We move on to item 5, which is consideration of the clerk's note on working practices for the Justice 1 Committee when dealing with the media. The Conveners Group has recently published guidance on this matter and it has been suggested that it would be helpful for committees to agree media working practices. I invite members to consider the suggestions set out in the paper.
What is set out in the note from the clerk is sensible and practical and I see no controversy in it. I commend the commonsense approach that has been suggested to the committee.
I agree with the contents of the note. It is useful to have set out the suggestion that media conferences should be done by
It is useful to have on record where we stand on such issues. They came up in a previous Conveners Group paper, of which I was aware because it was also sent to deputy conveners. I have no objections to paragraphs 1 to 5 of the note, but I wish to raise a minor point of clarification on paragraph 6. The second sentence of that paragraph reads:
We could just take out "endeavour to", which would mean that that phrase would become "will distinguish".
That was a fair point, which had slipped past me.
Like other members, I think that the paper before us is common sense and is helpful. I imagine that it will be useful for the convener to have something to refer to, which details the role that she has in dealing with the media on behalf of the committee. Like Stewart Maxwell, I think that a convener should take a strong line and distinguish clearly between their own view and their committee's view. That is the key point: it is all about making that distinction, and to "endeavour to" do so is not strong enough.
I do not have a difficulty with that suggestion. It is sometimes difficult to make the distinction when dealing with the broadcast media. If I agree to do a live interview in a personal capacity and am sitting in the studio with the lights blazing, and the interviewer starts by saying, "As convener of the Justice 1 Committee", it can be difficult to judge, in the few split seconds that are available, whether to point out that I am not there to answer questions in that capacity. It should be recognised that some difficult occasions arise when members do not set themselves up as representing the committee's view. I take the general point that has been made, which I think is an important one.
The general point covers committee members, not just conveners. We are often invited to comment as representatives of the Justice 1 Committee. The same responsibility should be on all committee members to clarify that they are giving their personal view or speaking on behalf of their party, rather than representing the committee's views on the matter concerned. It goes wider than the conveners.
The paper is designed to convey that, while identifying the fact that, generally, the convener is more likely to be in that position—and, perhaps, the deputy convener, although to a lesser extent.
It is due on the Friday of the last week before the recess.
We might not have any choice about that, but committee members can see why we might get slightly less—or slightly more—coverage when we issue the report.
I concur with your comment about the media office's approach in the past. I think that we now have a member of staff who is meant to work on the media profile of the committees, which has improved things slightly. However, I concur that, in the past, the Parliament has not been as proactive as it could have been in pushing forward some of the reports that committees have produced or in investigating all the options. That is not just about getting stories in the usual Scottish newspapers; it is about trying to place notices in journals and magazines, for example. In the past, the media office has not done the background work that it could have done on behalf of the committees.
That is a good point.
There was some discussion about whether paragraph 6 should be extended to all members. We could change the start of the final sentence of that paragraph to begin "If any member, including the convener, is speaking on behalf of the committee". I agree with comments that colleagues have made that it is useful to get clarity for all committee members.
We could say that members will follow the same convention.
We just need to change the beginning of the final sentence of paragraph 6 to "If any member is speaking".
That guidance is more important for the convener and the deputy convener, because there is more of an assumption that they will give the committee's collective view, whereas a member might only reflect the discussion. There is a little bit of a distinction, and each situation should be taken on its merits, depending on what is being commented on. Perhaps all committee members should be mindful of the guidance, but there is a distinction between members and the convener or deputy convener, who are authority figures on the committee and could be considered to be giving the definitive view.
I understand Margaret Mitchell's point, but I also agree that, if any of us is speaking to the media, we should make it clear whether we are speaking as an individual or as a committee representative. I do not know whether this suggestion is helpful, but rather than amend paragraph 6 further, perhaps we could add a new paragraph 7 that says that committee members should ensure that they distinguish the capacity in which they are speaking. Something along those lines could be added that effectively makes the point that the practice applies to all of us. We could also make the point that Margaret Mitchell made about conveners being much more likely than anybody else to be called on to do that job.
Margaret Mitchell has raised an issue that we should perhaps consider more carefully. When a committee is considering a matter, there could be a clear divergence of views on an issue among members and we could, for example, end up with a minority report. As a committee member, I might wish to express my view on that minority report or on whether there is a difference of opinion in the committee, whereas the convener will speak for the committee in a given media role. At media conferences, for example, if there is a collective committee view on a report, all committee members who are present at that media conference should express that view. However, there will be occasions on which there are differing opinions. To some extent, conveners have a slightly different role, although they might have their own personal view. There is a danger that, if we enforce the proposals on committee members, individual members could be compromised when there is a divergence of views. Perhaps we should consider matters more carefully before we simply apply what the paper proposes to all committee members.
I understand the point that Michael Matheson is making, but I think that it is dealt with in paragraph 6. I agree with Stewart Maxwell, who suggested that there should be a new paragraph 7, which could say something like, "All members should follow the above convention," which is clearly stated in paragraph 6. That paragraph states that the convener must
I agree with Bill Butler. I understand where Michael Matheson is coming from, but the two paragraphs that we are discussing—if there are to be two paragraphs—are not intended to shut down the ability of an individual member to speak. The purpose is simply for members to explain in what capacity they are speaking. That is the distinction that we are trying to make.
Was the paper drafted by the Conveners Group with the intention of applying the proposals to all committee members, or to conveners?
The paper arises from the Conveners Group's discussion of general guidance to conveners. We are dealing with media working practices because we have not had any discussion on them to date. The paper was prepared by our clerks.
I wonder whether it would be helpful to know whether other committees are applying things in the same way. There is a danger that one committee could be applying the convention while our committee is not. The same approach must be taken by all committees. If a member moves to another committee, they might think that the same rules will apply, but they could find out that they do not. It would be helpful to get clarification on that matter.
That is a good point. Is the wording that has been selected in paragraph 6 for guidance? Taking that matter back to the Conveners Group is all that can be done.
We could get clarification on that matter.
I presume that the suggested change of taking out the words "endeavour to" will have to be taken back to the Conveners Group, too.
I do not think that that has to be done.
With respect, Michael, if an agreed wording has come from the Conveners Group—
Is that wording from the Conveners Group?
We would have to suggest to the Conveners Group that the guidance be changed.
Can we change it, or does the Conveners Group have to do that?
We would have to suggest to the Conveners Group that the wording of paragraph 6 should be firmed up in the way in which members wish. A distinction has been drawn between the convener and other members of the committee. However, the same convention would apply to other members, although the situation would be less likely to arise.
So we would feed in both proposals to the Conveners Group, to ensure that there is a uniform approach.
That is all that we can do.
I will not disagree with what has been said, but I understand that these are not hard-and-fast rules. They are merely suggestions about the way in which committees should approach this matter. It is for individual committees to adopt them, not adopt them or amend them. We could adopt or change the proposals as we wish.
You are right to say that this is guidance—all members know what that means. At issue is whether the committee wants to have wording in paragraph 6 that is different from the wording adopted by all other committees, which is possible.
The point is not that a convener may be asked more frequently to give a view on behalf of the committee, but that they hold a position that may be seen as more authoritative and that their view may be more likely to be regarded as the collective view of the committee. Consequently, there is a greater responsibility on the convener. In certain circumstances, there is a responsibility on other members, but by definition their view will be the view only of a committee member and will not be accorded the same status as the convener's view. That is why there is a distinction between the two. The same guidelines apply, but they apply more stringently to conveners, who are seen as authoritative figures.
I am clear about the distinction that has been drawn, but the question is what we should do with the guidance.
We must get clarification of whether the guidance will apply across all committees. I take on board the point that this is guidance and that it is for committees to decide whether they adopt it. However, there is potential for confusion between one committee and the next about the media rules and guidance that are applied. I would find it helpful if, before we made a decision, we asked the Conveners Group to consider the suggested amendment and to provide clarification on the application of paragraph 6 to committee members. A third issue is the application of the guidance across committees. Members of different committees will end up being confused. If members move to other committees, they will have no idea what guidance applies. Instead, they will refer to the guidance that applied to their previous committee.
I echo those remarks.
I, too, echo most of what has been said. It is important that guidance of this sort should be applied on, dare I say it, a corporate basis and that there should be uniformity across committees. We should do whatever is necessary to get that uniformity, so that there is no question of people saying that they did not understand what they were meant to be doing or that they thought that the guidance applied to them differently to the way in which it applied when they were members of another committee. We must ensure that once the guidance is in place members know exactly what they can and cannot do. They will then know what rules and guidance apply if they transgress in any way.
We have two choices: we can take the non-corporate route or the corporate route. I have no difficulty in expressing to the Conveners Group the committee's view that it would like some amendments to be made to the guidance, if that is still possible. However, I would be opposed to our adopting rules for dealing with the media that are slightly different from those adopted by other committees. I am clear about Margaret Mitchell's point that conveners—and to a lesser extent, deputy conveners—will be seen as more authoritative figures and that everything that they say will be taken to represent the committee view, unless a distinction is made between committee views and conveners' views as individual members. I am clear about the spirit of what is proposed and that the convention would apply to any other member, if the situation arose. However, I would have difficulty with our using wording that is different from that used by other committees.
As you suggest, you could feed in the matter to the Conveners Group. After we have heard what it says, we can discuss the issue. If the group agrees both to the suggested amendments and to their uniform application, that is fine. If not, we can discuss what it says.
We will feed in the suggestions to the Conveners Group.
Meeting suspended until 11:05 and thereafter continued in private until 12:40.
Previous
Petitions