Chamber and committees

The other issue is whether the bill provides enough safeguards when it comes to confidentiality and the privacy of MSPs who might have complex reasons for not being there, which perhaps brings us back to the question whether those provisions should be in the bill at all. I sense that you are all of a similar mind about who judges that, but what are the criteria and who judges whether that person should be disqualified?

Obviously, it is clear cut in other situations that involve misconduct, custodial sentences and so on. However, when somebody is absent, who judges whether they are at it? That is problematic. I do not think that there is a clear answer to that, but it should perhaps be looked at and defined a little more clearly in the bill.

I am sensing that none of you has a clear answer to that.

Juliet Swann mentioned caring responsibilities, which are often a reason why elected members cannot attend. I would like to hear your thoughts on that, Annabel Mullin. Also, does the bill give enough weight to privacy and the confidentiality of a person’s personal circumstances?

It begs the wider question of whether that element is a fit for the bill. There is certainly a precedent with councillors; a law about their attendance already exists. However, now that we have moved on to a more hybrid approach to working, a closer look is needed as to whether attendance would fit in the bill and whether it would possibly be an invasion of a person’s rights to say, “You’ve not been here.” If we put to one side ill health, mental health and caring responsibilities, there are a myriad of other reasons that could prevent them from attending.

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. Could I get your guidance, please? The member is straying far from the subject matter of the debate. This is not the place for personal recollections.

I am pleased to speak in this debate on an important subject that is not routinely debated in Parliament.

As a relatively new substitute member of the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee, I found its inquiry into committee effectiveness fascinating. Like Foysol Choudhury, I think that committees are the engine rooms of this wonderful Parliament, whether they are taking evidence on important legislation or initiating vitally important inquiries on subjects that affect the whole of Scotland’s population.

The questions that were central to the inquiry were about what it means for Scottish Parliament committees to be effective, how we can do better and where and how that is being communicated to the public to create maximum engagement and effect.

We took evidence from a wide range of witnesses and gained useful insights into the operation of Parliaments in other jurisdictions. We heard from academics, civil servants past and present, and representatives of all six parties in the Scottish Parliament. All that evidence helped to build a picture of how our committees operate and how, after 26 years of this Parliament, they could be improved.

As our convener and many others have said, the issue of committee size was crucial to our deliberations, with many witnesses stating that small committees work best. That has been well articulated by members from across the chamber today. The downside of having smaller committees would be that not every party could be represented under the d’Hondt system, which we have also discussed today. That system attempts to reflect the party balance in Parliament across all committees, and the Scottish Government is clear that it would be for Parliament to determine whether that system of representation should change.

The gender-sensitive audit marked the importance of having a Parliament that is representative of society. As a member of the audit panel, I fully support that, but gender balance is possible only when a Parliament has a good gender balance to start with, and that rests on the parties’ ability to attract diversity and create a good gender balance during the selection process.

We also examined how the process to elect conveners works—such a process currently operates in Westminster. The Scottish Government does not have a position on that, but I personally am not convinced that that would be the best route to take in a Parliament of 129 members, or that it could easily be introduced. Much of the evidence that we received from Westminster witnesses, although interesting, was not really relevant to Holyrood due to the different numbers of elected members.

It was agreed that churn in committee membership is not ideal but is often not preventable. Jackson Carlaw articulated that perfectly. Changes in membership can hinder members from building the expertise that they need to scrutinise legislation effectively.

We discussed post-legislative scrutiny, or the lack of time to do it, and it was felt that the legislative workload of most committees and the length of time that is now being taken to complete bills do not allow adequate time to do that important task.

It was also agreed that collaborative working between members that leaves party politics aside makes for more effective committees. As a long-standing member of the Criminal Justice Committee, I can testify to that. As others have said, that comes down to the role of the convener. We have excellent conveners in Audrey Nicoll, Martin Whitfield and Kenny Gibson. They unify their committees in a fair and considered way, which makes for far better outcomes.

Time does not allow me to give a comprehensive account of our inquiry, but I believe that we can be very proud of our committee system, which is helped by skilled back-up from our clerks and research teams. However, the structure should always be a work in progress and there will always be room for improvement.

My thinking was that it would at least raise awareness, during the prosecution, that that had happened.

It is effectively like attempted murder.

I am not sure whether you will know the answer to this, but has there been an increase in reporting by the prosecution following the introduction of stand-alone legislation in England and Wales in, I think, 2022? What have the figures been like following the introduction of that legislation?

I have a question for Detective Superintendent Lindsay Fisher and then Detective Superintendent Adam Brown.

DS Fisher, when your officers attend domestic abuse incidents, do they routinely ask whether the complainer is alleging non-fatal strangulation? Is that question asked?

Good morning. Fiona Drouet, I want to ask you something aside from our discussion about whether there should be a stand-alone offence. Do you think that, during domestic abuse prosecution, a standard, stand-alone question should be asked as part of the prosecution? Would that be helpful?

I was interested in what you said in your opening comments about the case in which someone was in a car, coming home from their mother’s funeral. You just do not imagine that that would be the setting for it. That is so random and horrifying.