 Yn ystafell. Yn ystafell yng Nghaerfodd David Hume. Mae'r cyfrifleidau i'r ffordd yma i'r Trisha Marwick, y Prifysgol Llyfrgell Cymru, o'r ffordd o'r ysgolwyddiad ar gyfer y Rhyw Llyfrgell. Yn ystafell, ac rwy'n ddweud bethau yma, yn y ffordd o Robert Smith's anwysg o'r ddweud o'r Ffordd Smyth. While we were waiting for Robert to finish his bacon roll so that we would be on the proceedings, Tricia was talking about the need to reform and strengthen the Parliament in view of the new powers that were coming, particularly over tax. She said at one point, this is a very important issue, which I entirely agree with, but nobody is talking about it. I thought, well, one of the things the David Hume Institute exists to do is to talk about important issues, and so we are very happy to give this forum to Tricia to talk about this very important subject. The discussion afterwards will be chaired by Laura Dunlop, who is a trustee of the David Hume Institute, and so without any more, I will hand over to Tricia Marwick. Thank you. Thank you very much, and thank you indeed for your kind words. I remember the bacon rolls very well. I've got to say they're not a patch on the bacon rolls at the Scottish Parliament, so can I thank you and the David Hume Institute for hosting this event tonight and for giving me the opportunity to speak to you. I know that the Institute has heard from all of the party political leaders in the Scottish Parliament during the spring seminar series, and I hope you enjoyed the range of political discussion on offer. Now, Presiding Officers do not often make speeches, so I hope to make the most of this opportunity, but let me start with a quote from Michael Meacher MP who has edited a series of essays about proceedings in the House of Commons. He started like this, reforming parliamentary procedure probably ranks with most people as one of the most boring subjects imaginable. But it isn't. It's the opposite of the truth, and let me explain why. So I'm with Michael Meacher on this one. I don't think that parliamentary procedure is the most boring, but I've got to say it is up there. Anyway, I commend Michael Meacher's document to you that sets out starkly the reforms that authors believe need to be implemented at Westminster. I know that the success or otherwise of her own parliament means a lot of two people outside the Holyrood bubble, and that our procedures and processes can be a bit opaque to those who are looking in on us. My hope is that by the end of the evening we will have had the opportunity to listen to each other and discuss matters of parliamentary reform, which is very close to my hand. This is a quote from Donald Juer, the opening of the Parliament on the 1st of July 1999. I'll just leave you to read that for yourselves. But what he was saying there was that, you know, a parliament that we came together in 1999 that would make mistakes, but we would learn from those mistakes. And Donald also warned we should never forget who it is that we actually serve. I like that. And it is a good place to start, because tonight I want to highlight some of the reforms we've made in this session of the Parliament and to consider what other changes could be of benefit. I also want to use this opportunity to set out some of my own views on further changes that could be made and in my view should be made. But if I could move forward from the First Minister's wonderful 1st of July speech in 1999 to exactly 12 years later, and I said this, the Scottish Parliament now 12 years old is an institution of growing maturity. Our greatest challenge over this extended five-year session is to continue to drive this Parliament forward. We have the knowledge and we have the experience and now we have an opportunity to reflect as a mature parliament on how we can find new ways of working in this chamber, in our committees and in all of our other activities. That was my speech at the opening of this session of the 2011 Parliament. Indeed it was my manifesto as Presiding Officer for this five-year term. I didn't want to be the Presiding Officer just for the sake of being the Presiding Officer. I wanted to be the Presiding Officer because I believed there was an important job to do in ensuring that the Parliament as an institution was all it could be. I wanted to consider carefully whether the procedures we inherited from the constitutional steering group were still fit for purpose 12 years later. But let me tell you something about me first. I was the SNP Deputy Business Manager in 1999 and then the SNP Business Manager and saw it close hand how our new structures and processes were put together. I have been a front-bank spokesperson and I have sat on many of the Parliament's committees over the last decade. In the 2007-11 session I was elected by the Parliament to the Scottish Parliament's corporate body. Because of all that experience I knew that the processes and procedures that we had had to change and they had to change in this term because I felt passionately that we didn't take the opportunity for reform a further five years would pass and our procedures, our way of working, would be so firmly entrenched that any attempts to change in the future would be created with the cry of well it's I've been like that. When I stood for the Postal Presiding Officer it was on an agenda of reforming the Parliament. I stood as someone who had been the ultimate insider to our detailed processes but I'd increasingly become a critical friend of how we did our business in the committees and in the Chamber itself. Some may have had their doubts. I was the first female Presiding Officer and I was the first to come from the rank of a party that now held government and a majority government at that. But I'd like to think that standing here tonight nearly four years later after being voted by my fellow MSPs that some of those doubts have dissipated and I hope that I've proved over that period that I'm both an advocate for and a guardian for the entire Parliament. Now on the 6th of May this year all being well and you can never tell in politics I will become the longest serving of the four Presiding Officers in our short but very eventful history. Now I know that this is only because we extended the parliamentary term from four years to five but I prepare to take that accolade no matter how it was achieved but I am lucky in that the opportunity presented to me in this extended parliamentary session it's given me a longer period of time to look over the Parliament's blueprint. I've heard it said that each parliamentary session had a Presiding Officer fit for the times in which it served. David Steele and his experience in our formative years. George Reid in managing so effectively the turbulent times on the Holy Project building and multi-party representation. And then Alec Ferguson's sense of even-handedness in the first-ever minority administration. I like to think that with the experiences that I've outlined that I am the right person at this time to encourage change. It's not my role tonight to come here and criticise because I do think it's important that as Presiding Officer I set out a positive agenda and it's my job to look at what we've achieved so far and where we can still improve. And I'd like to say this, that it's my job to make sure that any changes we make in our parliamentary procedures have got to endure. Change has to work for whatever form of government the Scottish people deliver for us. Whether that is a coalition government, a majority government or a minority government. And that spirit I'd like to set out tonight what I think we still need to do in this session beyond to continue the Scottish Parliament's agenda of reform. Tonight I'll look at the impact of the changes we've already made in our Parliamentary Chamber and committees. I will discuss how we've tried different approaches to link the Parliament to people across all of Scotland. And I also want to set out, as I said before, my personal views around some changes that I think we need to make in the future. These further changes that in my view we need to start thinking about now, because we've got a unique window of opportunity before our next elections in 2016. We need to work across the parties to assess and agree what it is that we need without the pressure and tensions that inevitably follow an election. Now I don't have all the answers. I know there are some who may not see further reforms in the exact way or the style that I do or at all. But I also know that many MSPs across the Parliament believe, as I do, that further change is not only desirable, but that it is necessary if we are to deal with the current workload we have and also further powers which may come to the Parliament in the future. However, I do know this and that is that we all share a cause to make sure that we build our institution to be the best it can be. I have already had discussions with conveners group, business managers and individual MSPs across the Parliament and I want to hear the views of others just as I want others to hear my views tonight. I want to deal first with reforms to parliamentary business and I think people will be surprised at how much we have actually achieved in terms of parliamentary reform in these last four years because it is very easy to forget how the Parliament looked only last session and it is also possible to forget that the backdrop to all of our reforms, the Parliament like other in the public sector have faced some serious hardships from the last comprehensive spending review. So back in 2011 we had the classic conundrum aiming to deliver more but with less resources available to do it. I was however determined to make some changes early on in this session. One of the first decisions I made was to shake up the way First Minister's questions worked. More time was freed up for back bench members to ask questions and to increase the number of opportunities for members to hold the Government to account. MSPs can now submit a bid for a constituency or a national question as a supplementary after Ruth Davidson's question number two and in addition every third week I select the best of the week question as question number three. The reason is only every third week is because the Liberal Democrats have an automatic question two of those three weeks. So over this session 46 additional opportunities for back benchers have been released and thanks to that and while I'm at it I would like to dispel some myths about First Minister's questions and the Parliament itself. It is not my job to hold the Government to account. That is a job of the MSPs. My job is to create the structures to allow them to hold the Government to account. In June 2012 and after months of sometimes painstaking discussions with business managers the Parliament agreed a whole new package of reform centred on our sitting pattern and I'd like to pay tribute to our own Procedures Committee who worked tirelessly to produce a report which agreed to the reforms. In those negotiations I asserted that we needed a new structure designed to make the Parliament more responsive to topical and emerging issues. The Parliament's Chamber now sits on three afternoons a week instead of a Wednesday afternoon and a Thursday with our committee meetings in the morning. This allows us greater flexibility in our use of the Chamber and also allows us to start business earlier and finish later if we so desire. Each sitting day now begins with questions to ministers. We have topical questions on a Tuesday, portfolio questions on a Wednesday and general and First Minister's questions of course each Thursday and that has allowed for much more time in the Chamber in question ministers. And to help improve the topicality of questions we also introduce shorter periods between lodging questions and those questions actually being asked in the Chamber itself. The sitting pattern also increased the time available for debates and created an extra members debate once a week with a key slot now in place directly after First Minister's questions. Both these changes further increased the opportunity for backbench members getting their time in the Chamber because backbench involvement and increased scrutiny of government ministers in the Chamber were at the heart of all of the Chamber. And perhaps a reform that I am most proud of as I have seen it close hand from the chair the impact it has had was the introduction of topical questions. Before we introduced topical questions on a Tuesday it meant that the Parliament rose on a Thursday night and there was no opportunity to ask a topical or urgent question to ministers until the following Tuesday at First Minister's. So topical questions we have now introduced on a Tuesday enables backbenchers to question the government at short notice on matters that have emerged from the time the Parliament rises on a Thursday until the Monday morning when a topical question can be lodged for answer in the Chamber on a Tuesday by the relevant minister or cabinet secretary. And it is a serious examination of a minister. I try to make sure that every member who wishes to ask a supplementary question to the original question is called. On one occasion 13 separate members questioned the justice secretary about court closures. And in addition questions chosen by me for the session are not based on party strength in the Chamber but by the strength and the importance of the subject itself. That means that every MSP gets an equal opportunity to have their question chosen provided it is topical and important enough. One of my greatest frustrations over the years has been the Parliament's inability to engage with people other than those we could call the usual suspects. The usual suspects being the professional witnesses, the voluntary sector, academia and of course the white middle class men. I'll be like the audience tonight. But let me say that this situation arose not because there was any lack of will on the part of MSPs or our parliamentary staff but the difficulty of finding and encouraging those other voices to be heard. We did two things. We tried to encourage people to come into the Parliament and through our Parliament days we went across the length and breadth of the country. In addition, our committees with their own programmes have also been actively engaging with local communities. Let me talk first about getting people into the Parliament. In addition to a revamp festival of politics held at the same time as Edwin's Festival, we took advantage of our own unique selling point, the Parliament building itself. Now I'm not going to argue with anybody tonight about the Parliament building. It is beautiful. It is stunning and it is every superlative word that I can think of. It is the most wonderful space and we have found in the last few years just how adaptable it actually is. For example, turning one of our committee rooms into a gallery for a world-class exhibition of Andy Warhol paintings. The exhibition Pop Power and Politics was achieved through the great generosity of the Andrew Carnegie Foundation and the Pittsburgh Museum of Art, which is the largest collection of Warhol art anywhere in the world. One of the highlights of being presiding officer was to visit Pittsburgh, being given a personal tour of the Warhol works and literally been allowed to choose the artworks from the wall of the gallery. I went around saying I'll have that and I'll have that and I'll have that. My only regret is that I couldn't think of any reason at all to ask for the fantastic prints of Marlon Monroe. It wasn't until after the exhibition was over that I remembered she allegedly had some links to Robert Kennedy and his brother President John Kennedy. I'm sure I could have shoehorned one of the prints into the exhibition if I'd been thinking creatively. Ah well, but I'd like to play you a quick clip from a larger piece we produced for YouTube in August 2013. He's one of the most iconic figures of the last century, famous for his portraits of celebrities and politicians, his association with pop art and the phrase 15 minutes of fame Andy Warhol. Pop power in politics is a free exhibition being held at the Scottish Parliament featuring more than 40 of the acclaimed artist's works, exploring the themes that motivated Warhol the most, power and politics. Many of the works have never been seen in Scotland before and the Parliament's presiding officer played a special role in selecting pieces ranging from a self-portrait to an image of American President Richard Nixon. Isn't that fantastic? And who thought that lurking away in one of our committee rooms was an art gallery? But that exhibition led to 22,500 people visiting the Parliament. It was free to get in and thanks to the goodwill of all involved, the cost were a fraction of what it would have cost a major gallery to put on. As far as we're aware it was the first example of its type in any Parliament across the world. Most importantly at its heart the theme was politics. We want people to think about politics and we want political thinking and participation to be in the place where our own politics actually takes place. Another exhibition we held was The Great Tapestry of Scotland. Sandy McCall-Smith and Arthur Moffat came to see me with her idea for a tapestry that would trace the history of Scotland. At that time they had no funds and Sandy was preparing to underwrite the whole cost himself. I was absolutely blown away by the whole concept and when they asked if they could launch it at the Parliament I said yes, they asked if we could exhibit it at the Parliament whenever it was completed and I said yes and I had the great honour of stitching the first and the last stitch in the tapestry and what a thrill that was but nothing compared to the first showing of the completed tapestry in the Parliament's main hall. I remember the Scottish Government was launching an independent white paper. TV crews and reporters were dispatched from London for the event. Reporters breathlessly claimed that such was the interest in the referendum that people were queuing round the Scottish Parliament building and we certainly saw the queues being snaking around there but the queues were in fact for the Great Tapestry exhibition. 8,000 to 5,000 people came to that exhibition. The public café was run out of scones or scones and our chefs came in at 5 o'clock in the morning to make sure that everybody who wanted a scone got one but and this is the important thing. Over 55% of those who visited the Parliament for those two exhibitions had never been to the Parliament before and that was the reason that we had these exhibitions but we've also attracted prestigious international events like the International Culture Summit working in that case with our partners, the Admiral Feswell, the Scottish Government, the British Council and the UK Culture Department. We've now hosted two international culture summits at the time of the Admiral Feswell bringing together artists and culture ministers from all over the world and the preparations for 2016 are well advanced and thanks to the Scottish Parliament's relationship with the National Conference of State Legislatures in the United States which we have nurtured for many years. We were also asked to host their annual conference the first time it had been held out with America and we hope that many of those who come to our Parliament come back as repeat visitors and not just for the exhibitions and the conferences. Let me now turn to the Parliament getting out of our town, getting out of the Parliament and into our towns and cities. This picture I hope helps to illustrate where the Parliament, our committees on fact-finding visits or the Parliament days is actually visited in this session already. It also helps me to discuss the reason why I was determined to introduce our Parliament days. Parliament days are now a key part of our overall outreach work across Scotland. Parliament days were aimed at areas outside of the central belt whose citizens for reasons of rurality, distance or cost simply could not visit us so we went to them instead. So far we have had Parliament days in Huyg, Stornoway, Stirling, Arbroath, Llym Barton, Fort William and Dymfries and in June we're going to Orteney to take advantage of the very very long nights. Parliament days are tailored to a particular town. They could include a formal committee meeting, a conference workshops, public meetings, visits to school, colleges, businesses and voluntary organisation. The constituency MSP, the regional MSPs and MSPs on the committees all take part in these activities and as well as the elected members the parliamentary staff have had to find new ways to work. I sensed in 2011 that while some really good work was going on across the Parliament it was not being coordinated. There was no need for our education staff, events committee staff to communicate what they were separately doing in terms of engagement. Parliament days changed that now. Outreach committees, education media, events staff all worked together to deliver the Parliament days and the Parliament days have been a huge success. I've been struck by how much it means to the local communities that their Parliament has visited them. We've listed their concerns, given them an opportunity to see a committee at work and explained a bit more about how the Parliament itself works. Last September Scotland surprised itself after years of low turnouts and elections and a general disengagement from politics the referendum galvanised people in a way we have never seen before. We now have the best informed most engaged electorate in these islands if not in the world. When the Parliament reconvened after the referendum I said this to my colleagues like you I have been truly humbled by the clear wish of so many of our fellow Scots to be involved many for the first time. How often have we heard people say they would not bother voting because it would not make a difference. Not this time. But let's be clear about the scale of this unprecedented level of involvement and what it means for all of us. There are challenges for politicians, for political parties and for the institutions in Scotland. I also indicated that day that I had already asked our officials to drop a programme to expand their number of Parliament days into our more urban communities and announced my intention to hold a conference for young women. We went to Leithmouth, the further powers committee met with the 16 and 17 year olds at Buckhaven High School who had voted in the referendum and that evidence session was part of the committee's report. Two weeks ago we took the Parliament day to Easter House. The equal opportunities committee visited projects, held a committee meeting and I chaired a public meeting with a cross party group of MSPs. We heard their concerns about poverty, food banks, lack of transport, disability and care payments. This time last Monday I was absolutely thrilled to host 120 young women from secondary schools across the whole of Scotland for a first ever inspiring young women conference. We invited these young women from schools across Scotland so that they can, given the right role models, be encouraged to be the best that they can be. We invited some truly inspiring women, like Cara Henderson, who founded Nill by Mouth and Amal Azudan, our Glasgow girl, who campaigned for her friends who were being removed from their communities and many of her own parliamentary staff took turns to visit all the schools in Scotland prior to the event to talk about what it was we were trying to achieve and I also wanted to take advantage of her golden moment in the Parliament with the first female Presiding Officer, the first female First Minister and the leaders of the largest opposition parties in the Parliament being led by women. We held workshops on confidence, sexism, body image and leadership and I found it inspiring as our senior politicians talked frankly about their own struggles in all of these areas and their mechanisms to cope and we encouraged these young women to be the best they could be and to aspire to achieve. So that's some of the work that we've been doing over the last four years and you know a lot of the work that we get, we do, gets very very little coverage so it is an opportunity to set out some of the work that I think across the parliamentary service and with the NMSPs we're really quite proud of having done but let me turn now to the further reforms I believe we need. In my speech in the chamber after referendum I talked about my further ambition for our committees. I said that our committees need to continue to assess their own programmes to consider when they meet, where they meet and who it is that's invited to speak to them. As I've already mentioned there are good examples of our committees getting out and about. The USAI initiative from the welfare reform committee took committee members to the people most affected by welfare changes and heard directly what they thought. We're initiating more responsive inquiries to deal with topical issues across the committees. We're taking on imaginative policy based inquiries such as the health and sports committees work on health inequalities. This was debated in the chamber last week and its reach crossed over a number of our committees and it was great to see joint working like this with 11 different conveners actively involved during the debate. It was making policy fit across the parliament promoted by an idea that started in the health and sports committee and spanned out into policies tackled by other committees. We need to allow space for more innovation. The committees need to have more time and they need to have the resources from parliament to back it all up and that theme fits better with the second part of my speech which I promised earlier and that is to set out some of my personal views around some of the changes I think we still need to make. In terms of further reform of our parliament committees let's go back a bit and let's go back to the consult of the steering group or the CSG recommendations for our committees in December 1999 1998 it was the CSG which effectively drew up the blueprint for how the parliament should work. That's an extract from the CSG report. To sum up that very long document the CSG thought our committees should be one holding the government of the day to account conducting inquiries scrutinising government legislation but also initiating their own legislation reviewing the legislation we passed post legislative scrutiny and I have to say that the CSG also mentioned at that time that the committees need only meet once a month. I dare you to mention to a noble work committee member today that they should only meet once a month and see what the reaction might get. So today's reality and the ambitions of the CSG I think we can fairly say don't match up. That's not to undo the principles on which they're found because I firmly believe in them. And I've been working closely with all the conveners of our committees over the last few years and even more so in the past six months. We have a shared program for change and I think we made changes for the better and how the committee's report and in the style and approach to accessibility. I set out earlier a number of ways which we increased backbenchers opportunity for scrutiny in the chamber. As presiding officer it's my job to set out that positive agenda on behalf of the entire parliament. I'd rather focus on how we look at our parments 16 years on and find new ways to help us to work better and that is my focus this evening. But I'd like to highlight some more good work by current committees which has led to significant change. For example the finance committee's work on preventative spending has been influential in shaping the policy debate not least in terms of the committee's initial report which informed many of the recommendation of the Christie commission. The committee has continued to press the government on their progress in delivering that. The health and sports committee's work on new medicines led to the establishment of two independent reviews and the rare conditions fund. Additionally their work exposed misunderstandings on the Scottish government's part about what aspects of drugs pricing were reserved and what were devolved. The rural affairs climate change and environment committee recently published strong concerns about the Scottish government's draft marine plan and the local government regeneration committee recommended setting up an independent cross-party commission to look at alternatives to the council tax and the Scottish government has now announced that there will be such a commission. So our committees are influential when they are dealing in terms of policy but I want the parliament to be at the centre of that policy debate and the parliaments committees to be at the centre of shaping that debate and we can do more and we will do more but I really think we need to look very carefully at what stands in our way of achieving more. Simple fact is there are too few members to serve on all of the committees we currently have. If we are ever to deliver the aims of the CSG and some say we've never come close then I feel we need to now address the structures of our committees. Let me illustrate this. Some of our members sit on three committees, many sit on two. There are currently 17 committees of those that exist now seven are mandatory and the race being subject committees with general mirror cabinet secretary and ministerial portfolios. One committee has five members, one committee has six members, eight committees have seven members, six committees have nine members and one committee has 11 members. That gives a total of 132 committed places and that doesn't include the private bill committees this session with four members and we've had four of them so far. So I hope you're still with me in terms of the numbers but the number that you need to hold on to is that number of 132. When you further consider that the 132 committed places have got to be filled by about 18 members because the cabinet, other government ministers, party leaders and some opposition spokesperson are not on any of the committees then I think you can recognise the scale of the problems that we have and I've now come to the view that changing the culture is not enough. We need to consider structural change. Do our current committees structure serve us well enough? Why has no committee proposed any committee legislation since 2002 apart from procedural legislation? Why we carried out virtually no post legislative scrutiny? The CSG proposed a hybrid committee system which combined Westminster select committees and standing committees but I think the one thing that made us very very different and the one reason I'm so disappointed is the ability of our own committees to initiate their own committee legislation and the fact that we've had so little of that is a disappointment not for me but I think for everybody else. Our committees are busy but the situation is much more nuanced than that. They're not equally busy. I know that as everybody claims that their own committee is busier than everybody else's but in all seriousness capacity is an issue shared across the committees and we need to find a shared solution to that. Then back then to the structure in my view there are two ways we can deal with this but both require fewer committee spaces. As I set out in the numbers above to reduce the number of committee members from the current 132 we need to look at the committee structure and we also have to be mindful of the de Haunt arrangements. The de Haunt arrangements that determine how many committee places will be allocated depending on the votes and the number of members that each party have got. So we either have fewer committees with more members or we have the same number of committees with fewer members. To have the same number of committees with fewer members inevitably means that the smaller parties will not be represented on committees but any change to structure whether it be larger committees with more freedoms and how they work or smaller committees with a more specific agenda has to be work and policy driven. I believe larger committees could provide a better overall policy fit bringing together some subjects that although separate just now may work better together under one larger committee and I'm talking about perhaps nine or eleven members on it. Now I'm not going to tonight venture into the actual remodeling of the committees how you can bring these committees together because that is a matter for further discussion. However I can see that if we were to reduce to just 10 or 11 committees the number of places needing to be filled would drop by about 49 or 44 and these larger committees could be focused on what is important to the parliament in terms of the policy fit. I think it's impossible to now envisage a system where each committee would follow one ministerial portfolio directly and I also believe that the parliament should be clear in setting out its own policy priorities and as such shape its own committees according to our needs. Larger committees would be able to break into smaller subgroups perhaps to consider legislation or to hold inquiries or to undertake fact finding visits. It simply doesn't need all the committee members to be working on all the committee's business all at the same time and we need to be more creative in how we work. I think larger committees would also help us prevent another shared concern and that is the constant churn of committee members moving from one committee to another. I can recall when I was put on the local government committee it had been carrying out a very worthy investigation into local government finance and an alternative to council tax. The investigation had changed so long I think a couple of years that very few members who had actually started investigation were still there when it was completed. I came in almost at the end of the process and it was impossible to reach any view because I had heard so little of the evidence. As I recall the report is still gathering dust on a shelf somewhere as neither the government of the day nor any of the other political parties picked up its recommendations and every time there's a ministerial or shadow cabinet reshuffle that triggers another reshuffle of committee places members are simply not getting the time to build up expertise before they're moved on to another committee and we need to allow the time for specialisms to develop. Subgroups would allow members to focus more and develop such expertise in turn being able to provide leadership within their committee on an issue where policies still spread beyond the remit of a new larger committee. Take that issue of health inequalities I mentioned earlier for example more expert knowledge could develop between committees. In those cases committees could nominate members to work together on issues to help develop a shared policy vision across a number of committees. I think being more radical in how we set ourselves up but allowing for more flexibility with a structure of fewer but better policy aligned committees will be of benefit to members and all members are my primary concern. It's possible that we will have the same large intake of new members in 2016 that we did in 2011 and in 2011 we had more new members entering the parliament than we did at any time since 1999. I think the approach such as the one I've been setting out will help confidence to grow among new committee members and how they can approach and develop in their work and I'd also like to think the principle of fewer committees acting more powerfully and being more focused in one policy area would be welcome by all MSPs current or new and if you've not already got there it may come as no surprise to you when I say that I see elected conveners at the heart of this sea change and how we approach committee business. Tonight I want to make it clear about how I see the reality of elected conveners working in the parliament. Some of you may already know I've already asked the standards committee to look into elected conveners and many people have already submitted views. Elected conveners already operate in the House of Commons and what I am setting out for the Scottish Parliament is no different to that which is currently operating in the House of Commons and some would say with some considerable success. Put quite simply, as with the Westminster conveners, parties would each have a proportional share of the committee convenerships directed as it is just now through reference to the haunt. The key arrangement differences I'm setting out to current arrangements is that we should elect conveners here in Scotland for the first time. The reason for this are to me very important. Firstly, it makes the conveners through a vote of their fellow MSPs across all the political parties directly accountable to the parliament itself. They will owe their appointment to the parliament and derive their authority from the parliament as opposed to at the moment being placed there by the parties. Parliament is therefore responsible for their position and how they undertake those duties. It's not a criticism of the current party appointment system. I see it as a development and our approach as a parliament and remember I was once a whip. Secondly, it's my secret ballot on the floor of the chamber. I know some people have expressed some doubts that as a parliament we wouldn't have the maturity to vote for the best candidate if it meant some short-term political capital and I don't buy that. I think we've seen examples like that flounder in the past when there has been such interference and I think we would in the future. I do believe that being directly elected appointed by your peers would lead to that important cultural shift and it's likely to lead to more independent minded candidates putting themselves forward. It would also provide an alternative career structure within the parliament for those with that kind of ambition. In the model I proposed earlier the role of the committee convener could be a realistic career choice. It would be a real chance to influence policy developments of Scotland and manage a significant and energised committee active across a range of responsibilities first envisaged by the CSG. It would provide stronger leadership roles at the heart of the country's parliament. I want to see more powerful conveners with a stronger voice who set their own agenda and are not driven necessarily by a government's legislation programme. I want to see the conveners being more identified in the public's eyes and I said earlier that to achieve all of this the committees need to have the resources from parliament to back it all up. The model I propose of larger more flexible committees would need that additional resource. I've discussed the staffing structure we need to provide the parliament's chief executive and he's committed to ensuring that staff will be available to support any new structure of committees. The model of fewer but larger committees would enable flexibility around the staff support for both committees and subgroups and we'd also been in a position of ensuring that we have the staff with the skills necessary to support the new powers. All the support only comes if you create that capacity to lower committee numbers significantly from the current 132. This all touches directly on another key theme I want to explore with you tonight. I want all members to have the opportunity to develop and see themselves not just as politicians but as parliamentarians. What is it that makes a parliamentarian? Well experience for one thing I read with great interest the valedictory debates from retiring members of the House of Commons on Thursday. Many of them had been MPs for 40 years and it struck me that only 33 of our MSPs at 33 out of 129 MSPs have served continuously since 1999. That's only 16 years. It's hardly enough time to build a culture but we must try. The parliament was a responsible to put resources into supporting members to help them grow and to develop as parliamentarians. When I was elected as President of 3211 I offered to and met personally with every new MSP. Those meetings were extremely helpful to me and it was valuable in understanding the worries and expectations of those new members. It convinced me then that we needed to set up a continuous professional development or CPD programme for members. The CPD programme worked quietly as a pilot during 2013 however I think it simply started too late. We would have seen far greater benefits if we could have introduced such a programme immediately after the last election and I will be ensuring a full CPD programme will be in place for members both new and returning after the 2016 elections. As part of that programme I would like to see the occasional comeback from some members who will be choosing not to stand again and I'm guessing a number of those will be some of our most experienced and wisest parliamentarians stretched back to our first in-date of 1999. We need to help members to acquire experience. The committee reforms I managed earlier are part of that. Elected conveners are part of that. They simultaneously reinforced and introduced the idea of a career structure within the parliament not just in pursuit of part of ministerial office. Can I turn to my last topic for this evening and that is looking ahead to further powers for the parliament. This is part of the Smith commission report. I welcome the additional powers that the Smith commission proposes and I welcome in particular Lord Smith's personal comments about me here where he encouraged me to continue to build on parliamentary reform. I work with Lord Smith to make sure the package is one which plays the Scottish parliament as an institution at its core. The Smith commission report represents an extensive package of new powers for both the Scottish parliament and for the Scottish government. If the powers are agreed after the election we will have responsibility for disability and housing payments, the ability to create new welfare payments and to set the rates of income tax. I very much look forward in particular powers for the Scottish parliament to run its own affairs in the future. That's powers extending the franchise to 16 and 17 year olds, powers to disqualify members where we should do so, the rules and conduct of our own elections and those of local government and power over our own day to day parliamentary affairs. However I talked throughout tonight about a sense of urgency and reform. We are gathered here tonight in March 2015, the eve of when significant new tax powers under the Scotland Act 2012 take place. More will follow. A year from tomorrow we will be operating a new Scottish rate of income tax. A new Scotland bill resulting I hope from the Smith commission agreements will bring us even more powers and with these further powers promised upon will inevitably impact even more on capacity and how our committees undertake scrutiny. We have to look now at what lies ahead. How will we manage effective scrutiny on the new fiscal powers that come our way? How can we build our expertise in areas that we haven't dealt with before? The parliament started working on this but I think that could probably be the subject of yet another whole lecture and I think I've probably kept you long enough already. I would however be very interested to hear your thoughts over the remainder of the evening and perhaps it's a chance for to come back maybe later in the year. But I want to draw my comments to a close now. I hope that in the speech tonight I've helped to highlight and illustrate reforms, many unheralded that have been our agenda in the last four years, that I've helped to raise a debate around further reforms and I truly hope we will make further changes in good time for the next parliamentary session and that these can pave the way for a future reform agenda to help us manage the additional powers which will follow in the years thereafter. It will not be easy. No one likes change. Change only comes when there's a groundswell for it and I hope to continue my discussion with colleagues to ensure that the next parliament is ready to get up and go after the election. With Easter just around the corner you know from tonight how much I like topicality, I leave you with a topical quote. It's from my fellow pfeithr Andrew Carnegie and it's a quote carved into the parliament's own wall in the Carnegie and can I assure you as we approach this sister and next, I will continue to watch over all the eggs in the parliament's basket. Many thanks.