Why Scotland's new Presiding Officer brings fresh hope to a parliament that's lost its way
Kenny Gibson has proven himself to be a rarity in nationalist ranks – someone with an independent mind who is unafraid to challenge SNP ministers
The Scottish Parliament has a new Presiding Officer, in the form of Kenneth Gibson, the veteran SNP MSP for Cunninghame North. Kenny – as he is universally known at Holyrood – comfortably defeated his party colleague Clare Haughey, widely seen as the leadership’s favourite candidate, in the final run-off vote.
It has always been my view that the Presiding Officer should come from a party other than the one in government, which is why I initially backed the Lib Dem MSP and former Deputy Presiding Officer, Liam McArthur, for the role.
With his elimination, I was happy to shift my support to Gibson. Although an SNP member, he has proven himself in his role as convenor of the Finance and Public Administration Committee to be someone with an independent mind, not afraid to challenge SNP ministers, a stance that’s something of a rarity in nationalist ranks.
Scripted speeches and dull debates
Gibson won the role with an engaging performance at the hustings organised by my Conservative colleague Stephen Kerr, where he promised to make reforms to ensure that Holyrood debates would be less dull. As he fairly pointed out, there is nothing inspiring about watching a succession of speakers simply read out pre-prepared four or six-minute speeches, too often written by researchers or party advisors, which bear very little relation to what has gone before.
Given the time limits on speeches at Holyrood, too many MSPs are constrained in accepting interventions from those who wish to make a point, or challenge something they have said. Gibson’s view was that there should always be time added to allow interventions to be taken, thus allowing a much more free-flowing style of debate than the one we have been used to.
He also proposed that rather than having a succession of short speeches, it would be open to the parties to put forward speakers with the ability to speak for much longer, therefore permitting those with a particular interest and expertise much more time to set out their arguments, and allow proper challenge and discussion.
If these reforms can be introduced, they will go a long way to improving the quality of debate in a Chamber which has become dull and mechanical. Reforms from the Presiding Officer can only go so far, though, to deliver the change that many want to see. It will be up to individual MSPs to raise their game, and be prepared to come to the Chamber with the ability to speak from notes, rather than lengthy pre-prepared scripts to be read word-for-word.
Radical changes required
Gibson’s proposals are welcome, but I would suggest that he needs to go further. In 2024, I wrote a paper on the need for parliamentary reform for the thinktank then known as Reform Scotland, which has since rebranded as Enlighten. In that, I put forward 25 ideas, to reflect the 25 years the Scottish Parliament had then been in existence, to improve the operation of the legislature.
In my paper, I recognised that Holyrood suffered from political polarisation and institutional stagnation. Far from fulfilling the promises of accountability, accessibility and responsiveness to the needs of the Scottish people, the institution was regarded as stale, bitterly divided, and unable to fulfil its essential functions of producing good legislation and holding government effectively to account.
There have been too many examples of poor-quality laws being passed without proper scrutiny, among them the Gender Reform Bill, the Named Person policy, and the Offensive Behaviour at Football Act, the last of which eventually had to be repealed.
My own proposals recommended giving parliament the power to hold judicial inquiries, the establishment of a confirmation committee to approve all ministerial and public body appointments, and the introduction of elected committee convenors. This last proposal is already in train, although it will not carry with it remuneration of convenors to reflect their strengthened status and position.
Parliamentary privilege for MSPs
Perhaps the most significant proposal I made was to create a new five-stage process of legislative scrutiny, to replace the existing three stages. This would add in an initial statement to the Chamber from ministers or any Bill proposer, allowing the principles of the Bill to be set out and questions asked.
Crucially, a new fifth stage would be added to ensure that, where a Bill was substantially amended at stage three, it could be referred back to the subject committee for further review, thus helping to avoid a situation in which a Bill whose general principles have been agreed by parliament was later varied so comprehensively that it no longer met the original purposes or indeed made legislative sense.
I also recommended granting MSPs the full rights of parliamentary privilege enjoyed by MPs at Westminster, and the establishment of consequences for breaking the Ministerial Code of Conduct.
Some of what I proposed would require amendments to the Scotland Act, whereas others would simply require changes to the parliament’s standing orders and practices. The changes which the new Presiding Officer propose fall within this latter group, and I hope he will progress with them quickly.
But if we are to see comprehensive parliamentary reform, and Holyrood return to meet the expectations that many had of it back in 1999, then wider reform will be necessary, and that will mean engaging with Westminster.
I know that Kenny Gibson will be ambitious for a parliament that many believe has lost its way to once again have the confidence of the Scottish population. I wish him well in his term of office, and hope he will embrace a wider reform agenda so he leaves a legacy of an enhanced, strengthened Holyrood parliament that we can be proud of.
Murdo Fraser is a Scottish Conservative MSP for Mid-Scotland and Fife
Comments
Want to join the conversation? Please or to comment on this article.