���˿���

It was in 2016.

When was the change introduced?

Good morning, panel. I will probably be the last questioner, so I will just leave you with a few take-aways from what we have been discussing. We have 129 ���˿��� in the Parliament. I am the chief whip of the party that is in government, and all my members are on two or three committees, as we have talked about. They are populated through the d’Hondt system, which means that, as the convener has just referenced, the largest party gets the most committee members, so I work with 36 back benchers on 16 committees.

I do not agree with my colleague Sue Webber. I think that we do need more ���˿���, because our workload is increasing, which is, thankfully, due to increased powers and so on. Nearly all our committees have a full legislative agenda, which leaves very little time for inquiries, scrutiny or things that we should be doing and would like to do but simply do not have the time or people to do. I am totally in favour of gender balance, and I am on the gender-sensitive advisory panel, but you can only work with the members that you have. At the moment, we have quite a good gender balance across the Parliament. It might not be like that in the next session, and the points that we have just been talking about will be really important right at the start, when we will need to look at the practicalities.

As chief whip, I allocate places on committees, and I try to ensure gender balance where I can, but that is not always possible. Sometimes, the logistics do not add up for you to do exactly what you would want to. Stephen Holden Bates raised the issue of substitute members, which are really necessary in this Parliament because we have such a big legislative workload, and bills go to committees at stage 2. If someone is off ill, as happens in every workplace, we have to have somebody who can step in.

That is just a wee synopsis of what we have been talking about. My questions relate to the role of conveners, the move to having elected conveners, how that is working in other legislatures and the remuneration aspect. Diana, what has been the impact of the introduction of elections and remuneration for committee chairs in the Senedd, and how has it affected the role?

You talk about sub-groups. In the previous session, I was on the Justice Committee and we had a Justice Sub-Committee on Policing, which I was also on. It is not possible to have that in this session, because we do not have enough people to populate a sub-committee, so we are dealing with everything in the one committee. It comes down to the legislative workload and the number of people who are available to be on the committees. All that being said, I think that we do a really good job at it.

I agree that we have fantastic support from the clerking teams and from SPICe. When I was first elected, in 2016, I had never sat on a committee before; I was something else in a previous life. One thing that amazed me right from the start was how good the support was that members got. We could go to any of the clerks at any time and ask them anything, and they would get right back to us. Honestly, I think that we have a great system for that here. It is really good across all the portfolios.

My last question is about the balance between referred work and proactive inquiry work. We would all love to do more proactive inquiry work and we should be doing it; it is just that we do not always have the time to do it. Some committees do some of that work and it is really useful, but there is more that could be done. However, the logistics often do not allow for that. Would the best plan be to build that into our work programme regardless? Do you have any thoughts on that, Professor Cairney?

I think that you have completely nailed it there. The idea of members having more of an up-front look at legislation and doing a bit more scrutiny beforehand might alleviate the situation, because we would not be coming to it new.

Does the issue go back to our programme for government? In our programme for government, there is a commitment to get legislation through. Is that where the change should start?

On that general point, do the public—I do not mean stakeholders with an interest in the committee’s work, but the public generally—know about committees and their importance? If I am talking to friends or family who are not political and I say something about a committee, they look at me as if to say, “Oh, a committee—what’s that about?” Are we communicating how important committee work is—that it is the absolutely fundamental work of the Parliament? All that the public see is what goes on in the chamber. Could we do a better job of that?

Good morning, witnesses. All of your comments have been really valuable, and I agree with them all. I will go back to something that Professor Cairney raised and blow our own trumpet in the Parliament.

We have a huge legislative workload for a small number of ���˿���. I am the chief whip for my party, which is the party of government, so I have to get people on committees. All members of my group are on two or three committees in a Parliament that meets three days a week. That puts into context the time that we have. We would all love to do more scrutiny. It is essential, but it is a case of time versus people. It is really difficult to do more scrutiny.

With regard to specialists, I always try to match somebody up to a committee that they had an interest in or a background in before being elected. It is not always possible, but you do your best. We also have a huge turnover because people come off the back benches to go into Government, which requires a reshuffle of committee membership. It is pretty much constant.

I am pointing out the challenges in our system. We try to minimise turnover. I believe in trying not to disrupt committees if I can and in keeping people on a committee so that they can get comfortable and get to know the subject better. I have been on the justice committee since I was first elected, in 2016. I am by no means an expert, but I feel confident on that committee, because I have been there so long and can reflect on previous legislation.

I will point out something and see whether you have any ideas on it. At this time of year, we face perhaps not a rush but a number of stages 2 and 3 that have to be done by the end of the session. Could we organise things better so that we do not have to face quite so much? It happens every year—Joe FitzPatrick has been here longer than I have, so he can attest to that. Do you have any suggestions for how things could be managed better, so that we do not suddenly have stages 2 and 3 every week from now until the summer?

I agree with you, Ken. More members are lodging far more amendments than they used to. I am not saying that that is a bad thing, but that has definitely increased a lot. We have just completed week four of stage 2 of a bill in the Criminal Justice Committee. It is a big bill, but there are other committees that are in the same boat, and I do not remember that happening in the previous parliamentary session—Joe FitzPatrick will remember way back. The number of amendments has increased, which prolongs the time that it takes for a bill to get through the legislative process.

It is about getting the balance right. Currently, the Criminal Justice Committee is working on two very big and important bills in tandem. Many committees are working on more than one bill at a time—that is the intensity of our workload.