³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ

That goes back to my earlier point. I think that it is important that our committees represent who has been returned here in terms of numbers per party, because that is what the people have determined. You said that, in a previous session—I have not looked in detail at what was said then—that other parties made reference to their own efforts to ensure that they are more representative of the wider population. To put it crudely, that would be the best way of achieving better and more representative numbers in Parliament, in general, and then in the membership of the committees.

Of course it does with regard to the legislation that we introduce. I am merely reflecting on the fact that, although I am hearing that it is the volume of legislation that is the driver, the facts point in a different direction.

I am happy to speak to that as well, if you would like me to do so. I have figures on that, too.

I do not think that that poses any challenges for the Government. You are probably referring to a situation in which a bill might touch on the remit of more than one committee. It could be a matter of perspective, but I am struggling to think of a time when it could be felt that a committee had to deal with a bill that was not within its remit at all.

The Dog Theft (Scotland) Bill is before the Criminal Justice Committee, is it not?

I think that that makes the point, though. I have misremembered it, so you will have to forgive me, but that bill touches on more than one committee’s remit. I make the point that the Government—it is ultimately for Parliament to determine, but Government has a role—will look across the range of committee business and try to ensure that the workload is being spread evenly.

Jim Fairlie reports to two cabinet secretaries, and the remits tend to be structured along the lines of the cabinet secretaries’ portfolios.

I think that there would be merit in that suggestion, although ministerial responsibilities change. I do not think that we would suggest—again, it would be a matter for Parliament, but I do not think that I detect any sense that it would be desirable—that, each time there are changes in ministerial responsibilities, we should fundamentally alter the committees that we have, although I know that responsibilities and remits might sometimes adapt accordingly.

To a smaller or larger extent, however, it is a bit of a moot point. I or any minister can be called before any committee—and rightly so. Whatever responsibilities are identified and invested in any individual committee, if it wants to speak to a minister, I would urge and expect ministers to agree to that. Not so long ago, I was before the Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee, which might not be a committee that you would expect the Minister for Parliamentary Business to attend.

I go back to the point that I just made. I am not abrogating the Government’s responsibility to consider that, because it is to do with legislation. We introduce legislation at a certain stage, so we need to consider that, and we look across the range of activities in committees when we are thinking through how we might frame legislation.

Once legislation is introduced to Parliament, however, it is not in the Government’s hands. Of course, we will have a role—my officials will engage with the committee clerks and with the Parliament’s business team to work through the process. Nonetheless, once legislation is in Parliament, the timetabling is in Parliament’s hands.

I am trying to think. I was first appointed as a minister in November 2014 and, earnestly and honestly, I cannot remember any form of induction beyond relying on the professionalism and expertise of civil servants who were there to support me and working with more experienced colleagues, who had been in Government for some time, to understand what it was all about. If I recall correctly, I was initially appointed Minister for Sport and Health Improvement, and the next week I was giving stage 1 evidence on a bill that I had not been involved in introducing. The officials who supported me had pulled together a briefing to get me ready for the meeting, and I relied on them.

More widely, I have observed that it is down to each individual to determine what type of additional support they might require for colleagues in Government to provide it. I had been a parliamentarian for seven years before I became a minister, which brought me a certain level of experience in parliamentary proceedings.

I see no reason why that should not be possible. Again, that would be for Parliament to determine. You are asking me to talk about these things in a personal capacity, and I would say that, quite rightly, many such issues are driven by the Presiding Officer in each session. I was first elected in 2007, and I do not recall any form of induction. I do not know whether there was one in 2011, but what happened in 2016 was probably very much driven by the outgoing Presiding Officer, Trish Marwick, and 2021 was, obviously, a different context.

It would be for Parliament to decide, but, if you are asking me whether, objectively, that sort of induction would be of assistance, I would say yes, almost self-evidently, it would be sensible to do it. However, that is for Parliament, not for Government.