Chamber and committees

No—I think that we can get more capacity by making committees smaller.

That is just my opinion—you can take it or leave it.

It would be possible if we had fewer members on each committee—that is my point. If we cut the numbers down and did not have such big committees, potentially, there would be an opportunity for members not to have to sit on so many committees. I think that we would all agree that committee participation is very important, and I do not think that members are able to give it the commitment or level of attention that they should if they sit on three committees, or two very big ones. That is my experience.

I also think that we should consider having elected conveners.

There is certainly a place for setting out to new members, when they come in, what function and remit a committee has in Parliament, just to ensure that everyone is clear about what they are here to do.

It is a while—about nine years ago now—since I first arrived, but I, too, remember the training on questioning that we got in 2016, which I thought was useful. I think that that was when the Parliament first started to do an induction programme. I believe that it might have been updated since then, for 2021, but I do not know how successful that was.

With regard to CPD, there may be an opportunity for that. When members first come in, it may be worth while refreshing certain skills. It appears to me that some members did not get the memo on that questioning training, which was about being succinct and getting to the point, whereas—as we all know—a lot of waffling goes on.

I do not think that we would get anyone else at this table to agree to ditch proportionality, and we probably should not. I am not suggesting that we do so, but I feel strongly that committees need to be made smaller. We all agree that there is a capacity issue when it comes to legislation, scrutiny and holding the Government and public bodies to account, which we need to think about carefully.

We could perhaps have committees in different categories. The Lib Dems were probably invited to sit on the committee that I am currently on but perhaps did not have the capacity to do so. The committee has probably ended up as it has because the committee does not have legislation to vote on, so the larger parties were probably quite relaxed about it not having the same proportionality.

Perhaps that offers an opportunity. In committees that might work in a different way, you could relax proportionality; in others, such as education, justice and so on, the major parties will understandably want to be represented.

I do. I cannot speak for everyone, but, having observed political parties—and not just the two that I have been on—I think that, instead of having a member put into the chair by their party, having them put there by the Parliament would add a layer of strength, because they would feel that they were doing the job for the Parliament rather than for their party.

I think that it would add legitimacy, yes. It is not that conveners are not legitimate. It goes back to Karen Adam’s point: we are all elected, and we are following a system that is proportional. I think that everybody understands that. However, from what I have seen during this session, I would argue that the balance of scrutiny is off. As a Parliament, we need to think about how we do better on that. We could use a secret ballot, and there have been some good suggestions about excluding certain people from voting. Some parties favour loyalty over competence. That is not true in all cases, but I have observed that myself, and we perhaps need to think about that as a Parliament.

I agree with some of that. I just want to address the point about the smaller parties. It is a fair point, but if there is a party with five or six seats, that party does not have the capacity to sit on every committee anyway. There would be an understanding that the smaller parties would not be represented on every committee.

As I said, I am currently sitting on a committee of five, which is the first time that I have ever done that, and I am surprised at how effectively we work. In that instance, the only party that is not represented is the Lib Dems.

We have talked a bit about how party representation in the Parliament might be quite different after the next election. Does the Parliament need to reflect on what it will do with independents, or with somebody like me, whose party only manages to get one, two or three people elected? Those members would not be a political party for the intents and purposes of the Parliament—they would not be entitled to a place on a committee, just as I am not entitled to one. Expertise or capacity might not be brought into the committee system if we stick strictly to the proportionality basis. I think that smaller committees are more effective.

Ross Greer is quite right. The conveners get away with such decisions only if the committee allows them to.

I agree with what Rhoda said about the Public Audit Committee. It is a key committee. Obviously, all the committees are important, but the big ones are generally considered to be the Finance and Public Administration Committee, the Health, Social Care and Sport Committee, the Education, Children and Young People Committee and the Criminal Justice Committee. I would say that there is perhaps a role for a post-legislative committee. If one were set up, it would probably be seen as one of the most important ones.