Seòmar agus comataidhean

I agree with that. I would add to Willie Rennie’s point that the turnover of committee members can exacerbate one of the problems with Scottish Parliament information centre questions that we highlight in our submission. If a member has been on a committee for a short period and is going to be off it within a couple of months, there is less incentive for them to become familiar with the topic at hand. Turning up, reading two SPICe questions, switching off, doing your emails and then leaving for another week is not effective scrutiny.

As Rhoda Grant said, committees offer the opportunity to take a really dive deep into an issue, which is what we want from that process. The SPICe questions are there as a broad guide, but they are too often used as a script, and they will get a scripted answer, particularly from a Government minister, in response. That might happen for quite understandable reasons. When non-Government witnesses come to committees, they are given a pretty good idea of the specific questions that they will be asked, because we want them to feel comfortable in the setting. However, that results in scripted questions and answers, and I am not convinced that it makes for particularly effective scrutiny.

I have also been on committees for which very high-quality SPICe papers have been prepared but the convener’s decision has been that no questions should be provided in the papers. It is then up to members, based on the SPICe briefing, to decide what they want to talk about, and that improves committee effectiveness.

My other point, based on the clear consensus that we do not do enough post-legislative scrutiny, is about use of the full parliamentary session. The first half of a parliamentary session is often spent doing topical inquiries into committee members’ various areas of interest, and the second half is spent on an incredibly pressured legislative timetable—it is often bill after bill—so there is no space to do topical or reactive work. That is partly because, at the start of a Parliament, a strong steer is given that not many bills will be introduced in the first couple of years. That should be the time when committees have the opportunity to do post-legislative work, particularly on everything that was passed in the previous session, as it will have had a couple of years to bed in.

It might be worth considering the guidance that we give to individual members, particularly as part of the new members’ induction, but also to committees ahead of their first work planning session in the recess after an election. We probably cannot build a rigid structure—that should always be up to each individual committee, and a lot of discretion should be given to conveners—but there should probably be a bit more guidance. It should be, “Here’s what you can realistically achieve over a parliamentary session, but bear in mind that, in the second half, you’re going to be able to do far less of what you want, and your work is going to be largely dictated by the legislation coming forward.” In that way, in the first half of the session, committees can plan to do all the other work that members collectively agree is necessary but is not happening.

Yes.

Yes, our options are extremely limited. It is often not really a choice.

Having been on the education committee for nine years now, I agree. I think that my party’s position would be, as you would expect, that the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee is the most important for us.

Paul Grice mentioned the potential for intervention. The ultimate stick that the SFC can wield is to claw back funding. In reality that does not happen because, in the situation that may give rise to that intervention, taking money out of that institution is probably one of the worst things that you could do. Some other stakeholders have raised the concern that that is not really an effective stick to wield. It is not an effective enforcement power. Last year, I believe, the previous chief executive of the SFC gave evidence and she hinted that there was a need for the SFC to have a wider range of enforcement or intervention powers. Presumably, you will never want money to be clawed back from your institutions. What would other effective enforcement powers look like from your perspective? What would provide an incentive but still be a realistic option for the SFC in those worst-case scenarios?

Phiona, I am keen to hear your thoughts on this, too, just before we move on.

I will follow up John Mason’s line of questioning, particularly on the information-sharing obligations in the bill. Jon Vincent, in Colleges Scotland’s written submission you suggested that you would want more clarity on exactly what those obligations are. Paul Grice, in your written submission you pointed out some inconsistencies in either the policy memorandum or the explanatory notes between the general principle around when information should be provided and the examples appearing to be at a much lower threshold. The intention is that more detail on those obligations will be provided in the regulations that will come later. Is it your position that you are looking for a statement from the Government giving you a bit of clarity at this time but you are content that the detail will be written down in the regulations, or is there a need to put something a bit more specific in the bill at this point?

I am conscious of the time, convener, so unless Sai Shraddha Viswanathan or Andrew Ritchie is particularly keen to come in on this one, I am happy to leave it there.

I just want to pick up on that and perhaps be just a bit provocative. I entirely understand your position that, given the nature of the businesses that you represent, it is important that the federation is there to provide a collective voice. However, is there not a bit of a conflict of interest in having a managing agent who is in receipt of a lot of funding sitting on the committee, too?

I agree with that, absolutely. Before I bring in Paul Grice, in the small number of potential scenarios where there was a rogue institution, to use a perhaps pejorative phase, what would an effective enforcement mechanism be? We can all generally agree that clawback will almost never be the appropriate mechanism, but a rogue institution is a possible scenario. What would be agreeable to Colleges Scotland as an SFC enforcement mechanism?