Committee
Procedures Committee, 21 Jan 2003
21 Jan 2003 · S1 · Procedures Committee
Item of business
Consultative Steering Group Inquiry
Welcome to the third meeting in 2003 of the Procedures Committee. We continue to work our way through the second draft of the report on the consultative steering group principles. Last week, we took a majority decision on the role of back benchers in the Parliamentary Bureau. We will start again from that natural break.The contents of the paper are the same as before, with the exception of the underlined sections, which are areas of new text that I have written—I will explain them as we reach them. As before, we are not making final decisions at this stage but flagging up areas of difficulty or dispute where further drafting might be necessary to get an accord. Failing that, we will identify those areas that will have to be resolved in the traditional manner at the final stage. I am unable to say when the final stage will be because that depends on how much ground we cover today. However, I expect that we will probably need a fortnight to reflect on all the remaining points before a final meeting. Although the final stage might overflow beyond one meeting, we should be able to finish the report in February. I have received apologies from Fiona Hyslop and Ken Macintosh, who will not be attending. Susan Deacon and Paul Martin will be late. I welcome Trish Godman, who is present as an observer rather than as a committee substitute. However, if there happen to be any votes, she may be called as a substitute.The meeting will have to close at around 11.40 am because I have to go to Victoria Quay to speak to some civil servants. I am extremely excited about that, as I have not been to Victoria Quay before. I do not have much experience of civil servants and I do not know how they will treat me—I am sure that they will be very well behaved.We will rattle through the business as quickly as possible, starting at paragraph 740. The first area of new text appears at paragraphs 745 and 746, which deal with an area that we identified as one where we might not get agreement. The text is not so much new as heavily reworded to try to clarify the suggestion that the Parliamentary Bureau should consist of several members of the Parliament. For example, the bureau could comprise seven members, like a smallish committee, and would vote like committees, rather than by block vote. It is emphasised that bureau membership would obviously reflect the majority of any Executive of the day. When we last discussed the issue, not all members were entirely comfortable with that suggestion, so we can leave the matter for discussion at the final meeting. Paragraph 746 is entirely consequential on paragraph 745 and simply sets out what would have to happen if the Parliament were minded to accept the change. I will give the committee time to examine the wording of the paragraph, as it is likely to be an area of some discussion. I will leave the text underlined to draw members' attention to it at the final discussion. There is new text in paragraph 749. It was previously suggested that the Presiding Officer should retain his casting vote in the Parliamentary Bureau. The committee had discussed radical changes in bureau membership, including possible back-bench representation. When we decided that we would not suggest back-bench representation in the bureau, I had to amend the text. I have thought about the matter further. The Presiding Officer's argument that he should not have a casting vote is based on his view that it is absurd to have a casting vote in a situation where no conceivable arithmetical combination of existing votes could produce a tie—in his view, the casting vote is entirely redundant. The situation is a bit like a tie in cricket. Many cricket matches are drawn, which means that there is no definitive result. Occasionally, however, there can be a tie where the scores are absolutely equal. In a future session of Parliament, there could be an arithmetical balance in the bureau where there was no majority vote, depending on how the business managers voted. In those circumstances, a future Presiding Officer might regret not having a casting vote in order to bring about a decision. That might happen once in 100 years but, if an arithmetical tie is conceivable, there should be a mechanism, as in other committees, to break the tie. Therefore, I recommended that the Presiding Officer retain his casting vote. He may never need to use it, but I think that it should be there.
In the same item of business
The Convener (Mr Murray Tosh):
Con
Welcome to the third meeting in 2003 of the Procedures Committee. We continue to work our way through the second draft of the report on the consultative stee...
Trish Godman (West Renfrewshire) (Lab):
Lab
I agree with that principle, but my maths is not very good. Surely if a member abstains, that would mean an uneven number of votes cast, so a casting vote wo...
The Convener:
Con
No, because individuals do not vote. Because of the block-voting system, the Labour business manager has 55 votes. There would not be an uneven number becaus...
Trish Godman:
Lab
I did not realise that the bureau voted in that way. It is right that the Presiding Officer should retain a casting vote just in case.
Donald Gorrie (Central Scotland) (LD):
LD
I do not agree with the Presiding Officer's arithmetic, but there is no point in getting technical at this stage.
The Convener:
Con
There were no other changes in that section. The next section concerns the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body. The committee had quite a full discussion o...
Donald Gorrie:
LD
Perhaps we could add some examples of matters that concern members and should be discussed openly. For example, if more resources were available, the SPCB mi...
The Convener:
Con
That could be covered in the comment about effective power sharing, but it would be appropriate to flag up the issue. We have flagged up other action that th...
Susan Deacon (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab):
Lab
I have never been known to turn down an opportunity to comment. In process terms, there is almost a parallel with the discussion about the Parliamentary Bure...
The Convener:
Con
I do not know the situation in other party groups, but the Conservative party member who is an elected member of SPCB tends to give the impression that he is...
Donald Gorrie:
LD
I was bombed out on my wizard wheeze about sub-committees for committees, but what about encouraging the SPCB to form sub-committees? That could help in purs...
The Convener:
Con
The agenda papers tend not to be available early enough to facilitate that. Perhaps that is something for the SPCB to consider.I do not know whether the SPCB...
Susan Deacon:
Lab
It looks fine to me. Is the approach consistent with the paper that George Reid presented to the committee and with our subsequent conclusions?
The Convener:
Con
I hope that it is consistent with our approach to the bureau and the SPCB and with our previous discussions.A couple of largely textual changes have been mad...
Donald Gorrie:
LD
The problem is that the term "Executive" applies to ministers and civil servants. Are we advising that the term "Scottish Administration" should apply to civ...
The Convener:
Con
In this context, the Scottish Administration refers to the civil service. The words are there deliberately to use proper terminology and to clear up the conf...
Donald Gorrie:
LD
For those who do not understand the difference fully, would it be reasonable to put "ie the civil service" in brackets after the term "the Scottish Administr...
The Convener:
Con
We could do that.
Susan Deacon:
Lab
The term "Scottish Administration" is given a specific meaning the Scotland Act 1998.
The Convener:
Con
That is stated in the previous paragraph.
Susan Deacon:
Lab
Thank you for pointing that out. Donald Gorrie's point about the distinction between the civil service and ministers should be identified explicitly as an is...
Mr Gil Paterson (Central Scotland) (SNP):
SNP
That is right. The evidence that the committee took from all quarters, including external bodies, was unanimous. We should beef up the text. I am not happy w...
The Convener:
Con
We can try to clarify the difference between ministers and civil servants in paragraph 791.
Mr Paterson:
SNP
Doing that would highlight the lack of clarity. Many people are not clear about the distinctions between the Executive, the Government, the civil service and...
The Convener:
Con
Paragraph 793 refers to the differences between the Executive, the Parliament, the Scottish Administration and the UK Government; it more or less says that w...
Donald Gorrie:
LD
To address the points that Gil Paterson and Susan Deacon have made, an additional sentence, to stress that there are two main sources of confusion, should be...
The Convener:
Con
The issue of the confusion between the Parliament and the Executive is highlighted in bold in paragraph 782. There may be a case to highlight the section tha...
Susan Deacon:
Lab
Paragraph 779 refers to question time. Convener, you can navigate through the report much better than I can, so will you suggest where and how we can address...
The Convener:
Con
We can do that in the accountability section. We deferred that discussion so that you could take part in it. We did not receive the Presiding Officer's lette...
Trish Godman:
Lab
I am interested in paragraphs 797 and 798, which are about the Scotland Act 1998 and the proceedings of the Scottish Parliament. During its deliberations, di...