Seòmar agus comataidhean

I would favour the suggestion. The first benefit would be freedom—that is, having a bit more freedom from the whip. The second would be stability. I think that someone who was appointed or elected as a convener would be there for the five years, and that kind of stability should be a benefit. A third benefit would be the provision of a separate career path for politicians. Instead of their always aspiring to be a spokesperson or a minister, they would see a convenership as a credible career path to pursue. Again, that would mean being slightly freer from the whip.

It would also build in a bit more bipartisanship and collaboration. Members would have to seek the support of other parties, so having elected conveners would bridge the divide a little bit and give a bit of comfort to both sides that the convener would do a fair and reasonable job.

There would be downsides, of course, and Douglas Ross has highlighted some of them. Overall, though, I agree with Ross Greer that, even if only half or three quarters of the committees ended up having a contest, that would be better than what we have now, for all the reasons that I have set out.

I quite like the convener’s suggestion that the committee could adopt a different persona depending on its function, but there is not enough time in the week and there are not enough MSPs to have all of that.

As a side point, first, I think that there needs to be a bit of self-control from members on the number of bill amendments that are lodged—I am sure that I am as guilty as anybody else. The number of amendments to the Housing (Scotland) Bill is just extraordinary—your committee, Ms Roddick, is sitting for weeks in order to go through them all. We had a similar situation with the Education (Scotland) Bill, which went on for some time.

Secondly, members introduce their own members’ bills, of which there are a lot. I do not want us to be in a position where we cannot allow members the freedom to do so, but the number of members’ bills has crept up over the years and there are now more of them. There is almost a competition to lodge more amendments and introduce a members’ bill, and it is almost impossible for the committees to give them due attention. Therefore, I think that members need to be encouraged to step back a bit. Of course, you should let them do the important stuff, but they also need to reflect on whether lodging this or that amendment is absolutely essential.

I have never thought of that suggestion, but it is quite a good one. It could be exactly the same people, because you want to include in the questioning and scrutiny of the legislation not just the knowledge that has been gleaned through the pre-legislative scrutiny, but the knowledge from your other inquiries. You could have exactly the same membership but call it something different on the particular day that you are scrutinising legislation. I think that that suggestion could work, so I am sympathetic to it.

My only other point is that I am interested in the non-Government majority, which I think would force Opposition members to behave differently on a committee. We would know that how we voted would affect the outcome of the vote; we would not sit in isolation knowing that our voting a certain way would have no effect on the outcome. With a non-Government majority, the balance of responsibility shifts.

When it comes to legislation, if the Government is unhappy with something that has come forward, it can always clear things up at stage 3 in the chamber. A non-Government majority could force greater collaboration between Opposition and Government. For instance, since the Greens have left government, the Parliament has changed—ministers are much more engaging, and you can see them working the chamber and the tea rooms now. Not having that majority forces ministers to look outwards; it might be the same for committees.

I agree. When I was leader of my party, I did not sit on committees for 10 years, although, initially, I sat on the committee that examined the bill that would implement the Calman powers. Committee participation was an untapped world for me, and I have since enjoyed it. For the reasons that Douglas Ross has set out, I have enjoyed the education, committee, because I have been able to get into a level of detail that I would never be able to in the chamber, and witnesses who attend the committee know an awful lot of stuff. You can gain tremendous knowledge by listening to them, reading the briefings and learning from SPICe, which helps with the rest of your work. I think that committee participation should be emphasised at the start of the session.

Secondly, I am in favour of smaller committees, although there is an issue of proportionality. If committees are smaller, we need to recognise that the very small parties cannot be cut out altogether. We need to have proportional representation across committees. Smaller committees would be more agile and nimble and could get under the bonnet of important issues.

Thirdly, I was in the House of Commons for four years and, for a period of that time, I sat on the Defence Committee. That was a select committee rather than a standing committee for legislation. Labour had a majority Government at the time, but Labour members left their rosettes at the door, so we were able to give ministers a really hard time. As I understand it, their whips did not put pressure on them for doing so, because they regarded it as their job.

That separation between scrutiny of legislation and scrutiny of accountability is a benefit of the Westminster system—I know that we cannot do that here. It is about getting it into members’ minds that they have two separate functions. When we scrutinise legislation, we know that, from a Government perspective, the legislation must get through, and it is the members’ job to vote it through. However, when it comes to the scrutiny of bodies and ministers, members need to act differently, so it is important for them to have two committee functions and roles in their heads.

When I am in committee, I ask questions that I might not agree with. We have been working on the Tertiary Education and Training (Funding and Governance) (Scotland) Bill, and I have been asking tough questions on both sides because I think that it is important to uncover the facts. I will come to a different conclusion at the end—I will not be a Liberal and pick both options; I will pick one side. However, it is important that, when we are going through the initial phase, we interrogate robustly.

Of course, from time to time, everybody plays the political role more than the scrutiny role—that happens with all parties, not just Opposition parties. However, I hope that other members of the committee see the benefit of members who are prepared to get to the facts rather than just take a party position.

The particular format that I like is getting witnesses here who might have a debate between themselves. We often get uniform panels of witnesses who are all from one part of the sector and who all say roughly the same thing, but I want to see how they test their arguments against each other. Some of the most productive sessions have been those in which they have done just that.

Some witnesses do not want to do that, because they do not want to be in the same room as somebody they disagree with. However, it is in our interest to see that exchange so that, rather than them relying on us to ask the questions, we are almost getting them to ask the questions of each other, which is of particular value.

That goes back to the role of the clerks and SPICe, and to the independence of the members. It is about how much control members will take over their committee and how much they will be led by the professionals. Those professionals know a hell of a lot, and we need to draw on that experience, but we also need to own the committee. Too often, I feel as though the standard questions to ask are just accepted and that the witnesses and the report that is produced are, likewise, just accepted. Members need to take control of the committee, otherwise it is not their committee.

I agree with Douglas Ross.

You will have seen that we are on the Rural Affairs and Islands Committee and the Education, Children and Young People Committee, and Jamie Greene is on the Public Audit Committee, but that is all that we have.

I think that the education committee is, because I am on it.

One thing that I have learned from this process is that Graham Simpson is an excellent spokesperson. If he does not become an MSP again, he will get employment from me. [Laughter.] I thank him for explaining my amendments.

It is normal practice for landlords to invest at the point of a changeover in a tenancy. I do not want us to get to a position in which landlords decide not to invest in properties because they will not get a return on that investment, which will cause a decrease in the quality of accommodation and a lack of investment in the sector. However, I am pleased that the cabinet secretary accepts the principle at the heart of what I am trying to say. It is now on the record that she has said that, and I hope that my point is reflected in the consultation responses, the eventual response from the Government and the generation of the regulations.

It may be that there are exemptions that cover not only the periods between tenancies but all times when investment is made by the landlord in the property so that they are able to get a return on that investment. That way, we can encourage the improvement of properties rather than the opposite.

On that basis, I will not press amendment 29.

Amendment 29, by agreement, withdrawn.

Amendment 332 moved—[Shirley-Anne Somerville].

Amendment 332A moved—[Maggie Chapman].