���˿���

Those introductions are incredibly helpful. I hear what you say and the concerns that you have about the legislative process, but I suggest that we park that issue—although other members will perhaps look at it. I know that it is sometimes a challenge to not deal with some of the problems that witnesses throw up, but we want to concentrate on the effectiveness of committees.

Before I throw you to the wolves of the committee on various questions for 10 minutes each or so, I will pick your brains about committee numbers. It is interesting to look back on the previous sessions. We had 26 committees in the first session; 27, excluding ad hoc committees, in the second; 23 in the third; 27 in the fourth; and 29 in the fifth. In this session, we have 17, and the workload of that smaller number of committees falls on a smaller group of back benchers, because—this is not a political point—there is an increasingly large number of members of the Government. It would be helpful to explore your views on that.

Is there a perfect number of committees? I presume that the answer is no. Is there something about committee numbers that either prevents or promotes the effectiveness of committees?

The number of members of committees is also an important issue, and that is something that changes from session to session. This session, we have some large committees and some small committees, whereas, in previous sessions, there were odd numbers of committee members drawn from a narrower range.

Johann, I invite you to comment first, because of your experience of a number of different types of committee. Is the effectiveness of a committee directly affected by the size of a committee and by the amount of work that it is expected to pick up?

Me, too.

Do you think that that has always been a characteristic of all the committees, or has it crept into the Scottish Parliament over time?

Johann Lamont, you experienced those first five sessions of Parliament. Did you feel that, after session 1—when, in essence, everyone was desperate to make the unicameral system work and to acknowledge the value of committees—party politics came into committees more? Did you notice that change, or is it something that is maybe more indicative of certain committees at certain times?

As interesting as this discussion is, I am very conscious of the time and there is still another member to bring in.

I will draw a line under that discussion, but it is interesting that, in the 25th year of the Scottish Parliament, such discussions are very much worth while and need to take place.

That said, I will drag us back to the issue of committees. I look to Ivan McKee to see whether there is anything that he would like to cover as we move to the final part of the session.

Thank you, David. Before I leap in, I put on record my and the committee’s thanks to your predecessor, Daren Fitzhenry, who was the principal author of the annual report. It is interesting that, in his opening remarks in the annual report, he commented:

“It has been a privilege as well as a pleasure to be at the helm over the past six years, and particularly to work with such an excellent team.”

The team obviously has its commissioners very well trained, but that reflects your role as the head of a team, so I thank Daren for the help and assistance that he gave to the committee, his openness towards us and, more importantly, his role as Scottish Information Commissioner over the previous period.

David, you set out your reflections on your first few weeks in the role. We will obviously explore your view of where freedom of information is in Scotland. It is based on a platform that is in a good place, but we seek improvement. You mentioned your four-year strategic plan, which is due to be laid this year, but you also mentioned revisiting it next year. Do you intend to extend it beyond 2028 to 2029, or will you consider a three-year plan once you have a better understanding of the situation and have had the opportunity to input your priorities?

That is helpful—thank you. I am now going to throw you at the mercy of the committee.

It would be helpful to address—I will add the word “carefully”—the intervention with regard to the Scottish Government. I am aware that you sent a letter on 7 February, in which you sought additional information. We are still within the period for that information to be provided—I think that it expires next Thursday or Friday. At this stage, you do not have the relevant information. Have you received any confirmation that the information can be provided by your requested date, or are you worried that it might not appear?

Clearly, the question of legislation is something that we will return to.

I thank you, David, and your staff for coming to the meeting this morning. You have survived it, and we will, no doubt, see you again. If you would like to add anything, please feel free to write to the clerks in the normal way.

I now close the public part of the meeting.