Kenneth Gibson’s early reforms at Holyrood deserve something increasingly rare in Scottish politics: genuine praise.
For years, many of us inside and outside Parliament have argued that Holyrood has become too scripted, too predictable and too disconnected from the pace and priorities of ordinary Scotland. Questions lodged days in advance. Ministers arriving with folders of pre-prepared answers. Debate squeezed into rigid speaking slots. Backbenchers managed by party structures rather than empowered by parliament itself.
The Scottish Parliament was founded to disperse power and strengthen scrutiny. Too often in recent years it has looked overly stage-managed instead.
That is why the new Presiding Officer’s early moves matter.
Kenneth Gibson did not simply speak on becoming Presiding Officer about making parliament more topical, more responsive and more effective. Crucially, he has begun to do something about it. That deserves credit. Too often at Holyrood we talk endlessly about reform while quietly preserving the status quo.
His willingness to challenge institutional habits matters. So too does his clear recognition that parliamentary business should be simpler, more engaging and more relevant to the people watching outside the building. Reform cannot happen without leadership and, on the evidence so far, there are reasons to be encouraged.
Some of the early changes are long overdue.
Ending the publication of First Minister’s Questions in advance is an important step forward. Scrutiny works best when ministers must think on their feet and respond to genuine challenge, not rehearsed prompts. Politics should not resemble amateur dramatics where everyone already knows their lines.
Shorter, sharper exchanges could also transform scrutiny. If questions and answers become briefer and more focused, more Members will participate. More voices will be heard. More perspectives brought into debate. Holyrood works best when it feels alive, slightly unpredictable and intellectually agile rather than overly scripted and tightly choreographed.
Likewise, automatically restoring time for interventions during debates is precisely the sort of practical change Holyrood has needed for years. Too many MSPs currently refuse interventions because they fear running out of precious speaking time. This has weakened debate.
The public does not watch Parliament to hear a succession of mini speeches read into the record. They expect challenge, disagreement and genuine engagement. A legislature should test arguments in real time. Encouraging interventions makes debate more thoughtful, more responsive and, bluntly, more watchable.
There is also considerable merit in proposals to allow parliamentary events to continue during chamber business. Holyrood too often lets outside organisations and visitors down. People travel across Scotland, sometimes planning for months, only to find events delayed or disrupted because parliamentary schedules move unexpectedly. Members are adults. They should be trusted to decide where they ought to be at any given moment.
In short, Kenneth Gibson has made a serious and encouraging start.
But reform is a journey, not an event.
If Holyrood is genuinely to become more dynamic, more accountable and more relevant, we must now go further.
Take Portfolio Questions - even under the proposed changes, scrutiny risks remaining too compressed. Government departments controlling billions of pounds of public spending and shaping daily life across Scotland should not be scrutinised in rushed 30 minute-sessions with little time for follow-up.
Portfolio Questions should instead run for around 50 minutes, with the final 15 minutes reserved for genuinely topical questioning without prior notice. Ministers should be challenged on what is happening now, not simply what was topical a week ago when questions were lodged.
That matters because accountability weakens when scrutiny becomes procedural rather than real. Ministers should face uncertainty. Parliament should be capable of responding to events as they unfold.
We should also go further in ending party control over debate.
Why should party business managers decide which MSPs are permitted to speak? Front benches will naturally lead debates, but Parliament should belong to Parliament, not party machines. Members wishing to contribute should apply directly to the Presiding Officer.
Backbenchers should not require permission to speak on behalf of the people who elected them.
That principle should extend further through a Backbench Business Committee modelled on Westminster’s. Sometimes an issue matters profoundly to one constituency, one community or one Member. Parliament should be capable of hearing that voice without forcing Members through artificial procedural hoops or dependence upon party sponsorship.
Ministerial accountability should also mean ministers being physically present in the chamber. Questions should be answered face to face, not remotely. Accountability is weakened when ministers appear on a screen rather than standing before Parliament to answer for decisions taken in its name.
Urgent Questions, too, should be taken earlier in the parliamentary day. If something is genuinely urgent, Scotland should hear Parliament debating it while the nation is still watching, not after the practical broadcast window for evening news has largely passed.
During the previous parliamentary session, Councillor James Bundy and I explored many of these issues in a paper for Scottish Affairs asking a simple question: is the Scottish Parliament working? The encouraging reality was that many Members across parties privately agreed that Holyrood has become over-managed, excessively scripted and insufficiently confident in itself.
That is why Kenneth Gibson’s reforms matter. Not because they complete the task, but because they start it.
For the first time in a long time, there is a genuine opportunity to make Holyrood feel more confident, more spontaneous and more relevant to the lives of ordinary Scots.
Session 7 should not merely look different. It should feel different.
And if Parliament becomes less scripted, more accountable and more alive, Scottish democracy itself will be stronger.
Stephen Kerr is a Conservative MSP for Mid Scotland and Fife
https://www.scotsman.com/news/opinion/stephen-kerr-holyrood-works-best-…
