Procedures Committee, 21 Sep 1999

Meeting date: Tuesday, September 21, 1999

Official Report 287KB pdf

---

Parliamentary Bureau (Referrals)

That takes us to the fourth item, which is the remit from the bureau. Members have a paper containing three issues: the method of electing deputy conveners; the time allocations for members' bills; and the election of committee conveners.

We have been asked to suggest how deputy conveners might be elected. There are five options in the paper, which are not so much about the method of election as the method by which the positions of deputy convener will be allocated.

One of the problems with the option of electing a deputy convener from the same party as the convener can be seen by looking round this room. There does not appear to be anybody—at least sitting round the table—who can become the deputy convener of the committee because there is no other Conservative representative. That is a profound difficulty.

There is a stronger reason for saying that we should not have conveners and deputy conveners from the same party, and it relates to a discussion that was held by the bureau that will be rehearsed by this committee. One of the best ways to cement into committees a more consensual approach to politics, with committees operating across party lines, is to try to share some of the responsibilities of convenership: guiding the committee; being involved with the clerks; briefing the committee; and devising its papers and materials.

Taking the political line—that the SNP is in charge of one committee and Labour is in charge of another—would miss that opportunity. Having a convener from one party and a deputy convener from another could help the parties to work together in the committee system. It could be quite attractive to mix it up like that.

That discussion has been taking place for some time in the bureau. There is no agreement on it; it was felt that the Procedures Committee might be able to assist us. The paper does that, because options I and 2 are the only options that the bureau discussed. By some miraculous transformation—or transmutation—the number of options had grown to five by the time the paper reached us here. That is excellent, because number 3 is very interesting: committees might well want to choose a deputy convener from among their number, without any interference from the political parties.

Number 4—that deputy conveners may not be required all that often, but if they are they can be picked by rota—is an interesting possibility too. However, the problem with the rota system is that there is no continuity and there would probably not be as much mixing. Option 5 is that deputy conveners are simply a convenience in case the convener falls under a bus. Until he or she is resuscitated, somebody else is slotted in—

Bring in the conductor.

Yes, bring in the conductor. Somebody else is slotted in to do the job.

I am attracted to option 3 now, 1 and 2 having been a difficulty for the parties. Option 3 might produce some interesting results but I am not attracted to number 1—and never have been—because it carves things up without recognising the new politics and the potential for people to work together. It also creates difficulties for the Liberals and the Tories on certain committees where they have only one member. That is an insurmountable obstacle.

It all hinges on the role of the deputy convener. If they are there simply to allow business to proceed in the absence of the convener, it is a fairly small matter, and options 4 and 5(b) will take care of it neatly. The decision might be different if the deputy convener is seen to have a job in relation to the committee—if we were clear what that job was.

Janis indicated that she wanted to come in.

Yes, I take a diametrically opposite view to Michael, funnily enough.

There is merit in option 1, from the point of view of continuity and liaison. We could get ourselves into difficulties if the deputy convener and the convener are from different parties. We have cross-party discussions in committee meetings, not in any discussions prior to that which the convener and deputy convener might have to undertake as part of their duties.

When a committee has only one member from a particular party, the Liberals and the Conservative party—for example—could come to an agreement whereby they would rotate the convenerships. For example, if the convener was a Liberal Democrat, it could be agreed that the deputy convener would be a Conservative. The agreement would still pose a problem, though.

I think that that is a weakness in your argument.

Think about it this way—if you were convener of a committee and Andy were deputy convener, would we ever have a discussion in a meeting?

I favour either 5(a) or 5(b)—probably 5(b). It is not desperately necessary for us to have a deputy convener; we should address the issue if and when it arises.

I throw in a further thought. Is there an argument for treating the committees that shadow ministers and the statutory committees differently? In the case of the statutory committees, I suspect that there is no particular political issue at stake and that what is making this difficult is that in some of the legislative-cum-investigatory policy committees, there may be a desire to devolve some of the work and to have a political ally to devolve it to. However, given that a number of those committees are chaired by Opposition politicians, I am not convinced that that is all that important.

That is exactly the point. It would give—even symbolically—the right impression for the committees to attempt to find a cross-party method of working together. In the convenership of a committee, that would be illustrated by a Labour convener and an SNP deputy convener. If we cannot agree on that, 5(b) is the only option. That is, if the convener is not at the meeting the committee elects another convener. It would be up to the convener to drag themselves here on a hospital trolley if they wanted to continue to control what was happening.

Murray asked the first relevant question—about the role of the deputy convener. Is he or she seen as part of a power structure, in which case is it worth arguing about? I am not clear about that. Secondly, I gather that there is no money for the committee to meet elsewhere, whereas the European Committee can go all over the place. One visit a year to Auchtermuchty is our ration, if that. If, as I understand it, we are to break up into groups of three or more—Noah's ark plus inflation—as some committees will do to visit schools and local authorities and so on, does the leader of that group need a title? Do we need to have deputy conveners to lead the smaller groups around? If so, it may be necessary for us to have deputy conveners. However, if they are merely a substitute for the convener and not part of the power structure, I am all for 5(b).

Under the standing orders, the role of the deputy convener relates simply to conducting meetings—an on-going role is not envisaged. The convener of a committee has a relationship with the clerks in terms of programming the work of the committee; if the convener were to be unavailable for a prolonged period, the deputy convener might have to do that. It appears that the deputy convener is not necessarily the convener of a sub-committee or of a deputation. He or she simply stands in for the convener when the convener cannot be present. That indicates that the position is a relatively unimportant one and a matter of no great ceremony or dignity. The best way forward on this is either for the committee to choose a permanent deputy convener, or to agree that when the committee needs a deputy convener it will be decided on the spot; that is 5(b), and I am quite happy to go with that.

The choice between options 1 and 2 is a political dispute that I could do without. Option 5(b) takes that element of dispute away and makes the issue simpler to deal with. I am in favour of that.

To ask a technical question, how long can we let this lie? If we choose option 5(b), we need to amend the standing order substantially. The standing order prescribes that there shall be deputy conveners; the Parliament is disobeying that at the moment. How long can one disobey with impunity? What happens if we disobey standing orders indefinitely?

We need to incorporate that into the report that is to go to the Parliament after the October recess.

Could we just ignore the requirement to have deputy conveners until then?

Between now and then, we should continue to ignore that requirement, as we have ignored it so far. No retribution has been visited on us, and it seems unlikely that any will be at this stage. We should continue with that for the next few weeks and try to resolve the situation in the future. John, can we have a report for the next meeting that suggests a change in standing orders? We are doing that for all the other options that we are considering. Let us examine what the standing orders say before the next meeting.

Are we agreed that we will accept option 5(b), which shows the benefit of the Parliamentary Bureau remitting to this committee any difficulties that it has?

Members indicated agreement.

I hope that the Parliamentary Bureau does not overexercise that approach. Well done to the clerks for expanding our range of options.

The second item that the Parliamentary Bureau has remitted to us is the time allocation for members' bills. That item came to our attention very late last week, when there was not enough time to consider a paper on it. We discussed the matter earlier today, and if committee members are in agreement we will continue on that course until the next meeting. By that time, the officers will have had an opportunity to put together a reasonable response for us.

Did we deal with the problem of the oldest member not wanting to sit in the chair?

That is the third issue, to which we are just coming.

I am sorry. My concentration is going.

Yes, I know. It gets quite hard to concentrate.

We come to the last page of this paper, and the issue that is headed “Rule 12.1.4: Election of Committee Conveners". We must agree that this should be on the priority issues list and that the clerks should draw up a form of words that will resolve the matter. We do not need to engage in a long discussion of the situation. A sensible point has been raised; it would be an absurdity if we found ourselves sending a senior member of a committee out of a room because, for whatever reason, he was unwilling to chair the business.

I had a wee thought as I read these papers to put myself to sleep last night. In the local authority of which I was a member, on one occasion every four years—for the first meeting after the election—the chief executive took the chair. He did not fulfil any political role whatever; he simply asked for nominations for the office of provost. That procedure was then conducted, and the chair was handed over. I wonder whether it would be a good idea for the clerk of each committee to chair the business for the first item. The issue of senior members could be taken out of the frame altogether.

I agree.

I am not saying that that should be the decision, but it should be an option.

It is an option.

It may clash with something in the consultative steering group report.

It would mean that business managers would not have to ask all members their ages, only to be knocked back by certain members who would not give their age.

Of all the angels-dancing-on-the-point-of-a-pin issues that we have dealt with so far, this involves by far the sharpest pin. It is a piffling issue, which I have never in my life had to discuss.

That shows a remarkable insensitivity to agism, which I forbear from saying might be a subject in which Donald Gorrie will become more interested as time goes by.

No, no, no.

I chaired two of those meetings.

Let us keep the debate in good humour.