Hansard

That takes us to annexe B, which is the substantial paper that members must consider this morning. The paper contains a great deal of underlined text. It is taken from what we have cleared in principle so far—in other words, I took it from the web. It contains the bolding to which we agreed and much underlined text. Some underlined text consists of the minor textual amendments to which we have agreed, but much of it is additional text that I have written. I want to explain that text this morning, as there are amendments to the report that will need to be justified.As a result of the numbering changes, I suggest that we work through the two documents in parallel, otherwise members might find it difficult to track what I am saying. All the most substantive changes are in the introductory section. The later changes are largely textual, but there is new material in the introduction, as it was not possible to recast the introduction until we had gone through the whole paper and tested the committee's views.The first section of annexe B is entitled "Aims of the Review". The changes look reasonably substantial, but are broadly of two types. In paragraph 4, I have included the motion that the Parliament agreed to in 1999 to approve the adoption of the consultative steering group's principles. That was in a footnote, but I have brought it into the main text, as the statement is significant.Paragraph 5 corresponds to the previous paragraph 6. I have reversed paragraphs 5 and 6. In what is now paragraph 5, I have taken the text from the end of the paragraph and put it at the beginning. It is substantially the same text, but at the beginning rather than the end. I have ended paragraph 5 with the second set of bullet points.Paragraph 6 contains the text that was paragraph 5 and I have added a further sentence to it, which notes the fact that, in May 2000, the Procedures Committee agreed to investigate the application of the consultative steering group principles. I have added a little bit in paragraph 7 to distinguish between the two meetings. At the first meeting, we agreed that we would do the work and we commissioned a study of the issues. At the second meeting, in 2001, we agreed the substantive remit. The wording of the remit is as it was. I have slightly changed the introduction to paragraph 7.I have also slightly reworded the beginning of paragraph 8, although there is no substantive change. I have added a couple of sentences to paragraph 9 to emphasise that we will seek to identify areas in which the Parliament needs to make progress to achieve its objectives, that we will look firmly to the future and that we will make suggestions to other people and bodies in the Parliament about how we might move forward. Those changes are not substantive; they are largely a reorganisation of text. There are no changes in the "Approach adopted" section, as that is largely a matter of record. I changed the "Structure of the paper" heading to "Our Approach to the Principles", because the paragraphs in question are largely an explanation of how we intend to address the principles, given our reversal of their order. Paragraph 17 contains some minor textual changes. I included the suggestion from Professor McCrone's paper that power sharing should be regarded as an overarching aspiration. Professor McCrone enabled us to work that in. Paragraphs 18 and 19 are simply reworkings of the previous versions of those paragraphs.As paragraph 20 is new, members will want to have a look at it. I point out:"We have responded to many of the detailed points and issues which were raised with us, but this is not intended to be only a reactive report. We have tried to identify the overriding concerns of those who made submissions to us, and to relate these to the rationale underlying the CSG principles, and to the experience which we think that the Parliament has had in trying to operate within the spirit of the principles."I still try to divide the context between the reaction to what people have said to us and the overview that we will take.I have suggested "Overview of the Evidence" as the title for the next section, given that I have reorganised the later sections. As well as some minor changes, I have made some more substantive ones. Although the first three paragraphs of the section are simply rewording exercises, paragraph 24 contains substantial additional text, which members might want to examine. I reflect the slight tension that exists. Some people argued that blockages stood in the way of their effective participation in the parliamentary system. I have tried to deal with that and to acknowledge that we need to strike a balance. Although our perspective may often be that we need to get on with the business of resolving issues, we must allow time for people to participate. Paragraph 24 is true to the spirit of the original version, which was paragraph 23, but it fleshes out the issues much more.Paragraph 25 is entirely new. In the power-sharing section, I think that we are agreed—although we will have to test that finally—that our general attitude to confidentiality and privacy will be that matters that are regarded as confidential are confidential and should be dealt with in private. We will ask the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body, the Parliamentary Bureau and the conveners group to consider how they might make their transactions more transparent. Those bodies should look at their agendas, minutes, papers and any other accounts of their business that they publish. That is the consensual way in which we will put such responsibility on to those bodies. It is a sufficiently strong message for us to be entitled to say, as I have suggested in paragraph 25, that privacy and confidentiality were raised with us as a concern. The argument is that current practice can be a barrier to true participation. That is a statement of the evidence.Paragraph 26 is on the same point and it is entirely new text. I have included the argument, with which I think we all agree, that the Parliament is very open by any criteria that anyone cares to come up with and that much of the criticism has been overstated. I have also reflected the important point that Fiona Hyslop made, with reference to the bureau, that to open up business entirely could create difficulties. The bodies that might be invited to become more open in their business will have to take those difficulties into account. The paragraph goes on to say:"we have previously welcomed moves to open up business further, such as the Bureau's decision to publish a note of its decisions, and the SPCB's decision to publish its minutes."I also indicated that we will return to those issues later in the report and that we will make further recommendations. We have not made the recommendations yet, but I think that we will recommend something that is sufficiently substantial for the comments to be justified.