Official Report 287KB pdf
Paper 6 deals with the letter from George Lyon. Some of the correspondence has been heated, some of it not. There seems to be some difficulty between this committee and the Standards Committee. The question is whether this committee wants a paper from the clerks or whether it wants to deal with the matter in the course of time.
We would like to have a paper on the matter.
Okay.
I have no objection to receiving a paper on this matter, but it is resolving itself and there is a feeling that we should continue to examine it from time to time. A paper does not strike me as a priority at this stage.
That appeared to be the message that I was getting as well, but it may not reflect everybody's view. I would rather have the issue resolved politically than procedurally. It is a matter for the business managers to sort out among themselves, if they can. If they cannot do so, we may have a part to play.
I ask you to note that this has not been referred to you by the Parliamentary Bureau, the Presiding Officer or the business managers, but by one member of a committee—not even with a letter that was signed by others. That indicates that this is a matter in which an amicable resolution is possible.
There are two points to be made. First, in his correspondence with some of the individuals who are involved in this, Sir David suggested that the matter should be discussed by the Procedures Committee, although he noted that he did not view the issue as a priority for this committee. Secondly, the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee decided to remit the matter to this committee, although we do not yet have the report of that meeting.
That is a much more important reason for discussing the matter than George Lyon's letter.
If there is not yet any remit, we understand that one is coming. That puts a bit of pressure on us. The difficulty is that I am not sure that we will be able to resolve the matter before the committee meeting in a fortnight.
Given the time pressure that we will be under at the start of October, we should accept the fact that the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee has remitted the matter to this committee. However, there is no urgency in getting the paper on to the priority issues list. We must get all the items on that list out of the way by the end of October. I would be happy to receive a paper whenever the clerks produce one.
Okay. Is everyone happy about that?
It seems strange that somebody should be precluded. If a small party were elected to the Parliament, every member of that party might be a spokesperson, which might preclude those members from becoming conveners.
The paper would have to address that issue.
They would have to be spokesmen on something else.
Thank you. That point is on the record.