Procedures Committee, 11 Jun 2003

Meeting date: Wednesday, June 11, 2003

Official Report 123KB pdf

---

Legacy of the Previous Committee

Agenda item 4 is on the legacy of the previous Procedures Committee. All the committees in the previous session of Parliament were asked to produce papers on their legacy—the issues that they were working on or that they thought should be worked on. The previous Procedures Committee had just completed a lengthy report on the founding principles of the Scottish Parliament, which has been circulated to members and which, in effect, forms that committee's legacy. We must consider how we will act on that report. There is also a paper from the clerk on other issues that the committee might wish to address. Do members have comments on the note from the clerk or other issues to raise?

One of the main issues that we face is the fact that six parties rather than four are now represented on the Parliamentary Bureau and that there are now four independent members of Parliament, rather than one. As that situation was not envisaged in the previous committee's report, many of the conclusions that were drawn in it might have to be reconsidered in the context of the new situation. The new situation will mean changes to procedures in the Parliament.

None of the previous committee's decisions is binding on this committee. It is up to us to decide how to act on the previous committee's report. In the light of the experience of the different make-up of the Parliament, it is open to us in the next four years to reconsider some of the issues.

We must consider that matter, but in doing so we must remember that the larger parties and their back benchers also have rights and interests in the Parliament. Too often, those back benchers are not given the prominence and recognition that they deserve. We must remember that those members, who were elected in the same way as all other members, should be represented and should have their voices heard in the Parliament.

I would like more time to read the previous committee's report and to decide which parts I can and cannot sign up to. It would be useful for members to have time to do that, after which the committee could discuss the matter and decide which parts we will act on and which parts we cannot sign up to. We could then have a parliamentary debate on our decisions and try to make progress on them. Some of the points in the report require changes to the standing orders, which we should not be afraid to call for. We should make a decision sooner rather than later. However, although it has taken a long time to get the report to where it is, I would like to have time to digest it and to consider whether I can sign up to everything that is in it.

I share Karen Gillon's view. We need some time to consider the report, as it is a weighty tome. There is a broad range of issues, which we must consider in detail. Some more time would be useful.

Like other members, I was not a member of the previous Procedures Committee. To be blunt, I was not aware of the report's existence and had not read it. I suspect that many colleagues are in the same position. It might be necessary not just for us to take a journey to understand the report's development; we might need to take the wider body of MSPs along with us. If we suggest any changes, they should not come as a surprise, because, if they do, I suspect that there will be resistance. On the change agenda for improvement, we should consider a strategy for taking other parliamentarians with us on our journey.

The new Presiding Officer says in one of his letters that he would like initial changes, such as those to First Minister's question time, to be in place by the second week after the summer recess. That will not give us a great deal of time.

We will deal with that important issue under agenda item 5.

I would not like to start at the beginning and go through everything again. The previous committee has done a lot of work. Somewhere in the papers for the meeting, we are told that the report contains about 135 recommendations. It has been suggested that the clerk could produce a summary of the report. We could look at that to see how to move forward.

As Bruce Crawford said, although members of the Parliament were consulted when the previous committee was working on its report, members who were not on the committee tended to moan about procedures but not to get involved in the detailed decision making about parliamentary procedures. It would be useful if we took some time. Changes are being sought, so we should work to a reasonably tight time scale, but we must take account of the election and the changes that have taken place since the report was written.

Several valid points have been made. At our next meeting, we will consider a forward work programme. It would be helpful if members could provide their thoughts on the priorities for the committee's work.

We would benefit from having an informal discussion on the recommendations that were made in the previous committee's report on its consultative steering group inquiry. We could invite Murray Tosh and others to give us some background to the recommendations. In the previous session, the Conveners Group proposed that committees should have an away day early in their life, to allow members to get together to discuss their future work in a less formal atmosphere. In my view, the report on the founding principles would be a sensible basis for an away day. We could tease out the issues that we want to prioritise and the less important issues that we can consider in the longer term. I propose having an away day.

When we deal with the next item on the agenda, we might decide that we need to have a brief meeting towards the end of the recess to approve a report on making changes to question time. We could follow that meeting with an away day at which we could have an informal discussion on the founding principles report. Do members agree that that is a sensible way forward?

Members indicated agreement.

In the meantime, if there are any particular issues in the report that members think we should address, they should let the clerks know and that can be taken into account when we are drawing up the paper on the work programme for the next meeting.

Are there any other items in the note by the clerk on the legacy of the previous committee on which members would like to comment? We have been talking mainly about the founding principles report, but there are items on time in the chamber and Donald Gorrie's proposals.

I have a wee thought. The note by the clerk mentions a motion to take note of the founding principles report. We have the away day when we can consider some of the intricacies of the report and understand the thinking of the previous committee. However, we might want to consider lodging a take-note motion reasonably soon after the recess so that the issues can be aired and MSPs can understand some of the report's findings. We do not have to endorse the whole report, but we can certainly note it, have an early discussion and get feedback from other members.

That would have to follow our discussions. I would have to have some idea of the committee's direction before I could open that debate as the committee's convener.

I am not saying that the committee would have to make its stamp on the issues during that debate. If we lodged a take-note motion, there would be general discussion in the Parliament and back-bench members from every party would have an opportunity to express their views before the committee started to formulate its view. That might be a useful tactic, because we would be seen to be open and accountable. However, I am reasonably relaxed about it.

We can take that on board next week when we consider the work programme and the away day.