IT IS a conundrum that as the Scottish Parliament gets stronger it is increasingly revealed as an institution with a weak political culture. Too many of its procedures are poorly designed for the tasks it faces, and I fear that the chance to change how Holyrood actually works is about to pass.

Since the elections in May, there has been much discussion of Holyrood’s deficiencies, most egregiously shown by the row and subsequent climb-down over ministerial aides sitting on the committees that are charged with scrutinising their ministers. Following the return of MSPs last week, and the occasion of the newly extended and “reformed” FMQs, the BBC broadcast a discussion between three journalists of the intractable weaknesses of the Scottish Parliament’s committees and the need for “culture change”.

When Scotland planned for a new parliament; the vision was of a parliament which shared power with government. The reality has been far different and that hope is now rarely even expressed. With the legislative programme announced, work now begins in what, for want of a better word, we are all obliged to call earnest. With the back-to-work vibe, comes a back to business-as-usual pressure. No MSP, newly elected, or long in the tooth, has picked up the baton of parliamentary reform, called for by the Smith Commission, by the previous Presiding Officer, by numerous academics or in no end of comment pieces or TV discussions over the summer. We are left with a consensus that whilst botched laws, like Named Person, or some aspects of police reform are regrettable, little will be done to examine why they happened or what could be put in place to guard against worse.

Having sat in no less than five different committees, and one of those twice, in the last Scottish Parliament, I can attest to the neutering of reports, the stacking of witnesses and, frankly, the lack of homework that is often evidenced during the committees’ private sessions. Final stage consideration of bills is often cursory, questions to junior ministers at General Question Time is not fit for purpose and in the word of Tricia Marwick, “boring”. Genuine career structures need to be created for backbench members to aspire to be strong committee convenors, rather than given that privilege as a reward for their loyalty by the party leaders.

So far, “reform” amounts to extending FMQs by 15 minutes, saving the Presiding Officer the bother of trying to keep the party leaders to succinct and pertinent points, and the “innovation” of the First Minister not being given notice of every question beforehand.

The previous Presiding Officer, who genuinely was a reformer, and someone who cared passionately about the Scottish Parliament, as an institution, rather than just a backdrop, also voiced her support for some form of revising chamber. Others have said the answer is simply more MSPs to do all the onerous work that the current number are already paid well to do. The received wisdom, of course, is that the public won’t wear any of this, as if reform of parliamentary procedures should only go ahead once the man on the Crammond Omnibus is clamouring for it. There are many models of how reform could be bolder; none of them involve simply creating more of the same, either in number of MSPs or longer question times.

Some do optimistically believe that the fact that the government was re-elected without a majority will mean change. On some obvious levels it will but it will not be sufficient should a majority be returned again or, as is more likely, some government in the future is formed by coalition, and which then acts as if that coalition is in majority.

Twenty years on from the ambition of the modern Scottish Parliament, the time is now, in this session, to make meaningful change and to save Holyrood from becoming not a beacon of good practice, as was once hoped, but a byword for the bland, or worse. The initial signs are that whilst efforts might be well intentioned, they are insufficient. Last week’s Question 4, selected by the Presiding Officer, at the reformed FMQs, mentioned above, asked for an update on the work of the Government’s educational advisors. It was put by the ministerial aide to the Cabinet Secretary for Education.

So far, so business-as-usual, at Holyrood.

Drew Smith was Labour’s Shadow Cabinet Secretary for the Constitution in 2013 and 2014 and stood down from the Scottish Parliament in 2016