Committee
Procedures Committee, 12 Sep 2000
12 Sep 2000 · S1 · Procedures Committee
Item of business
Conveners Liaison Group
The proposals before the committee have been the subject of negotiation for almost a year, before being signed off by the conveners and the Parliamentary Bureau with the consent of the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body. The proposals are clear on role and procedures, so a brief background might be helpful before I touch on three issues.
When the consultative steering group was beginning to put the bare bones of the Parliament together, it discussed the need for conveners to meet and interface with the bureau and other bodies. It did not put any proposal in a box, because it took the view, quite rightly, that the form of the group would emerge in the light of parliamentary experience.
After a fairly rumbustious first meeting, the matter was referred to the Procedures Committee. You, Mr Tosh, quite rightly said that you could not conjure a new parliamentary creature out of a vacuum and asked for a briefing, which we now have. Over the past year the group has coalesced into a cohesive and focused group, with myself as tic-tac man, carrying messages to the bureau and the corporate body, advocating the case there. That has informed the whole process of the Parliament. We now have an agreed paper. Since the group is not subject specific, it will involve a change in standing orders.
The proposals are clear on the group's membership, chairmanship, quorum and role in relation to priorities for research, and on linkage to civic society, briefing visits, sub-committees, the remits of committees and lead committees—although not on the Executive's business or subordinate legislation, the location of meetings, travel outside the UK and, importantly, residual ability to discuss matters of common experience. Where there might be a difference of view between the bureau and the conveners, there are provisions for that to go to Parliament. Where there might be a difference on finance, in relation to location or on visits outside the UK, there is a role for the corporate body.
There are three issues that I wish to trail briefly before the committee. One member said to me that this all seems very Byzantine and bureaucratic. I disagree. It is inclusive, in the best traditions of the Parliament, and it involves the bureau in the views of conveners, and vice versa. It is participatory, in that it allows members across the parties to discuss matters not as party political figures but as conveners. It has been focused.
First, a slight problem is what happens if we have an emergency. If, say, a sub-committee is to be set up now, it is perfectly possible for an emergency meeting to be called. If that is not possible, we can do what we do over the summer months, which is to consult by e-mail and by phone.
The second issue is consensus, which does not mean that there will not be disputes. All that happens is that I report to the bureau any divergence of views among conveners—that helps to inform the process. My slight concern is what happens if the cupboard is bare and three bids for rather large research projects come in simultaneously. Is it possible for the conveners to come to a view that will be accepted, or will some conveners fight their corner and ask for a vote? I bowl that back to you.
My last point is on nomenclature. The group is not a committee, as committee rules do not apply. It meets in private, which is right, as that allows cross-party discussion. As today's paper shows, the group does more than liaise. It is a bit more analogous to the Parliamentary Bureau and the Scottish Parliament Corporate Body. There has been precious little discussion of the name, but I would like to trail a personal thought. At Westminster there is a chairmen's panel. I know that that deals with standing committee bills, so it is rather different. However, the name panel has been adopted by one other devolved body and by a number of parliamentary institutions. It may be right for the new entity to be called the panel of conveners and to sit alongside the bureau and the corporate body.
When the consultative steering group was beginning to put the bare bones of the Parliament together, it discussed the need for conveners to meet and interface with the bureau and other bodies. It did not put any proposal in a box, because it took the view, quite rightly, that the form of the group would emerge in the light of parliamentary experience.
After a fairly rumbustious first meeting, the matter was referred to the Procedures Committee. You, Mr Tosh, quite rightly said that you could not conjure a new parliamentary creature out of a vacuum and asked for a briefing, which we now have. Over the past year the group has coalesced into a cohesive and focused group, with myself as tic-tac man, carrying messages to the bureau and the corporate body, advocating the case there. That has informed the whole process of the Parliament. We now have an agreed paper. Since the group is not subject specific, it will involve a change in standing orders.
The proposals are clear on the group's membership, chairmanship, quorum and role in relation to priorities for research, and on linkage to civic society, briefing visits, sub-committees, the remits of committees and lead committees—although not on the Executive's business or subordinate legislation, the location of meetings, travel outside the UK and, importantly, residual ability to discuss matters of common experience. Where there might be a difference of view between the bureau and the conveners, there are provisions for that to go to Parliament. Where there might be a difference on finance, in relation to location or on visits outside the UK, there is a role for the corporate body.
There are three issues that I wish to trail briefly before the committee. One member said to me that this all seems very Byzantine and bureaucratic. I disagree. It is inclusive, in the best traditions of the Parliament, and it involves the bureau in the views of conveners, and vice versa. It is participatory, in that it allows members across the parties to discuss matters not as party political figures but as conveners. It has been focused.
First, a slight problem is what happens if we have an emergency. If, say, a sub-committee is to be set up now, it is perfectly possible for an emergency meeting to be called. If that is not possible, we can do what we do over the summer months, which is to consult by e-mail and by phone.
The second issue is consensus, which does not mean that there will not be disputes. All that happens is that I report to the bureau any divergence of views among conveners—that helps to inform the process. My slight concern is what happens if the cupboard is bare and three bids for rather large research projects come in simultaneously. Is it possible for the conveners to come to a view that will be accepted, or will some conveners fight their corner and ask for a vote? I bowl that back to you.
My last point is on nomenclature. The group is not a committee, as committee rules do not apply. It meets in private, which is right, as that allows cross-party discussion. As today's paper shows, the group does more than liaise. It is a bit more analogous to the Parliamentary Bureau and the Scottish Parliament Corporate Body. There has been precious little discussion of the name, but I would like to trail a personal thought. At Westminster there is a chairmen's panel. I know that that deals with standing committee bills, so it is rather different. However, the name panel has been adopted by one other devolved body and by a number of parliamentary institutions. It may be right for the new entity to be called the panel of conveners and to sit alongside the bureau and the corporate body.
In the same item of business
The Convener:
Con
George Reid and Elizabeth Watson are attending for this item, to address the issues raised by their paper. This may be the first time a Deputy Presiding Offi...
Mr George Reid (Convener of the Scottish Parliament Conveners Liaison Group):
SNP
The proposals before the committee have been the subject of negotiation for almost a year, before being signed off by the conveners and the Parliamentary Bur...
The Convener:
Con
The way in which this issue has developed provides a useful template for others. This committee refused to implement any changes in standing orders until the...
Donald Gorrie:
LD
In general, I am all for this proposal. However, it is the occasional disputes that interest me. Paragraph 11 of the report assumes that there will always be...
The Convener:
Con
I cannot speak for George Reid, but so far conveners have succeeded in reaching a consensus because they have to. They talk matters through until there is ag...
Mr Reid:
SNP
No, I have said my piece. It is up to the committee to take a view.
Donald Gorrie:
LD
I am not in favour of long debates about whether we go to Timbuktu. However, setting up a sub-committee to investigate quangos, for example, could be quite c...
The Convener:
Con
In that case, the whole committee could consider the issue.
Michael Russell:
SNP
Other mechanisms would allow us to have such a debate. Donald Gorrie has lodged a motion on the issue that he mentioned. It is important that we should not n...
The Convener:
Con
This meeting will go down in parliamentary history, if only for that confession.If difficulties that we have not anticipated arise in the operation of the co...