Procedures Committee, 23 Jan 2001

Meeting date: Tuesday, January 23, 2001

Official Report 93KB pdf

---

Committee Operations

I shall give a little bit of background information for the benefit of members who have joined us today for the first time. The committee has gathered together a considerable range of issues that fall under the general heading of committee operations. The outstanding issues are summarised in the tables in the paper for this item, but members will be delighted to know that we will not discuss them all this morning—they are included simply as background. We carry the issues forward from meeting to meeting and, as the meetings progress, reports come before us and we take the issues off the agenda.

We have only one such report this morning, which is about the timing of committee annual reports. We are invited to agree that the parliamentary year is a suitable break point for the purpose of annual reports and that we do not need to change existing practice. The parliamentary year, as the report explains, ends on 11 May. That is when the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body reports—it is suggested that committee annual reports should be issued in accordance with that time scale.

It is not a world-shattering issue on which I would be prepared to go to the wall, but I must say that I found the arguments in favour of 11 May pretty unconvincing. It is much more logical to see the summer recess as a suitable break; the report quite correctly says that the world does not end at the summer recess and that some committee work goes on. Quite often, committees see the end of June—at the earliest—as the end of a lap, if not the end of the race. They tailor their work plans accordingly.

We must also consider what will happen in the fourth year of the Parliament. By 11 May of that year, there will have been an election and an entirely different bunch of people might have come in. Would there be no report for the last year of a committee, or would there be a report by the new committee after the election? Using the summer break as the year's end would allow a slightly more up-to-date report. My main argument is that the summer recess makes a better terminus than 11 May, which is just a day in the calendar on which we continue to work. If it were up to me, I would go for the summer break, but as I said, it is not a huge issue.

I would argue along the same lines as Donald Gorrie. I wonder whether there is some administrative reason—perhaps with regard to resources in the Parliament—why 11 May is a better date than the start of the summer recess, which is a logical conclusion to the year's events. In some respects, 11 May seems to be somewhere in the middle.

I am not aware that there is a resource argument. Members will be aware that last year's report, which will be based on the situation on 11 May 2000, is not with us yet, so the resource issue might not be strictly relevant.

I would like to know who put the subject on the agenda and why we are discussing it. Some committees might have found the suggested timetable difficult. My experience of committee work suggests that there would be no problem with reporting in line with the parliamentary year. That has a certain logic to it, and 11 May is as compelling as any other date. I would also like to know whether it is usual for the Procedures Committee to use the initial submission as a reference point for discussing issues.

When first I read the paper, I assumed that because we were using the parliamentary year, there would be a report in the final year of Parliament and that there would be a report every year. However, I note that rule 12.9 of the standing orders states that a report shall be submitted

"as soon as practicable after the end of each Parliamentary year".

I am not sure how that would work at the end of the fourth year of a Parliament, when there will have been an election. I assumed that committees would try to report before the election. That is my understanding of the situation, which is why I would stick with the recommended date of 11 May.

I am unable to say who raised the issue originally. It is item 16 in our series of issues. I could track it back and find out who raised it, but I cannot say categorically who that was. I think that it came from within the clerking and reporting directorate. Was not the paper written by Elizabeth Watson?

Elizabeth Watson endorsed the paper. The table of issues came about after we canvassed colleagues for views. We discussed it with the head of the committee office and brought the proposal to the Procedures Committee, which endorsed it. I think that the convener is right to say that the issue arose first from clerkly concerns.

On Kenneth Macintosh's second point, committees are required to report even in a general election year.

The May date is logic-driven by the termination of the Parliament because, although the election might take place a few days before that, the committees will do no work between the election and 11 May. That means that we are working back from the terminal date. Although Donald Gorrie suggests that it would be more logical to end the year at the start of the summer recess, that probably could not happen in the fourth year, as we would be spanning an election, two different Parliaments and, perhaps, a completely different committee agenda. It would be competent for us to leave reporting until June or July three times in a session, and to have an earlier report in the fourth year, if that was considered sensible. That is not the recommendation of the clerking and reporting directorate, but that is not particularly significant if the committee feels that it is not the correct decision.

I asked where the idea came from because a particular committee might have had a particular problem. From my experience, I have not found 11 May a difficult date. There might be a rush to finish other committee work as we approach the summer recess and I would have thought that the extra burden of compiling a report might get in the way of finishing things before then. That encourages me to suggest that 11 May—the end of the parliamentary year—would be a good time.

Although there were some initial concerns that the compiling of reports could disrupt the committees' programmes, the length and non-contentious factual nature of those reports have not presented any problems.

Two opinions have been expressed; either the parliamentary year ends at the summer recess or on 11 May. The committee has to make a decision one way or the other.

I propose the summer date, if that helps. We might as well take the matter to a vote.

Having a vote is a poor beginning to our new committee, but there we go.

I think that Kenneth Macintosh felt that 11 May was quite acceptable.

I merely accept the recommendation of the report.

Will we need a member to second the motion formally?

No.

The motion is, that the committee prefers June. There is an amendment, to the effect that we should go for 11 May. Can I have a show of hands for the amendment, which is to have committee reports issued by 11 May?

For

Patricia Ferguson (Glasgow Maryhill) (Lab)
Frank McAveety (Glasgow Shettleston) (Lab)
Kenneth Macintosh (Eastwood) (Lab)

Oh dear. I can see how this is going to go. [Laughter.] Can I see a show of hands of those who are in favour of the motion, which recommends the start of the summer recess as the date by which committee annual reports must be issued?

For

Brian Adam (North-East Scotland) (SNP)
Donald Gorrie (Central Scotland) (LD)
Mr Gil Paterson (Central Scotland) (SNP)

Although I did not take a substantive vote, I will exercise a casting vote for the status quo, which is 11 May.

The next issue we should discuss is how conveners should cast their votes.

There is guidance on that matter. Every convener is entitled to a substantive vote if he or she wishes to exercise it; however, in exercising a casting vote, he or she would go for the status quo. I do not know whether that would apply in other circumstances.