Conveners Group Meeting
Item 4 deals with the conveners liaison group, where I am not soft. The conveners have had two very useful meetings. The first was quite long and provided a good exchange of experience. As you might imagine, the conveners of the committees, like all of us, are on a learning curve. It is a good forum in which to share working practice and we will share new experiences as we make use of the full range of mechanisms available to us, such as reporters and sub-groups, setting agendas and working together in a cross-cutting way.
I will run through the kinds of things that we have been discussing, many of which are in a state of flux. Some items are confidential because they have financial implications, and to allow negotiations to the benefit of the committee structure I will respect that. I will run through the issues, and if there are any questions of a similar nature that you come up against, as a committee member, and that you would like me to take to the conveners committee, I will be happy to do that. Obviously, you all have members of your own parties represented on that committee and you may prefer to go that way.
We have been looking at the standing orders. For example, the conveners committee is informal and we are wondering if that is the best arrangement. Committee accommodation is another question. We are in the chamber today because of the constraints placed on us by the buildings in which we currently work. I am not prepared to hold meetings of this committee in rooms to which the general public does not have access. I think that that is the view of all conveners, particularly if they know that members of the public are keen to attend.
We are looking at how committees travel, and at how to ensure that we do not meet only in Edinburgh or the central belt. If we travel, we must do that effectively, openly, and within budget. There has also been discussion about the appointment of sub-committees and working groups—the kinds of things that we were discussing earlier. We are awaiting a report on that.
We discussed cross-cutting issues and the best way to work together across committees. We discussed the use of advisers on committees. The consultative steering group had been keen that advisers should be co-opted to committees and given voting rights, but that was lost in the Scotland Act 1998, so we now have advisers without voting rights.
I am happy to say that the role of committee clerks was discussed. It was clarified that our clerk, Jennifer Smart, and all the other clerks were capable of speech directly to you, without interpretation by me. I take responsibility if I pick one of a range of options that are put to the committee by the clerk, but I think that you should be made aware of all the options that are before us.
As well as the question of the substantive nature of the conveners group as a committee, the big issue on the agenda yesterday was the work load of committees and how we ensured that we did what we were meant to do. That ties in with our discussion earlier. I am happy to take forward on your behalf to the conveners committee any bigger issues about how the committee structure is working.
Through the other committee on which I serve, I have become aware of issues such as the question of where responsibility lies for different matters. We had a good example earlier in the beef-on-the-bone ban.
It is early days in the life of the Parliament, and everybody is keen to throw themselves into work. However, there are potential problems with that enthusiasm if members stray beyond the remits of their committees, even though a matter is of burning interest and is one that we know should be addressed by the Parliament somewhere. The conveners group should resolve that problem so that each committee is aware of what it can and cannot discuss. If members overstep the boundaries, the clerk and convener should haul them back. Otherwise, if we discuss every subject, no matter how peripheral an interest the committee may have in it, we will get nowhere.
I am clear what this committee is about, but I am aware of the dangers. In some other committees, members are straying into the territory of other committees. For example, in the European Committee people started to raise issues that were more the prerogative of the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee.
I have two quick points for you to take back to the conveners group. The concept of hearing evidence outside the central belt and certainly outside Edinburgh is vital, particularly on the rural health agenda that both Mary and I are interested in. To risk the wrath of the Daily Record, I say that it is important that we do not run down that taking of evidence to a bare minimum, as has been suggested. If we believe that it is worth hearing that evidence, it must have equality of treatment and be heard by more people rather than fewer.
The feeling on that might be that we are damned if we do, damned if we don't.
In that case let us be damned on the side of information.
We will be slagged off by the Daily Record irrespective of what we do, so let us do what we want.
Fortunately, I gave up reading it a long time ago.
The second issue is the research resources available to the committee. I know that poor Murray McVicar strives manfully to provide all the evidence that we need, but the situation might become ridiculous. The committee should not be short of information because we are short of research capacity. We need adequate resources.
Hugh, who was at yesterday's meeting, will agree that I made that point quite forcefully. In terms of research, we have at our disposal one half of two thirds of a person. My maths is not good enough to come up with a precise figure, but that is not enough for us to do the job that is outlined at the top of today's agenda. I know that members will spend hours looking into the subject themselves—we all do that sort of work and will always do so, no matter how many researchers we have—but we need a research capacity that allows the committee structure in this Parliament to function as it is intended to function and in the way in which members of the committees and the conveners want it to function.
We cannot hold to account an Executive that has hundreds of civil servants at its disposal and all sorts of reports being done on its behalf, at arm's length from the health and community care department, when we have so little research back-up. I raised the issue last night at a meeting with the First Minister. Duncan can rely on my chuntering on about that issue.
I wanted to make a similar point, convener, which will not surprise you. It was mentioned this morning that Parliament is centralised in the east of Scotland. I want the Health and Community Care Committee to visit the west and the Highlands, as so much of Arbuthnott focuses on rural issues.
I have read in the Daily Record and elsewhere that there is a problem with money. However, various consultation meetings are going on throughout the country. Jim Wallace, for example, is in Inverness tomorrow night to discuss land reform, and I fully support that. However, if there is a budget for ministers to go round the country to listen to what people have to say about land reform, tourism and other matters, money should be allocated for us as a committee to meet people in other areas of Scotland.
I do not want to go only to places such as the council chambers in Glasgow. It is important that we visit health providers. That could include visits to drugs rehabilitation centres or to hospitals. We should not always sit as a committee, but should be at the chalkface of health provision. That would be very helpful.
Before we move on, I should say that I have been made aware of the fact that some staff members from Stracathro hospital, Angus, are in the public gallery. I welcome them on behalf of the Health and Community Care Committee. They were not here at the beginning of our meeting, and we are sorry that we were not able to join them earlier for theirs, because we had a prior engagement. We are here because the other committee room that was available to us would not have allowed access for members of the public. Single-handedly, the staff of Stracathro hospital have ensured that we make the right decision.
I have two points. Once we get our work schedules organised—that is to be discussed at the conveners meeting—is there a general intention that they should be publicised? That affects how the public can get to us, as individuals and collectively. If we decide that in the spring we will deal with local health care co-operatives, their representatives and their function, having that published on a general schedule would allow the public to contact us. That is another way of doing what Mary was suggesting that does not involve our travelling.
I have already received an e-mail from our colleagues at Stracathro and have replied to it—I am sure that we have all had such an e-mail, even if we have not yet replied. Accessibility—electronically and in other ways—is absolutely crucial.
It is my view that the work schedule of this committee should be made public. I have not raised the issue elsewhere, but I am happy to discuss it with other conveners.
We want to ensure that a range of things happen. One of the key spin-offs of the lack of research facilities available to the committee is that we will be beholden to organisations and professionals in the fields that we want to investigate. Many organisations have already sent us a lot of information and we are grateful for their interest in our work. It will be useful for them to know in advance that we want to consider certain areas, so that they can raise issues for us to consider.
I notice that there are several dozen people in the public gallery who have come from Angus, no doubt at their own expense. I hope that, in future, representatives of the committee, if not the whole committee, can be sent to Angus to find out what is happening. Visits to destinations further afield would involve an overnight stay, and we do not know whether money is available for that.
I am mindful of what has been written in the Daily Record. I do not think that the Daily Record is always wrong, but I agree that we should be living at a humble, boarding-house level when we travel round Scotland. It is essential that we are seen to be a Scottish Parliament and not an Edinburgh Parliament, as is perceived by most of the public outside Edinburgh.
All the points that members are raising have been mentioned in the conveners committee. We are aware of our limitations, but we are also aware of the fact that we have to deliver a service across Scotland.
When we make visits that involve an overnight stay, we must be responsible about our choice of accommodation. We must add as much value to such visits as we can. Our visits must be as productive as possible, giving members of the committee hands-on experience and involving people who work in the areas with which we are dealing. We could even hold public meetings as well as holding a committee meeting. That would impose a heavy work load on us for the day of the visit, but it would be in our interests to do that to make the best use of the Parliament's time and money, regardless of what the Daily Record says. Members from all parties agree that the Parliament should not concentrate on Edinburgh.
We must be careful about moving out of Edinburgh. Not everyone is convinced of the merits of holding committee meetings throughout Scotland simply for the sake of it. Many organisations would like to give evidence to the committee, and it would do no good to have committees and organisations passing each other on the roads and motorways of Scotland.
We must consider what we can humanly cope with. Expense is not the only important issue. We must think about how we can physically accommodate the other work that we have to do in Parliament. Some of us have the luxury of being members of only one committee, but others sit on two committees and have other responsibilities. We cannot simply name a destination for a two-day visit; there are other things that need to be done. Some of us also have constituency responsibilities.
We all have constituency responsibilities.
We need to take a range of things into account. I do not think that we can take it for granted that there is unanimity about how holding meetings elsewhere can be done—there are concerns about it.
As with most things in life, Hugh, it is a question of balance. I think that we can accommodate all the things that you mention.
Jennifer has reminded me that I have to watch the time, so I will do so.
I thank my colleagues for their comments, which I will take back to the next conveners meeting, which is, I think, in three weeks' time.