That takes us to item 6. The clerks do not want to be drawn into involvement with the initial setting up of the convenerships of committees.
That is obviously to avoid the charge of planning a coup d'état.
The clerks have struggled a wee bit to find a reason why they should not handle the nomination of conveners and have come up with a question. What happens if someone asks a point of order before the convener is elected? We could resolve that by saying that the committee could elect a temporary convener or that it is not competent to make points of order before the committee has elected a convener. However, I say that in the firm knowledge that someone will find another reason why the clerks should not deal with this matter.
I am struck by the arrangements for starting a session of the Parliament, for which the chief executive or principal clerk takes the chair. That seems to be logical response to a situation in which no elected member is yet able to take the chair—it occurs in many local authorities. I am also struck by the fact that the same is not true for a committee, because any member of that committee could take the chair in such circumstances. There are ways in which this matter could be addressed. The reasoned concession is that no one has taken the oath. The clerks are reluctant to be involved in this process—there is a key issue about the possibility of making rulings that would alienate members, but one can alienate members just by looking at them. It would be wise to stick with the solution that the oldest member takes the chair unless that member does not want to do it. We have already solved the problem.
I am happy with that suggestion, as long as the clerks re-examine this issue to ensure that we have not tied ourselves in knots by adopting two contradictory positions. If so, it will be reported back to us. Why cannot the chief executive take the chair at the first meeting of every committee? [Interruption.] I am told that that is because of pressure of business.
There would also be the difficulty of omnipresence, in terms of the timing.
The initial meetings took place on separate occasions.
Did they?
I think that they did.
The chief executive in person, or his depute, could chair the meetings.
That would be feasible.
That means that the clerk to the committee would not chair the meeting; the chief executive, who is a clerk, would nominate someone.
Our committees are peculiar, in that the allocation of conveners is a behind-the-scenes political act by the Parliament. The election of convener is not a free-for-all—the candidature is limited to one, two, three or perhaps four members. Even more than most things in public life, that is a fix beforehand.
Shame.
This is a huge storm in a teacup. As a professional oldest member, I am very happy—as I think other people are—to preside over a rapid fix. It is not a big deal and I am all for the present system.
It would seem that, as we have one system, we do not need another.
If the clerks do not want to do it—
We have talked ourselves through this item to the stage where we accept the innate conservatism in the establishment of the Parliament. [Laughter.]
Previous
Parliamentary Mace