Chamber and committees

Will the member take an intervention?

I understand why the minister might balk at the concept of a popularity contest, but will he reflect on whether the skills that mean that a member can convince their colleagues to vote for them—that make them the most popular choice—are the skills that a member requires to be a good convener who can reach out to people with different views and bring folk together?

I am grateful to Martin Whitfield for giving way. I should say that I make this intervention not as the deputy convener of the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee, but as an individual MSP.

Martin Whitfield referred to the recommendation that the bureau give a statement when it has not been possible to achieve a gender balance on a committee. Like me, he will have received a letter from the group this morning, which suggests that that statement should be made in the chamber. Does he agree that that would bring a level of accountability and scrutiny to whether we are achieving the aspiration of gender equality on our committees?

I thank Paul Sweeney. That is a helpful contribution; it is good to get that on the record.

Forgive me—I have a lot of sheets of paper here.

Many of the contributions in the debate were on the importance of culture. In opening, the minister recognised the workload of committees and the balance between the Government’s mandate to take forward legislation and the freedom of Parliament and committees in their approach to the scrutiny function and, importantly, how they hold the Government to account. The report acknowledges that committees should have the ability to choose for themselves how they wish to go about their work. It is about ensuring that there is flexibility and capacity in the system for all committees to develop their own approach.

Jackson Carlaw spoke to his concerns in relation to creating identikit conveners and identikit committee members. The committee’s report discusses providing members with confidence and knowledge to forge their own path and carve out their own identity and role. It also acknowledges that different conveners have different interpretations of their role and different styles of working.

Richard Leonard referenced the successes of the Public Audit Committee. As we heard from others during our inquiry, it is sometimes easier for committees to operate more effectively when they are scrutinising organisations and public bodies and not Government ministers—I think that Richard Leonard would agree with that.

On culture, we heard about the importance of conveners. Sue Webber reflected on her experience of convening a large committee, how its size sometimes affected the time that individual members had to make contributions and the implications that that could have. If someone is allowed to continue with their scrutiny freely, they might unearth some gem of information that will be helpful in the committee’s work.

Evelyn Tweed highlighted an important issue that perhaps was not touched on in depth in our report, which is holding to account bodies that are accountable to the Parliament, and the challenge of having one report or one meeting in a session to do that. On behalf of the convener and I, we would welcome further discussion on that topic and what we can do about it. It is crucially important.

We appreciated the contribution of Davy Russell as a fairly new member of a committee. Unfortunately, all I wrote down was that he found Jackson Carlaw’s convenership to be nurturing, which made me smile. As sweet as it sounds, that gets to the nub of what a good convener can do to help people to perform their best on committee by sharing their knowledge.

Stephen Kerr spoke about the importance of cross-party working, which is a subject that has shone through throughout the debate. He also paid tribute to the Finance and Public Administration Committee, which is often held up as a good example of working. He specifically mentioned my Ayrshire colleague, Kenneth Gibson—I probably should put his name on the record—and the importance of our role as parliamentarians, not just as politicians. That is a point of view that everyone would share.

John Mason also made a thoughtful contribution in sharing his 14 years of experience in service. On culture, he pointed out that, even with an excellent convener, one member being hostile or tribal can sometimes throw things off. He also spoke about the importance of fact-finding visits and away days. Such opportunities to gel as humans are important and contribute to good working. That was particularly true this session, when new members were not together for induction.

When there are differences of views on where the solutions to issues might lie, it adds further weight to ensuring the recognition of a common resolve that committees are equipped to fulfil their potential. I have been struck by the support from members across the chamber today for the crucial function that committees play in our democracy, which is to hold the Scottish Government to account and to reflect the interests of the people whom we serve. We need to ensure that committees are prepared to meet the expectations of voters and that they can demonstrate what they can achieve.

As the convener set out at the start of the debate, there is a collective will to improve the effectiveness of committees, and that has been evidenced by the contributions to the debate. Following today’s debate, the committee will reflect on what we have heard and will propose specific standing order rule changes that we will bring to the Parliament for consideration. That will ensure that any changes can be made in advance of the start of the next parliamentary session.

However, standing orders are only one part of the answer to strengthening committees’ effectiveness. Ultimately, it will be for everyone in the Parliament and the new colleagues who will join them next year to decide to make our committees work. It will be up to them to embed a culture of interest, curiosity and—importantly—collaboration, so that that is a success.

I think that the committee would recognise the balance between the Government’s mandate and Parliament’s role in making recommendations.

This week, I met a community group with a particular interest in restoring the pilot house. Although the pilot house appeared in plans for the great harbour and the maritime mile in Irvine, I understand that an expected feasibility study on restoring it might not be funded. Does the minister, like me, recognise the potential in protecting such unique heritage sites? Further to that, does he recognise that, when communities’ expectations and aspirations are raised in respect of growth deals, it is crucial that they are met?

That is not something that we discussed as a committee, but I recognise the point. In counter to that, having a well-prepared idea and a developed notion of what you are going to legislate on is also quite valuable.

One of the other things that the committee recommended was giving committees more flexibility to meet in private when the chamber is sitting and to utilise Monday afternoons and Friday mornings for some committee business. Perhaps most significantly on structural changes, one of the proposals was that the Parliamentary Bureau should be able to propose time-limited committees. Those committees could look at specific bills, specific inquiry issues, whether of a topical or cross-cutting nature, and undertake post-legislative scrutiny.

Our report also reflected on the suite of tools that are available to committees—committee reporters, sub-committees and joint committee meetings. We added hosting to that, where one committee would be formally invited to participate in another committee’s meetings, including access to private evidence sessions and meeting papers.

It has been helpful to hear positive examples of committee work and the factors that have contributed to that success.

I thank the clerks of the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee, whose expertise and diligence are absolutely key to the successful output of our committee. We heard from across the chamber about the role that clerking plays in all committees. The committee is grateful to members not only for their engagement in the debate but in that of our inquiry more widely. This has been an interesting debate.

As we make clear in our inquiry report, the purpose of our work has been to ensure that committees are well placed to operate effectively in the next parliamentary session and beyond. In this inquiry, we undertook a thorough examination of how committees work. We have looked at all aspects of committee operations, including the structure of committees and the role of committee members. We believe our recommendations to be practical, deliverable and focused on giving committees the necessary tools to fulfil their potential.

There were a couple of recommendations that the convener did not quite get to, due to his generous giving way to other members, so I will take a minute to draw attention to them. One of those was to bring forward the deadline for when members’ bills must be introduced in a parliamentary session. Colleagues will be aware that we have a bit of a jam of private members’ bills at the moment, and it is important that all members’ bills are given the full hearing that they require.

Do the points that Jackson Carlaw made about the continuity of the committee speak to the importance of the convener? I do not want to cast aspersions, but there was no lack of enthusiasm from the members of my committee when we were doing the inquiry. That talks to the importance of the convener in holding everyone together and delivering enthusiasm. However, I am not casting aspersions and suggesting that the member was not doing that.

Will the member give way?