Rural Development Committee, 06 Feb 2001

Meeting date: Tuesday, February 6, 2001

Official Report 174KB pdf

---

Committee Effectiveness

Item 4 is consideration of the conveners group paper "Increasing the Effectiveness of Committees". The paper sets out some aspirations for making committees more effective. Along with Mike Rumbles, in another capacity, I was party to the discussion of the paper at the conveners group meeting. Are there any comments or questions on it?

There are many good ideas in the paper. However, I suspect that the fact-finding visits that we are planning will be fairly expensive and complex. Are there budgetary implications for that and has any decision been reached on how budgets will be divided among the various committees? Rhoda Grant and I were just talking about the difficulties of travelling from the Highlands. There should be clarification of the issue, as journalists could have a great deal of fun with it if we did not make our position clear.

On the development of best practice among conveners, it would be helpful if conveners had pre-meeting discussions with members. I am sure that you will do that, convener. This is the first time that I have served on a committee of the Scottish Parliament, unlike others who may have served on other committees, if not this one.

The paper also states that

"A total of 117 reports were produced"

by committees. I wonder how many of those reports have led to legislative progress and what the time scale is for such progress.

I have strong reservations about amending standing orders to allow committees to meet at the same time as the whole Parliament. I suffered from that practice in my previous position at Westminster.

The committee may be landed with a lot of legislative or pre-legislative discussions, so we should look not only at flexibility and time scales but probably at having additional members from time to time. That is something that we could suggest to the Procedures Committee. Last year, the Justice and Home Affairs Committee had horrendous problems because everything seemed to land at its door, which is why it has now been divided into two committees.

I sometimes think that the problem is more to do with the number of members than with the number of meetings. Suppose that Rhoda Grant and I had been stuck in Inverness and had not been able to get to today's meeting. Is there a mechanism whereby two substitutes from our parties could help out? I am trying to make constructive suggestions.

I believe that the Procedures Committee is discussing substitutes.

That is all that I wanted to say. I am just thinking off the top of my head, having read the paper.

As I said, the issue of substitutes is being considered.

What about additional members, if necessary?

Given that, in the reorganisation of committees, this committee was left considerably larger than others, asking for yet more members may be pushing out the boat a little.

On the question of when committees meet, I think that meeting on Tuesdays and on Wednesday mornings, as set out in the paper, is the way ahead. The committee has, in exceptional circumstances, met on a Wednesday evening and on a Friday. We should continue to do that only in exceptional circumstances and when we feel that we can fit such meetings in. I certainly would not approve of any move to make that practice more common than it already is.

I have a fundamental problem with the prospect of having committee meetings during plenary meetings of the Parliament. You may remember that, when we met on a Wednesday evening, having arranged a 5.30 pm start, we ended up waiting until 6.45 pm because business in the Parliament was extended that night. That could become something of a bane to the committee's work.

I do not have a problem with standing orders being changed to allow committees to meet when a plenary meeting is taking place, but that should happen only in exceptional circumstances. When we were considering the National Parks (Scotland) Bill at stage 2, few people outside the committee, apart from one or two with a local interest, wanted to come along.

Other committees have met in private, including the Education, Culture and Sport Committee. I know that because the lunch time meeting of my cross-party group on crofting was thrown out into a tiny little room. Because that committee could not meet during the plenary meeting, it had to meet at lunch time, so all the cross-party groups had to be moved out of the building. That was a private meeting to consider a draft report; the only people involved would have been members of the committee. There are circumstances in which that is acceptable, but I do not think that it is appropriate for normal meetings that other people may want to take part in.

If a move were to be made in that direction, such meetings should take place only if standing orders have been specifically suspended for the purpose of each meeting.

Possibly, but there is a reluctance to do that. Standing orders were suspended to allow the Education, Culture and Sport Committee to meet during a Parliament sitting day, as I recall. I do not think that it is a good idea to keep that as something that is almost untouchable.

I would not be particularly happy about committees meeting while the Parliament is meeting. However, Rhoda Grant is right to say that there was an occasion on which standing orders had to be suspended so that a committee could meet during the lunch hour on a Thursday. That seems a little bureaucratic; the meeting was a one-off for a specific situation and, as Rhoda said, it was with reluctance that the standing orders were suspended even then. I think that we must accept that there will be odd occasions on which committees have particularly pressing business that needs to be dealt with. Although I would not want us to meet at the same time as the whole Parliament, I think that a little bit of flexibility could have helped.

I know that the cross-party crofting group was sent to another meeting room, but I think that it is appropriate that committees should be given priority for meeting rooms in the building. I know that there is always pressure on space, but if committees have to change their meeting times, priority should be given to committees rather than to cross-party groups.

I was involved in some of the discussions in the conveners group. I am particularly attracted to the notion of having short, focused meetings in addition to the regular scheduled meetings. There is a tendency for committee meetings to deal with an amount of work that takes up the whole afternoon—people feel that they have to justify meeting by having a huge agenda. I take a different view. If we have bits of business to discuss, it is better to keep that discussion short, sharp and to the point and to get it out of the way. I hope that all committees will consider that recommendation. If we are in a scheduled cycle of fortnightly meetings, we could meet to deal with statutory instruments and get them out of the way without feeling the need to fill the agenda.

Like Cathy Jamieson, I am attracted to the idea that we should focus on a schedule of fortnightly meetings. We abandoned fortnightly meetings because of the National Parks (Scotland) Bill and we have had other legislation to consider since then. However, we should see whether it is possible to encompass our business in fortnightly meetings rather than feeling that things always have to drag from week to week. Rather than having debates every week, we should see whether we can structure our business so that we can meet fortnightly again.

Margaret Ewing made some good points about the budgetary implications of committees going out en masse to other parts of Scotland. However, members of this committee have managed to do fact-finding work. Some members went to Braemar to see a grouse moor and a number of us met representatives of local salmon fishery boards to discuss the Salmon Conservation (Scotland) Bill. Such visits do not have to be large exercises; there are ways of consulting more widely in our own areas without necessarily putting a budgetary strain on the committees.

My view of the document is that it is a very worthy wish list and a splendid aspiration. However, I have to say that I will believe it when I see it. Although I agree with Cathy Jamieson that we should be as focused as possible, the work that the committee has done has proved that we have to meet weekly. I cannot see what is going to happen to alter that. I hope that it alters, but I cannot see the document as anything other than a well-meaning wish list.

I concur with much of what has been said, especially about fact-finding visits and going out and about. All committees should do more of that. The Parliament underspent by £20 million last year, so I do not think that budget constraints should be a factor.

I would have liked to see more in the paper about joint committees and how we can make more of committees working together.

The paper does not cover that issue, although it has been spoken about at times.

That is a missed opportunity. If two committees are interested in a subject, they should each allocate some members to carry out the investigation and report back. There must be some flexibility to allow that.

I would like to know how many statutory instruments come through this committee as compared with other committees. That may influence how we approach subordinate legislation and may influence our attitude to the suggestion that there should be short, sharp meetings to deal with SIs. What proportion of SIs going through the Parliament go through this committee? I suspect that it is a fair bulk.

It would be interesting to have a breakdown of the number of SIs going through each committee. The clerk tells me that the figure is in the annual report.

I support what Richard Lochhead and Elaine Murray have said. The fifth bullet point in paragraph 11 states:

"For committees meeting on a fortnightly programme, if necessary short, focussed meetings should be called to deal with subordinate legislation."

That is the point that Richard was making. It is within the power of the convener and deputy convener to produce an agenda that allows us to hold fortnightly meetings and to schedule, as necessary, other short meetings to deal with subordinate legislation. That would be an appropriate course of action.

That is certainly my aspiration, and we have come close to it on a couple of occasions. We can focus matters a bit more.

One also has to bear in mind that exceptions should be made for the lead committees on bills.

Indeed, as when we were the lead committee on the National Parks (Scotland) Bill.

I notice that paragraph 13 of the paper highlights the concern that certain committees should deal with matters at arm's length rather than getting into a position in which they could be described as being collusive with the Executive. I do not think that that accusation could ever be levelled at this committee.

Certainly not.

Richard Davies has taken notes of the committee's comments on the paper. I shall try to schedule the committee's business according to the suggestion in the paper. Although that may not be entirely possible at present, it remains an aspiration.

As long as we are told what smart hotel you will be staying in for the conveners away day.

I am not aware of that yet, but I shall pass the information on to committee members at the earliest opportunity.

We have agreed to take item 5 in private.

Meeting continued in private until 16:41.