HOLYROOD Presiding Officer Tricia Marwick has suffered a setback in her bid to strengthen the Scottish Parliament's under-fire committee system.
MSPs have rejected her call for committee conveners to be elected by their peers rather than appointed by party bosses.
Ms Marwick argued the reform would increase the chances of putting key jobs in the hands of MSPs who were more willing to challenge government ministers.
But Holyrood's standards committee, which examined the proposal, said a convincing case for it had not yet been made.
In a report out today, it agreed to hold a more wide-ranging inquiry into improving the ways committees scrutinise legislation and hold ministers to account.
Standards committee convener Stewart Stevenson said: "During our evidence we heard about the benefits that elected conveners had brought to the House of Commons.
"We also heard that change is needed in the Scottish Parliament committee system.
"But the Westminster system is very different and we are not convinced that these changes would have the same impact here."
He said elected conveners were "not the right first step to wider reform".
He added: "There is no doubt that the time for reform is now, in readiness for the next session of Parliament.
"That is why our committee has agreed to begin a focussed discussion about the steps needed to strengthen committees' ability to scrutinise legislation and policy, and hold the Government to account."
Holyrood has 18 committees.
The powerful convenerships are shared out between the parties based on their number of MSPs.
However, the SNP's overall majority means it has a majority in almost all of the individual committees - including the standards committee which produced today's report.
Opposition parties have accused the Nationalists of using their voting power to block potentially embarrassing inquiries and water down reports critical of government policy.
Some SNP MSPs have been accused of asking ministers questions drawn up by party advisers when they give evidence to the committees.
Committees were originally seen as a "jewel in the crown" of the Holyrood set-up but the damage to their reputation is such that some MSPs now cast envious glances at the Westminster system, where committee chairmen and women have been elected since 2010.
Margaret Hodge, who chairs the Commons public accounts committee, is among a number of MPs who have made a name taking on ministers and powerful business figures.
Ms Marwick, whose other reforms include "topical question" sessions allowing ministers to be grilled on issues in the news, argued conveners who owed their position to the whole parliament, rather than party bosses, would be more independent and freer to challenge the government.
She had hoped key convenerships would become a high profile platform for ambitious MSPs and even an alternative to a ministerial career.
She is understood to be "disappointed" with the standards committee report.
However, she said in a statement: "Having started the debate I am pleased that the SPPA Committee has agreed to carry out a review of the Holyrood committee system.
"We have already introduced key reforms such as topical questions and changes to our working week but there is clearly a need for more change."
Ms Marwick requested the inquiry last year.
Opting for a wider look at committee reform, the standards committee said in its report: "It is possible - even likely - that at some stage the Scottish Parliament will introduce elected conveners.
"Even those opposed to the change at the moment could see the advantages under different circumstances.
"The question for the
committee became: is this the right first step or are there bigger issues to deal with first?"
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article