���˿���

It seems to me that the very strong purpose that sits behind Katy Clark’s amendments also rests in the fact that there are some young people in educational institutions for whom there is already a duty of care, simply because of their age.

We are perhaps developing a skill at stage 2, which might benefit the whole of the Scottish Parliament. I welcome the proposal, the understanding that the Scottish Government is open to that discussion and the support that Ross Greer offers.

It is a complex picture. There are groups that will feel that they have been deliberately excluded when, in fact, what has occurred has probably been more to do with drafting and concentrating on other groups. The ability to return to look carefully at that is very important.

To go beyond amendment 226, I am very concerned about the framing of the definition in amendment 120—Ross Greer’s other amendment. I do not have a vote, but if I had, I would not be able to support amendment 120 because, notwithstanding the advice that others in this room have received, it poses a fundamental challenge.

However, in respect of the proposal to reconcile amendments 119 and 226, it is certainly sensible to come together with a recognition that children and young people need to be represented on the committee and in an appropriate way. Given the emerging consensus, I will pause on that point.

The requirements relating to regulation of educational qualifications and public sector governance are alternatives in your amendment, rather than a build-on.

Unusually, at stage 2 proceedings—I will not say uniquely, but it is certainly rare—an opportunity has arisen for consensus on a route forward, if not on a destination. It would be helpful if space for that was created by all of those who have lodged amendments in this group. Does the member agree with that?

I welcome that intervention and whole-heartedly agree, which is why I referred to the challenge that is posed by restricting it to those who have recent experience of undertaking qualifications. That person who stays quiet at the back of the class and knows how to turn in on themselves in order to avoid confronting challenges or being asked difficult questions is the very person who should sit on a learner interest committee, as they can say why it is challenging.

The committee’s format, and the outreach to young people, have to be appropriate. It cannot involve sitting around in a committee room such as the one we are in and saying, “Well, what do you think of it?” That is a challenge, but we have the pedagogical and social skills to interact and engage with young people to get the very best from them. Hopefully, their contribution will be more than just five seconds—it might take longer than that to make it happen, but it is important that we listen to them.

Can the specialism, expertise and brilliant support given to committees offset the lack of expertise among ���˿��� who sit on committees? Is that a safe counterbalance, or should ���˿��� have a level of expertise in relation to committee work?

I do not know who wants to have a go at that question.

Our second item is the second in a series of four oral evidence sessions in our committee effectiveness inquiry. The inquiry is seeking to answer the question of whether changes to the Parliament’s procedures and practices would help committees to work more effectively. Our call for written views from political parties, committees and individual members of the Scottish Parliament closes on Friday 4 April. The call for views from the public runs until Tuesday 22 April. Today, we are seeking to explore committee effectiveness in the context of the culture of the Scottish Parliament, as well as to gather broader perspectives on issues that were raised in our previous session, on 20 March, which focused on how committees are viewed externally and how their impact is evaluated.

We are joined online by our committee inquiry adviser, Dr Danielle Beswick. I welcome the members of the panel: Professor Paul Cairney, professor of politics and public policy at the University of Stirling; Dr Tom Caygill, senior lecturer in politics at Nottingham Trent University; Ken Hughes, former assistant chief executive at the Scottish Parliament; and Professor Cristina Leston-Bandeira, professor of politics at the University of Leeds.

This is a round-table evidence session. Although there will be the usual approach of questions from members to witnesses, it is intended that there will be opportunity for discussion between the witnesses in order to encourage a more open and free-flowing session. There is no expectation that all witnesses will answer all questions. Anyone who wishes to come in on a question or on a response made by another witness should indicate that and I will bring you in at the appropriate moment.

We move to questions, and it falls to me, as convener, to kick things off. My opening gambit is to Professor Cairney. I know that you have done a huge amount of work on Government legislation and on the valuability of achievement of the scrutiny of that legislation. In the past, you have been critical of the effectiveness of that scrutiny. Does that view still stand, or have you seen changes that have improved things? Perhaps you have seen changes the other way.

It was constructive.

Thank you, Ken. That helps, because it means that I can again remind people that the public call for views in our inquiry is open until Tuesday 22 April.

I put the same question to Cristina Leston-Bandeira.

You are the bellwether in the seminar, Tom.

Cristina, you have already mentioned the Danish Parliament, which is not dissimilar to the Scottish Parliament. Are there any other examples of places that we can look at to see the importance of the cultural connection in committees as one piece of evidence that a committee is successful?