Chamber and committees

Would the member like to give way on that point?

I am grateful, and I will be brief. The New Zealand Parliament recently passed an act entrenching parliamentary privilege. Does the member believe that that could act as a model for this Parliament, and should this Parliament study that?

I found the opening remarks of my friend Martin Whitfield, the convener of the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee, interesting and important. We need to keep asking ourselves the question about the kind of Parliament that we want this to be.

I find myself in wonder that I am in the place that I hoped would come into being in the 1990s. I passionately believed in the need for and importance of a Scottish Parliament. We need to ask ourselves whether this place lives up to the promise of Parliaments in general, and to the potential of the Scottish Parliament in particular. We need to think about what makes a good Parliament and about whether we are doing politics differently, because that was what many of us hoped would happen when we created the Scottish Parliament.

Unfortunately, some of the things that we put in place to bring about the latter have actually stymied the former. Some of the rules, practices and procedures have prevented the flow of debate and the reflection that we need and, ultimately, have reduced our ability to hold the Government to account. We have already heard thoughts about that. In particular, I was interested in Maggie Chapman’s points on the importance of the way in which we conduct debate—the culture of debate—as well as her points on reflection.

What is important in the Parliament is not debate per se, but reflection and dialogue. The Parliament is not just a platform for delivering speeches; it is meant to be a space where ideas are exchanged and where there is the possibility of changing minds—that is sometimes missed. That is the difference between parliamentary and presidential democracy, which is just about holding the executive to account. It is also the difference between parliamentary and direct democracy, in which people make decisions without necessarily being provided with space for reflection. It is really important that we consider whether we are doing that.

Let me just say one slightly impudent but important thing. If there were one change that I could make in the chamber, I would get rid of the lecterns. They hold us back, because they mean that members come here and read out speeches. I know that it is difficult, but if the words that we say in this space have not changed from the night before when we typed them out, we are doing something wrong. It is really important that, when we debate, there is the possibility of changing our views and minds.

Will the minister take an intervention?

This is somewhat of a cheeky intervention. Is not the real point that doing this job properly means doing a great deal more than simply showing up and voting?

I very much agree.

Some of the points that Jackson Carlaw made are really important—I was going to come on to them myself. We need to think carefully about the role of the chair. We need to empower the Presiding Officer to determine whether things are relevant; to shape the time that is given to agenda items so that, if something transpires and needs to be given more importance, time is given to that; and to make a determination on whether answers, as well as questions, are relevant.

I can understand the need for notes for speeches but, for supplementary questions, I wonder whether—I have already mentioned this in an intervention—it would be more helpful, and help spontaneity, if we discouraged that practice.

The role of the Presiding Officer is important in another way. At times, the Parliament is guilty of proceduralism. When the Scottish Parliament came into being, we were determined to get rid of the flamboyant flummery of and all the nonsense that happens in Westminster. However, by the same token, we have extinguished flexibility and the ability of the Parliament to be dynamic. Critically, some structures, such as the Parliamentary Bureau, the role of the business managers and, to an extent, the role of the clerks have stymied debate. The bureau can sometimes be little more than a formalised smoke-filled room with clerks acting as gatekeepers. As parliamentarians, we need to take back a bit of control and we need to empower the Presiding Officer a bit more.

I realise that I am running out of time, but I would like to make the point that we must hold on to hybrid proceedings. In contrast to what some other members have said, the key point is to get these things right. The issue with hybrid proceedings is not that the people are remote; it is that we need to make sure that they are relevant to the debate. If we get that right, some of the problems with hybrid proceedings would be taken care of.

Being consistent about decision time while being flexible about how we meet around it is absolutely vital.

I wish that I had more time, because I would like to talk more about some of these critical points as we consider the issues.

I completely echo Neil Gray’s points, but does he agree that we must also reflect on how we can improve hybrid working and allow interventions to ensure the relevance of contributions? I sneak in my agreement with his point about committee conveners. Does he agree that committee conveners should be elected by members of the Parliament?

Does Paul Sweeney agree that we need to re-examine our standing orders, particularly on what is a relevant comment, and require ministers’ and members’ comments to be relevant and germane to the topic of debate? Does he agree that that might improve the quality of debate?

I thank Elena Whitham for that intervention—we certainly do not want her greetin after making a speech. She makes an important point. I am not saying, “No words”; I am saying that perhaps we could consider rules whereby members are encouraged to refer to other speeches in the chamber. Our standing orders say that we must be “relevant”. I argue that to be relevant we should reflect what other members have previously said in the chamber. We should perhaps also think about timings and whether, to get their full time, members should have to take interventions.

Will the member accept an intervention?