Procedures Committee, 18 Dec 2001

Meeting date: Tuesday, December 18, 2001

Official Report 401KB pdf

---

Committees (Substitution)

We move to item 3, which is consideration of a long and detailed paper on substitution on committees of the Parliament. Alison Coull joins us. Do you plan to speak to the paper?

No. I am here to answer members' questions.

The report picks through each question that was included in the questionnaire. At the end of each question, there is a summary recommendation. Given the substantial nature of the report and some of the issues that are raised by it, I am reluctant to go straight to the recommendations. Perhaps we can take the paper question by question so that members can raise any comments that they would like to make. On that basis, we move to the more detailed sub-report, the first question of which is set out in paragraph 7.

I would like to clarify whether the report will be come back to us as a draft report.

Yes. Other issues may also arise, but we are trying to give a steer. The report is not in its final cut, but I do not want to send officers away with no indication of what the committee's views are.

Are members happy with the recommendation at paragraph 7 that substitution should be made only in identifiable circumstances, not willy-nilly?

Members indicated agreement.

Paragraph 8 identifies a set of categories in which substitution should be permitted. I agree with the categories, although I am wary of being absolutely categorical in any list of definitions, as you can bet your bottom dollar that a circumstance will arise that no one has thought of. The paper should contain a recommendation that certain categories of substitution ought to be allowable. The circumstances that are mentioned in the paper seem reasonable.

I agree. The categories include circumstances in which substitution should be granted. Perhaps we should include them as examples rather than as a prescriptive list.

Everyone is happy with that.

Paragraph 9 asks whether the relevant party business managers should be responsible for arranging substitution. We are invited to agree to that proposition.

Members indicated agreement.

Paragraph 10 asks whether party substitutes should be named. The paper discusses that point fairly fully and, at the end of paragraph 13, we are invited to agree that a system of named substitutes should be recommended.

Members indicated agreement.

That point is really at the heart of the matter. I noticed that the Parliament was criticised last week for having placed two MSPs on the Rural Development Committee to deal with legislation, as two members of the committee had departed to become ministers. I felt that that criticism was unreasonable. It was perfectly appropriate for unavailable members to have been replaced on a committee that was dealing with legislation. A system of named substitutes will take care of such situations for all time and should prevent the circumstances from recurring.

Paragraph 14 says that the substitution system should not apply to private bill committees, as members will not sit on those committees as party representatives to the same degree. There is likely to be such a level of detail and complexity in the business of those committees that the attendance of the members of those committees will be required. Do members agree?

Members indicated agreement.

Paragraph 15 raises the issue of whether there should be more than one substitute. We are invited to accept the recommendation that there should be only one substitute per party per committee for the reasons that are given. Do members agree?

Members indicated agreement.

Paragraphs 16 and 17 ask whether substitutes should be allowed to act as conveners, deputy conveners and reporters. The recommendation is that the substitute should act as an ordinary committee member, rather than undertake any of the permanent responsibilities of running the committee. Do members agree that that is a sensible recommendation?

Members indicated agreement.

Paragraphs 18 and 19 invite us to agree with the proposition that substitutes should be allowed to take part in the full range of committee business. Do members agree?

Members indicated agreement.

Paragraph 20 asks whether the substitute should have a single vote or whether they should be entitled to represent several absent MSPs. That raises the delicious scenario of five members at a committee voting one way, with the only other member present casting five votes the other way. The recommendation is that the substitute should dispose of a single vote only.

There are no block votes here.

Indeed. That has slapped you down, Kenneth.

I agree. I also agree on behalf of Frank McAveety, who is not here. [Laughter.]

Vote early, vote often.

That takes care of paragraph 20. We agree to the recommendation therein.

Paragraph 21 turns to the issue of single individuals or single-member parties. The recommendation is that substitutions for such members should not be acceptable. However, if those members were to be sufficient in number to constitute a party—to use the term as it is used by the Parliamentary Bureau—it would be reasonable to allow substitution. Perhaps we should draw that recommendation to the attention of the three individual MSPs and ask for their views in time for us to consider them when we finalise the report. I know that they have had an input into the report, but this point specifically addresses their position. They may have a different view to that of the committee, and we should hear that view.

Members indicated agreement.

That would have to be done quite quickly, to get a response back in time for our next meeting.

We now roll on to paragraphs 22 and 23, which ask whether substitutes should receive committee papers, including private papers. The logical thrust of our discussion earlier is that substitutes would become, in effect, full committee members, which points us in the direction of their receiving all the documentation. Whether they will have time routinely to read that documentation is a matter for the substitutes to manage. Is that agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

Paragraph 24 suggests that there should be no formal notification of substitutes because the clerks will have already the substitutes' names. The substitute's appearance will signal that a substitution is being made. It will be the party business manager's responsibility to nominate the substitute in the first place. However, we do not seek to impose a committee by committee duty on the party business manager. Alison Coull indicates that I interpreted this matter correctly.

I can foresee a difficulty in the case of a reshuffle, when members are changing committees. We are assuming that a substitute will be named in advance. However, a reshuffle could affect substitutes and members. The substitution should be notified at the start of the committee; I do not think that there should be a delay. Perhaps that needs to be made clear.

I am sorry. Could you run that past me again?

The paper says that there is no need for notification of a substitution before the start of a committee because we would know already the identity of the substitute. The party business manager would decide in the Parliamentary Bureau who the substitute should be. That is great for run-of-the-mill committee meetings, but not for a meeting that takes place the day after a reshuffle or when it is time for a change. Not only would the committee members have changed, but the substitutes would have changed at the same time. In that case, there would need to be another meeting of the bureau.

Is that in the same category as committee membership? Part of the incidental fall-out of any reshuffle will be that business managers will need to be alert to the requirement to change substitutes whenever they change committee members.

Yes, I suppose that is so.

I have a point to raise on an aspect that is not spelled out explicitly, but it is implicit and members should take a view on it. The supposition is that if a member does not turn up on a particular day because of a specific problem, the substitute will take their place. It is possible that a member could have a clash of commitments on the day of a committee and might not be able to be there for, say, the second half of the committee.

If we intend that it would be acceptable for a substitute to replace the principal member when that member has to leave, for whatever reason, then we should possibly spell that out in the report and the recommendations. If we are not happy with that, we should consider the issue in the round at our next meeting.

A member might be hauled up before a party whip at 11 o'clock on a Wednesday morning to answer for something or might have a medical appointment but be able to turn up for the rest of committee. If a member has a legitimate reason for doing something at 11 o'clock instead of being at a committee meeting, should that be allowed?

Obviously, the member cannot be prevented from doing something else, but is it reasonable for the substitute to cover for the member for part of the committee meeting only instead of being there for the whole committee meeting? That loosens and stretches the procedure a bit, but one can imagine circumstances where that might be reasonable. As that aspect of the matter has not been specifically addressed in the paper, members might want to reflect on it for the time when we come to finalise the matter.

Is that reasonable, though? For example, this morning I left the meeting for an hour and then returned. The substitute procedure is going to be piecemeal anyway. There are two reasons why I would not be happy for a substitute to come in for part of a meeting. It would be an abuse for a substitute to come in only for a specific agenda item, but more important is that it would unfair to a substitute and to the committee if the substitute participates only for part of a meeting. The substitute might lose the thread of what is happening.

The substitute could be there for the whole meeting, but would only be there in a voting capacity if the principal member was absent. I am more concerned about the legislation issue. If I cannot be present at a meeting when a committee is conducting an investigation, it is important that I can arrange for a colleague to go in my place. I presume that the convener would allow any member who is interested in the work of the committee to take part in it.

The substitution arrangement would cover committees' confidential sessions, which is not permitted at the moment; it would also cover the voting part of a committee meeting, which is generally only important when dealing with bills.

I do not want to comment too much on this issue. I know that there is a long history to it and I was not party to the earlier discussions. However, I am instinctively uncomfortable about allowing a member to be substituted part of the way through a meeting when legislation is being considered or an important item on which there might be a vote is being discussed. I find it very difficult to imagine circumstances in which other appointments or meetings could not be rescheduled.

I can give you a good example of that. Dr Elaine Murray was whisked out of a meeting of the Rural Development Committee to be given a job by the First Minister.

That may be a good example, but—

As a result, amendments in Dr Murray's name were lost.

One could argue—good grief, this is on record—that it would not be illegitimate to say that if a member is participating in a meeting of a parliamentary committee in which there is likely to be a vote on something important, their meeting with the First Minister should be scheduled half an hour later, given that normally Cabinet appointments are made over the course of a day.

We would have to educate the First Minister to accept that he cannot simply whisk members out of committees that are dealing with legislation.

I do not want to get too caught up in the example that the convener has given, but I stand by my initial assertion that substitution part of the way through a meeting should take place only in truly exceptional circumstances. I recognise that the paper makes the recommendation—which I support—that the arrangement should be monitored for a year and that we are in the realms of speculation. However, it is important that at an early stage we should draw a line somewhere. All too easily members could get the sense that it was all right for them to nip in and out of meetings, with the result that they failed to make sufficient effort to reschedule other commitments.

I flagged up the issue of substitutions during committee meetings because I wanted to ascertain whether it was implicit in the paper. From the discussion that we have had, it is clear that some people see the issue one way and others see it differently. Only half of the committee is here and we do not have to resolve the matter today. We will ask the clerks to highlight the relevant section of the Official Report of today's meeting to those members who are not here and to advise all of us that we will be expected to resolve this issue when we finalise our report.

I will take a point from Gil Paterson, but after that we must move on because we are running late.

It looks as if there will not be the same arrangements for the minority parties and Dennis Canavan as there will be for the main parties. Tommy Sheridan, for example, would not be allowed to nominate a substitute, but members of the main parties would be able to drift in and out of meetings at will. That would be undemocratic and unfair. Like Susan Deacon, I think that we need to draw the line somewhere.

Given the way in which Tommy Sheridan drifts in and out of the Parliament, such a provision might not be inappropriate. However, there is a difference between what people do and what they are entitled to do.

We need to build an arrangement that works for everybody. Allowing substitutions during meetings would be one step too far. I do not agree that an accommodation cannot be made for Tommy Sheridan, Robin Harper and Dennis Canavan. They could operate a system in which they substituted for one another. The current proposals would work against them quite dramatically, which would be very unfair.

I must speed you out. We were supposed to be out of here three minutes ago.

I have said what I wanted to say.

Gil Paterson's point is on the record and can form part of our considerations when we next discuss this issue.

Because of what we have agreed about notice, periods of notice will not apply, so there is no choice to be made between the options set out in paragraph 25.

Paragraph 27 recommends that we monitor the new system and receive reports on its operation, with a view to effecting any further changes that experience suggests may be necessary. Is that agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

That covers paragraph 28. If we have failed to deal with any proposal that is made in the paper, no doubt the clerks will bring that to our attention at our next meeting.

Paragraph 29 simply notes that, in the fullness of time, changes to standing orders will be required.