Seòmar agus comataidhean

That point has excited quite a bit of attention. It is an interesting issue. The commission on parliamentary reform, of which I was a member, also considered that issue, and we know that the equivalent of the Presiding Officer in the Republic of Ireland’s Parliament can say that a question has not been answered, and that is regarded as a fairly significant admonishment, which has led to that power not having to be exercised, as no one wants to be found to have fallen short of what is required of them in that regard.

There is one more recommendation in this group, which I understand that John Sultman will speak to.

I know that, often, when I am playing fantasy Presiding Officer, I consider banning the use of notes during question times. Obviously, I would have exceptions for people who require them for various reasons, but I would certainly ban ministers using notes that are read out as speeches and would allow only the use of notes as something to refer to.

I would like the Presiding Officer to have the power to say, “Minister, this is not an opportunity for you to give a speech. You are answering a question—you can refer to your note, but you can’t spend the next three minutes just reading it out.” That can be quite frustrating, because that three-minute exposition gets nowhere near answering the original question. Members get very frustrated, only to be told that the Presiding Officer has no control over what the minister has said. I therefore think that the suggestion would be a way of addressing that.

John Sultman spoke about the recommendation of a timeline for receiving responses. An issue that arose in our inquiry, but which had exercised committee colleagues before we began it, was the sense of expectation that is raised among those who participate about what will happen to the work that they do.

I wonder whether there was an understanding—perhaps Maria Schwarz has confirmed that there was—that a group of people can come forward with a series of recommendations, but that that does not necessarily mean that they can or should be pursued because, when we look into them further with other people, they might not find wider favour.

Is the suggestion about building in a process timeline a response to that concern about expectation and ensuring that there is a deliverable end result for those who have participated? Is that the reasoning?

We have a code of conduct, so I was struck by that, too. The reference to the code of conduct could cover many things. Was there something that the panel, as people watching MSPs perform, felt that the code of conduct could address that the existing code does not?

I was intrigued as to where that was coming from. I wondered whether you were identifying politicians who go and spend time in the jungle with celebrities—obviously, a Conservative politician from Westminster has done that and, previously, a Labour politician from the Scottish Parliament—or whether it was something else. You referred to the showboating of politicians in the Parliament. Dear me—I am sure that I have been accused of that from time to time. Sometimes, it is the way we keep ourselves entertained. Was the issue the absence of evidence of individuals doing a function or individuals abdicating that responsibility, or was it their conduct in undertaking that responsibility in Parliament?

One complicating issue in these matters is that half of the members of the committee, such as David Torrance and me, are elected on a first-past-the-post basis to represent a specific constituency and the other half—for example, Paul Sweeney—are elected to represent a broader region. The workstreams that we have are nuanced differently because of those different responsibilities. What might seem an appropriate diet of work for a constituency MSP is quite different from that for someone who represents a region.

I am not trying to be difficult here; I am just trying to understand what has exercised the feeling that looking at the code of conduct would be useful.

I see that you want to come in on that, too. The Oban day was quite well supported, while the one in Dumfries was not very well supported at all. It was interesting; having been to the one in Stornoway, which was a big success, I thought, “This is wonderful,” only to go to Parliament days in other places where nobody seemed very interested in coming at all. That said, they were worthwhile initiatives that could be thought through and taken forward a bit further, although I go back to Maria Schwarz’s earlier point about ensuring that, whatever you do, it is something that people actually want to participate in.

Yes, it is the same thing for me. As you say, we currently almost put obstacles in the way of participation with schools. It can be quite difficult for politicians to be proactive, because some schools are sensitive to the idea that that might not necessarily be about promoting the work of the Parliament but about promoting a particular political ideology, which can create concern for local education authorities. That is an important point.

Thank you all very much. It has been a fascinating conversation. I will go back to each of you for a final thought that you would like to leave the committee with. I will do it in the same order as when I started, beginning with Ronnie Paterson. What would you like to say to us as your final thought?

It is important to tell our visitors that part of those Parliament days was a public session of the Public Petitions Committee, of which David Torrance and I were members, and we were hearing petitions specifically from people from those communities. One or two led to fundamental changes on behalf of communities; indeed, I remember one that related to what was known as the Tinkers’ Heart, which was a historic landmark—a burial ground, almost—for people from the Travelling community. The site was in a very poor state of repair, and it was subsequently adopted, with formal access. That was the reason for our participation, and it was, I think, quite invigorating to go out to where the petition had originated instead of our bringing the petitioners here.

If there are no other questions, I will just come back to recommendation 14, on having some kind of debating time in the chamber with the public. Has that recommendation come about as a result of your view that digital communications have improved to the point of allowing the public to participate in that way? What were you imagining—some formal session of the Parliament at which members of the public could be present or at which their questions could be introduced in some digital way? Were you just raising the concept and leaving things a bit more open with regard to the detail?

I think that that is contained in the recommendations as we move through the report—

You also make reference to the Happy to Translate scheme and the ability of those whose first language is not English to follow proceedings. What was your feeling about that? I am interested to know whether any of the 19 panel members had any experience of Happy to Translate. On what basis did that come up as an option?