Conveners Liaison Group
George Reid and Elizabeth Watson are attending for this item, to address the issues raised by their paper. This may be the first time a Deputy Presiding Officer has attended a committee. We welcome George and begin by allowing him to comment on the report, before members discuss it.
The proposals before the committee have been the subject of negotiation for almost a year, before being signed off by the conveners and the Parliamentary Bureau with the consent of the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body. The proposals are clear on role and procedures, so a brief background might be helpful before I touch on three issues.
When the consultative steering group was beginning to put the bare bones of the Parliament together, it discussed the need for conveners to meet and interface with the bureau and other bodies. It did not put any proposal in a box, because it took the view, quite rightly, that the form of the group would emerge in the light of parliamentary experience.
After a fairly rumbustious first meeting, the matter was referred to the Procedures Committee. You, Mr Tosh, quite rightly said that you could not conjure a new parliamentary creature out of a vacuum and asked for a briefing, which we now have. Over the past year the group has coalesced into a cohesive and focused group, with myself as tic-tac man, carrying messages to the bureau and the corporate body, advocating the case there. That has informed the whole process of the Parliament. We now have an agreed paper. Since the group is not subject specific, it will involve a change in standing orders.
The proposals are clear on the group's membership, chairmanship, quorum and role in relation to priorities for research, and on linkage to civic society, briefing visits, sub-committees, the remits of committees and lead committees—although not on the Executive's business or subordinate legislation, the location of meetings, travel outside the UK and, importantly, residual ability to discuss matters of common experience. Where there might be a difference of view between the bureau and the conveners, there are provisions for that to go to Parliament. Where there might be a difference on finance, in relation to location or on visits outside the UK, there is a role for the corporate body.
There are three issues that I wish to trail briefly before the committee. One member said to me that this all seems very Byzantine and bureaucratic. I disagree. It is inclusive, in the best traditions of the Parliament, and it involves the bureau in the views of conveners, and vice versa. It is participatory, in that it allows members across the parties to discuss matters not as party political figures but as conveners. It has been focused.
First, a slight problem is what happens if we have an emergency. If, say, a sub-committee is to be set up now, it is perfectly possible for an emergency meeting to be called. If that is not possible, we can do what we do over the summer months, which is to consult by e-mail and by phone.
The second issue is consensus, which does not mean that there will not be disputes. All that happens is that I report to the bureau any divergence of views among conveners—that helps to inform the process. My slight concern is what happens if the cupboard is bare and three bids for rather large research projects come in simultaneously. Is it possible for the conveners to come to a view that will be accepted, or will some conveners fight their corner and ask for a vote? I bowl that back to you.
My last point is on nomenclature. The group is not a committee, as committee rules do not apply. It meets in private, which is right, as that allows cross-party discussion. As today's paper shows, the group does more than liaise. It is a bit more analogous to the Parliamentary Bureau and the Scottish Parliament Corporate Body. There has been precious little discussion of the name, but I would like to trail a personal thought. At Westminster there is a chairmen's panel. I know that that deals with standing committee bills, so it is rather different. However, the name panel has been adopted by one other devolved body and by a number of parliamentary institutions. It may be right for the new entity to be called the panel of conveners and to sit alongside the bureau and the corporate body.
The way in which this issue has developed provides a useful template for others. This committee refused to implement any changes in standing orders until the participants in the dispute resolved their differences. What we have here is the distillation of a series of meetings and agreements, which indicates that there is now broad agreement on the way forward. Our role is as an instrument to effect the necessary changes in standing orders that have been agreed. Members may have questions to put or points to make about the presentation.
In general, I am all for this proposal. However, it is the occasional disputes that interest me. Paragraph 11 of the report assumes that there will always be a consensus on the committee of conveners, but with the best will in the world there may not be. What would happen if some committees felt very strongly that a sub-committee should be set up and others did not? How would that argument be resolved?
Paragraph 12 stipulates that if there is a dispute between the bureau and the CLG, there should be a debate
"restricted to one speaker for and one speaker against with speeches restricted to 5 minutes."
If an issue is that controversial, a number of members may want to weigh in, or those who had not been involved in the controversy may want to ask some questions. For that reason, I think that these restrictive rules are a mistake. We are not talking about technicalities, but matters about which there is a serious dispute. The Parliament should be able to get stuck into those in an appropriate manner. I would, therefore, suggest changing paragraph 12.
I am interested in George Reid's comments on how to ensure consensus among conveners.
I cannot speak for George Reid, but so far conveners have succeeded in reaching a consensus because they have to. They talk matters through until there is agreement. We should remain mindful that any disagreement is likely to be about the role of a sub-committee or whether someone should travel outside the United Kingdom. It is unlikely to relate to issues that give scope for lengthy debate. What is necessary is that someone should make a decision. The mechanism set out here would allow the Parliament to make a decision without spending an undue amount of its precious time on resolving such disputes. It is there as a threat to break a logjam. However, we do not anticipate significant difficulties.
Would you like to come back on that, George?
No, I have said my piece. It is up to the committee to take a view.
I am not in favour of long debates about whether we go to Timbuktu. However, setting up a sub-committee to investigate quangos, for example, could be quite controversial. Members would want a proper debate about that.
In that case, the whole committee could consider the issue.
Other mechanisms would allow us to have such a debate. Donald Gorrie has lodged a motion on the issue that he mentioned. It is important that we should not navel-gaze. It is possible to have an appropriate length of debate focused on resolving an occasional difficulty. The same rule applies to discussion of the business motion.
As George Reid indicated, trying to resolve these issues has been a fascinating experience, which has not been without its difficulties. However, as the convener said, this has been a good example of how such disputes can be resolved over time through negotiating to reach a consensus, without voting. It has taken some time, but we are beginning to discover the appropriate checks and balances within the Parliament.
The Parliamentary Bureau is widely but erroneously regarded as some sort of faceless Politburo. I do not want to criticise my colleagues—some may behave like that, but I do not. The bureau attempts to be responsive to the views that are aired in the Parliament, but it must reach practical decisions on a day-to-day basis. If the bureau did not act in that way, business motions would not be put and business would not take place. The conveners liaison group will be little different in the way in which it considers how the business of a part of the Parliament is best pursued.
We have the correct checks and balances—some things are decided by the conveners liaison group and some things are decided by the bureau. If there are problems in making those decisions, there is a reasonably speedy and efficient method of resolving those difficulties. The people who have to implement the decisions are also involved in the consideration of the way in which the Parliament operates. As we are a committee-driven Parliament, the committee conveners are extremely important in ensuring that the Parliament works well.
I have a slight caveat. I know that the conveners liaison group and the Parliamentary Bureau want to see the draft standing orders before the matter is finally laid to rest. That is right, because the devil will be in the detail. We want to be sure that we have established something that is good for the future of the Parliament, can play an important role in the Parliament and does not contain the seeds of further debate.
I warmly endorse the report. I have enjoyed being part of the problem as well as part of the solution. I look forward to seeing what happens.
This meeting will go down in parliamentary history, if only for that confession.
If difficulties that we have not anticipated arise in the operation of the conveners liaison group, we can reconsider the matter in order to establish better conflict-resolution procedures. As always, it is open to us to revisit the matter. Everyone who has been involved in the process feels that what we have produced is sufficiently robust to meet our needs. I hope that the committee will agree to accept the report and to recommend the consequent changes to standing orders. We must ensure that the participants have the opportunity to comment on the changes so that, when we propose recommendations to Parliament, we can be secure in the knowledge that everyone involved is happy with the proposals. Do we agree to that?
Members indicated agreement.