Procedures Committee, 07 Nov 2000

Meeting date: Tuesday, November 7, 2000

Official Report 231KB pdf

---

Substitution

We took quite a long time over that item, and we shall probably take quite a long time discussing the next paper, which is about substitution on committees in the Parliament. Elizabeth Watson, the head of the committee office, who has been sitting quietly and patiently in the wings, will join us for this item.

As members are aware, a fair amount of discussion is going on around the Parliament at the moment about the committee structure and committee personnel. We must appreciate that no decisions have yet been made and that it is not appropriate for us to make those decisions. A much wider constituency is involved. The role of the Procedures Committee will be to review the changes in the standing orders. None the less, a number of issues have been flagged up for comment in paragraph 43 of the paper, and it would be reasonable for us to express our opinions on how we see those matters operating. We shall feed those opinions back to the Parliamentary Bureau and to the conveners group and the party groups, where the debate will continue. At present, however, we are not in a position to make any decisions.

Do you have any opening comments about the paper, Elizabeth, before we turn to the specific areas on which views are sought?

The paper sets out quite clearly the areas that the committee is invited to address. From a purely administrative point of view, my main interest is to ensure that any arrangements that are put in place are clear and easily operated, so that there is never any dubiety as to whether someone is simply attending a meeting or whether they are there as a substitute. The arrangements should be flexible but clear.

The views of committee members are sought on the details about the substitution of members as outlined in paragraph 43 of the paper. The first principle to discuss is whether there will be a system of substitution of members.

I find the issue quite difficult. The strength of the committee system is that committee members can build up a knowledge of the issues and can sensibly contribute to discussions. Any incomer—no matter how bright—will not have such a background.

That said, convener, you raised the point of what happens when members are expected to be in two places at once. On balance, I would accept a system of substitution, although it would be very unfortunate if that system became loose and members felt that they could send someone else to a meeting for whatever reason. As a result, any system of substitution should have tight criteria.

That is pretty much my own view.

I more or less agree with Donald Gorrie. The continuing restructuring of committees, which we all hope will be finished soon, should reduce the need for substitutes as it will reduce individual members' committee commitments. I hope that that will mean that members will not have to be in two places at once, as so often happens at the moment. That said, there should still be a system of substitution although, as Donald Gorrie pointed out, it needs to be stringent and we must be very clear about the parameters within which it would work.

From those comments, I take it that the committee generally agrees to the principle of a system of substitution, which is the way that the debate is going in Parliament anyway.

We move on to the next point about the criteria for such a system. Are members agreed that such criteria should include urgent parliamentary business; pressing personal reasons; emergency constituency business; and travel difficulties?

It is for individual members, not us, to decide what their own pressing personal reasons might be. Although they should have a legitimate reason for needing a substitute, that should be an internal party decision.

I accept Janis Hughes's comments. We cannot really pry into why it is essential for a member to go to the pensioners lunch club in Coatbridge instead of to a committee. Perhaps there could be a provision for a committee member to raise a yellow card if they thought that another member was substituting too much.

We could get round that problem with the requirement suggested later in the paper that the business manager must nominate for the substitution. It will be incumbent on business managers to ensure that their members are not abusing the system and imposing burdens on colleagues. At this stage, that might be a more effective means of regulation than any form of words. I agree with Donald Gorrie's point that we do not want the committees to lose the coherence of their membership through certain members taking advantage of the system.

The next suggestion in the paper is that any substitute should be a member of the same party only. That seems a fairly logical and obvious point.

It is; however, members of single-member parties should perhaps be allowed to choose a substitute from another party on the basis of the issue under discussion. I am not quite sure of Dennis Canavan's current position; however, if Tommy Sheridan or Robin Harper had an amendment or particular point that they wanted to press and knew that a particular member or party was sympathetic to their views, they could choose that member or a member from that party as a substitute if they could not make a meeting.

Any member can attend a committee meeting to move an amendment; members who cannot attend certain meetings usually arrange for a party colleague to move their amendments for them. That said, I would have thought that, under such circumstances, if any member cannot move their own amendment, they will have to find someone else to move it for them.

Perhaps I meant that there could be a substitution when voting on an amendment, instead of when an amendment is moved. Voting is the key issue; perhaps a member could arrange for a sympathetic member to attend, speak to and vote on an amendment.

In such circumstances, I would withdraw my amendment and try my luck at stage 3 instead.

I disagree with Donald Gorrie. Members of single-member parties should not be able to choose MSPs from other parties to represent them at committee meetings. Such a provision would contravene the Parliament's agreement on the political balance of committees. I have no problem with members of single-member parties being able to substitute for each other; however, I have a problem with those members being able to choose a substitute to vote for them from any political party that is aligned with their views.

Does Donald Gorrie think that Tavish Scott would let him attend the Social Inclusion, Housing and Voluntary Sector Committee to vote on behalf of Tommy Sheridan and one of his amendments?

I suspect that that is a somewhat academic question.

It raises an important example. In such a position, would it be Tavish Scott, as my party's business manager, or Tommy Sheridan, as his party's business manager, who gave me the permission to go?

I think that your business manager would have something to say about that. I certainly do not know the answer to that question.

I agree with Janis Hughes. It is very difficult to see how a member of another party can effectively substitute for another member. I try to be extremely sympathetic to single-member parties, because I am a single member myself on my own committees, and I understand their difficulties; however, sometimes we have to say, "Tough—that's just the way it is." I cannot envisage a satisfactory form of substitution for those parties.

We have skipped over a few points in the paper. I think that members agree that any substitute must be named.

Members indicated agreement.

Should the substitute be chosen only by the business manager, or can a member arrange their own substitute? Is that a matter for this committee?

That is an internal party matter and any such decision should be based on a party's particular rules.

We should bear in mind Elizabeth Watson's point that the system should be crisply administered, and that it should be clear who is attending a committee as a substitute and why. We want the parties to agree a very clear mechanism that they will then apply.

If we have a standard letter that is signed by the business manager, any private arrangements about substitution could be made by the business manager himself. Or herself, if there are any female business managers. Are there any female business managers?

Yes. Trish Marwick is the SNP's business manager.

What are committee members' views on the next suggestion that a substitute cannot act as convener or deputy convener? That seems sensible to me.

Members indicated agreement.

The next suggestion does not seem so sensible. Do members agree that a substitute can act as committee reporter with the committee's agreement?

I was not too keen on that point myself.

At first sight, we might not agree with that suggestion. However, it might relate more to a situation where a member might need to go on maternity leave; or does it relate to a longer-term replacement on a committee? If a substitute member is on a committee for a prescribed period of, for example, six months, they should be able to fulfil the role of reporter if the committee agrees.

The people who framed the paper did so without any preconceived ideas about whether the suggestion would be appropriate. There are arguments for and against. The argument for clearly pertains to the situation that Janis Hughes described, where there is a longer-term absence and a substitution would increase the pool of members available as reporters.

However, against that argument, the committee should remember that a substitute is only a substitute and is likely to be a substantive member of another committee, from which they will likely have a heavy work load. It might be more appropriate for a committee to draw its reporters from its permanent membership rather than calling on a substitute, who may have heavy duties and may be acting as a reporter for a committee on which they are a permanent member. It is a question for you, but there may be arguments that weigh against the proposal as well as those that are in favour.

The appointment of substitutes as committee reporters should probably be allowable because we should not circumscribe the work of committees. Circumstances could arise in which it is appropriate for substitutes to be reporters. I should have thought that there would always be a raised eyebrow at the suggestion that a substitute should act as a reporter, given the downsides that there are. It could be permissible, but one would expect the committee to be very careful about it.

Could the committee—this question will show my ignorance—ask Member Snooks, who is very knowledgeable about a particular sphere but is not a member of the committee, to produce a report on some subject? Does a reporter have to be a member of the committee?

The reporter would have to be a member of the committee. The committee could invite anyone to produce a paper for it, but technically that person would not do so as the reporter.

As I am losing out on the question of small parties, is it agreed that the two or three single members of parties can substitute for each other and that for this particular purpose they are accepted as a group? I think that that is what Janis Hughes suggested.

Again, I am not sure that that is a question for the committee to decide. In practical terms, if a group of independent members who, as they have fewer than five members, do not form a party in the parliamentary sense choose to operate informally as Dennis Canavan, Robin Harper and Tommy Sheridan have done, it is reasonable that everybody else should respect that and co-operate with it to assist them in the conduct of their business. If we introduce substitution, I will not bat an eyelid if Tommy Sheridan is due to attend a committee and Robin Harper appears in his place—that is up to them.

The next detail on which our opinion is sought is the recommendation that

"a substitute shall be able to take a full part in committee proceedings, including voting".

Are we all happy with that?

Yes.

I draw members' attention to the representation that we have received from Lord James Douglas-Hamilton, who advises us that he does not think that that is a particularly good idea. I rather agree with him, but think that it is unrealistic to envisage substitutes attending meetings and not voting on legislation, as any significant vote on legislation is likely to be whipped. However, when committees are not talking about legislation—the nuts and bolts of changing the law—but are making decisions on committee work, such as committee reports, which are not so party political, one might wonder about someone coming in with a mandate to vote in a specific way. I like to think that, if a committee report is being considered, the only people who will vote are those who have been present throughout an inquiry, have heard all the evidence, know what the issues are and are in a position to pass judgment. It would be difficult to frame a two-tier approach, so I will accept the view of the majority.

If the substitute cannot vote, the whole issue is redundant as other members can attend anyway—one can get a pal to go to a meeting with a watching brief. Either we have voting substitutes or we have no substitutes.

The next recommendation is that the business manager of the party concerned will notify the clerk of the committee of the substitution, giving the names of the substitute and the person who is being substituted and certifying that the substitution is reasonable, and will do so not later than an hour before the start of the relevant committee. That permits the member who is stranded in Shetland to use travel as a reason, but not the person whose car does not start and who encounters difficulty on the Glasgow train—it is hard luck if they did not realise in time that they could not attend.

Thank you.

I am sure that you would tell us more than an hour before the start of the meeting.

Is that recommendation agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

I wish to raise the issue of the attendance of members at private meetings. Up to a point, substitution will take care of that issue, but there are circumstances in which members who are not on a particular committee might have a legitimate reason to be at a private meeting of that committee. It seems ridiculous to have to require a party colleague to stand down to make way for one as a substitute.

In the context of the issue of substitution, there should be a review of the question of who is entitled to attend a private meeting. From my background in local government, I know that any councillor could go to any meeting. Councillors who were not members of a particular committee could attend its private meetings—all members were regarded as a part of the collective body. I would not like 129 members to turn up for a private meeting of the Procedures Committee, but if for any reason a non-member wished to be present while we considered a report or another item of business in private, it should be legitimate for that member to make the case to the convener and the clerk as to why they should be allowed to be present, and that case should be viewed sympathetically.

I throw that in only as an opinion, because I think that it would require a change to standing orders or committee guidance. If giving my opinion feeds it into the system, I expect the system at some stage to spit back some kind of answer that will allow us to progress the matter—an issues paper or a proposal.

Do you think that a member who attends a private session should be able to participate or should merely be able to observe?

I think that it would be reasonable for the member to participate, but perhaps not to vote as they would be an extra presence rather than a substitute. I am thinking of the example of a fishing spokesman who was unable to attend a private meeting of the Rural Affairs Committee to discuss a fishing report, although he had participated in the discussions all the way through. The rule that prevented him from taking part in the final business is a bit inflexible and should be reviewed. That might be the only example that has occurred, but I imagine that there might be others.

We have expressed our views on that and will ensure that they are communicated to the relevant people. They may or may not influence the outcome. This issue will come back to the committee, as any decisions that are taken will require amendment to the standing orders, which we will consider and present to the Parliament.