Official Report 142KB pdf
The second item on the agenda is there for information and was noted at our meeting on 2 November. The intention is that we should meet informally representatives of a group that wants to address the principles of the consultative steering group in the context of what it sees as the evolving practice of the Parliament.
Will they come to speak to us?
Yes. Are we agreed?
We also have copies of correspondence with the Scottish Daily Newspaper Society. The issue is straightforward. Representatives of the press have indicated to us that difficulties are caused to them due to the timing of votes. They want to discuss that with us.
I am happy to talk to anyone; this is an accessible Parliament. However, I thought that we had dealt with this subject and had reached a firm view on the matter. When we recommended that decision time should stay at 5 pm, we were aware of the view of the newspapers. What is the point of revisiting the matter?
That is a good point, but as they have asked to make a representation to us, we should let them. That is the spirit in which we work. If they do it again and again, we might object.
I take Gordon's point. However—and I am aware that Gordon knows infinitely more about the law than I do—most people are allowed an appeal after having lost their case. The concept is reasonable. It is important, though, to make the point that committees should not usually revisit issues that they have already decided.
I accept that we need to be accessible and that if those people want to come, we must show them courtesy. However, I do not want us to revisit matters.
They might feel that we should have called them in when we had our previous discussion and that they have not had the opportunity to put their views across. That might be our fault.
That is the point. We were perhaps a bit remiss in not inviting them and that is our responsibility. We have the chance to make up for it and, although it might not change our opinion, it is worth listening to them.
We will be setting an example to other committees as well.
Fair enough—we will meet them, but I do not think that we were remiss. We made an informed decision. We knew their views—not just about ministers running up and down the street, but about other matters relating to the press—and analysed and discussed them. However, as this is an open, accountable and democratic Parliament, let us hear the views.
Indeed. We will programme a meeting for a reasonably early date.
There should always be the facility to hear a minority view. It would seem a bit strange were everyone on a committee to appear to be committed to a decision if the vote were passed by five votes to four.
I do not think that that is what is being proposed, although I know no more than what is in the letter. The convener of the Finance Committee is trying to establish a convention whereby amendments to bills—amendments that are agreed by the whole committee—carry more weight than routine amendments, because committees will have considered the evidence carefully. He is trying to build up to a situation in which the Parliament and the Executive—which presumably would defend the position in the bill—might be more moved by an amendment on which a committee unanimously agreed than by a simple amendment. That might not be what he is getting at, but, to be fair, I do not think that he is trying to stifle opposition.
An extract of the debate in the Finance Committee was attached. As ever, different members of the committee came at the matter from different angles. As you said, convener, one of the questions raised was whether members would be bound to a decision if agreement were not unanimous. The convener of the Finance Committee wanted to establish a position whereby if the Executive or some other party machine—for whatever reason—took against a committee's unanimous decision to support an amendment, committee members would not be bullied into voting differently. However, if there is dispute within a committee, members should have the right to stand their ground. The members of the Finance Committee were the first to go through that hoop. We must learn from the hoops that others go through, so an issues paper would be helpful.
This is an important but difficult issue, which raises many questions. I am all for an issues paper.
Okay.
Thank you for putting me on the spot. We have not had any such discussions, but I am interested in the matters that you have raised and would welcome an issues paper.
I will give everyone, including Iain Smith, a copy of the correspondence so that members can see what I am talking about.
It seems so illogical. If we accept that members can address the chamber in Scots or Gaelic, it seems stupid—if I may use that word—not to receive the motion in Scots or Gaelic. Previously, when we talked about members giving notice that they would speak in Scots or Gaelic, we said that it was a good idea for them to do that and to provide as much information as possible, as they might use words that were not in general use. What better method of doing that than having the motion and what will be talked about written down for the reporters in the first place?
If that is the logical conclusion of the position that we established previously, is it reasonable to assume that the clerks have a competent knowledge of workaday Scots or Gaelic, given that the chamber office sometimes has difficulty in defining the exact meaning in English? Would it be acceptable to refer motions to official report staff—who are more specialised in those matters—to satisfy us that the Gaelic and Scots motions are the equivalent of the English and can be accepted?
It is the chicken-and-the-egg syndrome. We have decided that the Scots and Gaelic languages—as well as other languages—should be promoted. It would be logical to have the facility to lodge motions in those languages. It seems a bit strange to censor such languages in advance of receiving a motion.
It is not censorship—it is simply to satisfy ourselves that a motion lodged in a language that not everyone understands makes sense, is coherent and is identical to the English version, which would be lodged simultaneously. It is a check.
I picked you up wrongly. I thought that you were saying that the motion should be in English only. I am not suggesting for one minute that it is not a good idea to produce a translation in English at the same time, so that people who are not Scots can understand the motion. Many people working here do not know Scots words because they were not born in Scotland. If we mean it when we say that we want to promote those languages, they must be written down. It should be common practice. There should be no ceremony and no blowing of trumpets every time that Scots is used. I have heard you, convener, using Scots words. It should be an everyday occurrence. If someone wants to make an entire speech in Scots or write his or her motion in Scots, that should be fine. I find it alarming that those languages are being not promoted, but put further up the agenda than they should be. It should be a natural progression. We must ensure that those languages are not blocked in any way.
I will get my retaliation in before I call Andy Kerr. You might have heard me speak Scots, Gil, but I have heard you speak English.
If I understand you correctly, you are suggesting that motions may be submitted in Scots, but that an English translation should be lodged at the same time and signed off in the same fashion.
It would be appropriate for a motion in English, if it is competent and acceptable, to appear in the business bulletin immediately. However, it would be reasonable for the clerks to punt the Scots or Gaelic version up to the official report staff so that they can be satisfied that that version and the English version mean the same thing. Members may feel that that is over-fussy, but I feel uneasy about being asked to sign a motion—which is what members do: they ask people to support them by signing their motion—that is in a language that I do not understand.
If I wanted you to sign a motion, I would write it in Scots and in English, but I would ask you to sign the Scots version. Would not that be sufficient to satisfy you that they both meant the same thing? The problem with Scots and Gaelic is that they have been demoted, repressed and pushed into a corner for too long. If we are to let them out of that corner, we should not be uneasy about it. That is what I do not like.
The point is that I can understand a motion that is in English, but do not have a clue about a motion written in Gaelic and I might or might not understand a motion in Scots, depending on whether it is the type of Scots that you speak, Gil, or the literary Scots in which some of the letters that we have received are written.
I agree that we have to find a sensible balance. It is important to remember that a motion that is passed by the Parliament is a decision of the Parliament. Therefore, its meaning has to be clearly understood, and it has to be enforceable if it requires an act of legislation or some other measure.
What has come out of our limited discussion is that this issue could impact on a whole range of matters. It would be sensible to get a report from the clerks, as I proposed in the first place. The clerks should talk to Irene McGugan and Gil Paterson and anybody else who is interested, tease out the areas in which there might be implications, and report back with options for how we might satisfy what are legitimate desires—we have already accepted that in relation to the oath—and establish sensible working practice.
I have a constructive suggestion. If two texts are submitted and printed at the same time—by all means, they should be checked out with experts—we should operate on the basis that the English text is the official one for laws or other measures.
That could resolve the matter.
I am all for going ahead with motions in Scots and Gaelic, if that is possible.
Donald Gorrie's point is very important. Words are our business. Once we have passed laws, they will be examined in the building next door. If there is the slightest difference in meaning between the two texts, we will have created an incredible problem. Even with the best will in the world, there could be slight shades of difference in meaning, because one language never quite conveys the same as another. Such differences could cause huge legislative problems, so we would have to decide which language rules, in the legal sense—which text would be part of the legislative process. Legislation that is not clear is bad legislation.
The introduction of new words to the Oxford dictionary is an everyday occurrence. We are talking about the death of Scots words.
Not necessarily.
Gil Paterson is desperately trying to get an argument about this and, to be blunt, he is not going to get one. We are being very supportive of this proposal. There is no attempt to undermine anything here. Let us consider the mechanics and the logistics of it, and ensure that the matter is treated holistically so that we get an overall view. I concur with the convener's view that we should ask for an issues report.
Convener, I support you totally in requesting a report. I am just rebutting some points that have been raised today. I am certainly not saying that what you have proposed is wrong.
We agree that there should be an issues paper. We should e-mail members on this and invite them to communicate their views on the steps that might be taken.
The Justice and Home Affairs Committee is not doing anything that would prevent any organisations that have concerns about particular parts of the bill from providing written submissions, which the committee could have before them as they consider the bill. The only concern is whether there should be oral evidence at stage 2. Frankly, we would never get through bills if we took oral evidence at stage 2.
That matter would form part of our evaluation, and the recommendation that we might make at the end of it.
I cannot speak for Roseanna Cunningham, who is the convener of the Justice and Home Affairs Committee. We have taken huge amounts of evidence to front-load the legislation. I suspect that, although we say that we will not take oral evidence, it is not put in tablets of stone that we will never take a piece of oral evidence. If we felt that we had to hear from somebody who had written in, I imagine that we would do that. However, generally, it will not be physically possible to take oral evidence. We could not do the work.
It is very much for individual committees to decide whether they have enough evidence to make their decision. We had an example of such a decision a few minutes ago, when we decided to meet representatives of the press.
We may ultimately decide that each committee must decide how to balance its work load. We must consider that matter sensibly, and advise all committees whether it is up to them to proceed in that way. The challenge has been issued. It is appropriate for us to consider this aspect of the work of committees.
I do not have a copy. It is probably my fault. Was the letter sent out separately?
It was sent out separately.
There was also a late circulation of an 11th item on the agenda, which is simply a reminder of non-priority standing orders issues, which were not included in last week's report. Does everybody have that?
That was not for circulation.
In that case, I advise members that, in addition to the issues in the report that was prepared for item 9 of the agenda, we have some outstanding issues in standing orders to consider. They include Executive announcements, emergency questions, the method of electing committee conveners, declarations of interest, the use of Scots, reasoned amendments, time allocation for members' bills, the conflict of roles of conveners who are spokespersons, an issue that we did not resolve. We made a commitment to examine the issue of the suspension of standing orders in greater depth. Other issues are the role of non-committee members in committees, and the feeding of the principles of the consultative steering group throughout the entire working of the Parliament. We will dispatch that matter in a five-minute session one wet Sunday afternoon.
It is clear that Kenny MacAskill has applied his mind to this matter. I am happy to let him have a run at it, as it is obviously quite technical. Good luck to him.
We thought that we would put you on the working group as the rapporteur for this committee.
Hear, hear.
I agree that the Subordinate Legislation Committee should pursue the matter. When we reach the appropriate stage, it might be a better use of everybody's time and energy to hold a joint meeting rather than endlessly circulating pieces of paper that people do not fully understand. At such a meeting, we could ask members of that committee why they do things as they do, and they would have to persuade us.
A joint meeting might evolve naturally from the working group. We can leave that suggestion on the agenda, and wait to find out whether it is the best way to go forward in practice.
I am happy for this review to go ahead, but I think that it would be useful for the working group to include representatives of the Executive secretariat, as they are involved in drafting the statutory instruments that come before the Parliament.
Iain Smith's suggestion seems sensible.
The working group will be a superquango.
If Kenny MacAskill is to chair a superquango, that might put some of his future speeches at a peep.
That will kill two birds with one stone.
I thought that it was a good idea.
There was no edge whatever when Gordon Jackson said that Kenny MacAskill had been applying his mind to this.
I was serious.
The second suggestion is that we instruct a report on the implementation of key CSG principles to selected areas of the Parliament, including standing orders, procedures and business. That follows naturally from the approach that was made by Ian McKay, the Educational Institute of Scotland representative, on behalf of the panel of CSG people, especially as the panel made a number of specific suggestions to us in the document accompanying their letter. It is, therefore, sensible that we consider the possibility of such a report.
We will perhaps come to the legislative process later, because the more the committees have had the chance to see the legislative process by actually progressing with legislation, the more lessons will be learned. It is an important part of this committee's work, but it is perhaps not the most urgent one.
Would you be happy if we were to consider the issue of parliamentary questions reasonably early and feed the other two issues later into next year, perhaps behind the other two points mentioned?
Yes.
That would seem logical, convener. The legislative process is still at an early stage. We have had one emergency bill, and two other bills are in progress. We have not gone far enough down the road to make any major comments about how the process is going. Concerns have been raised along the way, but I think that it would be better if we waited until we are further on with the process before reviewing it, and continually monitor the process with a view to reviewing it in six months' time, for example.
If it is reasonable to do so, we will ask the clerks to present a report at the next meeting to identify how we might examine the issue of parliamentary questions: the sources of evidence; comparator parliaments; and evidence to quantify work loads in relation to those at Westminster. Part of the argument is about how things were in comparison to how things are. We need to work out from whom we will hear evidence and what areas we will investigate. We can then approve a programme of work which, I hope, will be reasonably concise in terms of the time that the committee will have to spend investigating the matter. At the first meeting after the recess, we can agree on a programme of work and a timetable to bring the investigation of parliamentary questions to a speedy conclusion. Are we happy with that?
We can slot in the other issues in the wake of that investigation.
The wise people—Ian McKay and many others—who wrote to us raised some more fundamental issues. Presumably, once the committee has heard from them, it may wish to pursue some of the issues that they raise.
That is the second of the two recommendations at the beginning of paragraph 14. We might want to focus a little more closely, but it would be unwise to do so before we have had a discussion with those people, whom I hope we will meet early in the new year.
I do not know what other committees do, but the Justice and Home Affairs Committee often gets rid of the official report, so that it can deal with housekeeping matters privately.
There is a balance to be struck between ensuring that everything is properly discussed and recorded, and catching things that are essentially trivial and do not need to be on the record. Why should the official report write down the ramblings of members on matters that are not of great public significance? It is important that we get that balance right.
I concur with your views on the provision of information to the press. I hope that we will resolve that matter. On the question of the official report, we will have to give clear guidance if housekeeping matters are to be discussed privately. What is and is not a housekeeping matter, and where people should and should not be held accountable in the Official Report, are very much in the eye of the beholder, so we should tread warily. Although the sentiment about the use of resources is valid, we should ensure that the advice that is given is accurate, so that different committees do not use different methods of determining what are housekeeping matters.
That is a very valid point. There is a danger that we will make decisions that are driven by budget considerations rather than by the principles of the CSG. It might be pertinent to ask each committee to discuss and relay back to us through conveners a response on what matters should be on the record and what should be regarded as housekeeping and therefore not recorded. We should proceed on this as a Parliament. The matter has been discussed at the conveners liaison group, but there is a procedural issue on which it is appropriate for this committee to take an overview.
What are we doing about Mr Farquharson's letter on press access to committee papers?
Because the letter has only just arrived, I am reluctant to bounce anything on the committee. Before our next meeting members should read the letter and think about the issue that it raises. In the interim, the clerks will work up a report for our next meeting, at which we can discuss it and form a response.
The matter has to be high on our agenda, as there is a very legitimate complaint about an area in which we are falling short.
We will want to make a decision on that at our next meeting.
Meeting closed at 11:12.
Previous
Liaison