Procedures Committee, 09 Sep 2003

Meeting date: Tuesday, September 9, 2003

Official Report 196KB pdf

---

Committee Away Day

Agenda item 1 is a report on the away day. The report, which is included in the committee papers, is mainly a factual record of what was discussed. I draw members' attention to the two points in section 5 at the end of the report. However, before we discuss that, do members have any questions or comments about the report?

I would like to make one point before we discuss the recommendations, which should not pose any problems. At the away day, we did not have the opportunity to discuss at length the Executive's response to the committee's concerns, although that does not necessarily change what we discussed or how we want to proceed.

Patricia Ferguson's letter is useful, as it outlines the report on the founding principles of the Scottish Parliament and gives an overview of the Executive's view. One point that could have been dealt with more thoroughly is mentioned in the third-last paragraph, which refers to procedural shortcomings and says:

"the negative slant of … political debate and the talking down of achievements does little for the health of the political process."

I share that view. However, it is a pity that the letter does not mention the fact that negative spin, as well as talking down achievements, can have a damaging effect. Achievements that are not reflected in reality are being talked up. A reference to that in the Executive's letter would have provided better balance.

I am aware of that point. We will discuss the Executive's response fully when we consider it in due course and perhaps during the debate in the chamber on the consultative steering group principles report, should our request for that debate be successful.

On the recommendations in the report, it was agreed at the away day that we would seek a committee slot in the chamber in order to have a take-note debate on the previous committee's report so that we could get a steer from the Parliament. At this meeting, I want to get formal approval from the committee to make such a request and to decide on the kind of motion that we want to debate. The clerks are handing around the suggested text of two motions that the committee could submit. We have to put in a bid for our debate to the Conveners Group for consideration at its meeting on 23 September, so it would be helpful if we could at least agree on the outline of the motion, if not the exact wording.

There are two possible options. One is a simple take-note motion. The other, which I believe was mentioned at the away day, was that we might ask Parliament to approve formally the founding principles, which would therefore become the Parliament's principles. It is up to the committee to decide whether to go for the straight take-note motion or to ask for Parliament's approval of the principles.

I would go for the second option.

I agree; the second option is much more likely to attract people.

I favour the second option as well.

I agree.

In a sense, the second motion reaffirms the CSG principles, something that the Parliament has not had a chance to do in this new session. It seems as though we are agreed that we will seek a debate in the chamber on the CSG report based on the second motion. As we agreed at the away day, members of the committee will not participate in the debate, but will listen; either Karen Gillon or I will move the motion and ask Murray Tosh or Kenneth Gibson—

Macintosh.

I am sorry—Kenneth Macintosh. I had the wrong Ken.

I am sure that Kenny Gibson would be happy to do it.

I am sure that the Official Report will get it right. We will ask either Murray Tosh or Kenny Macintosh to give a more detailed speech, such as the one that Kenny Macintosh gave the committee at the away day, outlining the background to the report so that we can have an informed debate. Then either I or Karen Gillon—whoever did not open the debate—will close and pick up on some of the key points that have arisen. Are members content with that?

Members indicated agreement.

The other recommendation from the away day was on non-Executive bills. We are waiting to hear from the Parliamentary Bureau and the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body about how they are handling those bills and whether they want to raise any issues. I hope that we will get something back by our next meeting so that we can decide then how to proceed with the matter. Do members agree to that course of action?

Members indicated agreement.