Seòmar agus comataidhean

In these challenging times, we need to remember that the proposals for amendments to standing orders are about getting the next session of Parliament off to the best possible start without any periods of wondering.

This final report is the committee’s eighth report of 2026. It recommends that the Parliament agree to standing order rule changes in order to provide for conveners of the subject and mandatory committees to be elected by the whole Parliament.

During the course of our committee effectiveness inquiry, those in favour of elected conveners emphasised that having conveners elected by the whole chamber can bring a degree of confidence and visibility to the role. We also heard that, for conveners, that can create a sense of legitimacy and of accountability for the activities of their committee. It can also support public perception that committees operate independently of the Government and political parties, and it can afford committees the opportunity to create a distinct identity.

I am grateful for the member’s careful wording as to how he feels that his time on the corporate body has gone. He is correct, because the recommendations strengthen the requirement for gender balance to be considered at the nomination stage. That is important.

We believe that making those changes will enhance the consideration of, and the process for, appointment or election to those four key roles within the Parliament and make an important contribution to delivering a truly gender-sensitive Parliament.

I move,

That the Parliament notes the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee’s 4th Report, 2026 (Session 6), Standing Order Rule changes - Related to Gender Sensitive Audit recommendations on Parliamentary Bureau Membership, Election of Presiding Officer/Deputy Presiding Officers and SPCB Membership (SP Paper 978), and agrees that the changes to Standing Orders set out in Annex A of the report be made with effect from 11 May 2026.

I am grateful for the intervention from Sue Webber, who was a member of the committee when we discussed the matter. She and other members will be aware from the report that great concern was raised that pressure will be put on women, particularly but not exclusively in smaller parties, by an expectation that they will serve on committees that will be driven merely by the fact that they are women. There is concern that they may be persuaded to sit on more than one or two committees in order to fulfil the rule. However, we discussed the matter at a number of meetings and I have confidence that the wording that we propose will reflect the reality and prevent that situation from occurring. If it did occur, it would be beholden on not just the committee or those who sit in the Presiding Officer’s chair but the Parliament as a whole to look at it immediately.

In the evidence that we took for our report, we picked up that there are sometimes difficulties in the expectations that are placed on members. However, it is interesting to note that, in standing orders, the bureau is asked to take into account individual members’ interests in serving on committees. That has perhaps been celebrated in its absence more than it has been taken forward, and it is perhaps something that Parliament can look at in the new session.

We also propose that the deadline for the introduction of members’ bills be brought forward. That has been discussed at great length over the past month in various debates in the chamber. The change would prevent what we have seen at the end of the current session, when a significant number of members’ bills have had to be pushed and forced through. Bringing the deadline forward will prevent such backlogs from occurring at the end of future sessions.

Other proposals include strengthening committees’ annual reporting requirements and introducing a requirement for a dedicated debate slot for the people’s panels that are being committed to in the next session.

Finally, the report recommends changes to the standing orders to introduce a hosting role to allow for the sharing of knowledge and expertise between committees. That will enable a committee to invite members of another committee to attend and participate in the committee’s meetings and to have enhanced rights to access the private sessions and meeting papers but not the right to vote at that committee.

The committee believes that making those changes will strengthen the Parliament’s committees and give them additional tools for more effective scrutiny. I invite members to support the motion at decision time.

I move,

That the Parliament notes the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee’s 3rd Report, 2026 (Session 6), Standing Order rule changes arising from the Committee’s report ‘Strengthening committees’ effectiveness’ (SP Paper 977), and agrees that the changes to Standing Orders set out in Annex A of the report be made with effect from 11 May 2026.

The pastoral element was the most important element of the support that the committee called for. The committee has received substantial evidence on the importance of pastoral support throughout the session. I welcome the corporate body’s offer to engage with our successor committee on the matter, but does Jackson Carlaw agree that specialist knowledge in respect of MSP complaints must be a prerequisite for anyone who advises members who are the subject of such a complaint, given that it is an almost unique situation?

There is a phrase about a bad penny, but I will try to recall that later on.

Our fourth report of 2026 sets out the committee’s proposals for standing order rule changes relating to the Parliament’s gender-sensitive audit recommendations for Parliamentary Bureau membership, elections of the Presiding Officer and Deputy Presiding Officers and membership of the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body. In making these proposals for standing order rule changes, we are keen to ensure that progress is made towards a gender-sensitive Parliament in which equality truly exists between men and women in relation not only to representation but to participation in the Parliament.

The committee’s role has been to consider the audit recommendations within the context of potential rule changes and how they would operate on practical levels, as well as whether there are any potential unforeseen circumstances.

The first rule change relates to the Parliamentary Bureau membership. We recommend strengthening the wording in standing orders to increase the prospect of gender balance on the bureau from the start of a session and when nominating a new member if a current member ceases to hold office.

The second change relates to the election of Presiding Officers and Deputy Presiding Officers. We recommend that the rules be changed so that those who are elected cannot all be of the same gender. That change formalises an existing Scottish parliamentary norm and we consider that that will protect and embed that norm for the future.

The third change relates to the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body. We gave serious consideration to the proposals for introducing an acting SPCB member but, as we detail more fully in our report, we understand that that is likely to require a change to the Scotland Act 1998. Therefore, we decided that we did not wish to pursue that recommendation at present. However, we have recommended changes to the wording of standing orders to strengthen gender balance as an issue for consideration at the nomination stage for corporate body membership.

Christine Grahame’s intervention picks up on the workload that conveners have to take on. As an innocent, naive convener at the start of the session, I had not appreciated the phenomenal workload. I accepted that as I became experienced, because, as Christine Grahame says, a good convener can make for a very good committee.

A number of people who responded to our call for evidence suggested that there should be recompense to reflect that workload. However, after discussion, we thought that that was a step too far and was too challenging at this stage. The process of electing conveners would allow for such a discussion in the future if members wanted to pursue it.

Unlike the previous two motions, our motions do not include our entire reports. If they had, they would perhaps have made the Business Bulletin the longest in the entire session.

This evening, I will speak to three motions that mark the conclusion of two important pieces of work that the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee did in this session—our inquiry into committee effectiveness and our consideration of the recommendations in the gender-sensitive audit that the Presiding Officer established. If the changes that I will speak to are agreed, they will take effect from the start of session 7.

Our third report of 2026 sets out a number of standing order rule changes that the committee recommends following its report on strengthening committee effectiveness. Parliament endorsed those changes in the committee’s debate on its inquiry, which was held on 6 November 2025. Members may wish to note that the proposal relating to elected conveners will be considered under a separate motion later this evening.

The key rule changes that are proposed in the report include reducing from 15 to 10 the maximum number of members who may sit on committees, implementing the recommendation in the gender-sensitive audit that no single-sex committees be permitted in the next session, ensuring that committee membership normally reflects the gender balance of the Parliament, and enabling committees to meet in private at the same time as the chamber without requiring prior permission to do so.

I remind members of my entry in the register of members’ interests.

I am grateful for the opportunity to speak on behalf of Scottish Labour in this debate. Last night, it was striking to note the significant levels of agreement on the stage 3 amendments. That demonstrated three things. First, there has been much-improved engagement by the minister and the Government to deliver on issues that I and colleagues across the chamber raised at stage 2. Secondly, there is still an encouraging level of consensus and commitment across the chamber on fulfilling the Promise. Thirdly, many people across Scotland, including people in the care-experienced community and those who support them, want to see change.

Unfortunately, the fact is that improved engagement was an absolute necessity. Engagement during the early stages of the bill’s development, before it came to the chamber, was extremely poor. Not all the people who had the most experience and knowledge to contribute to the bill were listened to, and it is much poorer legislation for that.

The bill should not have been left to the last moment; it is far too important. The independent care review told us in 2020 that legislation was needed to simplify the legal landscape, and the Government promised us in 2022 that that would happen. The bill is a lot of things, but simple it is not. Unfortunately, further legislation will be required in the next parliamentary session to clear up the messy legislative landscape, as well as to properly redesign the children’s hearings system. We must learn the lessons that this process has taught us as politicians in Parliament and the Government.

I am proud, however, that we managed to reach a point at which legislation can start to make real and tangible differences to the lives of people in one of the most vulnerable groups in our country. The bill introduces the right to return to care, and that in particular is worthy of celebration. It has provided an opportunity to shine a light on the incredibly important work that the independent advocacy services do. Under article 12 of the UNCRC, young people have the right to have their voices heard, and that must always guide our policy making. Independent advocacy empowers young people to use those voices.

During the proceedings on the bill, I have sought to highlight the need for our legislation to be guided by the UNCRC, to reimagine our approach to children’s hearings and to acknowledge the vital contribution and immense value of foster carers. The provisions in the bill and the discussions surrounding them must provide an impetus to act on those issues.

That is what the bill actually is: an impetus to act. It is an instruction to act. It is a call to capture the voices of our young people telling us to act. It does not fulfil commitments to the care-experienced community—we are still not where we need to be. Corporate parenting and social work are still operating in incredibly challenging environments. Too many care-experienced young people are still not being given the nurturing that they need to thrive. The hard-won victories in the bill will mean nothing if its provisions are not properly resourced and effectively implemented.

In the short time that I have left, I wish to make some genuine comments about a minister who is, as she leaves Parliament, probably at her most valuable. She has crafted a way of reaching out, through stages 2 and 3 of the bill, that I think many people with far more experience could learn from. I hope that whoever follows her builds on that. I hope that they do not start again and need to learn again but that they look at what she has achieved.

From discussions that I have had with the minister and from her contribution, I know that she has had imposter syndrome. In my view, she absolutely should not think that she is an imposter—she is not an imposter in any way. She is a highly skilled and articulate politician who has defended the Scottish Government, has listened to care-experienced people and sometimes to buffooning politicians around the chamber, and has done everything that she could to get the bill into place.

I confirm that Scottish Labour will support the bill tonight, and I thank the minister specifically for that work. Six years ago, parties across Parliament came together to make a Promise. We now need to build on that consensus. We must keep being ambitious but, most of all, where we fall short, we must keep being accountable to the people who really matter, and that is our care-experienced community.

18:04

To ask the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body what its response is to the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee announcement on pastoral support for MSPs that was made in the chamber on 10 March. (S6O-05682)

I believe that the Deputy Presiding Officer is fully aware that the committee that will follow the present Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee, which had its final meeting today, would be open to any such recommendation.

The vote tonight is on a proposed standing order rule change that will amend rule 6.3 and insert after rule 11.10A rule 11.10B, which provides for the election of subject and mandatory committee conveners. Members will be making a decision on the proposal that, starting at the start of the next session, conveners should be elected in the way that is outlined in our report and in the proposed amendments to standing orders. The final part of what we are recommending is that the operation of the proposed system of elected conveners be reviewed not later than halfway through the next session.

With that, I rest.

I move,

That the Parliament notes the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee’s 8th Report, 2026 (Session 6), Standing Orders rule changes – Elected Conveners (SP Paper 1033), and agrees that the changes to Standing Orders set out in Annexe A of the report be made with effect from 11 May 2026.