Chamber and committees

In general terms, it is clear to me from the committees that I have been on that the witnesses are usually those who we would call the usual suspects—you can almost predict who will appear. I agree that we are hearing too much from certain people.

I also beseech committees to recognise that not every witness who appears is a professional witness in a paid role. Some of them are volunteers, as we saw with the women’s rights campaigning. They were volunteer groups; they did not have the capacity to respond and to turn around a written statement in one or two days, which they were asked to do. We need to take that into account.

The conveners are instrumental in the process. During the passage of the Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill, the selection of witnesses who were chosen appeared to be skewed towards those who supported the legislation. It was felt that some of the other groups were not given the same time to speak and that, when they did speak, they were closed down much more quickly. There were other groups that wanted to come and speak—for instance, there was a group of women who would very much be considered to have lived experience because they were victims of male violence. They wanted to give evidence but were told by the committee that they were not welcome to do so. Then, about 12 weeks later, they were told, “Well, you can put in a written statement.”

As a Parliament, we need to be sensitive to volunteer members of the public who want to engage in democracy and about how we treat them. That was not a very good representation—

I am not sure that I am going to be good at answering that question, because my experience of that is based on what I saw in the SNP. Parties should choose someone who they think is going to be effective and independently minded and who will do a good job. I am not sure that that is always the case.

I agree with much of what has been said by colleagues. The performance of committees can be excellent, and this committee has carried out some really good work. When it comes to inquiries—I was on the other end of one, because I was a minister at the time—last session’s Public Audit and Post-legislative Scrutiny Committee’s post-legislative scrutiny of the Control of Dogs (Scotland) Act 2010 was very hard hitting. It had a high level of buy-in from the public and made a good impact.

I have been on a bit of a journey through the Parliament, as I have sat on eight committees and have been in different political parties, so I have seen both sides and I possibly have a slightly different view of things now than I had previously. Generally speaking, it seems to me that there is a strong correlation between a committee having a strong-minded, independent convener and the performance of that committee. We see that during this session as well. Some committees stand out as doing excellent work in holding the Government to account while others do not. We have had some examples of very poor practice in committees. During this session, the Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee failed, in my view, in its scrutiny of the Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill. I can go into that in more detail, but to do so might not be appropriate for this question. I can come back to it, convener, if that would be useful to the committee.

We are all very busy, and the Parliament as a whole delegates the responsibility for scrutiny to the subject committees, particularly when it comes to important pieces of legislation. If the Parliament does not feel confident that that scrutiny has been carried out effectively—I believe that to have been the case in the instance that I just referred to, in which the reputation of the Parliament was tarnished both internally and with the public outside—there is an opportunity. We need to have a better way of assessing things whereby we go back and look at whether they worked and, if they did not, at how we can make sure that such things do not happen again.

I agree with the comments that have been made about the need for committees to be smaller. When it comes to the committee that I sit on at the moment, many of our witnesses have said that capacity is an issue. I am talking about commissioners who are doing important work and writing reports, which the public pay for and which have an impact on the public life of Scotland. They say that no committee has scrutinised their report or called them in to talk about it. The way to address that is to have fewer members on committees. The committee that I sit on has five members and is considered to be quite small, yet it is working very effectively. None of us really knew each other before, but we are getting stuck in. I therefore agree with what Rhoda Grant said on that issue.

When I was in the Scottish National Party, I was on three committees at one point. I do not think that any member of the Parliament should sit on three committees—that is far too many.

I think that it has, for that very reason. If the committee that I sit on was set up in the same way as others have been, the main parties would want proportionality. That is fine, but there may be other instances where that requirement could be relaxed. The committee has been set up for six months to conduct a focused inquiry. As Ross Greer noted, the finance committee suggested that the committee be set up to conduct a short-term inquiry with a focused outcome. Perhaps much smaller committees are better at doing that, because they can work faster and are more agile, and because conveners do not have to ensure that 11 people have asked a question, which can get a bit much at times.

To go back to your initial question, convener, I would say the complete opposite to Douglas Ross: yes, yes and yes.

I have a different view on this now. I completely understand why the Government and party leaders want to control who leads the committees that they are entitled to run. However, if we look at it from a strength-of-scrutiny perspective, we might perhaps do things differently.

Whether or not we agree, it can be argued that there is a perception out there that party appointees are overseeing scrutiny. We just did a quick calculation; it looks like, in this session, around 75 per cent of the legislation going to committees is Government legislation. The Parliament, I believe, needs to think carefully about the balance between the executive and the legislature. I would argue that we have not got that balance right; indeed, I gave a couple of examples of that earlier.

If we are serious about tackling the root cause of male violence against women, we must challenge the demand that fuels it. Does the Government agree that support in this Parliament for my unbuyable bill, which seeks to criminalise the purchase of sex and provide support for those who are exploited in prostitution, is a vital first step in changing societal attitudes by sending the clear message that women and girls are not commodities? Will the Government back that approach?

From what you have seen, do you think that there are gaps in accountability?

On the Scottish Government website, it says that there are 131 devolved public bodies in Scotland and that they are subdivided into nine categories by type of body. Will you explain to the committee how the Scottish Government decides which category a public body is placed in and what level of importance the Government puts on ensuring whether that classification is correct? Does it ever get reviewed?

My question is linked to scrutiny. I am interested in the Government’s view about a body that Parliament is supporting—not a Government body. The committee has taken evidence that the Scottish Human Rights Commission is not fulfilling its remit as laid out in its enabling legislation. That is quite an important commission, so I am wondering whether the Government is aware of that failure and whether it is concerned about it.

A number of different witnesses.