 On behalf of the Commission on Parliamentary Reform, Mr Finlay? Thank you very much indeed, Presiding Officer. I'm delighted to be opening this debate on the report and recommendations of the Commission on Parliamentary Reform. Donald Dure made his opening speech in the Scottish Parliament hearing mark that the past is part of us, but today there is a new voice in the land, the voice of a democratic Parliament, a voice to shape Scotland, a voice for the future. It was with that in mind looking to the future that the Commission for Parliamentary Reform set about its work. As you know, Presiding Officer, the commission was established by your good self, with the remit to consider the Parliament's ability to act as a check and a balance on government, how Parliament engages with those out with the Parliament and Parliament's identity as distinct from the Scottish Government's identity. The commission was made up of five party representatives, Fiona McLeod, Joanne Lamont, Jackson Carlaw, John Edward and myself, and five representatives of some civic Scotland, Katie Barker, a member of the Scottish Youth Parliament, Pam Duncan-Clancy, the very reverend Dr Lorna Boyd, Geoff Modsley and Professor Boyd-Robertson and our chair, John McCormack. I was delighted to be one of the members of the commission and was particularly keen to ensure that the recommendations to support MSPs as parliamentary parliamentarians were considered. It's been an interesting journey that the commission has taken. Perhaps not the most thrilling part of that journey was a three-hour stoppage on the Inverness to Edinburgh train, which, I say, Mr Carlaw remembers fondly and resulted in us being in at 2am, but there's been a lot of really meaningful engagement. A part of that was to hear the views of people outside the Holyrood bubble, as Burns would say, to see ourselves as others see us. We just did that, speaking with and hearing from over 1200 people across 50 events. One message was loud and clear that the Parliament and its members are well respected and valued, and the Parliament is now embedded in Scottish life. That's a considerable achievement for a Parliament that's just 18 years old. As people were quick to highlight the very positive experiences, we also heard how the Parliament could improve further. We sought the views of parliamentary colleagues, old and new, and those within the Holyrood bubble, or, as they often describe, the usual suspect. Their views and experiences were particularly informed by our recommendations about parliamentary proceedings and how effectively the Parliament can hold government to account. We also sought the views of those who are less direct involvement with the Parliament, often described as hard to reach, but I think that we agreed in one of our submissions that it's easy to ignore groups. Those are our people, our constituents, whose lives are affected by the decisions that we make in this institution. Their views about what they expect from Parliament and their relationship with Parliament have been at the heart of our recommendations. I would like to thank everyone that we met over the course of the nine months. That was from Skye to Easterhouse, from Dumfries to Fort William and many points in between. People embraced the opportunity to tell us about their Parliament, and they did see it as their Parliament. Some people we met just wanted more information about the Parliament, his business and members, some people questioned why the Parliament worked in a particular way, why, for example, as we heard today, Opposition leaders asked diary questions at FMQs. Something described as, I will write a quote here, tedious and pointless and which doesn't hold First Minister to account. By the way, we agree in that recommendation that these diary questions should be scrapped. Others had more radical views such as setting up a second chamber or creating more MSPs, both of which we consider might be options for consideration, but only after the reforms that we recommend have been implemented. We viewed it as important that there was a workload analysis and we maximised the existing resources before those options were considered. Our report contains 75 recommendations, and I cannot do them just as in the short time I have, so I will focus on some of the key recommendations. I know that my colleague John Lamont will focus on other aspects of the report, which are nonetheless important. In terms of our Parliament, the Parliament's ability to hold the Government, how we make a number of recommendations aimed at strengthening the Parliament, a stronger Parliament not only helps to clarify its identity as distinct from that of the Scottish Government, but its results in better policies to improve the lives of the Scottish people. We have recommended smaller committees with conveners elected by the Parliament to provide openness and independence, with a renewed focus on engaging with users of the public services as part of the scrutiny process. We recommend that those committees should seek a better balance between meeting people in committee meetings and speaking with those directly affected directly by the issues that we seek to address. Those voices can enhance scrutiny by reflecting how policies actually affect those on the ground. We found that people had realistic expectations about how often committees should go out to communities to hear their views, but they also wanted their views taken on board more often in their communities and in more dynamic and innovative ways than at present. We have recommended greater use of emerging digital technologies and piloting deliberative ways of seeking views as ways that the Parliament can evolve and seek to engage with people remote from the Parliament at the moment. We recommend that an expanded five-stage legislative process to mainstream pre-legislative scrutiny will enable draft legislation to be considered at the earlier in the process when we heard more influence could be exerted, including post-legislative scrutiny at a final stage would ensure that the legislation that is already enacted is doing the job that was intended. We want to reinvigorate the role of MSPs as parliamentarians to act in the interests of the Parliament and improving policymaking, not just as party members but also as individuals. We recommend opening up the parliamentary bureau to make how it works and decides on the business more transparent, especially to allow parties greater flexibility to reallocate speaking time and introducing the opportunity for questions on the forthcoming business programme. We also recommend providing greater opportunities for backbench MSPs to influence and inform parliamentary business, including establishing a backbench group or committee. We also recommend that the Presiding Officer and party representatives agree key principles on when party discipline is appropriate in the parliamentary process and, perhaps more improperly, when it is not. Yes, indeed. Neil Findlay Issues that I have seen within the report are about the way in which committees operate and that relates to discipline. I understand that at least one party in here operates a committee whip, which I think goes against the whole principle of what we are supposed to be doing on committees. I wonder if the commission took any evidence on that. John Finnie Yes, indeed. It is a recurring theme, and it was about understanding the very distinct role of the parliamentarian to scrutinise the Government regardless of party. We do comment on that within the report. Over the last few months, it has become clear that the Parliament is facing greater scrutiny challenges in relation to its already enhanced powers, as well as demands arising from the knighting kingdom exiting from the European Union. The Parliament's capacity to meet those challenges was an issue that we return to time and again when we spoke to people. Our recommendations on how to fully utilise existing capacity provide a package of measures that can be used to meet that challenge. We recommend greater flexibility in how Parliament time is used. Our recommendation that committees should be able to meet at the same time as the chamber will open up more committee time for scrutiny and meeting away from the Parliament. That should reinvigorate chamber debates. It will provide greater flexibility of those committees meeting on a Thursday morning, when currently their business is curtailed at 11.40 am. Using our research on the business of Parliament, we have identified opportunities for Parliament to change its meeting pattern, such as dedicating some weeks to committee business while other focus on chamber debates is better reflecting the scrutiny demands of parliamentary business. Before I close, I would like to take this opportunity to thank each of my colleagues on the commission for their good work, enthusiasm and commitment to undertaking this piece of work. Each of us came with a different experience and perspective, and those have informed our work and enriched our deliberations, and I hope that our recommendations reflect that. I would particularly like to thank John McCormack for his excellent sharing, his hard work, and it was considerable work that I think he has meant. It is over a prolonged period that reflects his long-standing public service. An adept handling of an expansive remit and delivering such a comprehensive—we think—workable recommendations is noteworthy. Our 75 recommendations are the first steps in the process of parliamentary reform. I hope that the momentum that we have gained over the past nine months will be maintained by the Parliament as part of the implementation group that we have recommended. It will be for us to all consider and agree what must happen next. This debate is the beginning of what is clear to all those that we talked to. I particularly enjoyed my engagement with young people in Falkirk and being lured there by the offer of pizza to engage with some of them, as we could commend other groups to consider. The Parliament now needs to move on from the way that it works. The future scrutiny challenges that we face will come and now is the time to prepare ourselves. Our report does just that, and I hope that you can all support our recommendations. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Thank you. The second will turn to the open part of the debate, and I will call Colin Beattie to be followed by Ruth Davidson. Before I do, could I just welcome a number of guests to our gallery, including General Nick Ashford and his family, the head of the army in Scotland, members of the parliamentary commission itself, including in particular the staff, but also John Edward and the commission chair, John Maccomick. Colin Beattie to be followed by Ruth Davidson. Presiding Officer, this report is timely and does move parliamentary committees forward. My congratulations to Professor John Cormick and other members of the commission, and I will return to the content in a moment. First, I would like to draw members' attention to a small but significant omission from this report. The report deals only with parliamentary committees and the appointment, membership and management of those committees. There is, however, another unique organisation that Parliament directly appoints and to which political parties nominate members. Of course, members will immediately understand that I am referring to the Scottish Commission for Public Audit. The only statutory commission that Parliament possesses consists of five MSPs from across the political spectrum. The commission chooses to follow most of the same processes as the parliamentary committee system and is supported by SPCB in carrying out its work. In some respects, it is ahead of the parliamentary committees and that, in 2016, it elected its chair for the first time. Let me remind you that the function of the commission is to appoint the non-executive board members to audit Scotland, to appoint the chair of the board, to appoint the accountable officer for audit Scotland, to appoint auditors to audit Scotland and receive those audited accounts, scrutinise audit Scotland's budget proposals and to comment and recommend or not recommend them. Perhaps in respect to my comments in the commission, I can ask if consideration might be made to requiring it to be included in any changes that are agreed, since otherwise there can be a risk that it might be left behind in some aspects while the parliamentary committee system gradually moves in a different direction. I do appreciate the relative independence of the commission, but it is sufficiently close to a parliamentary committee in its essential attributes that the argument to include, I believe, is strong. Turning now to the report by the commission on parliamentary reform, those parliamentary committees are important to supporting the efficient and effective running of the Parliament, and it is my strong impression that members of those committees are increasingly under pressure time-wise, as the business of the Parliament expands, both in terms of the complexity of the on-going business being handled, and considering the additional work that will come as a result of further devolved powers coming to this Parliament. I fully agree with the conclusion that members should consist of no more than seven members. I am a member of a committee with seven members and a committee with eleven members. I am convinced that the smaller committee is just as effective. I can get through rather more work even due to less pressure on time, due to all the members requiring to ask questions of witnesses in turn. That would also potentially release members to be redeployed into other possibly new committees. While understanding the rationale behind a proposal possibly to look at the remuneration of conveners, there are risks behind that. I think that the last thing that any of us wants is a member seeking a convenership merely because it attracts an extra cash benefit for doing so. Those of us who have been local Government councillors will understand the dynamics that can drive such situations and the disharmony that can be created. I wonder if you would share the same concern that people might seek ministerial office for the same base reasons, rather than to serve the public. Colin Beattie? I am sure that there are arguments in that. I am unconvinced that money will provide a better convener or a better committee system. I have been fortunate that the committees of which I am a member of both sought to meet outside Parliament and to seek evidence outside Parliament. The recommendation that more times should be spent by committees seeking views in different ways, including local and regional, is welcome. There is a cost, but also in terms of cost to the attending member due to the usually substantial additional time needed to attend such meetings. I am convinced that there is merit in improving such alternatives and welcome those options being developed. Given that time pressures on committee are appropriate, they should have the ability to decide when they wish to meet, even if it is within the same time as the chamber. Having said that, I believe that it might prove a challenge to arrange for a full attendance of members given the calls and members' time to participate. Unfortunately, I do not have time to comment on everything. My time is up, but I commend that report, and I am sure that it will take the committee system forward. I call Ruth Davidson to be followed by John Mason. Let me start by thanking you, Presiding Officer, to John McCormack and to all the commissioners for the work that was put into pulling this report together. The Scottish Parliament has been in existence for 18 years. I think that it is right that we take stock, that we critically reflect on its operation and that we allow it to change for the better. It must change, not least because the past few years have seen the biggest transfer of powers to the chamber since the Parliament itself was reconvened. It is our responsibility to ensure that this Parliament, the most powerful devolved legislature in the world, works for the benefit of all of Scotland. I am sure that MSPs from right across the chamber recognise not only was this an important and challenging body of work, but the recommendations from yourself and the commissioners are largely balanced and welcome. I also think that it is important that we discuss the commission's work in the chamber today and indeed in the future. Some of the recommendations, I believe, require broader scrutiny and a proper debate, and it goes without saying that the Parliament as a whole needs to have a say on its own future. So I am pleased to see that some of the commission's recommendations include things that people on these benches have been asking for for quite some time. For example, our Strathclyde commission report published more than three years ago now suggested guaranteed slots for opposition spokespeople during portfolio question time, something that the parliamentary reform commission has now recommended too. I think that this step, among others, will undoubtedly improve the ability of this chamber to hold the Government of the day to account. There are other recommendations that I am especially pleased to see in the report. Steps to make committees more powerful and independent, more flexibility around the sitting time of the chamber as well as committee sessions and a more rigorous legislative process. On the last of those in particular, I am pleased to see a much greater emphasis on post-legislative scrutiny. Scottish Conservatives asked for post-legislative scrutiny to be specifically included in the remits of one of our mandatory committees. I think that making it a dedicated stage of all bills legislative process ties in very well with that and actually takes it even further. There are, however, recommendations that I believe require more careful thought, and that is not a direct rejection, but it is not a rushed adoption either. I think that some of the reforms to the format of First Minister's questions, for example, might produce unintended consequences. Every week at FMQs, the First Minister answers questions from opposition party leaders, yes, but also from backbenchers. And with the TV cameras watching, we know that the party leader bit can also sometimes seem a bit knockabout. But the question serves a wider purpose, too, and that is for Parliament to hold the executive to account. It is there for MSPs to get meaningful answers from the First Minister on a range of issues, whether that's on policy or whether that's on a constituency matter. And I think that we need to have a discussion about the purpose and nature of question times. It's supposed to be the disinfectant of sunlight to the workings of government, and I think that, for me, it is above all about eliciting information. And my concern is that, without pre-submitted questions at all, which is one of the proposals that is being discussed here, all of the answers might lose their meaningful content, yes. I thank the member for giving way. I think that one of my concerns reading this is that, actually, the First Minister's question time would be treated differently to other question times. And actually, there is an important point as to whether or not there needs to be consistency between question times and, rather than a special case for FMQs. Mr Davidson. Well, I think that that's one of the things that we need to discuss. And I think that, in relation to the nature of First Ministers itself, to suggest that there's just names on the order paper and there's no questions whatsoever, I think that what I worry about is that the First Minister has asked a question and just says, well, the member raises a very important point. Let me get the relevant minister to write back to them with the answer. And it loses, actually, any of its potency at all. And I think that we need to strike a balance, then, between putting the First Minister on the spot every week, which, of course, in my current position, I quite enjoy the fact that we are able to do that, but also allowing him or her to provide meaningful and informative answers on those pertinent questions. And as much as an Opposition member might seek a gotcha moment from the minister, more than anything else, when we come to this chamber, what we want is answers. And that's not meant to be a criticism of the First Minister's ability to answer the questions, but it's merely to acknowledge the limit of the level of detail that anyone can really be expected to know. And if the First Minister doesn't know whether it's a question on forestry or on forensic pathology, what sort of chance do they have of being able to make sure that they can give the facts out that the member that's asking the question seeks. So that's one of the issues that I think requires further debate. And secondly, another one is, I think that, while some of the changes may seem benign or small, actually cumulatively, you can see a significant change in how this Parliament operates and one that requires further discussion. And I think that what's most apparent in the recommendations in relation to the changing role of the Presiding Officer, and cumulatively, it makes a huge and significant increase to the powers of appeal in relation to parliamentary business questions as well as MSP conduct. And I think that there are things in there that have absolutely no worries for people at all about the Presiding Officer having a stronger role in ruling on conduct and content. I think that where we do have to have a discussion is on issues like post-match refereeing. Was that answer up to the required standard on being able to depart from party balance in debate? So the Presiding Officer is able to choose just whoever they want to speak at any one time. In the idea that the parties put forward their business to the Presiding Officer first before it goes to the bureau to decide on times. My worry is that such a significant extension of the powers might politicise the role in a way that is unintended and would certainly politicise the selection of the Presiding Officer at the start of every parliamentary term. But what I would say is that in our short period of time in this Parliament we have seen a succession of very good and impartial Presiding Officers and deputy Presiding Officers who commanded the confidence of the chamber. And they've commanded it precisely because we've seen a neutral appointment system and we've not seen that politicisation of their work. So Presiding Officer, these are just a few initial thoughts on the report. I look forward to engaging further with yourself, with colleagues and MSPs from other parties and across the chamber as we move to the next stage. And my urge is that we steer this process through the whole Parliament and we don't simply have an implementation group bringing measures forward to be passed or not passed at decision time without wider debate. I firmly believe that the best days of this Parliament are ahead of it and I hope, subject to the preference of the voters of Edinburgh, I'm permitted to play a small part in that future. Thank you. Thank you very much. John Mason to be followed by Daniel Johnson. Thank you very much. And I would like to say that my initial reaction to the report is certainly very positive. There are no dramatic recommendations like a second chamber or changing the number of MSPs and I agree with that and that our emphasis should be on improvements within the present setup. Trying to make sure we all make the best use of our time as usefully as possible. A major recommendation of mine in relation to committees was the one referred to by my colleague Colin Beattie which is to reduce them from 11 to 7. I think that with 7 on a committee the members are more directly involved for most of the time whereas, once there are 11, the convener has an almost impossible task of letting members question witnesses as fully as they want and should. My feeling and that of the commission is that 7 is more efficient and makes better use of MSPs' time. That would allow a committee like REC which covers rural economy and connectivity to be split into two as I think rural economy and transport and connectivity are such big subjects in their own right that they deserve their own committees. Amongst the other recommendations I would broadly split them into three categories. Firstly, those that I largely agree with. R10 talks about dropping the initial question for leaders at FMQs. I think that that makes a lot of sense for public understanding although I am less sure as Ruth Davidson has just said about bank ventures. For example, it would make supplementaries very difficult if not impossible. R12 talks about reducing the number of portfolio questions in number. Yesterday we only got to number 11 in portfolio questions, the first one having taken 10 minutes. I accept that that was a slightly exceptional one yesterday but it does give a picture of what our experience has been. R23 talks about reviewing standing orders towards the end of each session. I think that that is good. R36, the committee meeting at the same time as the chamber and as the commission has recognised that could create a conflict for some individuals but it has been too rigid in the past when a committee has struggled to find time to finish a report or give adequate time to witnesses. R38, some weeks with more committee time and some weeks with more chamber time. Again, I think that that makes sense. That could especially be useful at the first year of a session when there are perhaps less legislation coming through and we could have more time on committee. Similarly towards the end before recess, as we have found in the last couple of weeks, maybe there is more time needed for stage 3 debates in the full chamber. Secondly, issues that I am open to looking at but I think that they do need to be looked at more thoroughly. R15 talks about a five-stage process for legislation. Now, an example of that where we have almost done that I think was with the Scottish Fiscal Commission where the finance committee did do pre-legislative scrutiny and then went on to a normal stage 1. But I have to say that became very repetitive and we seem to be going over the same ground again and again. So I think that I would need some convincing that all bills need all of that process. R33 talks about engaging youngsters over 14 who do not do modern studies. I think that that is an issue because many of us go into schools and speak to modern studies classes. However, I think that the practicalities for the actual schools would need to be looked at because they have a lot of challenges and a lot of things on their plate. R58 talks about flexibility in allocating speaking time. We certainly have had some bills, I am thinking particularly of DPLR members on the Scottish Law Commission bills where we struggled to get speakers because the subjects were so intense and I think that I have spoken all three of those. So I actually thought that we could start on that today and that I would take a minute of Kenny Gibson speaking time and he could have a minute less. Thirdly, those recommendations that I am less keen on are R37, a second debate, at the same time as the main debates, which seems to me a bit aping Westminster Hall down south, which frankly are not that well attended having been at quite a number of them. And I think that we do have members' debates which serve much the same purpose. R58 paying committee chairs more. If somebody is spending more time on a committee, they are going to have to either reduce other committees or reduce other duties. So I would question why they need to get money spent on that. So in summary, I do welcome the commission's work and especially John McCormick, who has headed us up and whom I have found to be very accessible, and I do commend this report to members' discussion and further consideration. Thank you very much. Daniel Johnson to be followed by Ben Macpherson. Thank you, Presiding Officer. First of all, let me echo the thanks to the commission and the work of John McCormick and others. I think that it is vital that we see reform, not just as a one-off thing, but as an on-going process. You know, I am somebody that grew up in the 1990s when I became interested in politics and was very much within the context of the constitutional debate and the arguments for devolution. I think that the prospect of a new Parliament bringing new politics was one that was very exciting. I think that it says much about this place and what we have achieved here that the critics and the tractors of the possibility of devolved Parliament have been silenced. Across this chamber, across different parties where there was evidence and critics, those people are now and parties are very supportive. However, having come to this place as a new member over the last year, I have noticed that there is a sort of creeping sense that something has happened because that is the way they have always been done. I think that we need to fight against this. If we are being frank, I think that sometimes the proceedings in this place can seem procedural, dictated by process and sometimes what happens in here can seem scripted. So I think that the commitment of the commission to look at how we can make sure that Parliament is open, relevant and above all authentic so that what we say in here actually resonates with people out there I think is important. So I think that it is important that we look at our processes but I would also say to members I think that it is really important that we all take our duties as Parliamentarians seriously that we personally seek to do our part to achieve those things as well. So I think, like others, I think that we need more opportunities to discuss the details of the findings of this report. So I would just like to focus on three key areas. First of all, overall, I think that the focus on ensuring that we have enhanced scrutiny is right. I think that the key point that the report makes that we need to make sure that the principle duty of this chamber is about holding the Government to account is absolutely right. So in that regard, I think that proposals around the ability to recall ministers in a number of circumstances are good. I think that looking at how the legislative process takes place, I think, is also right. And I bear in mind what John Mason has just said about the maybe some of the consequences of the five-stage process, but nonetheless, I think that the ability to return a bill to a committee I think is one that leads looked at. Likewise, I think that the opportunity for committees to make statements to the chamber is an interesting one in terms of opening the chamber up, making sure that it is relevant and that it has that scrutiny function. Above all else, I think that what is important is the principle, is that this place is one where the Government is formed at the discretion of Parliament. It is where there are permission and the powers of this place which are delegated to the Government and that Parliament does not exist at the convenience of the Government. And I think that that is important and one that is always a difficult one for Parliaments and Governments to tread. And I am not just saying this for your benefit, Presiding Officer, but I do welcome a lot of the proposals to enhance for the PO. I think that it could have a good deal to contribute towards the quality of contributions. And ensuring that the PO can respond much more in terms of the conduct and relevance of speakers, I think, will help the quality of debate. And likewise, and I'm glad James Kelly isn't in the chamber right now, but I think trying to remove some of the powers of the business managers in terms of setting speaker lists and order of speakers, I think would be helpful in that regard too. They're going to climb on me later, I know. Likewise, I think that the recommendations around committees I think are worth a lot more scrutiny and could be very helpful. Committees, after all, were meant to be the centrepiece of this Parliament and I think have also been something that has been of interest to other Parliaments who've imported some of our practices. But I think we do need to look at how they function. I think the size of the committees will undoubtedly help, as other speakers have mentioned. And I know that there is some disquiet about the possibility of committees running in parallel to the chamber, but my one observation would be is that the education committee has run a number of different formats of meetings, not always in formal session, which have been very useful in terms of gaining those wider views. And I think those sorts of informal sessions such as focus groups and other engagements such as that could quite easily happen at the same time as the chamber here. And I think, given committees that responsibility decide whether or not they can operate in the afternoons, I think is sensible. I think after all, I think we should let them decide, committees decide whether or not they can do so in parallel with the chamber. So just in closing, I think that this is an excellent start. The focus on scrutiny quality is right, but I think we do need to take things further and ensure wider openness and relevance to the public. Thank you. Thank you very much. I call Ben Macpherson to be followed by Andy Wightman. Just around members that we're trying to keep their time to four minutes today. Four minutes. Thank you, Presiding Officer. As others have said, I also thank all of those involved in the commission and support the principle and the concept of on-going reform. Last week, I welcomed on Friday some young constituents, some of which were my constituents, some were Ruth Davidson's, the Broughton Runners, who are a local running group of primary school children. And they came in on Friday and they sat up there in the public gallery and we, myself and the tour guide, told them about the Parliament. And it was the first time since being elected that I sat up in the public gallery. And the perspective that it gave me is something that I would encourage all to maybe just pop up there from time to time and try to remember how others see us. And I think this report embodies a lot of that. And Ruth Davidson has already spoken on much of the points that I was going to raise, but I'll elaborate on them further. And that's around FMQs. As the report rightly says, FMQs for much of the Scottish public is the only way the access by radio, television or online in terms of their contact with the Parliament are certainly the most prominent. It is the shop window to this place for many, many of our constituents and most of the Scottish public. Some people have said to me over the years and since I've been elected including one party leader that FMQs is just theatre, it's not symbolic of what actually happens in here. And that's true. But it's also the most prominent piece of parliamentary activity that people see, the exaggerated language, the amplified conflict that the knockabout as Ruth Davidson described it, the ambition within the whole process of it to get a press headline or a good tweet out. And I think within the report there seems to be an implicit ambition to try and change that and to try and mitigate and reduce some of that tribalism because and perhaps over amplified conflict. Because out there and certainly the report seems to reflect this and it's definitely been my experience both before and since being elected is that there is an ambition amongst those in our communities to have an FMQs that is much more substantial and there is more of a positive reflection and a constructive reflection on our democracy. And if you think of the issues that are confronting that generation of kids that were in that public gallery with me last week, climate change, Brexit, how we future proof our economy, is our shop window of our democracy as robust and constructive and intellectual as we'd want it to be to confront those issues. Part of the reason people pay attention because it is dramatic and if it became less dramatic people would pay less attention and I just wonder what the member would think about that. I think there is and I think some people who are interested in party politics are attracted to FMQs because of that but I think there also needs to be an understanding that a lot of people aren't attracted to the way party politics is right now. In fact they're very negative and very cynical about it. And I think recommendations 10 and 11 seek to try and address some of that but I share the concerns that were expressed earlier that I think an over-concentration of spontaneity might create less meaningful answers and actually reduce the implicit ambition in the report to try and create a more constructive debate. I think there are other options around FMQs that we could explore that could maintain that spontaneity and maintain evaluation and scrutiny of government but also help us to change our culture to create a more constructive approach to the shop window of our democracy. And I don't think that's just about us as politicians incidentally. I think the press and other elements of our civic society when it comes to our democracy have a role to play. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Thank you very much. Andy Wightman to be followed by Mike Rumbles. Thanks, Presiding Officer. Like other members, I very much welcome this report and want to thank the commissioners. Also like to thank the staff and particularly the head of the secretariat, Jane Williamson. So I see sitting at the back of the chamber looking forward to welcoming her back to the local government committee after recess. I just want to make three broad observations and then some highlights. First, I think that there's a strong case for treating the recommendations in this report as a package. I'm conscious that a lot of thought and debates gone into the report and particularly the non-MSP members and those who gave evidence gave their time and expertise freely and in good faith and I think that we need to respect their intentions so that this should not become a cherry picking exercise by members and parties in Parliament. We're responding in substantial part to the expectations of the people whom we serve and we should bear that in mind at all times. Second, I think that the commission is right to stop short of radical reform at this stage and propose a range of modest reforms across the whole range of Parliament's work to increase effectiveness about how we operate. And third, I think that the commission is correct to urge Parliament to implement these recommendations this session. So to some sort of highlights, legislative scrutiny, I am very supportive of the proposal to increase the number of stages in legislative scrutiny. Passing legislation is one of our core functions. My first experience back in the first session as an outsider in Parliament then was with the land reform bill. And I went into the bowels of my archives and dug out a very musty copy of the then Scottish executive land reform, the draft bill paper, which was a very hefty tome of 192 pages, which was the Government's intentions and policies and explanation, including a draft bill that was put out for public consultation before it came to Parliament. And the whole process was helped enormously by that. Interested parties could engage with a real statute, could understand the real meaning of statutory clauses and interrogate its real meaning and purpose. And the bill was introduced, it was much better as a result. So I would go further, actually, in the commission's recommendation 15A and suggest that a revised stage 1 should be a full pre-legislative scrutiny in the form of a draft bill. On parliamentary business, I welcome the proposal that Parliament should take far more control of the parliamentary business schedule. On committees, I'm firmly of the view that committee conveners should be elected. At present, there is no evaluation by anyone other than the party hierarchy as to who's best qualified to convene committees. And the work of committees is vital to the success of Parliament and I'm attracted by the proposals to have different meeting patterns of committees and chambers. Clearly, this would be a significant change, but for demanding committee work, including budget scrutiny, much more focused time spent on committee to undertake more concentrated work would be beneficial. And finally on committees, I think that Parliament should take more control over its own committee structure than simply following Government portfolios. For example, it's a matter of some irritation to me that the Economy, Jobs and Fair Work Committee that I sit on does not include energy in its title, even though this is a very substantial and important part of the committee's responsibilities. On a question not covered by the report, it might also be worth designating a week at the end of summer recess as a committee away day week so that members can plan to be available for business planning and away day meetings. I'm conscious that many members cannot make committee away days, et cetera, because of holiday and other plans over recess. One other recommendation stood out for me was in relation to Scottish law commission bills. Some months ago, I asked the Government what plans it had to implement the recommendations of the commission to modernise the law of the foreshore and the seabed. A topic of contemporary relevance, given the devolution of the Crown Estate, the commission was initially asked back in late 1919 to look at the law and produced a final report and draft bill in March 2003. But fully 14 years later, the minister told me in 11 July last year that there are no such plans. And this seems to be rather unsatisfactory given that we've spent much of the last year not actually enacting any legislation at all. And finally, on speaking and debates, Presiding Officer, I'm aware that my allotted time is shortly up. Now, on many occasions, I think that members may welcome hearing no more than four minutes or six minutes from any member. But on many occasions, I think that others would value listening to a fuller contribution from members who bring more substantial contributions to debates than some other speeches and therefore more flexibility as how time is allowed would, I think, add to the quality and flow of debate. Thank you very much, Mr Whiteman. Mike Rumbles will be followed by Liz Smith. Thank you, Presiding Officer. On behalf of the Liberal Democrat group, I'd like to put on record our thanks to the chair and all the members of the commission who've done such great work. I think that they've produced a fantastic report. How can you do justice with 75 recommendations in just four minutes, but I can't cover all of that, so I'm going to concentrate on one particular aspect. But before I do, I just want to congratulate also the Presiding Officer because his idea of having an MOT as to how the Parliament works after 18 years is an absolutely good thing to do. So what I'm going to do is I want to focus on what's in the report, not what isn't in the report. There are several things that I put forward and others that isn't in the report, but let's just focus on what's in it. Therefore, I'm only going to focus on the recommendations 43 to 45, which pertain to the parliamentary bureau procedures. And as a member, as a current member of the parliamentary bureau, I feel that I'm qualified to comment on that and as a previous member in previous parliaments. The first one on recommendation 43A to enable MSPs to observe parts of the bureau's proceedings. Now, this might sound incidental, but actually in a Parliament of openness and transparency, I'm astonished that over the years as MSPs can attend a committee meetings, any committee meetings at all and can speak at any of those meetings of called upon by the convener. But we're not entitled to attend the bureau. And I think it's a really good recommendation that MSPs can observe parts of its proceedings. I would like them to observe them all, but parts I accept. I'm not straying from the recommendations. I have to say that it was a mystery to me, the bureau in the first two parliaments that I served here. In the very first Parliament, I didn't know what the bureau did. I was on one occasion summoned, I felt summoned, I was requested to attend. I felt summoned to appear before the bureau to explain something on the standards committee. I thought, what on earth is this bureau all about? We need to know what the bureau is about and we can't make assumptions. So MSPs should be there to observe parts of its proceedings. We should ensure that the views of either individual MSPs, not represented on the Parliamentary Bureau, are taken into account. It doesn't apply in this Parliament, but it didn't previous ones. And I think that that should have been, and I'm pleased we're addressing that now for the future. Enable each party or group to open and close debates, but with time allocated, did reflecting their party balance in Parliament. I also think that this is a very fair approach and I'm pleased to see this reform there because I think it does enhance if we have these open and closing participation of all the political groups recognised in the bureau. It adds something to the parliamentary debate rather than being lost later down in the debating process. To enable all parties or groups to be able to ask a question following ministerial statement, it's absolutely right. And also to provide a more detailed business motion for the forthcoming three weeks of business in the chamber. Recommendation 44, in order to foster a greater sense of ownership of the business programme, any member of the Parliamentary Bureau should be prepared to propose business to the chamber. And it's just, I think, through precedent and where we operated that, that the minister for Parliament does that, but it has happened before when I think we should get into that system again. And time should be provided in the chamber at the end of each week for questions on the forthcoming business programme. I think that's actually a very good suggestion. And I would, I'm conscious I've only got a few seconds left. I would agree with Andy Wightman's comments on the previous speaker. It would be easy to cherry-pick this report and to say, I like this one or I like that one. But actually, there's a tremendous amount of work has gone into this. And it's been agreed on an all-party basis and a non-party basis. And I think these 75 recommendations should be implemented as best we can. Some of them will need changes to standing orders. Some of them can be done, the bureau ones can be done by the bureau when we next meet. And some take a bit longer. But actually, I think it should be taken as a package. We should be open, we should be transparent and certainly the bureau should be as much as we can. Thank you. Thank you, Mr Rumbles. I call Liz Smith to be followed by Kenneth Gibson. Thank you, Presiding Officer, and can I add my own thanks to the extraordinary work that everybody involved in this project has undertaken. I'm very fortunate to be in my third session of this Parliament and I would like to focus my remarks on the committee system and how we could improve legislative scrutiny. And I do so mainly because of some of the concerns that I've had, most especially at a time of majority government when I believe in some instances the scrutiny was not as comprehensive as it ought to have been. To illustrate this, I cited one example of an education committee session which was dealing with stage 2 of a very complex bill. The committee papers were very extensive as were all the appendices, all of which resulted in a very large number of relevant questions of both substance and semantic presentation. As we came to debate some of the most contentious and difficult amendments, a steward was commandeered from the room by a member of the whips office from one particular parliamentary party and was delegated to hand envelopes to all that party members in the committee. It became apparent that there was an instruction about how to vote, yet none of those members participated in the debate. And it wasn't the only time that that happened and I make the point for one important reason. If the result of the vote is to be a feta comply, what incentive is there to undertake the necessary preparation for that committee session and what incentive is there to scrutinise in detail? Presiding Officer, I think that that makes for lazy politics and I think that it makes for lazy politicians. That complex bill was what became the Children and Young People's Scotland Act 2014. And politics completely aside, members will be aware that the information sharing provisions within this legislation were blocked by the UK Supreme Court a year ago and it led to comment within the legal world that this situation would have been entirely avoidable had we had a wholly competent and effective scrutiny of it beforehand, particularly at stage 2. Now, as the report quite rightly notes, it's crucially important that in a unicameral parliament the committees are robust and seem to be independent of the government. I wholeheartedly agree with that, as I believe it is very necessary to introduce greater objectivity to the committee process. Yes, of course. Patrick Harvie. Member for Giving Way, and I take seriously the comments that this serious argument that she's making shouldn't be seen in two political terms in respect to that particular issue. But would it be also a requirement if we were to make this kind of change that members have access to some degree of impartial legal interpretation of legislation which government at the moment has, the Presiding Officer at the moment has, but individual members don't? Please, ma'am. Absolutely, Mr Harvie. I think that you make a very good point on that. And I think that when it comes to some of the other recommendations within this report, particularly about having five stages, one of the things I would like to see in the sort of pre-legislative stage is exactly that informed and objective legal advice which allows all members, whether they're on that committee or not, to take a much more informed opinion. So, yes, I do accept that. I think I'm not going to spend too much time on some of the other issues within this report because I do believe very firmly that the best part of this Parliament is often within the committee system. I think that we flourish as MSPs, we flourish as parliamentarians if we do that work within committees effectively. And I think that that goes for all political parties to take up the cudgel of ensuring that we are debating properly, that we are preparing properly and that we are as informed as we possibly can be. So, if there's one recommendation that comes out of this report, it is to improve the scrutiny of the committee system and I will leave it there, Presiding Officer, because I think that that is one of the most important things that we have to do. Thank you very much, Ms Smith. Kenneth Gibson to be followed by Edward Mountain and Mr Gibson after Mr Mason's comments, you only have three minutes. Presiding Officer, in the last session your predecessor was also keen and informed. The main changes that we saw were the introduction of topical questions and I moved to three days of plenary, which no one really wanted, but we showed me myself and Margaret MacDonald didn't vote for. As I see it, this resulted only in less time being spent by MSPs in their constituencies. In the last, Presiding Officer, I suggested to the convener's committee that committees of their membership should reduce to only three or four MSPs. If we rejected on the basis of party balance, lack of scrutiny and workload, only a week later at the David Hume Institute, the same Presiding Officer suggested that out of the blue at the current set-up should be replaced by four mega committees with loads of members. Changes should only be implemented that will make this palmer work more efficiently and effectively. We should not be too hard on ourselves. Compared to that ossified Parliament in London, where it can take 40 minutes to vote, free snuff is available and members have a place to hang their swords, yet it needs to queue for a prayer card to get a seat on busy days, we are positively enlightened. Regarding the commission's report itself, I am struggling to get too excited although there are many positive suggestions. There is, however, at some navel gazing. No account appears to be taken... Mr Gibson, will you just move your microphone up a little bit? Apologies. No account appears to have been taken of the workload of constituency MSPs vis-à-vis list members. Having been both, like a number of colleagues, there is no comparison yet. With all the extra work that is anticipated by those reforms, of interest in my view mainly to those in the Holyrood bubble, no consideration appears to have been given on how the extra work that we needed to deliver those reforms on an ongoing basis would impact on constituency members, especially with more powers and the increasing workload that will bring. Elector conveners by the entire Parliament has again raised its ugly head. Last year, we had 51 new members elected. How could they possibly know the strengths and weaknesses of umpteen individuals going forward for so many positions? Political parties know best who their representatives and conveners should be. Of course, the report has some good points and the remuneration of conveners is long overdue, although sadly the report fudges this. Not surprisingly, last year, the convener's committee overwhelmingly supported remuneration. The dissenting voice was an MSP announced that he would not be standing for election the very next day. Of course, it did not get support because the convener's committee has to be unanimous. Convenership is a responsibility that I believe every convener takes seriously. I know that the Parliament voted against remuneration many years ago in one of its hair-shark moments for fear of a dodgy daily mail headline, but remuneration should now be embraced. One step forward at which I think is important is that committees should abandon prepared questions. It is shocking that this still happens. I stopped at the minute I became convener of finance in 2011. It meant that members had to actually read their committee papers rather than turn up 15 minutes early, which I won't do, to be allocated a question written by the clerks. The result when members have to think for themselves is a better informed committee more able to scrutinise independently, which, of course, what many MSPs are obviously deeply concerned about and, indeed, is the report. Motions, well, they weren't actually touched on really in the report, but surely it's time to scrap those who congratulate every single organisation given an award for all grant each month and which clog up their inboxes. Lastly, I'll touch very briefly on questions. I'm disappointed that the commission thinks that for general questions and portfolio questions, fewer are the answer. My own contribution, which was not named in the report although it was submitted, is to extend general questions from 20 to 30 minutes and portfolio questions from 40 to 60 to allow more members to contribute. I don't believe that Opposition spokesperson should be guaranteed a supplementary. How does that square with the supposed aim of reducing the influence of whips and party managers? Just to touch on Neil Findlay's point, his concern about one or more parties perhaps whipping at committee, I can absolutely tell you, without fear of contradiction, that that does not happen in the SNP group and certainly never has done. As for suggestions, First Minister's question is not published. I agree with the points made by Ruth Davidson on that. How can backbenchers come in with supplementaries if they don't know what will be asked? That cannot deliver better questions and the answers that commissions won't wish. As far as Mike Rumbles is concerned, I don't think that we should accept that as a package of 75 recommendations. I think that each recommendation is worthy of scrutiny. I'd just like to thank the commission for the huge amount of work that it did. It has been a monumental task that I have undertaken and it certainly gives us plenty of food for thought. Thank you very much. Edward Mountain to be followed by Clare Adamson. Thank you, Presiding Officer, and I'd also like to thank the commission and all those who worked on the report. There are two subjects that I'd like to cover. The first relates to committees and the second relates to questions. I absolutely concur with the commission that a strong and effective Scottish Parliament needs strong and effective committees. They are, as the report states, the engine room of this Parliament. The report goes on to state that some committees have not been effective as anticipated. The reason for that is that the report states that it is mainly because of party discipline, high levels of work preventing committees setting their own agendas, they carry out little or no post-legitim scrutiny and the turnover of membership is too high. The report goes on to say that there needs to be a way of loosening party control over committees. I have only been in this Parliament for a year and, as a convener of a committee, my party has never told me what to do. I cannot speak to what other parties do. Perhaps they need to exert influence on their committees and members, but I do not believe that the Conservative Party has ever done that and it certainly has not done it in the short time that I have been in this Parliament. What I have come to see in the short time that I have been here is that the committee works best when the party politics are left at the door, but, Presiding Officer, this is a Parliament. It is all about politics and party politics and, frankly, to expect politicians to ignore what drives them is with the greatest respect or, in my view, might be fanciful. That brings me on to the key area that I want to look at and that is the appointment of conveners. Currently, once the split of committee conveners is agreed between the parties, the individual conveners are appointed by the party. The proposal is that the Parliament would elect by ballot the conveners. The suggestion is that the party member could stand to be a convener if they are in the party that has been agreed to have the convenership. In my humble opinion, that will not help. I cannot see anyone standing for the convenership of a committee without the support of their party. Just for the sake of discussion, let us say that there were two candidates. One candidate had a deeply detailed knowledge of the committee's area of work and one did not. Is there any doubt that the Government would direct their MSPs to vote for the weaker one to ensure that the scrutiny of them will be less? In a Parliament where there is no majority, that might not be an issue. However, that will not always be the case. So I do not really believe that parliamentary committees that will make parliamentary committees less political and more effective or in greed will indeed generate greater respect for conveners. I, Presiding Officer, believe that the current system works well. I believe that the appointment of conveners is something that a party does not do lightly. Yes, I will take an intervention. Daniel Johnson Just wondering how the member squares out with the experienced Westminster with the election of committee chairs has not really resulted in what he just described. I follow what goes on in this Parliament a lot more than Westminster. What I would like to say is that I actually believe and I strongly believe this that the party does ensure that they try and get the best person for the job for the simple reason that a bad convener will cause more problems they can solve and will quickly bring their party into disrepute. So I would like to mention one more thing on committees. A big committee, as we have heard, is difficult to manage and results in less detail and probing questions. And I agree with the recommendation 3 which states a maximum of seven members would be optimal. There is much else within the report regarding committees that I agree with but due to time I would like to briefly one different matter. Presiding Officer, when I accompanied you to the Canadian Parliament we watched the procedure at question time. Time for questions and answers was strictly limited allowing more of both. What I have learnt in this Parliament is that you seldom if ever get a straight answer to a question. I would make this plea. Let's ditch the long and verbose answers we often hear. Answers that often answer the question the answerer wants to answer are not the question that's been asked. I urge this Parliament to consider following the Canadian system with Presiding Officer operating a strict guillotine system. Politicians would soon learn how to be effective and stop dissembling with short rather than long answers. Thank you for allowing me this opportunity. I look forward to seeing how the commission's role can proceed. Clare Adamson, followed by Alexander Stewart. Thank you Presiding Officer and I also thank the commission for their work in this area and their attendance today at the debate in the Parliament. As convener of the Standards Procedures and Public Appointments Committee I'm very aware that a lot of these recommendations may come before my committee but I want to make it clear that today I'm speaking on my own behalf as the committee have made no determination themselves on the report at this stage although we may return to that later in the year. I've been very interested in debate to hear recommendations. I'm a bit confused by Mr Mountain's last comments about First Minister's questions when we've been talking about how debate would be better by the ability for people to have longer time to give answers that are meaningful and to have more time to contribute in debate time to then have a strict guillotine system I'm not sure which would achieve the results that I know he genuinely wants to achieve in terms of the response from ministers so I'm not sure I'm convinced by that. Yes I will. Thank you. Edward Mountain Sorry, I perhaps badly explain that but in the Canadian Parliament the speaker sits in his chair and as the question is answered he moves his hand down so the answerer can see how long they've got before the hand stops and when the hand comes down that's the end. Now politicians answer really quickly because they're frightened of not getting their point across. That would probably stop long answers which delay backbenchers getting in more questions. Would you agree? Sorry. No, I take Mr Mountain's point as an interpretation of that procedure but I've also listened to people saying that very often when debate is constrained by such timings then people get disappointed in that they can't fully explain and they can't fully deliberate on the areas that they want to. So I think there needs a bit more consideration discussion on that. We do have very little time today to consider what is quite a major piece of work. I'd like to comment on a couple of the areas already talked about about the size of committees. I do think I have not sat on a committee where there have been a large number of members but I have observed some of those committees and looked at the OR and it seems that it can become unwieldy and very difficult for meaningful and questioning to be able to continue when a member is pursuing a particular point. So I agree that smaller committees are probably the best. I'm very glad that the commission has looked at the timetabling of the Parliament. I'm not as experienced as many members in here but I have gone through that change of moving from when we had a committee day to three plenary sessions. As someone who sat on a Thursday morning committee, I think the constraints and the time for that committee sitting on a Thursday morning very often was detrimental to the work of the committee which I've all talked about about how important that is today. I welcome some of the broadening of the scrutiny and the opportunity of post-legislative scrutiny. I think that's very welcome. Many of the points I was going like Ben Macpherson, many of the points have already been covered today. But something that hasn't been spoken about is some of the wider issues and engagement that the commission have put a great deal into. So I'm very, very glad to see that they are looking at the diversity and the opportunity for people to engage in the committee process. And I think that that's hugely important and somewhere from an IT background I have to commend R65 which looks at the review of the digital communication strategy which I think the National Assembly of Wales have done some significant work on and I think that's definitely something that this Parliament should consider. But for me recommendation R30 which looks at the human rights aspects of our Parliament as opposed to our committees or individual MSPs but how the Parliament is perceived. I think when we're in a situation where we have uncertainty about where Westminster is in pulling away from human rights and Brexit will impact people's ability to access some things so things like the ECHR that the recommendation about human rights a stronger role for human rights within the Scottish Parliament our legislation is hugely important and again I thank everyone for their efforts in producing this report. Thank you very much Alexander Stewart to be followed by Neil Findlay. Thank you Presiding Officer. Since 1999 the Scottish Parliament has gained more and more powers and we as MSPs now have responsibility for more policy areas across Scotland than ever before. It is therefore incredibly important that we continue to evaluate the effectiveness of this place and that as a legislator and adopt the way things are moving forward. It is therefore very important and I'm very pleased to have the opportunity to commend the commission for giving us this opportunity to look at the whole way it is evolving. And myself as a brand new member being here a year have come in and I was more than happy to put forward a submission myself as a fresh pair of eyes so that gave me the opportunity and also the commission the opportunity. There are many recommendations within that I am very pleased to see. Anything that gives us a more opportunity that gives us more capacity and strengthens the Parliament I think are very welcome. And I'd also like to welcome the suggestion that committee conveners should be elected. I fundamentally think that this is a good way forward. This would allow members to set out their own agendas and scrutinising the executive. In doing so, it would strengthen the role of the backbench member by creating committee conveners who had their own distinct mandate for direction that they wished the committee to go. The committee was discussing the timings, the format and the membership. These are all very important for the Parliament to discuss and to evaluate. Moreover, I am pleased to see that the suggestion that we will have a five-stage legislative process which acknowledges and recognises the importance of pre and post-legislative scrutiny and asks for the time to be set aside in the work programme for committees to deal with that purpose. That is a good step forward. Presiding Officer. Wider consideration and the evaluation of getting a stage 3 legislation have also been looked at. We help to ensure that legislation is of a higher quality and that is something that we must all embrace. We want to ensure that the quality and the standard of the scrutiny that takes place here is very important. Likewise, the requirement for the Scottish Government to provide a post-legislative statement after a set period in time will ensure that those issues will have raised will be in the importance of the whole way of managing legislation and the scrutiny and it will be addressed. The greater focus on the pre and post-scrutiny legislation is also very important as we go forward in the involving of the United Kingdom's departure from the European Union. This will put more pressure on the parliamentary time that we have to engage and to ensure that we have the right processes. Parliamentary time is precious as is everyone's time but the whole idea of trying to ensure that we engage and we have the views and the skills that are being addressed are vitally important. The increased flexibility afforded by allowing committees to sit at the same time in a chamber as well as the potential for the parallel debates to take place. I believe that the minister gives us once again an opportunity to consider what we do with our timescales. It is fantastic to be in this chamber and to see the debates to take place but there are opportunities for things to happen outwith this chamber and at other times. I think that that is very important that we can manage that. As time is moving on I will conclude I would like to pay tribute to the work that the commission has done and the report that has come forward. I look forward to seeing how it evolves and to see how we will progress because there is no doubt that we need to consider where we are going what we have done so far what can be achieved there is a lot more work to be done but I think that this is a very good step forward and as I say I look forward to participating in the process Thank you Thank you very much On our final speaker Neil Findlay on the open party debate for I asked Joanne Lamont to close Neil Findlay Thanks, Presiding Officer I did not intend to speak in this debate and I just pressed my button and thanks for calling me but I think that that is what we need more of we need more of that that people can not be down on a pre-fixed list and that is how you get called to speak that people should be able to do things spontaneously and get involved Can I thank the commissioners for their work and John McCormack in particular for taking part in a conference call with myself Alec Neil, Tabish Scott and Oliver Mundell We did ask a representative of the Green Party but unfortunately just times didn't allow that to happen but we took part in that conference call during the consultation period I hope I'm by the way Mr Findlay just check the microphone's pointing straight at him I hope I'm not dobbing any of them in for this and maybe their party managers didn't know about this so cards in microphones on I usually don't have any problems being heard but anyway I'll speak a bit louder so we took part in that call and that was very very helpful because we what we wanted to do during that time is to put forward the case of backbenchers and the rights of backbench MSPs in here and seek change and I see that a number of those issues have been addressed we put forward a number of suggestions but the overall principle that we put forward was the need for members to act as parliamentarians in the interests of the people we represent and not to be hogtied and dictated to by in a bulk of wee bit here because my party managers sit next to me but by party leaders quips and business managers if we look at Westminster and we can see MPs who have had brilliant parliamentary careers operating outwith ministerial office even outwith committees but holding successive Governments to account often acting and voting in opposition to their own party maybe labelled as rebels or mavericks I think they are the absolute epitome of parliamentarians that we want to create people who are there who are going to speak up and who are going to take their opportunity to do so to represent the people that were sent here to represent and if we look at the moment the way in which the business is managed in here we see speaking time debate slots members debates committee appointments are held in the vice-like grip of party manager's whips and leaders that's how the system operates for good or for bad you can make your decision I couldn't possibly comment alright I will I think that if this piece of work does anything if it frees up Parliament from that and allows people to act more in the interests of Parliament and the people were sent here to represent rather than the interests of their party and whatever the line is given from top to bottom and that affects all of us let's not pretend it doesn't then if this does anything that will be the best thing that it will do thank you very much Pista Findlay and I call on Joanne Lamont to conclude on behalf of the Parliamentary Reform Commission thank you very much Presiding Officer on do you want to let me know how long I've got eight minutes so first for now why else is that so long is that to speak in the chamber I'll try to make the most of it first of all I want to thank you Presiding Officer for establishing the commission I want to thank my own party for nominating me to be part of that group and I want to thank our fellow commission members both party representatives and non-party representatives for the very engaged way in which they got involved in it and I would say to the Parliament that it is important to recognise the level of the work that went into as many of the points that have been made in the chamber were thought about and some were agreed and some were disagreed but don't imagine that this was done lightly or easily particularly by the non-party commissioners and it is really important that we take the report exceptionally seriously now privileged I think there's only myself and the Presiding Officer who participate in this debate who have been here all the way through since year dot and I would like in football parlance to suggest that I have played in virtually every part of the pitch whether it is leader of my own party whether it is a troublesome backbencher whether it was as a committee convener whether it was as a backbencher in opposition or an involved in opposition and I'm working on grandi status as we speak so I do think that I tried along with my fellow members to understand first of all the importance of the job we were being asked to do and why it mattered and it matters not because there's a major problem with the parliament but because the people of Scotland now recognise it absolutely as part of the institutions of this country and we don't in my view ever want to be in the place where as happens in other parliaments we told you can't do that because we've never done it that way precisely because we don't have a tradition of existence I think it's all the more important that we are modern forward looking and aware of the need not to be stratified but in the importance of having change so I want to thank particularly John McCormack for his great patience and my fellow members for really testing every proposal that was put before them and also doing the heavy lifting of going out into the country and meeting with a whole range of groups and organisations and it was the non-party commissioners who were keen to emphasise in the report that this was a parliament that was working but could do better as opposed to be a parliament that had major problems we wanted to strengthen its identity delivering where effective scrutiny engage better with the people of Scotland and I think we've delivered in that remit with a report encompassing all the areas of parliament's activities with 75 recommendations and it could have been many more and I want to just comment in a couple of areas that I don't think that have been raised before I will attempt to respond to some of the comments that have been made a theme which kept emerging as we looked at the various aspects the commission's remit was diversity and it is important that all aspects of parliament reflects the diversity of Scottish society this applies to the MSPs who are elected and also those with whom the parliament involves in its work you cannot be what you cannot see was a phrase we heard more than once in the commission's work and while some progress has been made in relation to gender we considered that greater progress needs to be made and as a first step we recommended that the parliament reports more widely on key aspects of the parliamentary business and MSPs by protected characteristic the parliament should then work with the political parties to agree benchmarks for diversity in candidates standing for election to the Scottish parliament the parliament rules should also be reviewed to ensure their diversity sensitive and inclusive we've also recommended extending the parliament's recognition of gender by ensuring that committees themselves reflect the gender balance in the parliament and that's not easy as it will require partners to work together but we do think it is important we've recommended a number of changes to how chamber time is used including changes to portfolio and question time to reduce the number of questions but increase the frequency with which portfolios are scrutinised that's not to say we should be asking the ministers fewer questions it just means we stop the nonsense of selecting a whole lot of questions that people know that we will never get to and have a bit of rigor around the questions that are being asked we've also suggested the private side officer should have a greater role in ensuring more effective debates and scrutinising the chamber both in terms of conduct in the chamber and in the accuracy and adequacy of oral and written questions those recommendations are aimed at increasing effective scrutiny in the chamber and reducing the number of point-scoring exchanges none of which I have ever been involved in of course but people did tell us that they happened so there you go and but actually seriously people outside parliament said that it made them it put them off parliament in politics and that must be our concern so our recommendations also recognise the frustration we heard from former and current MSPs from across the chamber about the sometimes poor quality of exchanges in the chamber but this is not new but it is something that we have to address and when there are poor quality answers poor quality written answers what we are seeing are people being moved to further freedom of information requests and that cannot be good for the parliament itself now we welcome the positive comments many have made today and as the commission recognised throughout its report some of our recommendations will present challenges in their delivery however I think an overriding message of our report is that the parliament has to loosen its stays loosen its stays and to haunt we need to stop this arithmetical approach to parliamentary business are we as any individual party reduced in our influence by ensuring that somebody who really cares about a particular issue is afforded the opportunity to ask a question or is afforded the opportunity to make a steep beach and I believe that is actually very important in terms of us being innovative and perhaps being a little willing to ask to take some risks now in terms of specific points I want to just I'm not able to deal with them all the attempt to deal with some of them I mean I hear what Kenny Gibson says and I recognise his position but I do hope in general terms we embrace the need to address what the commission has highlighted in terms of questions First Minister's questions it wasn't so much that there wouldn't be specific questions asked but you wouldn't need the question to be read out that takes up time which then doesn't allow more people to come in we've seen the effectiveness of backbench questions even if I didn't get called today Presiding Officer but we have seen where they have come in without a script a scripted question first and I think that it has been helpful in terms of committee the most important point was clearly there is some debate about the need for a second chamber what we do need are committees who are absolutely committed to the role of scrutiny who will in their own heads contemplate the possibility that what is being proposed may not work because the evidence coming from elsewhere tells us and we all have a duty to do that and ensure that there is not pressure put on committee members to diminish that scrutiny role by being suggested that it is not in the party interest for them to reflect on that evidence I believe that the question of the role of the Presiding Officers which raised by Ruth Davidson and others first of all the question about the bureau taking ownership of parliamentary business it was the view of the commission that the government has of the day has too much influence in determining what the debates are in here and then feel an obligation to fill up that space while we then crush important debates into a smaller period of time that cannot be a good use of our time and I believe that the Presiding Officer should have a role in that and we also all so know that in terms of debate you can if you like chop it up into four minute bits and I remember myself as party leader being given 13 minutes whether I wanted it or not when Dr Richard Simpson was sitting at my back who could easily have made a really thoughtful longer contribution if I could have lent him four of my minutes or five of them or whatever it might be or that some of them will make Marco MacDonald in our time have added something to the debate so it's about flexibility we believe very importantly that if debate is going to be living breathing we all need to get away from the times and we will all have done it when we've been asked to come in and make a speech on behalf of our party cos we have to fill the time we need to stop that idea of filling the time but actually using the time effectively in raising the issues that are of concern to people some couple little final little points on the members debate I actually think one of the problems with the members debate is that there aren't enough slots so if you're in a party like mine you get X number slots and you're lucky if you get the chance it allows more flexibility it's not a threat to anybody but allows more of these opportunities and finally at my last point I welcome the comments made by Andy Wightman and I think from the Liberal Democrat benches as well that we should see this as a package we should work on the assumption we're going to find a way of delivering on this package because it was presented as such that doesn't mean that we can't be flexible in our interpretation of it but I would urge everyone in here in recognising the work that was done don't look to the bits that will be difficult to deliver work from the assumption that we will deliver these because these are the things that came from a consultation way beyond ourselves and if we want to refresh and energise these people we all should have a shared commitment to making the work can I thank the presiding officer for establishing the commission for all those of you back bench, French bench or whatever who contributed to my colleagues in the commission itself but also to people of Scotland who have shown a great face in this institution and want it to do well we should build on that good will to make sure we serve the people of Scotland as well as possible Thank you very much and that concludes our debate in parliamentary form can I also thank all members for their contributions and add my thanks to the members of the commission including John Duncan and John McCormack who are with us today Thank you that brings us now to decision time and members will be pleased to hear that there are no decisions today Simply follow me to wish you all well for the summer recess and look forward to welcoming you back refreshed and reinvigorated in September