The next item of business is a debate on motion S6M-19436, in the name of Martin Whitfield, on behalf of the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee, on strengthening committees’ effectiveness. I invite members who wish to participate in the debate to press their request-to-speak button now or as soon as possible.
I advise members that we have a bit of time in hand this afternoon, so I will be generous with the speaking allocations and you will certainly get the time back for any interventions.
I call Martin Whitfield to speak to and move the motion. You have a generous nine minutes, Mr Whitfield.
15:05
It is nice to stand in this Parliament with a little time to debate. I am sure that we will have lost that by the end of the afternoon.
The late Donald Dewar, in response to criticism of the Scottish Parliament, once said,
“Cynicism, together with unrealistic expectation, are the two great bugbears of politics.”
We have tackled those two great bugbears head on in our report on our inquiry into strengthening committees’ effectiveness. The cynicism involves thinking that there is nothing that can be done to address the perception that committees are not fulfilling their potential. The unrealistic expectation involves thinking that members can leave their party roles at the committee room door, because, although there is merit in that idea, it is not always appropriate, desirable or even realistic for members to put their party roles entirely to one side.
I thank all those who have engaged with our inquiry and acknowledge the collective will that has been shown by all to improve the effectiveness with which committees operate. I thank our witnesses, colleagues across the chamber and beyond, and the institutions that lodged submissions and made contributions. I also specifically extend my thanks to Dr Danielle Beswick, who was appointed as an adviser to assist the committee with its inquiry into effectiveness—a role that she undertook with passion, intellect and an expectation that the committee would rise to be its very best.
In our report, the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee brings to the Parliament a package of comprehensive, practical and deliverable recommendations to reform and renew the work of committees. In opening this debate, I wish to set out the main conclusions and recommendations that we reached.
Turning first to the issue of culture, we heard that, if a committee has a strong culture, it works effectively. Committee members play a pivotal role in setting that culture. I ask all members of committees to recognise the magnitude of our responsibilities in that regard. How we behave and how we approach our role is fundamental not only to what committees do and how they do it but, potentially, to how it is viewed by the public and what it can achieve. Our recommendations aim to bring a sense of cohesion and collective endeavour to a committee. They include a recommendation that committees set objectives for individual pieces of scrutiny and inquiry work and seek to assess their effectiveness in their annual reports.
We recognise the importance of having an induction programme and on-going training for members, which need to be aligned with support from clerks and the Scottish Parliament information centre, which is well resourced. There is also a need to ensure that external expertise is utilised, whether through the use of committee advisers, holders of SPICe fellowships or academic and sector experts.
We have also recommended that informal fact-finding sessions and away days be seen as important components of that approach, as they ensure that members get to know each other beyond the political realm, which will foster a sense of collective working.
Turning to whether size matters in relation to the number of members on a committee, we believe that it does. We have recommended a reduction in the maximum number of members for subject and mandatory committees from 15 to 10, and that committees should normally have a maximum of seven members.
We believe that that change will help to address the concerns that larger committees are exacerbating the issues of members serving on more than one committee and the high churn of membership on committees. We consider that our proposals still leave flexibility to ensure that smaller parties can be represented on committees, and that committee places can still be allocated broadly in line with the balance of political parties in the Parliament.
Does the member recognise that, by sheer dint of numbers, the fact that a large minority of the Parliament’s 129 members are Government ministers makes it very difficult, from a workload perspective, for large committees to function?
In some of our evidence, it was suggested that that was one of the consequences of having large committees. As far as the role of Government ministers—“the payroll”—and their accountability is concerned, I think that that would be an interesting discussion to have in the chamber and beyond, this afternoon and in the future.
I turn to the issue of achieving a gender balance on committees and how that might be supported. The inquiry has afforded the committee the opportunity to explore in more detail the suite of recommendations in the gender-sensitive audit on committee membership. We recognise the importance of having a gender-sensitive Parliament and support that goal. We will propose changes to standing orders so that, in the next session of Parliament, there will be no single-sex committees.
On the question of whether to go further, we suggest that a balance must be struck. The proposals are aspirational and ambitious, but they also must be practically deliverable. We do not consider that it is fair to place a disproportionate burden of work on women if proportionality in parties and across the Parliament is not in place. We have therefore recommended that, when committees are established, the Parliamentary Bureau should ensure that their membership normally reflects the gender balance of the whole Parliament, and that, when that has not been achieved or is not achievable, the bureau must make a statement, when the relevant motion is moved, to explain why that has occurred.
Will the member give way?
Will the member give way?
I will give way to my deputy convener and then I will come to Mr Mason.
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 am grateful to Ruth Maguire for her intervention. I think that accountability is very important. On my first reading of the letter, I have the sense that any way in which we can demonstrate accountability and bring it to the notice of the public will be crucial in underpinning the move in the next session towards what the gender-sensitive audit has shown needs to happen.
I give way to Mr Mason.
On the point about committees reflecting the gender balance of the whole Parliament, would Mr Whitfield accept that there is a particular problem if, as has happened under the Scottish National Party, the governing party creates an equal balance of male and female Government ministers, because that puts extra pressure on the remaining members of that party, which becomes, in effect, more male?
John Mason is right, because the challenge with committees is that they are established at a stage when we are already aware of the gender balance within the Parliament and within political parties. The Government’s very laudable and correct aim of having a gender balance in its ministerial portfolios places the pressure on the remaining members. We heard a substantial amount of evidence on the challenge for the Parliament with regard to the workloads of female members.
I agree that there is a tension in relation to where, upstream, that has to be put right so that what comes out in the committees by way of a gender balance can most easily be achieved.
I turn to the key role of the convener, the person who sits at the helm of the committee and plays a crucial role in its effectiveness. We heard that a good convener creates a culture of interest, curiosity and collaboration. To enhance their role, we recommend that a programme for support for conveners is put in place from the start of session 7 of Parliament, which could be co-ordinated by the Conveners Group.
On the question of elected conveners, we learned that that system has operated effectively in other legislatures and that being elected by the whole Parliament can bring confidence and visibility to the role. It also gives a sense of legitimacy and accountability for a convener for the activities of their committee. It can also assist in the perception by the public that committees operate independently from the Government and have a distinct identity.
Will the member give way?
I will give way again.
I apologise for intervening again. Does Mr Whitfield think that there is a need for conveners to be trained? Chairing any meeting—including this one, but also committees—is not something that everybody is naturally good at. It takes certain skills.
Thank you for that comment—I think. I call Martin Whitfield.
When MSPs come into this place, they quickly realise that they need an extensive skill set. There is certainly a need to provide support—that could be done through training—to conveners, to other members of committees and, indeed, to MSPs more generally, to allow them to operate in an environment in which many of them will have had no experience. I agree whole-heartedly that there needs to be training and support; what that looks like must be tailored to the individual who seeks the support.
I hear all that about training, but I have a reservation, which is that we will end up producing little identikit people. That is my worry. Who trains the trainers? Who decides what the training should be? I am full of horror: I read Ross Greer going on about all that in the committee report. I do not want to be trained by Ross Greer on what he thinks my responsibilities as a convener of a committee should be. Who is responsible for that?
I do not want a whole lot of identikit conveners. I want a range of personality and function. Yes, they have to understand some basic things, but let us not start straitjacketing what the job is with the definition of somebody with whom I might not agree.
I would also be afeared of the member being the judge of that. However, Jackson Carlaw is right that, at no stage, should any of that be orientated to create an identikit committee in an identikit Parliament that just does identikit things.
To go back to my answer to John Mason, if MSPs who come into this place bring a skill with them, it is the skill of understanding and knowing themselves. They need to rely on that strength, as they will have done throughout campaigns and their political careers—however long or short they have been. They should have confidence to say, “No, that is not for me—but I do need this.” An open, two-way discussion about where someone can be supported does not necessitate an identikit product. Far from it.
The problem that I have with that is that it is not the experience of the Parliament. In my experience, when people initially suggest something, it is just that—a suggestion, However, as time goes on, it becomes embedded as a practice that everyone must follow. I can think of other examples in parliamentary life where that has happened and discretion has gone out of the window.
I will give you another minute and 40 seconds, Mr Whitfield.
In the politest terms, let me suggest that that discussion is crucial but that it might be one for this venue at a different time. It speaks to real challenges that the Parliament has.
We are aware of concerns about how having elected conveners would operate in practice and whether the size of the Parliament and, potentially, the small size of parties would mean that whips would still control who stands for nomination. Some felt that parties should be able to decide who their own representatives are as conveners.
As a committee, we believe that the time is right to allow an opportunity for the whole Parliament to consider whether there should be elected conveners in the next parliamentary session. Our report sets out a model procedure, which broadly mirrors the one that is used in the Senedd. We consider that the model represents a proportionate approach to solving the problem of such elections, particularly in relation to the use of chamber time. We are keen to gauge the views of other members on that proposal before we make our formal recommendations for changes to standing orders.
In relation to convenerships and remuneration, as I have previously set out, we do not consider that conveners need to receive an additional payment in order to enhance their status.
I am conscious of time—ironically, I would have liked to have talked about the capacity and workload of committees and, indeed, about the capacity and workload in relation to the chamber.
Finally, I turn to the role of committee stakeholders and to the role that the public can play in helping to ensure that committees deliver effective scrutiny. The Parliament has always valued its relationship with the public and recognised its importance—I recommend the deliberative democracy proposals from the Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee, specifically those regarding the embedding of people’s panels in the work of committees.
I look forward to listening to the views and reflections of other members from across the chamber, and I apologise to members for having used up all the spare time that we had earlier.
I move,
That the Parliament notes and welcomes the conclusions and recommendations in the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee’s 4th Report, 2025 (Session 6), Strengthening committees’ effectiveness (SP Paper 878); further notes that the Committee wishes to gauge the views of other Members on the introduction of a procedure for the election of committee conveners by the Parliament, and agrees to consider a proposed rule change for the election of committee conveners based on the procedure set out in annexe B to the report.
I call the minister, Graeme Dey, to open on behalf of the Scottish Government.
15:20
Last year, Parliament celebrated its 25th anniversary, which was a significant milestone and prompt for reflection on how the institution has evolved over the years. Our procedures and ways of working have adapted over time as we have learned what works well and what does not. That process of adaptation as we learn from experience should never be considered complete, which is why the committee’s report is so welcome. Ensuring that Parliament operates effectively is essential to ensuring that the people of Scotland are well represented by those they have chosen to act on their behalf.
Given the importance of protecting the constitutional principle that ministers are accountable to Parliament, I hope that members will understand the need for me to avoid giving any impression that the Government is directing how Parliament discharges its responsibilities, because it is always for this Parliament to decide how best it operates. My principal interest today lies in considering how any changes that are being deliberated might impact on the delivery of Government business, and that is reflected in the Scottish Government’s response to the committee’s report, in which we acknowledge that many aspects of that report are not for the Government to offer a view on.
However, there are a few areas in which we have shared views and are supportive of the committee’s proposals. I hope that everyone here will agree with the following two principles. First, the Government must have the freedom to bring forward the proposals that it considers necessary to give effect to its democratic mandate. Secondly, Parliament must have the freedom to scrutinise those proposals and to hold the Government effectively to account.
It is in that context that we must consider the concerns regarding Parliament’s workload. I assure members that the Government takes parliamentary capacity into account when making its legislative plans. It is no accident that the volume of legislation during this session is comparable to the volumes in previous sessions, and I do not think that it is tenable to suggest that the Government should scale back its ambitions. Instead, the question for Parliament and its committees is how best to balance efficiency and effectiveness in the scrutiny of Government activity, and it is for Parliament to ensure that there is adequate support for members to conduct their duty as legislators.
The minister and I have discussed a number of times the fact that there are a few more Government bills than in the previous session and that we still have the pressure of time. Does he recognise that a committee will need substantially more time when more than 500 Government amendments are lodged at stage 2 than it would need if more thinking had been done beforehand, so that bills came to committee with those amendments already built in?
I accept that criticism to a degree, but I hope that the convener will accept that Parliament has got into a situation in which a great many amendments that have been debated at stage 2 come back at stage 3, which leads to extended stage 3 proceedings and puts pressure on parliamentary time. I absolutely accept that there is something to look at.
I also hope that we can all agree that it is neither efficient nor effective for Parliament to adopt a one-size-fits-all approach. When a subject is significant or controversial, or when it is of particular interest to a committee, that committee should, of course, spend more of its time on that issue, but I hope that it would not be controversial to suggest that committees could take a different approach when something is technical or minor.
As our response to the committee’s report noted, the Government is supportive of the proposed earlier deadline for the introduction of members’ bills, which would ensure that there was sufficient time available to consider them in full. The ability to bring forward legislation is the core function of the Parliament, and it is important that members can do that, but that ability is meaningful only if time is available for scrutiny. Bringing forward the deadline for introduction for members’ bills should help to ensure that time will be available. I note that 11 such bills were introduced within six months of the 2 June deadline this year, with five of those being introduced in the final month. That means that 26 per cent of all members’ bills across the whole session were introduced in the final available month.
The Scottish Government notes the committee’s recommendation on better use of time-limited committees. Such committees are already possible within the Parliament’s current structures, although they are rarely used. Although the Government is supportive of such committees being used more often, clear timescales and remits and expected outputs are key to ensuring that they are fit for purpose.
Although I am speaking primarily on behalf of the Scottish Government, my 15 years as an MSP will shortly come to an end and I want to share some of my thoughts on committee effectiveness while I still have the opportunity to do so. In that vein, I will first reflect on the proposal to reduce committee sizes. I bear the scars from attempting to do that previously. The Government contends that committees, like the Parliament itself, should reflect the democratic choices of the Scottish people, so there should be no move away from the d’Hondt system for committee formation. However, there is no doubt that, for conveners, large committees can be unwieldy, and they are not conducive to optimising committee outputs.
In my time as Minister for Parliamentary Business, I have been there and bought the T-shirt when it comes to seeking to make committees less unwieldy. I recognise that, at the time, there was a real willingness to at least consider that, and I had an ally in Maurice Golden, the then Conservative business manager. Between us, and with the support of our parties, we were able to address the matter to an extent, at least on a one-for-one basis between the SNP and the Conservatives. In the end, all told, we reduced the size of three committees. However, owing to the unwillingness—it was understandable unwillingness, to be fair—of smaller parties that did not wish to surrender their single representation on some committees, that is as far as we got.
I heard the convener of the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee indicate that it might have a cunning plan for cracking that. I wish the committee well, because reducing the maximum size of committees was a good idea back in the day, and it remains a good idea.
On behalf of the Scottish Government, I welcome the committee’s consideration—
Will the minister take an intervention?
Do I have time, Presiding Officer?
Yes.
The minister is giving us his reflections. One of the themes of the committee’s report—and of many other reports that have been commissioned and produced over time—is the effect of party management on committees. We did not really hear about that in the convener’s speech. What does the minister’s experience tell him we would need to do to change the culture in the committees so that there is less party dominance and more evidence-led parliamentarian activity?
I will try to cover that in my closing speech, if Stephen Kerr will bear with me. In passing, I hope that his point is not simply directed at the Government but is reflective of the whole Parliament. I see that he is nodding his head to indicate that.
On behalf of the Government, I welcome the committee’s consideration of how the Parliament’s processes can be adjusted to improve effectiveness, and I look forward to hearing the views of members across the chamber. We—or, perhaps more accurately, those individuals who are elected to the next Parliament—will have a chance to come together and deliver more productive and effective ways of working.
The Government will support the motion on the basis that it is ultimately up to the Parliament to decide how it structures and organises itself. I note that the motion asks the Parliament to agree to consider a proposed rule change for the election of committee conveners. I want to be clear that the Government has no formal position on the election of committee conveners, but it recognises that the Parliament should be able to consider the matter further if there is a desire on the part of members to do so.
15:28
It is a pleasure to participate in this debate. I see that Richard Leonard is leading for the Labour Party. It is a kind of dinosaurs-R-us outing of the ancien régime of happy times past.
Over the time that I have been in the Parliament, I have come to like it. I have come to admire it when it is at its best although—like others, I imagine—I have despaired of it at times. I do not believe that anything can ever be perfect, because every institution has its imperfections, but I have come to believe that there are potentially ways in which things can change. However, there are obstacles in the way of every change. Sometimes the obstacle is a vested interest, sometimes it is a protocol or a practice, and sometimes, as I said earlier, it is the fact that the architects of a particular guideline move on and the guideline becomes a rule that people are then obliged to follow. It becomes a straitjacket rather than something that can be amended.
I will not repeat the bulk of the submission that we made as a party, because it was a serious enterprise, but I will touch on a number of themes. I am supposed to be leading for my party, but I might stray from that strict responsibility a little bit from time to time.
I commend the report, but the first thing that I want to talk about is continuity and committee sizes. I notice that the SPPA committee is a committee of five; my Citizens Participation and Public Petitions Committee is also a committee of five. Page 1 of the committee report highlights one of the big difficulties. It states:
“Evelyn Tweed left the Committee on 6 March 2024 and was replaced by Jackie Dunbar
Stephen Kerr left the Committee on 28 March 2024 and was replaced by Oliver Mundell
Ivan McKee left the Committee on 6 May 2024 and was replaced by Ruth Maguire
Jackie Dunbar left the Committee ... and was replaced by Joe FitzPatrick
Oliver Mundell left ... and was replaced by Sue Webber
Joe FitzPatrick left the Committee ... and was replaced by Emma Roddick”.
If I am right, that means that in practice only two of the people who initiated the inquiry were there at the end, when the committee published its report. That was exactly the same experience that I had on the Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee when we were looking at the issue of public participation.
Where is the continuity in the narrative that emerges at the end of a process if those who have been party to the investigation have all gone? The only two people left on my committee—David Torrance and me—had to overcome the wave of indifference from colleagues who joined later, and who had nothing to do with the investigation about which we were about to write a terribly important report. Lack of continuity is fundamental.
Will the member take an intervention?
I will take an intervention from Mr Sweeney—one of the members who left me.
As someone who was bereft of overseas visits as part of the committee’s work, I regret that change in committee role.
The member made an important point not only about the practicality of institutional memory but about the culture that we have a loyalty to our committee and a sense of purpose in serving on it. If that is upended at any moment, surely that means that the culture of the committee is fundamentally undermined.
Why is it always colleagues who were formerly at Westminster who are fond of overseas trips?
Notwithstanding that casual observation, what are the obstacles to continuity? In the first session of Parliament, the Government had about 18 ministers but, in this session, it has about 25. We have taken out about seven people who might be available to participate in committees. We have a lot of committees with large memberships and potentially too many people competing on them.
To return to the point that I was about to make about convenerships, we were a bit lukewarm about that. The proposal is interesting, and we will support the motion tonight, because it suggests the investigation of the possibility of how all that might happen and how conveners might be remunerated. One argument for remuneration might be that the committee convener commits to convening the committee for the entire length of the session and sets aside any other ambition. Therefore, they would not see the convenership of the committee as a stepping stone to anything else and would instead be totally focused on that. They would be able to do it independently and their effort would be recognised.
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.
I would hope not, but I understand the point. That is why there is an argument for the role of the convener being one that people value and something that they will adhere to for the duration of the session of Parliament.
Gender is an interesting issue. The only female that I had on my Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee was pinched by Martin Whitfield, who is recommending that single-gender committees should not exist. He stepped in and took away the female representative that we had on our small committee of five and then refused to replace her.
The committee recognised in the evidence that it submitted to the inquiry that, on some issues, because of the committee membership, the questioning of witnesses when interrogating certain petitions might not have been what we wanted. However, it is difficult, because if a party were elected with responsibility to represent on various committees but did not have full gender balance, that would mean asking the female members of the group to undertake the responsibility of sitting on more committees. I am not sure how reasonable it would be if they were tied down to having to do that and other colleagues were not. However, we certainly want to adhere to that objective.
Gosh, I have hardly managed to touch on anything, and my time is almost up. The issue of conveners is an important one that we want to reflect on.
In relation to experts and engagement, I welcome the fact that the report embraces the idea of citizens panels. We had an evidence session with Brussels on the European Parliament’s use of a people’s panel to work with parliamentarians. It was fascinating to hear about the exchange of views. They all got in the room, and the parliamentarians looked at the members of the people’s panel and said, “Why should we listen to a thing you say? You’re not elected. We have a democratic mandate. We are the people’s representatives,” and the people on the people’s panel said, “Yes, but we actually know what we’re talking about, and you don’t.” After they got over that, they worked very well together.
The use of experts and, potentially, people’s panels to inform committee members on the detail of certain subjects in a productive way would assist committee members, who ultimately have responsibility for determining what the outcome will be, to do so on the basis of informed opinion from a wider scope of people. That would be a useful thing to do.
Finally, post-legislative scrutiny has been the perennial talking point of the Parliament. Our recommendation is that a sunset clause on a number of pieces of legislation would actively force post-legislative scrutiny, because the Parliament would be required to consider the issue afresh.
As I said, we will support the report tonight. There is a lot of good content in it. I just hope that it does not end up being wishful thinking and that it can help to ameliorate some of the imperfections in our system, which could be better still. That will require momentum and commitment from all concerned.
15:36
I thank the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee for producing this thorough and important report into committee effectiveness.
We must be clear this afternoon that we are serious about democratic renewal and that we recognise that the balance of power between Government and Parliament, and between Parliament and the people, needs a new vitality, because that is what this debate is about. It is about how Parliament can better hold the executive to account, but we should never lose sight of the role of the people in holding Parliament to account. By that, I do not mean some kind of elective dictatorship; I mean a much more participatory style of democracy—a form of government that not only functions for the people but functions through the people.
All of us must be vigilant to the rise of a new authoritarianism in the midst of democratic politics. Make no mistake: our civil liberties, our human rights and our constitutional settlement are not sacrosanct or inviolate. We cannot take them for granted. That is what history teaches us—that we have to fight for them.
Today, I am invited to contribute as the opening speaker on behalf of the Labour Party, although members must take it as read that I am no longer necessarily and at all times on message. [Laughter.]
As I reflect on the committees that I have been privileged to serve on in this Parliament, it remains my firm belief that, among those, the Public Audit Committee has been the most effective, but it is a rare spirit of a parliamentary committee. It is chaired by a member of an Opposition party as a matter of rule. It is a mandatory committee in which representatives of the party of government are, by that same rule, in a minority. It is a small committee, with just five members, and that is not a weakness; that is its strength.
Among that small number, we also have experienced a turnover in membership. Let me say for the record that, since Sharon Dowey stepped down as deputy convener in 2023, and Roz McCall and then Stephanie Callaghan stepped down as substitute members, the Public Audit Committee, in all its incarnations for the past couple of years, has been all male. Do not get me wrong—all the members have made a valuable contribution, but there is no getting away from the fact that, without a broader range of life experience around that committee room table as we scrutinise our major public institutions, their spending, their governance, their leadership and sometimes even their conduct, that important diversity of perspectives is missing. It is my firm belief that we must rule—legislate, even—for that not to happen again on any parliamentary committee.
I am also convinced that accountability to Parliament, not to party or the patronage of party leaders, through the election by Parliament of committee conveners would help in the separation of the executive and the legislature. I was struck by Lorna Slater’s point in the last debate on this back in May, which is also reproduced in the committee’s report, that these convenership elections would need to be about a commitment to rigorous scrutiny, which, of course, they must, but when Lorna Slater says that we need to “avoid popularity contests”, I disagree. Popularity is surely what democratic elections are about. It is the same principle that we accept when electing Parliament’s Presiding Officer and Deputy Presiding Officers.
On other recommendations in the report, there should be greater powers to compel witnesses to attend committees to give oral and written evidence, and, of course, on the question that we have already covered, there should be training for committee members.
Under the Scotland Act 1998, we already have formidable powers to compel witnesses to appear before committees. I hope that, before Richard Leonard finishes his speech, he will return to his first theme, which was about why change in this Parliament rarely seems to happen, because that is the kernel of the issue. We all agree that things should improve, but why does that improvement not happen?
I will do my level best to answer that question in the time that I have left.
I was addressing the issue of training, and I was bound to say, when listening to the earlier part of this debate, that every convener should be issued with a copy of Walter Citrine’s “The ABC of Chairmanship”, which was widely circulated in the trade union movement.
To counter the point that Jackson Carlaw made, in my case, especially in the early days of being convener of the Public Audit Committee, I was able to draw on the wisdom of Hugh Henry, who had previously chaired the Public Audit Committee in an earlier session. His knowledge and his political judgment were things that I set a great deal of store by and relied on. However, I am to be persuaded that there should be remuneration for the role of committee convener. I simply do not accept the argument that some have deployed that getting paid extra would boost the profile of committee conveners or increase the significance of their role. We are, in my view, already well paid. I cannot help but reflect that, when I led the Scottish Labour Party, the honour of doing so was reward in itself—the greatest honour of my life—and there was no additional payment. In fact, the only perk in that sense was a guaranteed car parking space.
In the end, a healthy democracy rests on the twin pillars of consent and dissent. This debate is not about and cannot be about the efficiency of the bureaucracy; it has to be about the restoration of trust in politics, in politicians and in this Parliament. This is no time to be conservative—or moderate, even. It is time, in my view, to be radical.
15:43
I am pleased to speak in the debate on strengthening the effectiveness of our Parliament’s committees. I joined the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee right at the beginning of the inquiry. There was a bit of shoogling of chairs and stuff, but I remember hearing most of the evidence.
The report goes right to the heart of how we serve the people of Scotland. The Scottish Parliament’s committees are an essential part of the legislative process, and hard-working Scots deserve a Parliament that examines evidence and legislation carefully. When the Parliament was created, the committees were meant to be its engine room. They were meant to be where legislation was tested, where evidence was properly examined and where the voices of the public could be heard. Those principles are as important now as they were 25 years ago, but I think that we can all acknowledge that they have all been stretched thin in recent parliamentary sessions.
Too many bills have been rushed—we are certainly feeling the pain of that now—and too many important details have slipped through the net. Too often, the Parliament has been asked to sign off on legislation that was simply not ready. That is not what good government looks like and it is not what the people we represent expect from us. Hard-working Scots do not want politics for its own sake. They want us to be competent at what we do and they want decisions that are thought through, not thrown together to meet a deadline or make a headline. That means that our committees must be able to do their job properly.
The committee’s report sets out sensible, practical recommendations that would help us to get there. Reducing committee sizes, for example, from 15 members to around seven would make a difference. Smaller committees can get into detail and have some real discussions, rather than just managing speaking lists. Having been the convener of a large committee, I understand the pressures that members felt when I had to cut them short and not allow them to follow a train of thought that might uncover a nugget of important evidence.
The report also highlights the problem of constant churn, as we heard from Mr Carlaw and Mr Leonard. Members are moved on just as they start to understand their brief. However, to counter Mr Leonard’s comments about the lack of gender equality on his committee, I note that when some female members from the Conservatives moved on, some people stayed put, so positions could not be changed. That also contributes to the inability to get a woman into the room. The lack of continuity makes it harder to build expertise and develop the kind of trust in cross-party working that committees need to function well. If we want better scrutiny, we need more stability.
I welcome the discussion about elected conveners. The Conservatives’ submission stated that we do not believe that elected conveners alone will improve the situation in Parliament unless they are accompanied by wider reforms. We welcome the investigation into how that could move forward. When I was a convener, none of my powers or influence in that role was hindered by the fact that I was not elected to be there.
Our submission also raised practical concerns about the approach to electing conveners, which links to the use of the d’Hondt method and questions about how to deal with in-session vacancies. A lot of the churn happens when members from the governing party find themselves in ministerial roles. We find that that contributes significantly to churn.
Letting Parliament choose who leads a committee could strengthen a committee’s independence and improve accountability, but I agree with the committee’s view that that should not come with extra pay. My position is that, at a time when public finances are stretched, that would send the wrong message, because leadership is about responsibility, not necessarily remuneration. However, being convener was a lot of work and more effort than anyone can realise until they are in that role.
It is also clear that time is one of the biggest barriers to proper scrutiny, and we all feel that pressure. Committee members are juggling legislation, inquiries and constituency work, and there are just not enough hours in a week, especially if the committee sits on a Thursday. Allowing committees to meet while the chamber is sitting or to use Monday afternoons and Friday mornings for evidence sessions makes sense, because, after all, it is about giving committees the space that they need to do the job well.
My party made an important suggestion about committee witnesses. We suggested that they should have to declare where their funding comes from, including the amount of public funding, to further aid transparency about the potential influence of the Scottish Government.
The idea of committees reviewing their own performance each year is a good one. In any other workplace, teams look back on what they have achieved, what worked, what did not work well and how they might change their approach going forward. There is no reason why Parliament should not do the same. That is how we keep improving and making things better.
I referred to gender balance. I support the principle that our committees should reflect the diversity of the Parliament and of Scotland, but we must be careful not to turn that into a tick-box exercise where the women have to take on an extra workload just to fulfil the criteria. I know that the female parliamentarians who are on the gender-sensitive audit advisory group have made that point clear.
What matters most is that committees are made up of people who have the right experience, knowledge and commitment to hold the Government to account. They should also be interested in the topic, because then we would get genuine engagement. Let us aim for balance, while keeping a focus on merit and effectiveness.
The report gives us a clear route to better balance. The Scottish Parliament’s committees are an essential part of our legislative process, but scrutiny could be improved. Let us make sure that we do not have poor legislation that is rushed through in this session; we really need to get into the detail. We need to let our committees be more effective, so that our scrutiny is more meaningful and our Parliament is much more accountable to the people it serves.
I take the opportunity to remind members who wish to speak, including those who are online, that they need to press their request-to-speak button.
15:50
I thank the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee for bringing this important debate to the chamber, and I thank Jackson Carlaw for highlighting my previous role on the committee, which I enjoyed.
Our committees are a vital part of the parliamentary system. The report makes excellent recommendations on how to improve committee effectiveness, but they generally focus on what happens during parliamentary sessions. Some issues, however, will require on-going scrutiny beyond the next election. There are many public bodies and non-ministerial offices in Scotland that are ultimately accountable to the Parliament and our committees. The scrutiny that is undertaken by committees is key to ensuring the proper and efficient running of those bodies, but the current model prevents strategic, long-term oversight.
The Scottish Housing Regulator is a useful example. The regulator is a non-ministerial office that is directly accountable to the Scottish Parliament for the discharge of its statutory functions. Scrutiny currently takes the form of an annual report that is compiled by the regulator, followed by one committee meeting per year during which the chief executive and the chair are questioned by members of the relevant committee.
Concerns about the regulator have circulated almost since it assumed its full functions in 2012, and they have been raised consistently in the Parliament. At the Infrastructure and Capital Investment Committee in November 2014, representatives from the housing sector highlighted the regulator’s use of informal interventions to pressure housing associations into commissioning consultants that it favoured, at costs exceeding £1,000 per day. Witnesses also raised concerns about the heavy-handed and disproportionate use of the regulator’s powers. Nothing changed.
In 2020, following press reports of a culture of fear within the housing sector, members of the Local Government, Housing and Planning Committee raised concerns with the regulator during the annual scrutiny session. Again, nothing changed.
In 2024, a decade after the first complaints were made, the committee heard similar allegations regarding bullying and inappropriate interventions by the regulator. On that occasion, other stakeholders from the sector were invited to give evidence and the concerns were not so easily dismissed. Although more headway was made then, my concern is that, following the next election and the subsequent changes in committee membership, the issue will again lose momentum. In the past decade, at least 16 smaller housing associations have merged with others, largely as a result of regulator intervention, which seems a disproportionate loss to the sector. I do not believe that the Parliament has sufficient oversight to be satisfied that that loss of community-based organisations was justified.
My wider point is that I do not believe that the current committee system provides sufficient scrutiny of the bodies that report to the Parliament. There are two parts to that. First, a report and oral evidence at one meeting per year are not sufficient to explore complex concerns. I know that members have various concerns about the amount of time—
Will the member take an intervention?
Yes.
I entirely agree with what the member is saying. Is she also concerned about the fact that some of our agencies that have to report to the Scottish Parliament, particularly commissioners, cite that they are very seldom—if at all, in one case—brought before a committee?
I entirely agree with Liz Smith on that point. We have many pressures on us as members, but we need to get people in here so that we can scrutinise those bodies and commissioners appropriately. I absolutely agree.
As members, we often deal with highly paid professional representatives of the very bodies that we are charged with scrutinising. Sometimes, we need more time and more independent expert support. We get a lot of support in Parliament, but sometimes, on very niche issues, we need more.
Secondly, there is a real danger that transitions between elections and changes in committee membership lead to important issues being forgotten or momentum in inquiries lost. As I see it, there is at present no mechanism for passing on work in stronger terms than a recommendation in a legacy report. Even locating minutes from previous sessions, which I have tried to do, is really difficult.
Although we must allow flexibility, effective scrutiny of public bodies is too important to be lost or delayed during those changeovers. At present, standing orders and framework agreements with non-ministerial offices are not at all prescriptive. I know that there are good reasons for that—flexibility is important—but I would be interested in exploring the introduction of good practice guidance or a similar mechanism.
I also echo the concerns that were expressed by the Greens about post-legislative scrutiny. They made some really good points. In written evidence, they said to the committee:
“Many laws are passed, targets set and then forgotten, resulting in a failure to assess their effectiveness.”
The same applies to newly formed public bodies and non-ministerial offices, for which there is limited follow-up, which allows problems to go unchecked.
We are stewards for a brief time, but we must think longer term. Proper scrutiny protects our communities. We must develop an approach that is both robust and adaptable to ensure that organisations work in a transparent and effective manner.
15:57
As the newest member of the Parliament, I am uniquely qualified to share my very limited experiences—I have only ever been on one committee, but I have been nurtured to the highest level by its convener, Jackson Carlaw.
I welcome the work that has been done by the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee. I recognise that one of the stand-out points from the report is that the importance of a committee’s culture surpasses the importance of its structure. I know that from my experience on the Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee. I cannot speak for all its members, but I feel strongly that when we are in the committee room, we have a role to play in hearing the public’s voice and in the facilitation of that voice being heard, which is paramount.
For members who sit on committees that have a greater legislative scrutiny role, the balance between party politics and the more objective work of the committee is harder to find. That point is reflected in the report. The culture of the Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee is that we leave our party hat at the door and pick it back up on the way out. The citizen is first in that instance.
I acknowledge that that committee is singled out in the report as being particularly guilty of lacking gender balance, and I agree with the report where it calls for an end to “single-sex committees”. That might not always be possible, but where such change is practical, it should happen.
My main criticism of the committee system is that it seems to be overburdened. Most of us are here until 10pm, and if there is a committee meeting in the morning, we start at 9am. Although oversight from the chamber through debate is required, cross-party scrutiny should also be taking place in the committees, where it can eliminate some of the minutiae.
My view is that the Parliament is doing too much at stage 3 because the committees lack capacity. That sentiment applies doubly when it comes to post-legislative scrutiny, which we do not do enough of. Therefore, I welcome the proposals to increase the capacity of the committee system. The introduction of sub-committees, for example, might help in some instances. Compulsory attendance for public officials and ministers when they are summoned by a committee would definitely help. Also, chamber meeting times could occasionally be altered to make way for committee business, instead of the other way round—although doing that might be less practical.
The committee system remains a strength of the Scottish Parliament, and I support the proposals to further strengthen the good work that is being done here.
I call Rona Mackay, who is joining us remotely.
16:01
As a former member of the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee who was present during the evidence taking for this inquiry, I am pleased to be able to contribute to the debate.
As I said in the previous debate on the inquiry, I believe that committees are “the engine rooms” of this Parliament, whether they are taking evidence on important legislation or carrying out vital inquiries on subjects that affect the people of Scotland. In today’s debate, we have heard from speakers on the core questions of the inquiry and the many responses from the many excellent witnesses who were called to help us carry it out. [Interruption.] I am sorry—I am having some technical issues here.
Ms Mackay, I am sorry to interrupt, but you do have not have your camera on. You are expected to have your camera on, so please put it on.
Apologies—it has been a long time since I have done this. [Interruption.]
Ms Mackay, I propose to come back to you. I will take the next speaker now.
Thank you. I am having technical issues in getting—
Maybe you could work with broadcasting to get your camera on, and I will call you when that is worked out. Thank you for your understanding.
I call Stephen Kerr.
16:02
I begin with a simple observation: it is a pity that we are having another of these Thursday afternoon debates on a subject that goes to the very heart of the effectiveness of our Parliament. I am very grateful to the colleagues who are here, but I would have hoped that a few more colleagues from all of our parties would have come along and taken an interest in how this Parliament works. That is what is at the heart of the excellent report that has been put together by Martin Whitfield’s committee.
The bottom line of the report, which is a bit uncomfortable to read, is that the Parliament’s current committee system is not working to its optimum level—and that is putting it diplomatically. Some of the committees produce excellent work, and some work really well. That is down to, as Davy Russell said, our taking off our party hats at the door, and I genuinely believe that that is how Parliament should work. I believe that we should go into the committee room with a robust mindset, but we should not necessarily—in fact, we should not at all—go in with a particular party agenda. Sometimes, colleagues accuse each other of doing that—sometimes, I think, unfairly. It is possible to be robust and also to be evidence led.
I agree with the member to some extent, but does he not accept that there are certain fundamentals that our parties believe in, and which we are not going to leave at the door? For example, the Conservatives would like to reduce tax, while some of us would like to either raise it or keep it the same. We cannot leave that at the door, can we?
That is not what I am saying—of course we bring our principles into the committee room with us. Martin Whitfield said something to the effect that we know ourselves best, and that is what we bring to the Parliament. I agree with him on that. However, we often divide clearly along party lines when we should be led by the evidence.
Some committees in the Scottish Parliament are genuinely led by the evidence, and the Finance and Public Administration Committee is a very good example of that. Kenny Gibson is not here, but I want to pay tribute to him. Sometimes we clash in the chamber—chamber activity is a different thing—but in terms of its structure and the reports it produces, it is a really good and very valuable committee. That is because the rosettes are taken off at the door. Of course, principles remain with us, but when the facts change, we have to be willing to be open-minded enough as parliamentarians to change our minds, too. That pragmatism should be at the heart of all of our politics as Scots.
Will the member give way?
Of course I will.
I appreciate the member’s giving way, and I enjoyed working with him on the Education, Children and Young People Committee. I wonder whether, when he talks about our party rosettes coming off, rather than meaning our principles, he is talking about how we interact with folk who have different views in committee. What he means, I think, is that it is not about our party policies or our fundamental political beliefs but about negotiation and the valuing of other people’s beliefs and views.
If I may say so, Ruth Maguire was a brilliant colleague on the committee, because she did exactly that, and it was often the way in which our committee gelled. I am talking about individual members—irrespective of whether they are the convener, although conveners do play a very important role in creating the environment—being on board and willing to listen to each other and move towards each other, without compromising. John Mason is right; I do not expect colleagues to compromise their basic political principles but to approach this in a grown-up, mature way as parliamentarians.
Our Parliament needs more parliamentarians. We need to take the view of what is best for our country rather than what is best for our parties. Since my arrival in the Scottish Parliament, my fundamental problem has been that it is a party-managed Parliament, and, frankly, I find that objectionable.
I have been listening to everything that Mr Kerr has been saying. We have had our disagreements, but we have always kept everything open and friendly when discussing things.
In my time in the Scottish Parliament, though, I have never faced a situation in which a convener, regardless of political party, has been so objecting—to me—and so difficult, until now, when there is someone on the Education, Children and Young People Committee with whom I cannot work and who is extremely difficult and partisan. The colleague sitting in front of Mr Kerr—Sue Webber—was excellent in her time, but her replacement became difficult.
I come back to the leadership issue that was mentioned by the convener of the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee. The problem with having someone in that role is that they need to have the leadership in order to be able to work with everyone.
I have worked for a long time with the convener of that committee. When one gets to know him, one understands how he works. Ultimately, it is because of his particular way of questioning that things often come to light that otherwise might not have.
Will the member give way?
I will, in a second.
What is necessary for committees to be effective, particularly with witnesses who are in the category that Evelyn Tweed described in her excellent speech, is that there is constructive tension in the room. Douglas Ross, to whom George Adam was referring, is very good at that. We have to see people in the round, and I would say to George Adam that we all have aspects to which other members might object, but often there are other parts of the same person that people will admire. That is true of how I feel about George Adam, for example. That is how we gel as a committee.
I will now give way to Paul Sweeney.
I will briefly say that I appreciate that Stephen Kerr has been very generous with his interventions, so I will give him up to 8 minutes and 30 seconds.
I have noted Mr Kerr’s point about convenership. Perhaps it comes back to his point about the need to seek election, build a mandate across the chamber and command the confidence of everyone. That would be a self-regulatory check on overly partisan behaviour.
Paul Sweeney knows that I believe very strongly in directly elected conveners. That is one way for us to get the Scottish Parliament’s levels of scrutiny back up.
I also think that it would be a good idea if conveners made a commitment to stay in post. Similarly, I do not think that the turnover of committee memberships is good at all, because members do not develop a feel for the subject matter. If someone stays long enough, they begin to love the subject matter, even if they did not really have much interest in it when they first ended up on the committee.
The whole way in which committees are constructed and the nature of the role of the convener are so important. Last week in The Times, Alex Massie described something that happened in the chamber last Thursday. I will not name names, but I think that he has a point. The nature of what we do in committee involves holding ministers to account—indeed, that is what we come here to do, to a very large measure. Last week, in Alex Massie’s column in The Times, he described something that he witnessed at First Minister’s question time, when, basically, the convener of a very powerful committee in effect asked the First Minister—and I quote—
“why are you so good?”
For some members, that might be fine, but I think that conveners should have the self-respect to know that they have an official role to play in this Parliament, meaning that, occasionally, they cannot indulge in some of the stuff that might be quite enjoyable and even pantomime-like. Some people find that edifying or even entertaining, but we should expect something different from a convener. That is why we need directly elected conveners—and I also believe that they should be paid.
Will Stephen Kerr give way?
The member is about to conclude.
I would love to take an intervention, and there are many more things that I would like to say.
I think that the minister was waving the essay by my colleague James Bundy and me, which has just been published in the University of Edinburgh’s Scottish Affairs journal. It contains 10,000 wonderful words about what we feel we could do to make our Parliament what it should be, because Scotland needs a robust, strong and vibrant Parliament as never before.
I call John Mason.
16:11
Thank you, Presiding Officer. I was not sure whether you were first bringing in Rona Mackay again.
Many thanks for the opportunity to speak and many thanks to the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee for its excellent report. I very much agree with the first point in its overall conclusion, which is that
“it is essential that the ... Parliament has a strong and effective committee system.”
I hope that we are all committed to that.
I am also in agreement with the original decision to have one set of committees at Holyrood instead of the Westminster system of separate select and bill committees. I have had experience of that system as well, and I definitely think that that is one aspect in which ours is the better system.
Over my 14 years at Holyrood, I have served on—if I remember correctly—finance committees, economy committees, the Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee, a transport committee—
Will John Mason give way?
Let me finish this wonderful list. I have also served on the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee, the COVID-19 Recovery Committee, the Equal Opportunities Committee, the Social Justice and Social Security Committee and the Education, Children and Young People Committee.
As a former member of the Westminster Parliament, John Mason would acknowledge that there are limitations when everything goes through one committee; it is an issue of capacity. The stuff that Evelyn Tweed and other members have talked about—subject inquiries and all the other things that committees are expected to do—hardly gets done. If you are on some of the committees in this Parliament, you spend a lot of time on stage 2s. Just dismissing the idea that we should have bill committees would be a mistake, and I ask him to consider that point of view.
Actually, I have considered it, Stephen Kerr will be surprised to hear. My main argument is that on a matter such as the Scottish Fiscal Commission—I cannot remember whether Liz Smith was on the Finance Committee at that time—we might spend a huge amount of time, as we did in that case. It was quite a technical issue, and then we dealt with the Scottish Fiscal Commission Bill. That was better than if a bill committee had come to it cold, but I accept that there are different issues.
I turn to some of the specifics covered by the report. On the size of committees, I very much agree that smaller committees generally work better. Currently, I am on one committee with seven members and another with 10, and I think that the one with seven members is better, although that means that there are only four parties in it compared with five.
On the culture of committees, the point is made that MSPs and their attitude are more important than the structure. However, structure has its importance, as well. The convener is important in setting the tone. However, I have seen that, if even one member who is very tribal in their attitude joins a committee, that can change the whole culture of the committee. Therefore, I agree that it is best if MSPs are not too party political at committee, but we cannot forget that we are elected for particular parties—although I am not currently in a party—with all that that entails.
On meeting times, the committee rightly notes that Thursday mornings are particularly difficult, as there is a requirement to finish by 11.40—I was going to intervene during Sue Webber’s speech to make that point, but then she mentioned it anyway. In contrast, the two committee meetings that I have been in this week—on Tuesday and Wednesday—both ran until at least 1.30, and I suggest that Thursday meetings could run until at least 12 o’clock.
I note the comments about the disadvantages of members being on more than one committee, but I think that there are also advantages to that. I have experience of being on three committees, meaning that I was in a meeting every sitting day of the week, which was hard to prepare for and was a bit of a challenge. However, I think that membership of two committees should be manageable and could be advantageous. For example, the Finance and Public Administration Committee often feels that other committees leave everything financial to it, but having MSPs who are on the Finance and Public Administration Committee and on another committee can bring a financial angle to that other committee’s decision making.
We have spent a bit of time on the gender mix already, and I think that the committee correctly makes the point that it is difficult to get gender-balanced committees if Parliament as a whole is not gender balanced. Previously—not, as Keith Brown pointed out, in this session—achieving gender balance on committees was made more difficult because of the idea, originated by Nicola Sturgeon, of having equal numbers of male and female ministers in the Government, which put pressure on the back benches. Clearly, as I think that Mr Whitfield agreed, we need to focus on getting Parliament sorted as a whole, and that will benefit the committees.
I do not think that the issue of committee trips has been mentioned. I question whether committees should be away on overseas trips while Parliament is sitting, and I certainly do not think that the whole membership of a committee should be. Three or four members of a committee should be enough to make the trip worth while, and it should be possible to make those trips happen during recess. However, I very much favour committees having away days and going on fact-finding visits within Scotland. Those can have multiple benefits, as they can create a more collegiate feel in the committee and I know that many residents in island and rural locations especially have appreciated a committee making the effort to visit them instead of their having always to come to Edinburgh.
I take Mr Mason’s point about overseas visits, and I think that we have to be very careful that we are accountable for the use of taxpayers’ money in that respect. Nonetheless, to use the example of the Finance and Public Administration Committee, to which he has referred quite a lot, it is helpful for that committee to see how other jurisdictions handle various aspects of financial management. Therefore, I think that those visits can be seen as something that is very useful to the evidence-gathering process in this Parliament and can ensure that we work better.
I am not questioning the value of trips altogether, but when the Finance and Public Administration Committee was in—I think—Estonia, an issue came up in the chamber that someone from the committee had to speak to. Fortunately, I had not gone on that trip and I was able to handle that, although I am not the convener or the deputy convener, but that is an example of one of the challenges.
I want to spend a bit of time on the role of conveners. I am not personally convinced that electing or paying conveners would make much of a difference. What I think is that chairing a committee—or any meeting, for that matter—is a skill. I am afraid that I have been at countless meetings of community councils, council committees, parliamentary committees, church groups, cross-party groups and so on that have been very poorly chaired. Most people could probably learn to chair or convene a meeting, but I have seen very mixed convening in my 14 years in the Scottish Parliament, and I would recommend training for conveners when they start. That said, I take Jackson Carlaw’s point that we do not want all conveners to be the same.
Some of the problems that I have seen include conveners who dominate meetings and can take up to half the session with their own questions and comments. Of course, it is right that the convener should lead from the front, but there is a balance to be struck in allowing other members in. Secondly, there is a problem with conveners not allocating time fairly between committee members, which can mean that loud and pushy MSPs get more time while quieter members get less. Thirdly, some chairs, on the other hand, are too laid back and let the committee just drift along. Managing time is an important part of convening any meeting, and there is a need to keep MSPs and witnesses within reasonable time limits. Fourthly, some conveners have an issue with getting the balance right between robust questioning and bullying witnesses. Witnesses are likely to open up more if they do not feel that they are being beaten into pulp, and, in the long run, future witnesses are more likely to engage with Parliament if they know that they will be treated with a degree of respect. However, I accept that many people among the public and the media enjoy seeing witnesses being treated aggressively—indeed, ideally, they would probably like to see them bursting into tears.
We, as members of committees, need to decide whether we are primarily at the committee playing to the gallery or whether we really want to find solutions to problems. I guess that there is a balance to be struck in that regard, but I do not think that we always get it right.
Mr Mason, on the important issue of timekeeping, to which you referred recently, and exercising my skills as the chair of this meeting, I say that I can give you one more minute.
I will not even need that; I have only two paragraphs left.
Overall, I am a strong believer in our committee system, linked to a unicameral Parliament system. Yes, there is certainly room for improvement, but let us not be overly negative, as we sometimes tend to be.
I commend the committee on its report, which I think is thorough, but I remain convinced that, although the structure is important, the real key to how well our committees operate is down to the behaviour and attitudes of the committee members.
Thank you, Mr Mason. We have not been able to get Rona Mackay’s camera to function, for whatever reason, so I am afraid that, on this occasion, I will not be able to call her. Instead, we will move directly to closing speeches. I call Paul Sweeney to close on behalf of Scottish Labour.
16:20
I congratulate the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee on its fine report, and I thank the committee’s convener, Mr Whitfield, for outlining its findings succinctly at the outset of the debate and for his summation of Donald Dewar’s comments about cynicism and unrealistic expectation and how those were the key challenges that we all have to overcome, as parliamentarians, when it comes to how we maintain public confidence in this institution after a quarter of a century.
There are many issues that we must contend with, and we have an abundance of opportunity but a massive dearth of time in which to do so. It is a question of rationing that time effectively so that we can give the Parliament the ability not only to be effective, but to manage the tension between consent and dissent, which Mr Leonard mentioned, in conducting effective scrutiny of Government and all other aspects of the public functions of this country. It is a real challenge for us to do that strategically and to put some of our more partisan instincts to one side in the interests of the country.
Stephen Kerr’s point about putting party before country must be a central part of the ethos of a parliamentarian. Notwithstanding our ideological positions or our perspectives on how the country should function and how things should be done, we should pursue a truthful outcome, as far as that is possible.
Often, rather than being to do with the politics, the issue can simply be to do with the bureaucracy. We must remember that, while Scotland has had bureaucratic devolution for more than a century, it has had legislative devolution for only a quarter of a century. It is a question of how this young legislature can hold to account an old bureaucracy up on Calton Hill whose approach to things is often very ingrained. We must recognise that distinction as we perform our functions as a legislature.
In a unicameral legislature such as the Scottish Parliament, the role of the committees is essential to our performing those functions. Some excellent points about the committees have been made in the debate. I am pleased that, although the committee did not take a firm view on the role of elected conveners for committees, it has opened the door for the full Parliament to consider that prospect.
I think it is essential that we have elected conveners. Indeed, I made a written submission to the committee in the course of its inquiry in May last year, in which I highlighted why I thought that committee convener elections would be useful.
As members who have served in the House of Commons will know, the process of elections of conveners, which takes place at the start of the session, is a bit like a student union election, in that lots of flyers suddenly appear in members’ offices as part of the canvassing process. People were perturbed to see lots of Conservative leaflets appearing in Labour offices in relation to members who were seeking election as chair of a certain committee. There was a sudden realisation that the role of committee chair is allocated to a party, but all members have to come together to decide who the best parliamentarian is. It was a steep learning curve for me to learn that it was necessary to put party affiliation to one side and look at an individual’s background, what they had said in the Commons before, what their parliamentary record was like, what campaigns they had been involved in and what their attitude was to working with colleagues, in order to determine who the best—or, at least, the least worst—option was to elect to the role.
Such a process serves as a useful check. It tempers behaviour, reduces the idea of party entrenchment and brings members closer together as a Parliament.
I am interested in hearing Paul Sweeney’s perspective on the election of the Presiding Officer when he came to Parliament as a brand-new MSP and how he found that experience of coming to a decision on the best candidate.
In fact, I had already had the opportunity to do that because, just before I left the House of Commons, we elected the Speaker, Lindsay Hoyle. When I came here, I took part in the election of the Presiding Officer and the Deputy Presiding Officers. That was a really good moment, because it involved the Parliament coming together to think about who the best candidates might be.
There was some consideration of parliamentary arithmetic and who could best afford at key moments to lose a member to the chair. Sometimes, in a carefully balanced Parliament such as the Scottish Parliament, the parliamentary arithmetic can be important and it drives behaviour.
I have been in the same situation as Mr Sweeney. Purportedly, one of the reasons for voting for the Speaker before the general election was that those members of Parliament who were voting for the Speaker knew more about them. However, was that not one Parliament trying to dictate to a future Parliament what it should look like? Meanwhile, we have the benefit that each Parliament elects its own Presiding Officer, who can create the structure and—as we have talked about—the environment that we want the Parliament to be.
That is an interesting point. The convention in the House of Commons is that the Speaker’s seat is not contested at elections so they have the privilege of being able to carry over to the next session without much fuss. Here, it tends to be that the Presiding Officer retires from the role at the end of the session.
In the case of our Parliament, would it not have been better if the candidates for the office of Presiding Officer had had to pitch themselves for the job? We did not hear anything from them before we got into the voting process.
That is a fair point. Reflecting back, that would have been useful because, as new members, we were flying blind. We were rabbits in headlights. To have had a hustings of some kind would have been a useful exercise to understand more about the individuals involved and the process. Perhaps it might have produced a different outcome. Nonetheless, it is an important point.
I have considered the issue in the round and have worked with colleagues—most notably Declan McLean, an academic at Cardiff University—on constitutional reforms. I know that Mr Kerr has worked with James Bundy and other people outside the Parliament to look at opportunities for improvement. They all have really good ideas. One academic review on changes to the United Kingdom Parliament’s committee system referred to an MP who said:
“Elected chairs made all the difference. They’re elected by the House, so they can’t be too partisan or cliquey.”
That is important. By directly electing conveners, parliamentarians could seek to build a reputation for themselves, enhancing the committees’ status.
Lots of other points have been made. The member for Stirling, Evelyn Tweed, made the important point that it is not just the Government that is being held to account but the agencies that are created by the Parliament. Too often, there is perfunctory engagement—maybe one evidence session, without much scrutiny. We need to look at that in the case of the Scottish Housing Regulator.
Do you agree that a spotlight needs to be shone in scrutiny of organisations such as the Scottish Housing Regulator, to make sure that they are performing well and in a transparent way?
Always speak through the chair.
I agree. There should be much more regular engagement with those very powerful bodies that are in control of, potentially, billions of pounds-worth of public or community-owned assets. Understanding what is going on and engaging with the community is the essence of this Parliament.
Maybe there should be extra powers to call in decisions. For example, if there was a contentious takeover of a housing association and that was a cause of alarm to a committee, it would have the power to call in that decision. In the planning system, ministers have the power to call in contentious planning decisions made by local authorities. Maybe the Parliament should exercise greater functions through its committee system. It could be a good evolution of devolution if the Parliament could do more of that rather than leaving it to the executive or the bureaucracy at St Andrew’s house.
There is also a great opportunity for interparliamentary committee work. We do not do enough of that in this country. We have 25 years of devolution, devolved legislatures and House of Commons committees. We could do a lot more together, including in areas that straddle devolved and reserved competencies such as drugs, housing issues, asylum and immigration. We could have much closer working across committees and Parliaments to get more coherence in public policy and hold all the Governments to account where they have interlocking roles. That could all be useful.
Mr Sweeney, could you bring your remarks to a close.
I have barely scratched the surface of the potential, but I hope that I have made my view on the election of committee conveners clear.
16:29
Uncomfortably, I find myself in the same boat as Richard Leonard in that I am going to give own my views, which do not necessarily tie in with those of my party.
I have been convener of a committee for all but one year of my time in the Parliament. It is a role that I have considered to be important—more so than holding a shadow cabinet position in Opposition, for example—because I think that members can make a difference in it.
I have listened to today’s debate and think that we have missed, or should consider, a couple of aspects.
When I started being a convener, I was incredibly lucky to have a good senior clerk who enabled me to bounce ideas off them and allowed me to fight over certain points. That allowed me to be educated, as a new convener, about what I could and could not do and what was in the committee’s best interests. To my mind, the role of the clerks is absolutely critical. When we look at our committees we must bear in mind that it is really important to ensure that we have the right clerks supporting them.
I have also gone through quite a few business managers in my time as convener. It is absolutely critical to have a relationship with them to allow the committee to work out its future programme. I know that almost all committee conveners do that, but that relationship is particularly important for a new convener. I will not embarrass the one business manager with whom I struggled, but I will say that he never gave me a biscuit when I came to meetings. He knows who he is, and I see that he is smiling.
On the issue of committee size, my first committee had 11 members, which to me seemed unwieldy and almost too difficult to manage. To be honest, those members’ experience and depth of knowledge, and the length of time that some of them had spent in the Parliament, made things virtually impossible. I would sometimes benefit from the knowledge of Richard Lyle and Stewart Stevenson, but sometimes I could not, and an 11-person committee can be difficult and unwieldy to manage.
Will the member accept an intervention?
I will give way to Mr Mason, on the basis that I hope he is going to recall being on a committee that I was on—an experience that he ignored earlier.
I did mention that it dealt with transport, which is what I wanted to raise. Would Mr Mountain agree that the committee to which he referred—of which I, too, was a member—had too wide a remit? We dealt with all the rural stuff, such as crofting, as well as all the transport stuff.
I agree with Mr Mason on that point, which I will come back to in a minute.
In the second of my sessions in the Parliament, I was on a committee of seven people and found it to be an easy one to get round. It is really important to me as a convener that a committee is not too big. I like to talk to members before meetings to find out their views and ascertain their direction of travel, because that makes it far easier then to reach decisions.
I agree to some extent that members cannot always leave party politics at the door, but, in my time as a convener, I have seen committees being whipped over decisions. During work on the bill that became the Transport (Scotland) Act 2019, I was told that members would vote in a certain way. However, it then became clear that that was not the party way and members changed their views, which I thought was incredibly sad. I have also found it quite sad to have evidence of questions being leaked to ministers prior to evidence sessions with a committee. At one point, we had a private session on aquaculture, but when I left I found myself being doorstepped in my office by a journalist who asked me about something that had been said in that private session. That means that I am not keen on questions being shared ahead of meetings and that I always encourage committee members to make up their own minds.
Every time I hear that said, the speaker is always having a go at the governing party and is always talking about the partisan nature of back benchers from that party. Would Mr Mountain agree that partisan party politics can apply to anyone? I know of an Opposition member who cannot wait to scurry out when a meeting concludes, so that he can send a press release to his favourite newspaper. That practice happens on both sides, and it will stop only if both sides stop doing it.
I agree with Mr Brown. I can think of one committee member who used to leave a committee meeting early to ensure that they could get their press release out before anyone else. I say to Mr Brown that I am just making observations. I am not pointing the finger at anyone; I am just speaking from my experience as a convener.
It is also right to get more balance in committees so that the governing party does not have an absolute majority. There are very few committees in the Parliament where that is the case.
I totally agree with Mr Mason’s point about the size of committees’ subject areas. The Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee’s remit includes matters that I do not believe are about any of those areas. Land reform is one of them. I am sure that the Minister for Parliamentary Business and Veterans would have been delighted had I not got so involved in that. [Laughter.] However, the point is that committees are sometimes given additional work that falls outside their areas. For the REC Committee, trying to deal with ferries, trains, motorways and so on became virtually impossible.
Will the member give way?
Do I have time to give way, Presiding Officer?
Absolutely.
I did not get to the subject of bill committees versus select committees in the UK Parliament, but in some instances there may be a case for specialised bill committees where a particularly complex bill with many facets does not fit neatly into a silo.
I am not used to bill committees. However, I note that the majority—or potentially the whole—of the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee’s deliberations between now and the end of the current session will be on the climate change plan, even though there are other matters that we must consider, including a member’s bill and other important issues that fall within the transport portfolio. Therefore, I can see that there might be an argument for having bill committees.
In session 5, there was a chance for our committee to be far more independent in relation to the work that we could undertake. I remember working with the current Minister for Parliamentary Business and Veterans, who at that time was the convener of another committee, on an aquaculture inquiry that was conducted by two committees. In that session, we had the ability to do that. As a convener in the current session, I have felt a bit like a dog who is thrown a ball and chases it all over the place. Whether it be in relation to land reform or the climate change plan, the committee has had so little time in which we could consider matters outwith the legislation that has been introduced.
I absolutely believe that electing committee conveners is the right way forward, and I hope that the Parliament will consider doing so. I would have no problem with standing up and trying to justify why I should be a convener. It might be that a convener should be a member of a particular party, but I do not think that it is right for the party leader to decide who they will be. Although I am a beneficiary of the current system and have enjoyed every moment of my tenure, I think that the approach is ripe for change.
It is also important for conveners to stay in post. As I alluded to earlier, there is nothing wrong with a member being a parliamentarian and concentrating their career within the Parliament. If a member is a convener or leading member of a committee, they should be applauded for that, because it is important.
On conveners being paid, I do not want extra money, but I would have liked some additional staff budget to assist me with getting ready for meetings. Conveners are ably assisted by committee clerks, but when we have to read all the papers and delve down into findings it would sometimes be extremely helpful to have someone to look over them and flag things up.
The point has been made previously that it would be helpful for committee conveners to have additional staff resource. That also points to the importance of continuity and of conveners being there for the whole of a parliamentary session. If they were to move, we would be left with the difficulty of reallocating that resource. That is one of the functions that might come out of having a commitment that, once elected, conveners will be there for the duration of the session.
As always, Mr Carlaw thinks through the issue and comes up with a justification for a decision that I think is the right one.
On witnesses, in my time as convener of the REC Committee and the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee, I have seen the same old people coming in and giving us almost the same old evidence. I know that the clerks sometimes struggle to find people to appear, and I applaud them for their efforts, but sometimes we need to go further afield. That is why it is important that committee members should get out of the Parliament and visit other areas. For example, the REC Committee went to Mull and various other places to hear from people on the ground.
Will the member give way?
I will, in just a minute.
If witnesses are getting money from any sources, it is important that they ensure that that is declared before they appear at a committee meeting.
I will take Stephen Kerr’s intervention.
That was exactly the point I was going to make, so I do not need to intervene.
I will wind up my remarks on that note. However, I encourage the taking of such an approach when the next parliamentary session begins.
I agree that teaching people how to convene is probably not the best way forward, but teaching them how to use the assets that they have at their disposal—in particular, the skills of the clerks and the staff in all the other parliamentary departments—is important, because it will make them more effective.
16:40
The SPPA Committee’s inquiry drew on a range of perspectives, including from conveners past and present. In closing, I hope that I can add to the perspectives of Richard Leonard and Edward Mountain without quite joining their ranks—valuable as I felt their contributions were.
The points that I am going to make are not made from the perspective of the Scottish Government, which rightly takes the view that how the Parliament organises itself to carry out its scrutiny functions is a matter for the Parliament. Instead, they are some personal reflections from my 15 years in the Parliament, during which I have served on parliamentary committees as a member, deputy convener and convener.
I served for three years in the role of Minister for Parliamentary Business and Veterans, which coincided with the pandemic, when the Parliament and its committees faced all sorts of never-before-encountered issues in scrutinising and passing legislation. I contend that I rose to that challenge. I therefore hope that my comments will be taken in the constructive manner in which they are intended.
If I had to choose one takeaway from the pandemic period experience, it would be the determination that was shown by committee members and conveners to function as best they could, in quite extraordinary circumstances, to get through the work programme that was before them. I give particular credit to Adam Tomkins, who led the Justice Committee, and Lewis Macdonald, who led the Health and Sport Committee. Both were from non-Government parties and both placed their responsibilities as convener ahead of party politicking when fulfilling their convening role.
There was much to-ing and fro-ing between me, as the minister, and them to reschedule deadlines or to schedule SSIs in a way that aided the committees in their efforts to complete their work programmes during those unprecedented times. I recount that because it highlights that being a truly effective convener requires the individual concerned to rise above their party political instincts—whatever their political persuasion—and seek to bring a team ethos to the committee, recognising the leadership role.
I made it clear in my opening statement that the Scottish Government does not take a position on the election of committee conveners. I want to stress that point again before I move on to offer further personal views. I have seen the evidence that the committee received that electing conveners might give the job added standing. However, I disagree with Richard Leonard. If the Parliament was to decide to go down that road, the process of electing conveners should not be a popularity contest, nor, when the convener is to be drawn from the ranks of the governing party or parties, should it be about picking the person who is viewed as most likely to be a thorn in the side of the Government.
Does the member agree that the role should be rooted in respect and having authority on the subject? The Constitution Society reviewed the system in the UK Parliament and concluded that
“changes in the system have elevated the profile and status of select committees in Parliament and government”.
If we did it in that way, it would be a great opportunity.
I am not sure that it is about experience, because someone can build their experience. It is about the skill set of the individual.
Will the member take an intervention?
I will make a little bit of progress.
I reflect with pride on the fact that, during my time as convener of the Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform Committee, we required a division only once. We did some important work that sometimes challenged the Government, and I do not think that Roseanna Cunningham, the environment secretary at the time, reckoned that she got an easy time from the committee. Indeed, she often told me—in her inimitable way—that the opposite was true. The close working between my committee and the Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee, which was led by Edward Mountain, to deliver a joint report on aquaculture placed me at odds with the then rural secretary. However, that was as it should be.
To answer Stephen Kerr’s question, the right leadership of committees can foster an environment in which all members become better focused on doing the work of a member of a committee as opposed to the work of a party member.
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?
That would require the members who were making the choice to consider that to be the optimal factor in the decision-making process. I served a three-year apprenticeship as a deputy convener, and I would not have been as effective a convener as I—immodestly—think that I was without that experience behind me. However, I do not say that to suggest that only seasoned MSPs ought to be in the frame to be conveners, as people will enter here with the skill set required and suitable experience gained elsewhere. I saw that during my brief spell on the Education, Children and Young People Committee under Sue Webber, whom George Adam rightly commended for her approach to chairing.
I suggest, from my own experience—again, I stress that I am not speaking on behalf of the Government here—that if the Parliament is to elect its conveners, the approach to be taken should be similar to that which underpins selecting a Presiding Officer, which is getting the best person for the job. The qualities that are needed include the ability to foster the right culture and atmosphere in the committee, so that the outcomes of its work are evidence based rather than partial.
In the report, there is a reference to innovative working, and the committees of the Parliament could build on the foundations established here over the past 25 or 26 years. A moment ago, I spoke about the joint inquiry into aquaculture in the previous session of Parliament, which was carried out by the Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform Committee and the Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee, and which was led by Edward Mountain. That combined effort really added to the status of the report, because it was two committees of the Parliament coming together.
I also think back to my time as the deputy convener of the Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment Committee, when we conducted an inquiry into the way in which supermarkets treat Scotland’s food producers. One leading supermarket indicated that it would not attend the committee. Under the leadership of Rob Gibson, we explored how we could seek to compel its attendance—something that had never been done by the Parliament at that point but that had unanimous cross-party support in the committee. In the end, we settled for advising the supermarket concerned that it would be empty-chaired, which was a bit unusual for a parliamentary committee. The supermarket attended, and the session was much more productive in shining a light on the issue.
It is important that committees see their role not just as scrutinising legislation and holding the Government to account, because there is so much more for them to do. I hope that the focus on committee effectiveness that the inquiry has instigated leads to the committees in the next session of Parliament kicking on. However, in order that the conveners of those committees, elected or otherwise, are able to oversee the committees and be at their best, the assistance of an optimal induction process for new members will be required.
This session of Parliament has been different from the session when I entered Parliament, in 2011. In the early years of that period, I found myself working constructively on committees with cross-party colleagues such as Alex Fergusson, Jim Hume, Claudia Beamish and John Scott. Friendships were forged, some of which survive to this day. This session has been a more combative—some might say toxic—setting than previous sessions, and I know that I am not alone in thinking that the inability to have an extended, wide-ranging cross-party induction process as a consequence of Covid laid some of the foundations for that. I am aware that Parliament has plans to ensure that the offering for new members will be far better. That will surely help our committee conveners and this institution as they seek to ensure that our committees become as effective as they have the potential to be.
I call Ruth Maguire, on behalf of the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee, to wind up the debate and take us to 5 pm.
16:48
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.
I notice that the committee did not make the same recommendation for Government bills. Some Government bills, such as the budget, are time bound, but should the Government not also be introducing bills earlier?
I think that the committee would recognise the balance between the Government’s mandate and Parliament’s role in making recommendations.
Is there not a slight worry, though, that putting that block in place would favour returning members in a new parliamentary session? They would be in a position to introduce bills because they had prepared for them in the previous parliamentary session, but new members would be disadvantaged in that they would not be prepared in time to introduce a bill within the timeframe.
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 put it on the record that my participation in the cross-committee work on drug deaths has been particularly rewarding. That is a synthesis of the work of two committees—the Criminal Justice Committee and the Health, Social Care and Sport Committee—and it has been really useful in getting to the nub of a major emergency in Scotland, so perhaps more of that could be a good thing.
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.
That concludes the debate on strengthening committees’ effectiveness.
Air ais
Draft Climate Change PlanAir adhart
Motion without Notice