Seòmar agus comataidhean

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?

Will the member give way?

Will the member give way?

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 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?

Will the member accept an intervention?

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—

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.

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.

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?