Ruth Maguire
Scottish National Party · Scotland
“As well as the casework that I receive from citizens who are not currently having their needs met by the health and social care services, I have direct experience of living with a diagnosis that will not be cured. My life will be shortened—I do not like saying that out loud, especially in front of you lot, but it is a fact.”
“I share that thought in the full knowledge that people in my situation are not a homogeneous group and because I want colleagues to consider, if it weighs so heavily on me, as someone in a position of financial privilege with a large, loving family who are able to care for each other— indeed, as someone whose job it has been for 10 years…”
“Are we really going to be a country where the state funds dying while hospice care relies on charity? Consent, choice, free will and autonomy are not experienced equally by all.”
“I start by sharing my respect for Liam McArthur; I find him to be a good parliamentarian and a good man. However, I must also say that it remains a fact that consent, choice, free will and autonomy are not being experienced equally by all.”
“I did not get into politics to talk about myself and my own feelings; this is certainly not a natural space for me to be in, arguing against something that I am fearful of rather than for something that I believe will bring about a positive change or protect people.”
“Furthermore, the substances to be used and whether any use would be unlicensed or off-label are still to be determined. It is possible that they could be substances that a pharmacist cannot supply—for example, a schedule 1 controlled drug—which could make that restrictive definition difficult.”
The complete record
Every one of 171 lines we hold for Ruth Maguire, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 3 of 4.
“The First Minister: I acknowledge, understand and appreciate the strength of feeling expressed to me by Ruth Maguire. I understand her views and the points that she makes and expresses on behalf of those who have had traumatic experiences. I stress what I said in my earlier answer. The judgment by the Supreme Court is accepted by the Scottish Government and what we are doing is ensuring that our policies comply with all our legal obligations, including the Scotland Act 1998 and the European convention on human rights. The Government is obliged to ensure that that is the case. We have considered the issue and the actions that we are taking are consistent with that consideration.”
“The need for the protection of space on public boards for women has been accepted and the law corrected, but a policy that means that female prisoners, a majority of whom have experienced male violence, might have to share close quarters with male-bodied inmates while they are in the care of the state is being defended. Knowing everything that we know about trauma, and given the countless testimonies from women on this matter—including testimony given both privately and publicly by a number of his own party colleagues—does the First Minister understand just how appalling the Government’s actions feel to many of us and how difficult it is to reconcile the Scottish Government’s words about the protection of single-sex spaces for females with its actions on the matter? [Interruption.] The Presiding Officer: Let us hear the First Minister.”
“To ask the Scottish Government what action it is taking to address misinformation in relation to refugees and asylum seekers and to promote community cohesion. (S6O-05317)”
“The justice secretary’s and my engagement with the CPG is part of that work, as is the focus of the national strategic group. However, I listened with interest to what Professor Jay said on that to the committee this morning. It is hugely important that we acknowledge that there is not a single community of survivors, so we need to take on board her advice and look at how we can engage widely. For example, she spoke about children, in particular, and the ways in which we can engage with different groups of survivors and the appropriate means of doing so, for example, via trauma- informed approaches such as the bairns’ hoose model.”
“I draw members’ attention to my entry in the register of members’ interests: I am a trustee of Break the Silence, which is a charity that offers therapy to people who are affected by childhood sexual trauma. I agree that victim/survivors should be listened to and heard. Will the cabinet secretary assure me that victim/survivors and their families will have access to trauma-informed resources and support before, during and after they have contributed their views and stories? Jenny Gilruth: Ruth Maguire raises a hugely important point. Many years ago, when I was on the Justice Committee, I visited Oslo to look at the bairns’ hoose model and how that trauma- informed approach works to support child victims of sexual abuse. We must ensure that survivors’ experience is at the heart of our considerations.”
“To ask the Scottish Government what consideration it gives to the gendered impact of debt in its child poverty and social security policies. (S6O-05280)”
“I assure Ruth Maguire of the sustained and detailed attention and engagement of the Government in taking forward legislation and in contributing to the discussion about addressing the issues.”
“The First Minister: As the Minister for Victims and Community Safety made clear to the Criminal Justice Committee last week, although the Scottish Government strongly supports the principle of legislating to criminalise those who purchase sex, we retain a neutral stance on the Prostitution (Offences and Support) (Scotland) Bill. It is clear that a number of stakeholders have voiced concerns about the safety of women, and it is paramount that the legislation laid before Parliament must be safe for women involved in and exiting prostitution and must recognise online exploitation. It is paramount that, alongside a number of other issues with the bill that the committee has heard about, that must be addressed by the member in charge if the bill is to have the confidence of Parliament.”
“The prevention of male violence in all its forms is preferable, both morally and practically. During this parliamentary session, we have an opportunity to legislate to tackle male demand for prostitution and to really disrupt the trade in women and girls, which is both a cause and a consequence of violence. Does the First Minister agree that we must do all that we can to ensure that that legislation is fit for purpose and that it passes, so that we can finally make good on a policy position that we have held for decades—that prostitution is violence against women and we will not accept the harm that it causes for a second longer?”
“To ask the Scottish Government whether patient complaints and feedback about the care they have received from NHS boards are used to inform inspections undertaken by Health Improvement Scotland. (S6O-05203)”
“Legislation is built on those principles—a presumption of political equality, of human values over money values, of compassion, of extending democracy and of safeguarding hard-won democratic rights. As we consider this bill, let us embrace those principles, let us be bold in vision and let us be resolute in action. 16:40”
“The thing which will secure the triumph of Labour will be the demonstration by Socialists in their lives that they have a high ideal and live up to it.” So, whatever our party, whatever our ideology or values, we should all have high ideals. We should all have high standards, and we should all live up to them. If we are forging a way forward to deal with bad conduct, low standards or even serious crime, we have to work, as Mark Griffin said, honestly. We need to vote for legislation that is fair, robust and enduring. For all of us, our place in this Parliament rests on consent—the consent of the people. History is often the story of action and reaction, and rather than react in the future, I think that we should act now to guard against the corrosion of trust.”
“So, there are some questions that are raised by that—we will need to take account of the idea of political conspiracies and so on, because let me say again that democracy should not be a spectator sport in which we limit its exercise to a cross on a ballot paper periodically. And let me say again that I am quite clear that to be an MSP is a privilege that brings with it duties, responsibilities and standards. On that, personally, I have always been struck by something that Clement Attlee said after the 1945 general election. He came to Musselburgh in October 1945 to address the Scottish Labour Party conference, and he said this: “The deciding factor ... will not be the leadership of the exact theory which is held to orthodox socialism. It will not be the brilliance of particular individuals.”
“To Michelle Thomson and Sue Webber, I gently say that we are not a business or a corporation here to maximise profits. We are a Parliament here to serve the people, so money making and money saving should not come first. In relation to Patrick Harvie’s point, corruption of the system by dark money, digital disinformation and dirty politics is more of a threat to our democracy than individual dissent and protest or even civil disobedience, which could lead to someone being banned from this Parliament for 10 days or more or to imprisonment. To Jackson Carlaw, who made the point that, if this became law, it could cause the downfall of a Government, I say that that is also a function of the electoral system that this Parliament is run by.”
“It is about an extension of democratic principles into an area where they do not currently exist, and it is about trusting in an intelligent democracy of citizens—not consumers, not subjects even, but active citizens. In this debate, not surprisingly, something has been made about holding to account or recalling MSPs who switch their party allegiance during a term of office. I am not unsympathetic to that argument, and I do not know at what stage Graham Simpson’s conversion to Reform took place, but, before he had announced a move, he was on the record as saying in Parliament on 19 June: “I do not think that it is a crime to switch parties.”— [Official Report, Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee, 19 June 2025; c 10.] Perhaps he knew then, or perhaps he did not know—there is only one person who can answer that question.”
“We will abstain tonight on the amended motion, but we remain unconvinced that the bill will be supportable at stage 3. 16:35 Richard Leonard: What we are voting for tonight is not a blanket acceptance of everything in this bill. This is not a ready-made solution. We will need more exchanges, more debate, more amendments and more scrutiny to find the answers we seek, and we shall have to be creative, but the Scottish Labour Party is prepared to vote for this bill at decision time tonight. Much of this debate is, in the end, about the exercise of rights—of equal rights—of freedoms and of democracy. It is about being radical, but we must also be rational.”
“Finally, I want to come back to one of the most important—well, important to me—points in my opening speech: the role of legitimate peaceful protest, which can often meet a criminal sanction and often receives disproportionate sentences in the UK. If there is to be any criminal trigger for a process of the kind that the bill proposes, surely it must relate to the nature of the offence that is committed, not simply to the length of a sentence that is passed. If there is to be any criminal trigger, it must be about what the person has done and the circumstances and nature of that offence. I will finish by saying again that I remain unconvinced that the bill can be repaired or fixed to the point at which those concerns are all addressed. I and my party will engage in that process.”
“I emphasise again that many different circumstances can give rise to somebody switching party and can affect the way in which people might judge a member who has switched party. Of course, some people do that because they feel that the party has changed around them, or they do it in reaction to new circumstances. It also happens in situations where the motivation is transparently about self-interest or a betrayal of the fundamental values. It is understandable that there may be no single, simple rule for whether people will feel that it is appropriate or acceptable for someone to continue to be a member in such circumstances.”
“What is missing at the moment is an objective test for identifying when an individual’s behaviour has sunk so low that they have reached the point when, in any other workplace, they would be subject to a disciplinary process and could lose their job. That is missing from the arrangements that we currently work within. That is not really about trust; it is about an objective assessment of someone’s behaviour. That goes back to the points raised in relation to Kevin Stewart’s amendment about a sanctions process and how complaints can be made and should be handled. That is where the objective tests of behaviour would come in—as opposed to in a petitions process that is open to politicisation. I have a couple of comments on switching parties, which is an issue that many members have talked about.”
“His speech gave much more emphasis to the question of trust in politics than any other speech did. Trust is important and he clearly expressed that. It matters that we acknowledge that trust is not easily earned. There has never been a moment in my time in politics when people thought that trust in politics was at a high point. We have always gone through cycles of recognising that a great many people have a low degree of trust in politics and in the political process. However, when there are fundamental issues of trust and of whether people trust their politicians in a general sense, if people judge us poorly in those general terms, the election is the means of holding us to account.”
“They are not only advocating that those people should have no place in the Government or the Parliament, but arguing for mass deportations. That is a context in which the mechanisms that we are debating are at far more risk of being weaponised—not only politicised, but weaponised—and I am very concerned about that. Forgive me if I am paraphrasing too much: Ruth Maguire seemed to argue that, if we are to have a recall system, we should be designing it for the Scottish context, rather than copying and pasting one from elsewhere. I agree strongly with that. I am not wholly convinced that the bill offers the route to a system that, ultimately, I will support, but if there is to be a system, we should be looking at our context rather than doing a copy-and-paste job. In his speech, Mark Griffin frequently used the word “trust”.”
“We are seeing the genuine threat of an explicitly far-right Government in the UK. We are looking across to the US, a country that is now in the grip of post-reality politics, with a Government that still works with the mantra to “flood the zone with”—I will not complete the quotation, but we all know how it ends. Essentially, it involves taking an approach to politics that is about undermining anybody’s ability to believe in such a thing as objective truth. We are seeing figures such as Elon Musk, who is in control of a powerful social media platform, explicitly advocating for political violence in this country, and we are seeing large parts of the media and prominent politicians clearly trying to normalise the idea that black and brown people cannot be British—or English or Scottish.”
“16:29 Patrick Harvie: It would be rude of me not to start by returning the kind remarks that Jackson Carlaw made earlier. There are probably very few issues—aside from 60-year-old sci-fi—that Jackson Carlaw and I agree on; indeed, there is a great deal that we profoundly disagree on. However, his speech exposed accurately some of the real concerns that exist about what might be unintended consequences of the bill, and we need to give careful thought to such scenarios before making decisions on the shape of the bill before it reaches stage 3 or on how we vote on the bill at that stage. In particular, Jackson Carlaw mentioned aspects of today’s political, social and media context that would not have occurred to us, had the matter been debated here or elsewhere 10, 15 or 20 years ago.”
“This is the Parliament’s job and not necessarily the Government’s job. We have heard from a lot of members on various issues, some of which I really agree with. The proposal that Mr Cole-Hamilton put forward has to be explored. Equally, I understand Mr Carlaw’s argument that, if such a proposal was put in place, certain folk might get excluded from the Parliament who we would not want to be excluded. However, there are always balances to be struck. We all seem to agree on the general principles, but it will take a lot of work from all members, as well as the parliamentary authorities, to get it right. I wish the member in charge, Mr Simpson, all the very best as he moves forward with his bill—he has taken on a pretty onerous task. We must all work together to ensure that we get it absolutely right.”
“It is essential that we get it right. We have heard members across the chamber say that they are willing to work together to make sure that it is right. Folk have said that they will work with Mr Simpson—I have already said that I would do so—and folk have said that they would work with Mr Dey as the responsible Government minister. However, amendments in this regard should be Parliament amendments and not Government amendments, or else there will be criticism, I am quite sure, in the future. The Parliament itself needs to put much more resource into scoping all this out. I come back to the point that I made earlier about the fact that it has taken Mr Simpson 11 months to get to this stage because, quite possibly, the non- Government bills unit is not adequately resourced.”
“I really believe, as the committee says, that the “process carries potential to be politicised.” I agree with the committee on that, and we can help to depoliticise it by agreeing to a parliamentary complaints and sanctions process that is backed by the appropriate guidance. Craig Hoy: By dint of his lodging his amendment, it could be perceived that Kevin Stewart has politicised the debate. If the motion could otherwise be agreed to tonight unanimously, would he consider not pressing his amendment and arguing his corner as the bill progresses? Kevin Stewart: No, I will press my amendment tonight—I have moved it. There is a job of work to be done to get this right. Jackson Carlaw talked about the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body review that Rosemary Agnew is leading and, like him, I think that that can play a part in all this, too.”
“I acknowledge that the member and the Government have said that they are working on that. There is a balance to be struck between issues of parity among all MSPs who are elected to the Scottish Parliament, recognition of the different routes for election and questions of voter choice and clarity. I do not think that we have that balance yet. I see that the Presiding Officer would like me to conclude, so I will do so. 16:25 Kevin Stewart: We have had a fairly substantial debate today, with a number of good contributions. In those contributions, we have probably come up with a lot more questions than answers, to be fair. The reason why I lodged my amendment to the motion for debate is that I want any system that is put in place to be as depoliticised as possible. It has to be fair.”
“There is deep anger when a party loses someone, but there can also be joy when a party gains a member. My personal position is that it is not reasonable to tie MSPs to political parties. Policy changes, which are sometimes quite fundamental, can cause good people to resign or shift parties, and a party can change direction slowly, over a period of time. It is for individual members to decide which party they should be in. The recall process that is suggested in the bill builds on the established process at Westminster. I agree that that is a good starting point, but any system that is established in the Scottish Parliament cannot be a direct replication of the 2015 act; it has to be a system for the Scottish Parliament that accommodates the recall of both constituency and regional MSPs.”
“I want to speak briefly about the issue of members changing political parties. That was raised by a constituent of mine whose thoughts I would like to put on the record. Ms Matthews wrote to me a message that was triggered by an MSP moving party: “Though it may happen less in Scotland, I feel very strongly that politicians who have changed party or have been put out of a party should not be allowed to continue to sit without a by-election. Such people stood on a party manifesto and have used its resources to campaign. The electorate should have their chance to react to their position. Could you pass on my concern to the appropriate authority?” I have put Ms Matthews’s thoughts on the record, and I understand the feelings around that issue.”
“It is possible to do that job by the varied means that we now have—not just by standing here in a half-empty chamber on a Thursday afternoon. Some might argue that, on occasion, that is a better way to do it and a better use of our time, but other members have spoken about other requirements, such as the need to be in their constituency in the morning, perhaps for an engagement, before attending the Parliament remotely. I will not speak too much about myself, but I will make one more personal point. Were it not for the hybrid nature of the Parliament, I would not have been able to return to work as quickly as I did after my treatment, because hybrid working enabled a phased return. I am sure that all members are delighted that I was here as quickly as I could be.”
“The bill also proposes new grounds for the automatic removal of MSPs when there has been a criminal offence or when a member has not attended the Parliament in person for 180 days without a reasonable explanation. The committee was not persuaded that MSPs should be removed for not physically attending the Parliament, and we invited Mr Simpson to reconsider that element of the bill. The Scottish Parliament has hybrid working, and we probably should have introduced it sooner than we did. Covid drove those changes quickly, and they are in place now. I agree with Sue Webber’s point that judging folk on their attendance—that is, by their very presence—is probably not a good way to judge their effectiveness. Furthermore, hybrid working will enable a more varied cohort to do the job of MSP.”
“I do not think that anyone in the chamber would disagree with that. However, it is clear from the committee’s work that fundamental changes are required to achieve that aim. Its report sets out a number of areas for reconsideration, to ensure that the process works within the Scottish Parliament’s electoral system. Those include consideration of the “complexity and costs associated with any mechanism for recall of regional members.” Like Richard Leonard, I do not think that we should be driven by cost. However, we have to consider the cost of such measures. Other things that require consideration are the practical arrangements around holding recall petitions, to ensure that all those who are eligible to sign them can do so.”
“The outcome of the report that was issued after the excellent detailed scrutiny work of the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee was that fundamental issues with the bill need to be addressed at stages 2 and 3. I will be clear from the outset that I, like the committee, fully support the aim of the Scottish Parliament (Recall and Removal of Members) Bill, which is to improve the democratic accountability of MSPs during the course of a parliamentary session by introducing a process by which an MSP could lose their seat in the Parliament through a recall. It is because of my belief in that aim, in principle, that I will vote for the bill this evening. I recognise that at the heart of the bill is the integrity of the democratic process and the aim of improving accountability.”
“I begin by acknowledging the work of the member in charge of the bill and of the non-Government bills unit. I also thank the committee for its work. That might sound strange, as I am the deputy convener, but, at the time when the evidence was being taken, I was myself absent for reasons that are in the public domain. I thank Rona Mackay, who substituted for me on the committee, and I echo Mark Griffin’s view that it should be down to members to choose whether they disclose the reason for their absence and when they talk about it. I have concerns about the notion of excuses that Sue Webber spoke about earlier, and I will say a bit more about that later.”
“The Green Party will abstain on the motion on the bill’s general principles at decision time. I am not convinced that it will be in a fit state to pass by the time that it reaches stage 3. 15:51”
“I am baffled as to why that is a consistent position. In relation to the comments that have been made about historical examples of criminal offences that are ethical, principled acts, that is not just a matter of ancient history. In the UK, people are regularly subjected to long prison sentences for legitimate, peaceful protest. For example, climate campaigners have been subject to substantial prison terms, even simply for the act of taking part in a Zoom call to discuss political protest. I do not think that we should invite a situation in which a recall would be triggered by such acts or, for example, by someone holding up a sign saying, “I support Palestine Action.” I am not convinced that the bill is fixable, although I am willing for it to go through the parliamentary scrutiny process.”
“I understand where Patrick Harvie is coming from, but should the systems that we put in place not be based on principle rather than on the type of belief that somebody has? Patrick Harvie: The question suggests what I am implying, which is that there is no clear and easy way to set out rules that do not give rise to contradiction and mixed expectations. I was about to say that we make remote participation available to members. If we choose to do so—and I think that we should—it is surely for the Presiding Officer rather than anyone else to determine whether a member is using that facility appropriately; it should not be for the law to say what the consequences are. Finally, on criminal offences being a trigger, I note that the bill includes criminal convictions anywhere in the UK, but not anywhere else.”
“That will ensure that any changes can be made in advance of the start of the next parliamentary session. However, standing orders are only one part of the answer to strengthening committees’ effectiveness. Ultimately, it will be for everyone in the Parliament and the new colleagues who will join them next year to decide to make our committees work. It will be up to them to embed a culture of interest, curiosity and—importantly— collaboration, so that that is a success. The Presiding Officer: That concludes the debate on strengthening committees’ effectiveness. Motion without Notice 16:58”
“I have been struck by the support from members across the chamber today for the crucial function that committees play in our democracy, which is to hold the Scottish Government to account and to reflect the interests of the people whom we serve. We need to ensure that committees are prepared to meet the expectations of voters and that they can demonstrate what they can achieve. As the convener set out at the start of the debate, there is a collective will to improve the effectiveness of committees, and that has been evidenced by the contributions to the debate. Following today’s debate, the committee will reflect on what we have heard and will propose specific standing order rule changes that we will bring to the Parliament for consideration.”
“John Mason also made a thoughtful contribution in sharing his 14 years of experience in service. On culture, he pointed out that, even with an excellent convener, one member being hostile or tribal can sometimes throw things off. He also spoke about the importance of fact-finding visits and away days. Such opportunities to gel as humans are important and contribute to good working. That was particularly true this session, when new members were not together for induction. When there are differences of views on where the solutions to issues might lie, it adds further weight to ensuring the recognition of a common resolve that committees are equipped to fulfil their potential.”
“Unfortunately, all I wrote down was that he found Jackson Carlaw’s convenership to be nurturing, which made me smile. As sweet as it sounds, that gets to the nub of what a good convener can do to help people to perform their best on committee by sharing their knowledge. Stephen Kerr spoke about the importance of cross-party working, which is a subject that has shone through throughout the debate. He also paid tribute to the Finance and Public Administration Committee, which is often held up as a good example of working. He specifically mentioned my Ayrshire colleague, Kenneth Gibson—I probably should put his name on the record—and the importance of our role as parliamentarians, not just as politicians. That is a point of view that everyone would share.”
“Sue Webber reflected on her experience of convening a large committee, how its size sometimes affected the time that individual members had to make contributions and the implications that that could have. If someone is allowed to continue with their scrutiny freely, they might unearth some gem of information that will be helpful in the committee’s work. Evelyn Tweed highlighted an important issue that perhaps was not touched on in depth in our report, which is holding to account bodies that are accountable to the Parliament, and the challenge of having one report or one meeting in a session to do that. On behalf of the convener and I, we would welcome further discussion on that topic and what we can do about it. It is crucially important. We appreciated the contribution of Davy Russell as a fairly new member of a committee.”
“The committee’s report discusses providing members with confidence and knowledge to forge their own path and carve out their own identity and role. It also acknowledges that different conveners have different interpretations of their role and different styles of working. Richard Leonard referenced the successes of the Public Audit Committee. As we heard from others during our inquiry, it is sometimes easier for committees to operate more effectively when they are scrutinising organisations and public bodies and not Government ministers—I think that Richard Leonard would agree with that. On culture, we heard about the importance of conveners.”
“Forgive me—I have a lot of sheets of paper here. Many of the contributions in the debate were on the importance of culture. In opening, the minister recognised the workload of committees and the balance between the Government’s mandate to take forward legislation and the freedom of Parliament and committees in their approach to the scrutiny function and, importantly, how they hold the Government to account. The report acknowledges that committees should have the ability to choose for themselves how they wish to go about their work. It is about ensuring that there is flexibility and capacity in the system for all committees to develop their own approach. Jackson Carlaw spoke to his concerns in relation to creating identikit conveners and identikit committee members.”
“We added hosting to that, where one committee would be formally invited to participate in another committee’s meetings, including access to private evidence sessions and meeting papers. It has been helpful to hear positive examples of committee work and the factors that have contributed to that success. Paul Sweeney: I put it on the record that my participation in the cross-committee work on drug deaths has been particularly rewarding. That is a synthesis of the work of two committees—the Criminal Justice Committee and the Health, Social Care and Sport Committee—and it has been really useful in getting to the nub of a major emergency in Scotland, so perhaps more of that could be a good thing. Ruth Maguire: I thank Paul Sweeney. That is a helpful contribution; it is good to get that on the record.”
“One of the other things that the committee recommended was giving committees more flexibility to meet in private when the chamber is sitting and to utilise Monday afternoons and Friday mornings for some committee business. Perhaps most significantly on structural changes, one of the proposals was that the Parliamentary Bureau should be able to propose time-limited committees. Those committees could look at specific bills, specific inquiry issues, whether of a topical or cross-cutting nature, and undertake post-legislative scrutiny. Our report also reflected on the suite of tools that are available to committees—committee reporters, sub-committees and joint committee meetings.”
“Ruth Maguire: I think that the committee would recognise the balance between the Government’s mandate and Parliament’s role in making recommendations. Jackson Carlaw: Is there not a slight worry, though, that putting that block in place would favour returning members in a new parliamentary session? They would be in a position to introduce bills because they had prepared for them in the previous parliamentary session, but new members would be disadvantaged in that they would not be prepared in time to introduce a bill within the timeframe. Ruth Maguire: That is not something that we discussed as a committee, but I recognise the point. In counter to that, having a well-prepared idea and a developed notion of what you are going to legislate on is also quite valuable.”
“We believe our recommendations to be practical, deliverable and focused on giving committees the necessary tools to fulfil their potential. There were a couple of recommendations that the convener did not quite get to, due to his generous giving way to other members, so I will take a minute to draw attention to them. One of those was to bring forward the deadline for when members’ bills must be introduced in a parliamentary session. Colleagues will be aware that we have a bit of a jam of private members’ bills at the moment, and it is important that all members’ bills are given the full hearing that they require. John Mason: I notice that the committee did not make the same recommendation for Government bills. Some Government bills, such as the budget, are time bound, but should the Government not also be introducing bills earlier?”
“I thank the clerks of the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee, whose expertise and diligence are absolutely key to the successful output of our committee. We heard from across the chamber about the role that clerking plays in all committees. The committee is grateful to members not only for their engagement in the debate but in that of our inquiry more widely. This has been an interesting debate. As we make clear in our inquiry report, the purpose of our work has been to ensure that committees are well placed to operate effectively in the next parliamentary session and beyond. In this inquiry, we undertook a thorough examination of how committees work. We have looked at all aspects of committee operations, including the structure of committees and the role of committee members.”
“John Mason: I apologise for intervening again. Does Mr Whitfield think that there is a need for conveners to be trained? Chairing any meeting— including this one, but also committees—is not something that everybody is naturally good at. It takes certain skills.”