decision.

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.