Official Report 302KB pdf
Good morning and welcome to the Procedures Committee's sixth meeting in 2003. We have received no apologies, so I do not doubt that the two committee members who are not here will arrive shortly.
I am happy to take the convener's guidance, but I was unaware of the additional comments. If I could have a copy of the document, I would be happy to look at it.
The comments were e-mailed yesterday afternoon.
I was in the office until 8 o'clock last night.
You are more than welcome to be part of the discussion, if you want. However, we do not have time for another formal committee meeting. I do not want to sweep the points aside, because much work has been done on them. I would like to find a way of agreeing to the proposals, as far as possible, but that can be done only under a delegated authority to negotiate.
I apologise for the late submission of the points, which was my fault. They were the result of reading the report in the round. I felt the urge to suggest some textual points of nuance, as the convener said. I hope that I have not raised substantive issues about what the committee agreed to. If I had such a point, I would not press to include it at this stage.
Do we agree to the course of action that I proposed?
Members indicated agreement.
I will begin where we left off—at paragraph 496 of the consultative steering group report. We will round that off, although we must go back a step afterwards.
I am happy with the consensus in paragraph 496. However, as I have said to the convener, I would like us to add a reference to providing scope for urgent constituency matters to be raised to the paragraph's penultimate sentence, which concerns reserving time to commemorate anniversaries or significant events. If a ballot system were adopted, that might mean that a member would have to wait for ever to have a members' business debate on an urgent constituency issue. We need to provide a way to push that up the agenda.
That is a reasonable note to enter. Ultimately, the Parliamentary Bureau has the power to fix appropriate business, but it would be better to recognise that need, if the committee felt that the point was appropriate. I do not see anybody objecting, so I assume that, subject to that addition, we are happy to agree to paragraphs 496 and 497.
Members indicated agreement.
I say good morning to the members who have just arrived. Can we go back to—[Interruption.] There is nothing that can be said about that mobile phone ringtone. Enter Kenneth Macintosh, sprinkling stardust. Walt Disney could not have done it better.
I like to make an entrance.
While you get yourselves geared up and switch off your various pieces of equipment, I draw members' attention to paragraphs 466 to 469. They were in the previous meeting's papers, but for some unaccountable reason—probably because of being brain-dead at the end of six months of all this stuff—I skipped a page and did not highlight those paragraphs. They have not been discussed or agreed, so I have brought them back.
To be fair to ministers—which I always seek to be—and to create a level playing field, perhaps the last sentence in paragraph 469 could mention members whose supplementary questions dribble on. I do not know whether we need to alter standing orders to cover them, but if the Presiding Officer is to be tough with ministers, he should be tough with members, too.
I think that the authority to do that exists, but if it does not and if the standing orders are in any way ambiguous, I would agree with that suggestion. It is extremely irritating when people ramble on and on with questions. I do not know what it is about the word "question" that some members do not understand. It means a sentence with a question mark at the end that makes a point and seeks information. We have some verbose questions. We will double check the position and, if we need to include a reference to it, I am happy to do so to strengthen that paragraph because that is part of sharpening up business.
I thought we had discussed the issue, although that might not have been as part of the CSG inquiry. I am concerned that we are asking the Presiding Officer to take a rather contentious role. We do not want to encourage the Presiding Officer to pull ministers up any more than is necessary.
I thought that it was a pretty simple issue to deal with, because it has nothing to do with how information is made available. It is a matter of managing parliamentary business and is therefore a short, sharp and reasonably discrete exercise that we are capable of addressing.
I fall in line with Donald Gorrie's comments. I would be surprised to find out that members are already required to buck up and get on with their questions but, if they are, it is only fair and reasonable that ministers should work under the same constraints. As the convener implied, we do not have to be rocket scientists to bring about the change, which seems fair and reasonable.
I was agreeing with Gil Patterson up until his last point about the Presiding Officer being the judge and jury. That is what concerns me.
That is the judgment that the Presiding Officer would make. If the question is disputatious and point scoring, we would expect the answer to fall within the same parameters. I do not think that it is a major problem; at least, it has not been a major problem since Susan Deacon stopped answering questions.
Oh!
We are simply trying to clarify the rules. It is not an issue that needs an awful lot of evidence. It strikes me as a point of common sense, to which evidence would not add anything.
I ask only because I want to know who is pushing for the change. Where does the concern come from?
The Presiding Officer.
We have not asked ministers what they think about the issue. I am not totally against the recommendation because, on the face of it, it is a matter of common sense. At the same time, the recommendation is for a specific change. The Presiding Officer can be in a tricky position and can be asked to rule on a point that contains nothing whatsoever and which someone has raised as an excuse to raise a political point. I do not want to encourage that practice.
The only other possibility is that we would have to admit irrelevant and overly long answers. We cannot go there. If we are going to say anything explicit, it has to be along the lines of what has already been suggested.
The general principle of the recommendation is fine because we are trying to create a level playing field between questions and answers. I am happy for there to be some symmetry of approach.
No, it depends on the context.
I agree. There is a difference between froth or obfuscation and a lengthy and informative answer about an important issue of the day. I am slightly concerned about the way that the recommendation is constructed and the use of "concise". I know that being concise and being brief are not the same, but there is something about the nuances behind "concise" that I do not like.
How about inserting "appropriate"?
The word "relevant" is appropriate.
If we were to say "relevant and appropriate", that would mean that the answer could take as much time as was needed.
Or if it is just waffle.
It might be waffle, but that might happen with a response to a question that was asked in a similar vein.
Kenny Macintosh has a point about how we go on from here. I do not have an alternative phraseology to hand, which is why I give the convener papers containing my delayed reactions ages after our meetings. We have not jumped on other issues and recommended that standing orders should be changed to do something, so I wonder if the convener could change the recommendation to say something like "We therefore recommend that the standing orders are revised to allow the Presiding Officer to make appropriate changes." You see what I mean—I cannot think of something off the top of my head. However, the last line of the recommendation could be phrased slightly differently to address Kenny Macintosh's concerns.
We could say, "We therefore recommend that the Parliamentary Bureau should initiate discussion to revise standing orders." That would make it a matter for the bureau, and it would have to be negotiated by the business managers anyway. It would also allow the Executive and the Opposition parties to have their say. We are not promoting a specific change to standing orders and the issue will inevitably come back for further discussion. We would not make the change without that.
I guess that the Executive might come back with the point that there is sometimes a lack of detail in questions. We have discussed that before. A member might ask a question but be leading on to something else. Thereafter, the Executive's response might not be helpful to the member because the answer did not address the point that the question was leading to.
We are talking about oral questions rather than written ones.
My comment is related to oral questions. A member might ask when the minister last visited Kenny Macintosh's constituency of Eastwood—I do not want to mention Springburn again—but the question might lead on to something else. That is probably not the best example but we have to get back to the real world, and sometimes a question lacks detail.
Sometimes, ambush questions are asked. Someone might ask when a minister last visited Eastwood, with a supplementary question that the minister simply could not have predicted from the lead question. The minister frequently replies to such questions by saying that they will write to the member on the subject concerned. I think that we should accept that that is what ministers do, so that members have no incentive to ask such questions.
I do not want to water down the emphasis on the need for answers to be relevant. I assume that the point of recommendation 56 is to ensure that ministers do not use the opportunity of answering a question to go off on a spurious attack on the Opposition on unrelated matters.
You are right.
We could underscore our feeling that ministers should keep their answers relevant. It is a question of whether we actually recommend a change to standing orders. The suggested wording on asking the bureau to consider the matter was good.
I am not happy with this. People have been asking ministers to keep their answers concise and to answer the question. That is what we are talking about.
We are not losing that in our recommendation.
I know that, but I am referring to what Ken Macintosh said. I think that a change to standing orders is required; that is better than not calling for one. If our proposal is to be meaningful, it requires a change to be made, although I am not concerned whether such a change would come about through the Parliamentary Bureau, the Procedures Committee or another mechanism. A problem has been recognised and we need to tackle it.
You sound surprised.
No, I am not surprised—it is just the way things are. Every party is the same in that regard. We should bring the bad ministers into line, and the only way to do so is through a change to standing orders.
The point is to kick the subject onto the agenda for creating standing orders, which have to be discussed and broadly agreed before they get through the Parliament. The wording could be something like, "We therefore recommend that the Parliamentary authorities consult on, and bring forward, proposed standing orders to allow the Presiding Officer to require ministers to offer relevant and appropriate answers to oral questions."
That is fine. I would go for that.
Peace is brokered.
Send him to Iraq.
There are limits—I am not willing to be a human shield.
Before that, I would like to make a point about paragraph 506. It struck me that we might want to expand it. We have stated:
Yes. That is paragraph 505 on my copy. That is because I put in an extra paragraph 497.
It struck me that recommendation 64, which is contained in paragraph 505, or 506, depending on which copy we are referring to, is written in a slightly obscure way. People will not necessarily see the recommendation in context. Did we mean to link that recommendation to our survey, which showed that if we had to expand parliamentary time, Wednesday evenings were the favoured option?
Yes. The reworded paragraph 503 refers to "further work on proposals".
I am obviously working from the wrong copy of the report.
No, that was paragraph 503 in last week's papers, which should now appear as paragraph 504. The underlining has disappeared.
Can I check what papers we are meant to have here?
We have two versions of the draft report.
I am confusing everyone.
I threw one out, because—
I am confusing everybody. I will use the updated report. I had written things on last week's copy, but it is better if I do the same as other members, as we will be one paragraph out otherwise.
Yes—we circulated what was paragraph 503, and the underlining is now different.
Paragraph 504, as it is now, refers to
I have some comments to make on the substance of underlined paragraph 503 as was, or paragraph 504 as is. I am quite happy with the way in which that paragraph is written, but I suspect that I am not alone in having issues to probe and questions to ask before some other points in this section of the report are signed off. Although I appreciate the mechanism that was used for circulating the text and asking for assent, with silence being assent, I suspect that there are still some burning issues that need to be raised.
Subject to that, do we agree the section on time in the chamber?
Could we not just replace "hours" with "practices" in paragraph 505? If I understood Susan Deacon correctly, that would make her point.
I am happy to do that if that is what the committee wants.
Members indicated agreement.
Are there any queries on the next section, which is on the civil service and runs from paragraph 507 to paragraph 513?
I have a note on paragraph 513. The first sentence of that paragraph says:
I am happy to add that. It is a matter of fact.
We would want to add cross-references to the Ullapool meeting, as that statement came out of it.
Is everybody happy with that?
Members indicated agreement.
If there are no issues with the section on evidence, which is paragraphs 514 to 518, we will move on to the section headed "Discussion". Donald Gorrie has a point to make about paragraph 519.
The quotation from Sir Edward Bridges is perfectly correct and well known, but there is an implication that we agree with him, which an examination of paragraphs 528 and 529 shows that we clearly do not. I suggest that we add a note after the quotation, which is in heavy type, to say, "This definition should be compared with paragraphs 528 and 529." The point may be pedantic. I personally think that Bridges is talking rubbish. We need not say that. We could say it more politely.
The quotation is in paragraph 519 to state an opinion. I have noted the committee's discomfort with opinions with which it does not agree. I am happy to add a piece of text after the quotation to refer to the current practice, which is discussed in paragraphs 528, 529 and 530. We can sort out the paragraphs later.
I, too, have concerns about the Bridges quotation and would challenge it. A bigger discussion about the nature of power needs to be had. We are not in a position to have that discussion. If we accept, as I do, that knowledge is power, there are all sorts of issues about the way in which knowledge and information are shared and used.
If we say something about the civil service's responsibility for interpreting and implementing policy, would that cover your concerns?
Yes, I think so.
We will include something round about paragraph 523 or 524.
I have a point on paragraph 540 about the departmental committee liaison officers. I regard them as two-way gateways, if that is the right expression, so, after saying that the system is
I think that the reason that that is not included is that it is the practice. However, for that reason, it might be appropriate to include it. The DCLOs' job is to monitor what committees do, but it would not do any harm to add that process.
I may be ignorant, but I have never met a DCLO. They exist, do they? They are not mythical.
Our DCLO has attended committee meetings, has spoken to the committee and is regularly in touch with the clerk. You would probably know him if you saw him, but we are not allowed to name civil servants in the committee. Although we would be doing so in an uncritical and non-aggressive way, I am sure that he would be grateful not to have his identity revealed.
So they do exist, but I do not relate the person to the title. Mea culpa in that case.
It is not tua culpa—that is the point.
Use a code name.
M would probably do.
Donald Gorrie makes an important point. It proves the point that we are trying to get across.
I did not know who the DCLO was for the Transport and the Environment Committee when I was a member of that committee, but I know who this committee's DCLO is because I asked the clerk. Now that I know who the DCLO is, I am in the loop and I know the carefully guarded secret. That is absurd, as the DCLO ought to be known to us all. We ought to be able to have a proper, open relationship with whoever that person is. Apparently, there is a squad of such people throughout the civil service. They do a useful job, no doubt, but it tends to be a one-way street. Paragraph 540 tries to make it work in both directions. I am sure that the DCLOs will find that professionally enhancing.
I have a number of points on paragraphs 536 to 539. I ask colleagues to give me an early indication if they do not agree with me, in case I am on my own.
Paragraphs 536 to 539 were added because members wanted a lot of the points in those paragraphs to be added. Paragraph 539 was an explicit response to the request that civil servants should help members to draft amendments. The idea of putting the DCLOs in the report came from a specific request that we identify a contact point for committees.
That is fine. I have problems only with paragraphs 536 to 539. Paragraphs 540 to 542 are fine and the bulk of the content of paragraphs 536 to 539 is fine, but I wondered whether we were being a bit premature.
Paragraph 537 does not prescribe anything; it is observational. Paragraph 536 is pretty general and is the basis on which paragraphs 539 and 540, which are about more collaborative work, are written. Paragraph 538 is more specific. If members do not want to include paragraph 538, I am relaxed about that.
At the risk of sounding as though I am facing all ways at once, I will make a comment. The specifics that are proposed in paragraphs 536 to 539 are fine—I do not balk at any specific suggestion. However, the approach that we have adopted elsewhere in the report has been to be clear that a job needs to be done and to make some specific suggestions that we think ought to be implemented but to leave space for those who get round the table to think about the best way of doing it.
Do you want to add senior parliamentary officials to that paragraph?
And senior Executive people.
I am being quite explicit about this: let us be absolutely honest about it. We are in the process of appointing a new permanent secretary for the civil service of Scotland. I am not sure when that person will be coming into post, but it will probably be at a key stage in the second session of the Parliament. It is important that the new permanent secretary takes direct responsibility for crafting and shaping precisely the kind of relationships we are discussing. We should not regard the suggestions as concerning wee day-to-day operational changes.
I am happy with being explicit and I do not want to be difficult here, but in previous discussions, we have already asked for the things that Susan Deacon mentioned. We asked for a standard to be set at the very least.
Having raised the issue, I am conscious that we must press on or we will not be able to complete our consideration of the inquiry. I am happy to keep everything in the paper, bearing in mind the comments that have been made. Susan Deacon's points help me because they indicate that we are not closing down and restricting what we are looking at. We want it be broader and deeper.
Okay, do we agree on Susan Deacon's addition?
Sorry, convener, I have been trying to comment on the matter too, although my point is slightly different.
The fact that six of you do not know who our DCLO is—and most of you will not know who the DCLO is in your other committees, such as the Standards Committee—is disappointingly static.
It is disappointing, but there is also movement. I am just making my point.
I do not agree with that last point, but I agree with your first point, which was that we should include some wording to reflect the civil service concern about being sucked into political or partisan issues, as opposed to providing information, guidance and expertise. That is a perfectly fair point to include.
I will try to meet some of the points made by various people. Would it create a constitutional disaster to say in paragraph 542 that the steering group should be made up of MSPs, ministers, senior civil servants and parliamentary officials?
That is what we agreed.
There is a considerable difference between that and the current suggestion that the civil servants should take a supportive role in the group. I believe that the civil servants should be there to fight their corner rather than going away in a cabal afterwards.
I think that we should take out "along these lines" and include simply "a new relationship between the civil service and Parliament." That gives the group complete scope.
Paragraph 551 says that there will be a proper consultation, but we should add that, in the meantime, we recommend that committees should scrutinise non-departmental public bodies annually.
Do you mean that every committee must do an investigation of the cognate NDPBs every year or simply that they should consider the annual report? The NDPBs will lodge an annual report with the Parliament and committees will have the opportunity to read and take evidence on them. We could bog committees down substantially if we required them to scrutinise everything that comes within their purview every year.
The committees could quiz the NDPBs on their reports annually and if they did not like what they heard they could undertake more serious investigation.
I have an example from the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee of what I hope is good practice on major NDPBs. Scottish Enterprise and Highlands and Islands Enterprise dominate the scene in the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee, but there are many other organisations, such as VisitScotland, that that committee must consider. The Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee took the view that it could not review everybody's annual report, and decided this year, as part of the budget process, to focus on Scottish Enterprise.
Paragraph 551 asks our successors to come up with a framework for scrutiny. The point that has been raised is something for the successor committee to consider in determining the framework. I think that Donald Gorrie is jumping to the end of the process and trying to prescribe a conclusion that might be inappropriate given the work load of some committees and the number of bodies with which they are involved.
I am afraid that I continue to have concerns about this section. I apologise that I have not consigned alternative text to writing, but I am willing to do that at the 11th hour. I do not disagree with anything in the section, but I think that it is mealy-mouthed. It is not the remit of the inquiry to get into a comprehensive exercise on the modernisation of government.
Paragraph 556 struck me as rather odd. I am not quite sure why it is in the report.
I am not quite sure why the section is in the report, but never mind.
We say on one hand that we welcome the Executive's work on modernising government and we talk about the consultation process. We then say:
Consultation is not the same as developing. Do you want paragraph 556 to be taken out?
Yes.
We could take it out and start with paragraph 557. If Susan Deacon wants to propose ways of fine tuning the section, we could agree to try to negotiate a form of wording separately later. You have obviously done some thinking about that, but I do not think that you are clear about precisely what you want to do.
I am clear about what I want to do, but I readily confess that I have not given you a specific wording. In response to your throwaway line about why the section is in the report, I think that it is relevant to have a section on modernising government.
I am just upset about the time.
That is fair enough, but we have spent a year and a half on this, so it is worth trying to get some of those points right.
I think that everyone is happy for us to go over that section subsequently. There are no problems with paragraphs 562 to 566, on parliamentary consideration of constitutional and governance matters, or with paragraphs 567 to 577, on power sharing. We come to parliamentary committees' operations, in paragraphs 578 to 582. There are no points on that, so we move on to the section on concerns expressed, in paragraphs 583 to 584—a nice short section.
I picked up on a point of substance in paragraph 579. We have not discussed—nor should we have because it is not part of our remit—the hybrid nature of parliamentary committees, which is a fundamental aspect of the way in which the Parliament operates. At the absolute least, there ought to be a stock taking on that point over time. I fear that worked into the report is the implicit endorsement that we think that that is a jolly good thing and that it is all working well. The last thing that I am suggesting is that we open up discussion of the report in that regard just now. However, I do not think that we should allow a view to creep in almost by accident on something as substantive as that.
I take that point entirely. Let us agree that we will put in a new paragraph that notes that committees' dual role has not been part of the investigation, but the Parliament should audit it and consider it at a future date. Our successor committee might want to work on that in conjunction with the Conveners Group.
I am sorry. I go back to paragraph 589, on co-option. My understanding is that we are certainly not making a recommendation for co-option, albeit that we are pointing out the view that was expressed. Are we making that clear enough in the report? The paragraph reads:
We have said that the key question is entirely different. We have not recommended that there should be co-option.
If other members think that that is good enough, I do not want to labour the point.
At our previous meeting, Ken Macintosh asked us to leave out the phrase about that being an example of the procedural changes that might be possible if control of procedures were fully repatriated. We put in the phrase about the Deputy Presiding Officer instead. We are struggling a wee bit to think of a third point.
I have a brief point on paragraph 596. I feel that a view has crept in to which we have not agreed. Please correct me if that happened at a meeting that I missed.
We discussed whether there should be guidance and whether it should be public, and we agreed that we did not think that there should be public discussion of the individuals.
I do not want to revisit a committee decision; I was just not aware of actively agreeing to one.
Our agreement was implicit in our discussions and in the evidence that we heard. I am not sure whether Susan has been involved in appointing committee advisers on subject committees, but I find the idea of going through the personal details and candidates' merits or demerits in a public session difficult.
Perhaps we could comment on the transparency of the process, which seems to be Susan's concern.
I do not want to press the matter if there is no consensus.
We will move on to the next section, beginning at paragraph 603, on draft reports on committee inquiries. I have suggested text for paragraphs 616 and 617, which I draw to members' attention. Does anyone have anything to say about the paragraphs prior to paragraph 616?
No.
Paragraphs 616 and 617 cover the vexed issues of whipping and freedom to vote. I have disaggregated what was originally included by leaving in some detail about committee business, and including details on the role of back-bench and non-ministerial MSPs in a new paragraph. We do not need a huge discussion on whipping, but it cropped up in the course of discussing committee reports. The purpose of paragraphs 616 and 617 is to say that the committee does not see whipping as particularly significant, and that political pressures should not be important.
I am happy with the wording. My point is separate, and is about discussing proposals in public.
Is your comment that the media can distort and misreport the process by concentrating on interim positions rather than final conclusions?
The media will not misreport, but will report what was discussed. They will say, "A draft report of Parliament suggested so and so," but the fact that it was a draft report will be missed. The general public receive most information through the media, and they will not see the word "draft".
The media usually say what they are commenting on. There was some coverage of this committee in The Herald and The Scotsman, and both made it clear that our report was a draft.
With respect, convener, our report is probably not the most controversial or politically sensitive.
Indeed.
Ken has a point. Perhaps we could include a sentence that says that a more open system would place a greater obligation on committee conveners to ensure that the public relations aspect of making everything clear is dealt with.
There is scope to include such a comment, perhaps after paragraph 622, which refers to the public coming to understand the process. As Donald says, including Ken's comment would put the responsibility on conveners, on our public relations people and on the press to report drafts as drafts.
I have difficulties with this section for several reasons. We are talking about the consideration of first reports. Let us face it: despite the magnificent efforts of clerks, serious clerical errors can occur in what is included in the draft report. That puts additional pressure on staff in preparation of the report. A draft report is then introduced to the public domain. The media have to make a living, and if the report includes something that can set a couple of hares running—for example, during the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill, the committee considered recommendations for a ban on smacking—errors could make the situation worse.
Yes. Errors could be heavily publicised.
This section should relate to the concerns that have been raised by all committees about the relationship between committees and the media prior to publication of a draft report. The Justice 1 Committee has referred public leaks of draft reports to the Standards Committee.
We have had this discussion—this is the third time that we have had it. What do you want to do?
I shall move against it. I think that I reflect the opinion of most members when I say that draft reports should be considered in private.
What specifically are you moving against?
Paragraph 622 states that we considered the argument for confusion if draft reports were released, but
I am not asking you to redebate the issue, but I want to be clear that you are moving to delete paragraph 622.
There are several elements of the section—
If you want to move something, you need to say what it is.
I would like to clarify something about the process. As I understand it—I think that Donald Gorrie understands it in the same way—if we want to change the report, we must submit suggestions formally in writing.
Yes, but we are going through the report and deciding whether to approve it. I do not think that Paul is suggesting alternative text; he disagrees fundamentally with something and wants to remove it. The committee is entitled to do that.
It sounds as if Paul is referring to the whole section.
That is what I am trying to establish.
Before we go to the vote—
We have not got anything to vote on yet.
Well, this is a point of clarification then. Recommendation 70 does not preclude committees meeting in private.
Of course it does not.
It suggests—and I happen to agree—that too many committees automatically meet in private. I would be the last person to suggest that reports should automatically be taken in public, because sometimes sensitive issues are involved that might not reach the final report. It is horses for courses. There must be flexibility, but the committee received a great deal of evidence from many parties that suggested that we do our committee work in seclusion automatically. Too many parts of our committee work are taken in private automatically. I do not think that there is a need to exclude any of the proposed text.
Nor do I. We are debating the issue yet again—this is our third substantive debate on the issue. We need to come to a decision. Paul Martin has indicated that he wants to take out some text. While he thinks about which text he wants to take out, Ken Macintosh will make a constructive suggestion.
I would like to add what I said earlier about the role of the media, which the convener accepted could be included in paragraph 622. Most members have a genuine fear that their actions will be misinterpreted, that draft reports will be misinterpreted and that the process will become the focus of attention, rather than members' conclusions. We should include a reference to that genuine fear. It is not just a fear; it is a problem that will have to be overcome.
I am perfectly happy with your suggestion for additional material for a new paragraph after paragraph 622. We could express fears of misinterpretation and anxiety about the process looming larger than the outcomes in reporting. Those are pertinent points to make.
I take that on board. In the light of the helpful contributions of Ken Macintosh and Gil Paterson, I withdraw my proposal for paragraph 622.
Paragraph 636 deliberately provides for that. It recognises that, with many witnesses, we engage in a more interrogative process. Some witnesses are hostile. I am not suggesting that civil servants would fall into that category. Paragraph 636 acknowledges that there are cases in which a committee might decide that it wanted to take such an approach. There is no reason why it should not do so.
Paragraph 634 states:
Paragraph 636 covers Paul Martin's concerns.
So does paragraph 637.
There is a range of witnesses. There is a difference between Muir Russell and some of the witnesses from community organisations that the Social Justice Committee has questioned. It is horses for courses. The relevant paragraphs cover the issue adequately. Paragraph 636 takes account of Paul Martin's concerns. Committees will still be able to meet in private to discuss the questioning of witnesses. There is no problem.
Broadly speaking, I am content with this section of the report, but I have a specific point to raise. I had to nip out of the room, so I apologise if the committee has already dealt with it. Do we say at some point that there should be a framework within which committees should operate? For example, on a previous occasion, I mentioned local government practice. John Patterson circulated a helpful note on that. Local government has established practices for prior publication of what will be considered in public and what will be in private. Paragraph 600 gives a general exhortation to publish such proposals in advance, but I wonder whether there is a paragraph that says specifically that a more formal guideline ought to be produced.
In paragraph 634, there might be room to emphasise the fact that we want to establish the principle that the Parliament's business is conducted openly, so that everyone can follow it. We do not want to put obstacles in the way of good practice or the efficient working of members. We could recommend further work, as Susan Deacon suggested. Such work could be along the lines of practice in other areas of government or it could build on the work that committees already do.
The directorate of clerking and reporting produces guidance for committee conveners. That guidance is being considered and the comments that have been made would fit into that process. In effect, the Conveners Group is being challenged to review the guidance under which it operates. The crux of the report is directed at the Conveners Group, the Parliamentary Bureau and the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body. Where appropriate, we want those bodies to respond to the issues that we have raised.
I suggest that we do not get too bogged down in the issue. The Conveners Group is reviewing how well things have gone in the past. That will be a legacy for future committees, after the elections. I would not want to be too prescriptive. We have flagged up our concerns about meeting in private. Although we encourage committees to meet more in public, we reserve their right to meet in private. That addresses Paul Martin's concerns. The Conveners Group is working on the area that has been mentioned. The convener is right—we should bounce back our thoughts to the Conveners Group, so that something will be included in the guidance that goes to the new committees after 1 May.
If there are grey areas, we could find that committees start to spend time on whether matters should have been discussed in private. That happens already. There will be debates on whether lines of questioning should have been considered in private or in public. Such debates will take up committee time. Although I appreciate that we expect members to act maturely and to enter into discussions in the right spirit, some members will raise concerns. They will say that the CSG report said that almost every item should be considered in public. There might be grey areas. It will be difficult to be prescriptive.
I am sure that it will. However, we should be pleased if our recommendation causes committees to reflect on their decisions to go into private session automatically, which tends to be what happens, even if, after consideration, they decide that the circumstances merit taking an item in private. At least the question whether to take the item in private will have been considered. That is the principal point.
That is right. Explaining the rationale means that the public will have a better understanding. Too often, even members do not know why a recommendation to deal with an item in private has been made. It is reasonable to operate in such a way that an explanation is given in advance and a decision is taken.
May I clarify the point that I asked about earlier? What will result from all of this? I have lost sight of the end point of the process. Are we saying that the Conveners Group will produce a specific set of proposals for the committees to work to?
We cannot tell the Conveners Group what to do, but in the last paragraph of the report I suggest that
Does anybody have an objection to us tagging on to the end of that a statement such as "with a view to developing guidelines to which committees will operate in future"? That is still quite a minimalist position compared with the statutory framework to which local authorities have to work.
We can add an extra paragraph that states that the issues that are raised in this and other sections of the committee part of the report should be referred to the Conveners Group, and that it should be asked to reflect on the report and review its guidance.
This is an incredibly important area. We have received so much evidence on the matter that it is vital that we produce something with some hard edges.
The paragraph will not necessarily belong in this section, but it will be in this general span of the report. We will consider where such a paragraph might best be located.
No.
Members have no points on paragraphs 652 to 657, on Executive majorities on committees, and on paragraphs 658 to 667, on committee meetings outside Edinburgh.
Members indicated agreement.
Paragraphs 688 to 707 are on non-Executive bills. I have no points to raise on those paragraphs and neither do other members.
I have a tiny point, which might be covered in the first half of the report. We had a discussion about the importance of non-confrontational meetings to get the best out of some witnesses. That is not covered in those paragraphs.
But it is covered somewhere else in the report.
That is fine.
I cannot tell you offhand where it is, but I guarantee you that it is in the report. I rewrote it, because the last time that we discussed the matter, Susan Deacon said that it was a bit patronising. I rewrote it to incorporate a number of nuanced suggestions that she offered in a constructive spirit. I will recognise it when we come to it later on. If, at the end of the meeting, Ken Macintosh is not satisfied, I ask him to raise the matter again, because we were very particular about what we wanted to put in the report.
No.
Paragraphs 736 to 745 are on the Parliamentary Bureau, and paragraphs 746 to 776 deal with concerns expressed about it. Paragraphs 768 and 769 remain underlined because, although we have discussed the matter twice, we did not ultimately agree. We agreed that we would try to put responsibility on the bureau to open up its processes, but we did not agree on those two specific paragraphs. Does anybody want to raise points about the earlier paragraphs or can we go to paragraphs 768 and 769 now?
I have a point about paragraphs 763 to 766, but it relates very much to the build-up to the points in paragraphs 768 and 769.
I think that, at the last discussion, the committee was broadly split between those who felt that they could accept the recommendations and those who felt that we did not know enough about the bureau to be able to make a judgment. In effect, paragraph 768 recommends that we move away from the block-voting arrangement in the bureau. It suggests that the bureau should have a membership of seven, for example; that the balance of the parties should be reflected in the bureau membership; and that we should operate it like a committee rather than have block votes.
Shall I go first?
Why not—you were the first to put your hand up.
The saying is something about where angels fear to tread, fools rush in.
Do not overstate it. I know that you should come in with your "Stardust" music at the beginning.
I have concerns about the Parliamentary Bureau. Such concerns were echoed throughout the evidence and throughout our year and a half of work. My concerns are about transparency in how the bureau operates. We have made a number of recommendations and suggestions for improving the operation and standing of the bureau—both in our eyes and in the public's eyes.
I am happy to do that. The point is not substantive. I do not know why the word "programme" was used; it was not a weighted or decisive choice of words. The term "timetable" will do just as well.
That is fine.
We will go through the section systematically and change references to the "programme" and "programming" to "timetable" and "timetabling". The idea is to have a framework that guarantees the Executive of the day its agreed time. It will divulge its business for the period over which officials are working. That would be more transparent.
Yes. To that extent, it is welcome. We are all frustrated by the fact that we never quite know when business will come up. However, the voting has not been the main issue of contention for me, and it is still not. I am not at all in favour of paragraphs 768 and 769.
I support Ken Macintosh. I am concerned that the Parliamentary Bureau has not been open and transparent. We address that in our report. However, I must be consistent. In the past, I have talked about a consensual type of Parliament, but we are members of political parties that have different views on many things, including some quite dramatic matters of disagreement. I have said that people should not expect us to walk in hand in hand in the morning and get on with our work. Parliament is not exactly like that.
Earlier paragraphs are designed to allow that very thing to happen.
Members may recall that I suggested the introduction of paragraphs 768 and 769. I sit on the bureau, so I know about the frustration, when there is consensus about ensuring proper timetabling of business, about having to set a timetable with one hand tied behind one's back. There might be consensus, but the voting system ensures that certain parties will always lose, which puts them at an extreme disadvantage.
I hope to see that one day.
Politics is politics. Such a change might be a challenge too far for the committee and the Parliament just now; we might want to wait to see the results of making the bureau more transparent. Nevertheless, if we are to be a proportionally representative Parliament, we should strike now to try to change the sharing of power. If the bureau is at the heart of the power, we should try to share more power around the bureau.
I am a bit bemused by all of this. I understood that there was reasonable agreement that we should suggest turning the bureau into an ordinary committee, such as this one, with seven members and a built-in majority—on a roughly proportional basis—whereby the Executive would carry the day if all its members agreed. That seems to me to be a reasonable suggestion. The Scotland Act 1998 said that there should be a business committee, about which I was enthusiastic. However, there is not a business committee; there is a bureau.
That was my view. I do not like the block-vote system in principle, because it deadens discussion and decision making in the bureau. Disputes tend to be about how much time is allocated to specific bills; it is not a question of taking time from the Executive—nobody has ever tried that. What has been suggested from time to time is that more time be allocated to certain debates or that a debate might be brought forward.
As I have said previously to the committee, I do not think that we are ready to make this recommendation. It does not flow naturally from the evidence that we have heard. I remain open minded about whether it will be the right way to go in the future, but I think that we need to probe the matter more fully with others who have been on the inside of the process—although I do not doubt Fiona Hyslop's experience or sincerity. I am more than happy to highlight the matter as an area for potential further examination, but I am not happy about our jumping to make a recommendation.
Okay. What do you think, Paul? Springburn speaks.
My view is similar to Susan Deacon's and you will not be surprised to hear that I am opposed to the PR system to which Donald Gorrie referred.
There is already such a system in the bureau.
Aye, there might be in the bureau, but there is an issue concerning the robustness of the bureau. The fact that the bureau is limited to a certain number of members is helpful. You said that the bureau might ask what back benchers thought. Does the committee really think that, given the pace of turnover of business in the Parliament, the bureau would have the time to consult Paul Martin to see whether he thought that—
But the bureau would be able to do that, given that the report says that members would have the opportunity to bid for more time if they knew what the forward business was.
Opposition parties are, however, sometimes able to change their business two or three days before it is due to be debated. It will not always be easy to find out what back benchers think. We must live in the real world of the Parliament. It is helpful to have a robust exchange of views about business.
The bureau is so secret that no one knows about it.
Exactly. That is the point.
Susan Deacon made the point that we do not know enough about the bureau to be able to pass judgment on it.
I accept that insufficient information is provided on the bureau. However, if we open up one secret vault we will create another. There will always be concerns about secrecy. I am being realistic about the position in which we find ourselves.
We cannot agree with the premise that simply because people do not know about something and do not write to their member about it, it does not matter to them, or that people would not be concerned if the issues were explained to them.
It would be good to use the term "open-minded".
The essential point is that the committee agrees to recommend no changes to the Parliamentary Bureau at this stage.
However, we believe that the Parliament might want to revisit the issue in the future.
We believe that, in the light of greater transparency in bureau business, our successor committee might want to return to the issue.
I proposed a further change to this section.
Given what we have just decided, that suggestion now goes by the board.
We could redesignate the bureau as the business committee. That is a separate issue.
Would not that be a slur on the other committees? [Laughter.]
I proposed that we should delete the last three lines of paragraph 774, delete the first line and a bit of paragraph 775, and insert the words:
I am happy with that proposal. However, we will need to change Donald Gorrie's wording slightly to reflect the fact that we are not suggesting a change to the composition of the bureau. We must make it clear that the bureau is not subject to the same standing orders rules as other committees. The member has made a fine suggestion; changing the name of the bureau might help people to understand what it does. However, if we use the word "committee", would the bureau be subject to the standing orders rules that refer to committees?
No, but a degree of confusion would be introduced. The bureau would be called a committee, but it would not be like other committees. It would not look like a committee, sound like a committee, smell like a committee or taste like a committee. We have decided that the bureau should not be a committee, so it would be difficult for us to decide that we should call it one. The bureau is not a committee in the same sense as other committees and should have a separate label.
As a compromise, could we call it the business bureau?
That makes it sound like something that the Standards Committee would want to regulate.
We have discussed the issue of names umpteen times. We should be careful about devising new labels in this way. As we have said, it is crystal clear that the terminology gets in the road—I had intended to raise this issue during discussion of the next section, but I will do so now. We seem to have lost the point that we wanted to make about the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body. We had agreed to raise the issue of names and titles in the section of the report that deals with the SPCB. I hate the terms SPCB and Parliamentary Bureau, because they inhibit people from understanding what we do. I like the simplicity of the term business committee, although I can see its downside.
Nor am I.
I have no objection to the name business committee but it might create another problem. Paragraph 775 sets out our position: we are not happy with the name Parliamentary Bureau because it has overtones of politburos.
Can we include the suggestion that the name Parliamentary Bureau be changed to business committee?
Yes.
We will do that.
Does not the term Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body appear in the Scotland Act 1998?
Yes.
Given that we are recommending that we should be able to change provisions of the Scotland Act 1998 that are essentially our business, it is not unreasonable for us to be able to change the name of the SPCB.
Company law requires companies to have particular titles and to be registered in particular ways, but the precise status of an entity can be set out in four-point text at the bottom of a company letterhead—companies may have day-to-day working titles. We are not in a position to resolve the issue now, but I suspect that even without statutory changes we might devise working descriptors of the key bodies, which people would recognise and understand far better than the current titles.
There is an issue about branding. The administration committee at Westminster is referred to—
The Public Administration Committee.
I do not know whether there is an opportunity to look at the Westminster model. There is a branding issue; what does the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body actually mean? A public exercise has been required in terms of the corporate body, so there is an issue about how we should brand it.
We could include in paragraph 792 a phrase that would cover that and cite it as an example of an area in which we cannot amend the Scotland Act 1998 despite the matter in hand's being clearly the Scottish Parliament's business, thereby resolving our difficulty in finding an appropriate example of that problem.
I will make two very small points. The first concerns the opening sentence of paragraph 777.
It is a John Patterson-type sentence.
I cannot believe that you said that.
I thought that the sentence was the convener's.
It probably was. John has begun to influence me.
That is the sort of thing that usually precedes a sycophantic reference to somebody.
What do you want to do with that sentence?
I want to delete it and to start with the second sentence. I am not quite sure what it says.
Indeed. The first sentence is definitely Pattersonian. Take it out. Off with its head!
My other point is about paragraph 791. We discussed it previously and concern was expressed that there are no formal domestic or housekeeping committees; however, there are such committees and we should acknowledge that fact. The SPCB has set up at least three committees—that I am aware of—to assist it in its work.
The reference in paragraph 791 is to committees on the House of Commons model; I do not think that the Holyrood progress group or the art steering group—with its profligate attitude to public money—are what is being referred to.
Perhaps there is an issue there.
There are committees at Westminster that do the menus and choose the wine, are there not? They are very heavily oriented towards getting into the nitty-gritty there, because there are so many people.
I assumed that committees such as those the SPCB has formed were what we were referring to.
I do not think so. We will look at the matter again.
It is not that important.
I am not suggesting that anybody here is being flippant about such issues, but it is important that we are not. The housekeeping issues for which the SPCB is responsible extend to the small matter of providing new building accommodation for members of this Parliament. A degree more transparency and scrutiny of what goes on there would therefore be for the good of all concerned. It is important that we do not understate the significance of the body.
I do not want to get into a feminist analysis, but the implication of words like "domestic" or "housekeeping" is that such issues are somehow trivial or unimportant. Members are saying that some of the sub-committees have a great deal of importance, and we should reflect that. Either the author feels that those terms are appropriate, and he is taking a feminist analysis, or he does not. If he does not, I suggest that we have more appropriate wording.
I second that.
What was that?
Just read the Official Report and you will be okay.
We have to finalise the wording before we get the Official Report.
If Ken Macintosh can come up with wording that reflects the importance of some of those committees, that would be helpful.
We should acknowledge the fact that there are at least three committees that have already been established by the SPCB to assist it in its work.
And, as new men, we see nothing gender-biased whatever in the use of the terms "domestic" or "housekeeping", do we?
No comment.
Do not go there.
The next section—paragraphs 793 to 802—is on the Conveners Group. There are no comments on that section.
The only thing that I want to ask about is the investigation of methods. Is that something that we want to recommend as research, or does the committee want to consider whether that could be done by an issues paper?
Do you want to extend paragraph 822 to recommend that our successor committee should request an issues paper?
Yes—that would be helpful.
Okay. If we are happy with that, we shall move on to the next section, on the role of MSPs, which is covered in paragraphs 823 onwards. I relocated some of the material on whipping to paragraphs 828 and 829. Paragraph 828 states simply that whipping exists and that there are reasons for it. Paragraph 829 is an attempt to encapsulate the point that we agreed on last time: that what is said should reflect what we expect of MSPs and what we expect of them is that they exercise their judgment. That is there for members to like or not, and to accept or change.
I am happy with the way in which you captured that, except in regard to a factual point that we agreed on. You say in the second clause of paragraph 829
You are probably right, but if there is no general agreement on a bill at the end of committee's stage 1 report, an Executive that is promoting a bill as a big election commitment has a legitimate right to expect that its MSPs will support the general principles of that bill. I am sure that somebody made that point. MSPs might not agree on aspects of such a bill and might say, "We are not convinced about that part of the bill." I am thinking of the Transport and the Environment Committee's views on workplace parking charges, for example, when the committee said that it did not think that a case for such charges had been made. At the end of the report, however, members agreed to recommend the general principles of the Transport (Scotland) Bill.
That is possible. People obviously form, and occasionally follow, party allegiances. Party whipping has a specific meaning as well; disciplinary procedures will be—or may be—followed if a member does not obey the party whip. As a matter of record, I do not think that the party whip is used in committee work. There might be all sorts of obligations, pressures, discussions and arguments, but I do not think that there is a party whip. If we replace the wording with—
We could replace it with "voting along party lines".
It is not so much that.
There is lots of that. It happens for all sorts of legitimate reasons.
That is what I mean. I was on the committee that went through the Housing (Scotland) Bill, to which there were about 500 amendments, and the three members from the Labour party never once deviated from the Executive line. I am not saying that they were formally whipped—that behaviour might have been voluntary, and that is what we have had the discussion around. However, if we do not like the word "whipping" in paragraph 828, we could say, "We concluded that voting on party lines was legitimate when the Parliament voted on motions related to the political messages of the political parties", which would reflect what we are trying to get across. Ken Macintosh is right to say that "whipping" implies that members vote on party lines because of instruction, as opposed to its happening voluntarily because members want to support the core election platforms of their party.
Susan is desperate to get into the dialogue.
No, I am not desperate. Perhaps we could amend paragraph 829. Rather than say
There is a certain amount of nuance in respect of what is and is not a whip. I am a member of one of the Executive parties and, in the past, I have received hymn sheets for committees that have told me the Executive line on everything. They go straight in the bucket, but they are issued. Do they constitute a whip? If I ignore what I am given, will I have to appear in front of my group whip, who will tell me that I am very naughty? I do not know. Would that happen to a member of another party?
I want to make two brief points about what Donald Gorrie has said—members should forgive me if what I say sounds like nit-picking. First, the matter is not just about legislation; if anything, party whipping systems—certainly at stages 1 and 3—are usually a healthy and legitimate part of the legislative process.
I said that the convener had come close to capturing the spirit of the matter. The only small point that I made concerned the use of the whip as opposed to voting on party lines. Susan Deacon is probably saying that
Donald Gorrie observed that there is a hymn sheet to guide some of the congregation, but not the whole body.
Not in committees.
I do not think that we should debate when a whip is not a whip.
Why do not we just leave the paragraph?
The proposals are an attempt neither to validate nor to invalidate processes that happen and that we have not investigated in detail. It would help if we left the paragraph.
The final four words of the improved text are superfluous.
I disagree—I think that only the final two words are superfluous. It is reasonable to mention "needs and interests".
Okay.
It is clear that the words "of constituents" should have disappeared.
The word "constituents" is used earlier in the sentence.
You are right.
I can live with what the paragraph says.
The optional section after paragraph 838 concerns representation of back benchers. I think that previous discussion came down against such representation, but the section is there if any member wishes to have another stab at persuading colleagues that it should be included.
We should mention exploring the possibility of a group to give a voice to back benchers.
It is clear that paragraph 1 in the optional insertion should go, as we have not agreed to recommend changes to bureau membership—I think that the same is true of paragraph 2—but the other proposals concern a back-benchers' group. The proposals could be amended to take out further references to bureau representation and a coherent justification for a back-benchers' group could still be produced. We should deal with the proposals, but appreciate that if they are agreed to, they would have to be amended so that references to bureau representation were combed out.
I think that the majority of committee members are against a back-benchers' group, but I would like the possibility to be on the table for future consideration. It is clear that the committee does not agree with the proposals, but we should recommend that such a group could be considered in the future.
Paragraph 8 of the optional insertion could be reworded to say that we have considered the principle of a back-benchers' group and recommend that, in future, the views of back benchers should be established by the parliamentary authorities rather than the Presiding Officer. We could mention the matter, but leave it hanging in the air for future reference—it is reasonable to mention that the matter has been discussed.
I strongly support that suggestion. We have not taken a great deal of evidence on the matter and we should ask the Presiding Officer to progress it.
Okay.
From time to time, issues should be considered regionally—for example, the Glasgow hospitals issue, with which members of the committee were involved. It would be helpful to ensure that support for advertising and administering regional meetings could come from the Parliament. We should consider how to connect people to the Parliament.
Are members happy with paragraph 844?
I do not have a problem with flagging up regional meetings as something that might happen and therefore saying that parliamentary resources should be available for them. However, for the record, I am concerned that we might lapse back into the early mindset of the Parliament, which was about busyness, consultation, discussion and endlessly looping around issues. Such a mindset might falsely raise public expectation, because people will ask, "You have done a lot of talking—what are you actually doing to make a difference?" It is always a bit more complicated to deliver.
Susan Deacon's concerns are covered by the phrase "there could be merit". The wording is fairly weak as it stands.
The key point is the recommendation in paragraph 845, which is that the SPCB should talk about what meetings it might be prepared to resource and facilitate. That matter could be thrashed out in further consideration. I do not think that there is a difficulty with the wording of paragraph 844.
Regional meetings would be helpful to constituency MSPs rather than list MSPs. Because of etiquette, it is sometimes difficult for constituency MSPs to get involved in issues that affect their constituents but are based in other constituencies. List members can become involved more easily in such issues.
I do not oppose the suggestion, I merely noted some concerns.
I appreciate that. The next section is on public petitions. Ken Macintosh will take the chair.
Are there any points on paragraphs 846 to 850, which are on public petitions?
No.
Paragraphs 851 to 861 are headed "Defining what the petitions process is able to deliver". Are there any points on those paragraphs?
No.
I am a good convener—we are making rapid progress.
You are making a bid for power.
Absolutely. The next section is very big and goes from paragraph 862 to paragraph 935. Are there any comments?
No.
If we are lucky, we will conclude the report before Murray Tosh comes back.
Is the underlining in paragraph 941 significant?
That is a good point. I think that the underlining is simply to highlight rather than to introduce new text.
So the points are not new.
Perhaps we should put the words in bold or italics, although, on the other hand, when the underlining in the rest of the report is removed, there will not be an issue.
I have concerns about the whole section. Murray Tosh produced some suggested changes.
Do you mean the section on consultation generally?
My concerns relate to Pamela Tosh's example of the Housing (Scotland) Bill and the issue of non-Executive members participating in task forces. I am content with Murray Tosh's suggestions, which I will go through. There is nothing horrendous about the proposals—some of them are merely clarifications.
Very good. I should have handed over to Ken Macintosh earlier. What point have we reached?
We have reached the section that begins at paragraph 937; we are discussing the description of Dr Pamela Tosh's work and the involvement in task forces of members from non-Executive and Executive parties. The specific paragraphs are 962 and 963.
I explained to the committee that I have had correspondence with you on the matter. Some of the points clarify the facts of what happened, but my main point relates to paragraph 964.
We have a paper to circulate on paragraph 964.
Has it been circulated?
No—it will be circulated now.
A number of task forces have invited members from non-Executive parties to take part along with ministers. Pamela Tosh's points about the homelessness task force were well made, but that task force did not involve members from non-Executive parties or Social Justice Committee members from the Executive parties. We have evidence about the good work of the homelessness task force, which involved civic or civil society—whichever word members prefer. That task force worked well and I am happy with the paragraphs on it. However, we did not take evidence on the merits or demerits of involving in task forces members from non-Executive parties, whether back-bench members or shadow ministers.
I have no difficulty with that. My concern is to encourage the concept and to encourage members to get involved in the development of policy. That is a sensible and constructive way in which to work. I appreciate that, if a political party decides that it does not want to join in, we cannot make it do so. Similarly, if a party decides that it does not like the way in which the process is going and decides to pull out, we cannot stop it doing so. I am happy for the text to reflect that; the important point is to encourage that type of working.
I am conscious that all the committee members want to—
Get finished.
Yes. We also want to co-operate with one another as far as possible. We are in familiar terrain—I will not go to the wall about the existing wording or Fiona Hyslop's proposed wording. However, I am bound to say that the words "eat", "cake" and "it" are going through my mind. We are right at the heart of a serious issue in relation to power sharing. If we are serious about delivering meaningful power sharing, there must be a fair amount of risk and buy-in on all sides—including from the Executive parties.
I agree with Susan Deacon. However, the problem is that that is not how things have been in the past. The existence of cross-party task forces can allow ministers to pretend that there is a consensus when there is not. That is not the way forward. Susan Deacon's analysis is right—there must be equality from the start. Perhaps the experience of recent months has not been the best example of task force working. The whole paragraph concerns me and I want to add to it in an attempt to achieve consensus among committee members.
I have already knocked several suggestions on the head.
Yes, I am inclined to think that.
It would be a great mistake to generalise from the experience of the working group on religious hatred, so I will not go further with that.
Having made our points and entered our reservations, we can move on.
Paragraph 957 has a bash at glossies.
That is Paul Martin's paragraph—it is dedicated to him.
Paragraph 957 says:
What phrase did you use?
I said "accessible and understandable".
Is there a difference? Do you mean physically accessible rather than intellectually?
I think that I am just –
Shall we just say "publicise accessible consultation"?
Members indicated agreement.
I agree with Ken Macintosh's reservations about that paragraph. It is a bit self-indulgent, to be honest. We live in an age of modern communications and, frankly, if Government bodies were to publish poorly produced documents using a Gestetner that produced 10-point, densely packed text, people would rightly have something to say about it. That said, obviously what matters is substance.
To be fair, I think that those points have been made earlier in our draft report. Paragraph 957 was added by Paul Martin, so I will let him speak to it.
The point that I was making is that if I could sell all those documents at a car boot sale in Blochairn, I would make an absolute fortune. The documents would litter my office. Indeed, I could fill my office to capacity with all the documents. A nice photograph of a toothbrush will not tackle young people's dental decay. A nice photograph of the minister will not deal with the issues surrounding the cities review.
Consultation documents need to be successful and meaningful.
Absolutely. They also need to be probing. For example, the documents need to ask those who complain that we are not tackling social exclusion how they would tackle the problem. The consultation documents should set out examples of how things can be achieved. Options a, b or c could be suggested and people could be given the opportunity to phone in on a helpline number to respond. Not many people will take the trouble to sit down and respond in writing to consultation documents, but they might phone in or use some other mode of modern communications technology to say what they think. My point is that we need documents that are meaningful and interactive. We should not simply be saying, "There is the document. There are nice pictures in it. End of story."
I am sure that nobody means to produce consultation documents like that, but those who do so will, I am sure, reflect on Paul Martin's words.
Of course, an exception might be made if the document contained nice pictures of Springburn.
Perhaps.
As long as there are probing questions to go with the pictures. Have members any other comments on this section of our report?
I had a query about the section that deals with petitions. Ken Macintosh mentioned that section, but he went at such a rate of knots that, before I realised, we had moved on to consider Fiona Hyslop's points about the next section. I suspect that you will be able to reassure me quickly, convener, but I want to ask about the beginning of the section on petitions.
To which paragraph are you referring?
I am not referring to any paragraph in particular. Perhaps this is already buried somewhere in the section on petitions and simply needs to be put in bold or something, but where do we capture the issue of feedback about petitions? After all, one of the main issues that was raised by everyone who had been through the petitions process was that, after their petition went into the system, they did not receive any regular updates about where it had got to. As a result, they felt that, although they had made their views known, no one was listening to them. I cannot find where that point has been highlighted in the report.
We will look for that, because the committee certainly agreed that there ought to be a report-back on petitions. The Public Petitions Committee should be constantly following up petitions to find out what the petitioned parties have done about them and feeding back to petitioners all the way through the process. Is that the point that you were pursuing?
Yes. That is a substantive point and it should jump out at the reader. I could not find it.
That text was to go into the report somewhere.
After all, it ties in directly with the question of resources. When we spoke to John McAllion and Steve Farrell of the Public Petitions Committee, they indicated that they were willing to undertake such work, but were obviously limited by time and energy.
And resources in general.
I am happy to leave the matter to you and the clerk, convener.
The issue is mentioned in paragraph 916, in which we accept that the Public Petitions Committee does not have the power to enforce any decisions. However, the paragraph goes on to say that we believe that the committee's recommendations can carry authority and that we recommend
I think that the words "regular feedback" should be included in bold somewhere in that section. That would be the big improvement to the process. After all, although the feedback might be that nothing had happened, it might still let the petitioner know what point in the process the petition had reached. Petitions were just disappearing into a black hole.
You are talking about feedback to petitioners instead of an end review.
Yes.
Well, we have mentioned that in the report.
I am sure that it is in there somewhere.
We recommended that the petitions staffing side should be responsible for feedback. In paragraph 906, we say that
I think that paragraph 934 also mentions something.
I really do not want everyone to start combing through the report. I just want us to test the matter and ensure that there is a clear recommendation that practices should be developed and resources allocated expressly to maintain a regular feedback process.
We will find out whether we can toughen up paragraph 907 in some way.
As someone who has been keen to pursue the issue in the committee, I am fairly confident that the report covers the issues of resources and feedback well.
Susan Deacon mentioned the phrase "regular feedback". We will see whether we can include that.
I am interested that you said that. I assumed that there would be a list of recommendations, as well as this summary.
We will list all the recommendations separately, but they will just be as they are in the text. We did not think it necessary to extract them and show them separately.
On a more general point, I am not sure whether there is a need to emphasise the fact that although we are making a series of recommendations, much of what we are doing is developing the principles on which we focused our inquiry, and that we expect all the committees and various bodies within the Parliament that are responsible for their own practices to follow those principles.
In paragraph 1003, I have said that the bureau should consider the issues. In paragraph 1004, I state:
Indeed.
We thought that it was, in the sense that we considered what committees discuss in public and what they do not. We looked separately at the issue of considering stage 1 reports in public. In every other area, we said that it was up to committees and that they should develop good practice, but we did not see any compromise on stage 1, because it is part of the legislative process. In that sense, the recommendation is stronger than the others in that area.
It is a question of interpretation, and I agree with what you said. I just did not think that there would be any resistance to this proposal, whereas there will be resistance to some of our other recommendations about opening up.
If you are uneasy with the wording, we could say instead that we highlight the last recommendation. I am not bothered about the wording with which we highlight it.
I understand your explanation of why the recommendation has been highlighted. I was putting a different interpretation on it.
It was first chronologically and logically, but we attached an awful lot of importance to it. One of our first discussions was about the fact that while the Executive has committed itself to operating according to the principles in its dealing with the Parliament, it has not committed itself—you may say that it does so implicitly and in reality—to applying the principles in its dealings with partners.
Can I suggest that the point of substance be left in, but that we remove the false status that is implied by:
Okay.
I sent in a note to say that the civil service deserved more of a mention. I also said that I did not have a form of wording for my suggestion. We mention scrutiny of the civil service in paragraph 999, but we have also raised the idea of getting a better partnership. I suggest that we say something along the lines of, "We considered how to improve the way in which the Parliament and the civil service work together." We could then add a summary of recommendation 65. Working with the civil service is a big area that requires a wee plug in the report.
Where do you want to put that text?
Chronologically, it would be best to insert it after paragraph 999.
Could you run the wording past me again?
Something along the lines of, "We considered how to improve the way in which the Parliament and the civil service work together and we recommend—". We could then add the number 65 in brackets plus a short summary of that recommendation.
When we look at it, we might think that the text would fit better somewhere else. Is that okay?
Certainly.
Paragraph 999 is about accountability, so the proposed text might sit better in another section. I am sorry; I must have overlooked that suggestion.
I have two broadbrush statements to make on the conclusions. I suggest that we try to work them in at the very end of the report. The first is about the consultative steering group principles. I do not have a problem with anything that has been said to date about the importance of the principles or their adoption. However, as we have touched upon previously, many people, including those who are close to or were even involved in the CSG in the first place, have expressed surprise at the extent to which the principles have been elevated into almost tablets of stone.
That is why we included the point in paragraph 992, which was originally the last paragraph of the report. In effect, we said that, because the principles have been adopted and adapted by the Parliament, they have been overtaken. We also said that we considered that they would evolve in the future. We are anxious to move on and to talk about the parliamentary principles. There is no reason why a future committee should not devise an entirely different checklist of principles.
One of the points in the introduction is that there was no strong evidence to say that the principles were inappropriate or wrong.
To be fair, we did not really invite such comments.
I am happy to leave that point. I remember paragraph 992 and I am happy with it. I thought that the issue merited a couple of sentences, but the conclusion draws those points together.
The committee has agreed that we should consider that point and try to work it in. I am sure that members will not object if a form of words that would make that point can be added to the conclusion.
That is good for an hour or two of discussion.
That is why we kept it until last. Members have a copy of the draft title.
Is it the long title?
I do not know that it is long, but it is a title.
The proposal is snappy.
I can tell from Fiona Hyslop's face that she wants to make a change. She is thinking, "Will I go for it? Will I alienate them and really cheese them off if I push the matter?"
Why not call it "Are we living up to our principles?", which is the question that we have analysed?
That is a bit tabloid.
Perhaps, but that is the question that the report tries to answer. If we want to be transparent and to mean what we say, that would be an appropriate title.
It sounds like the title of a glossy Executive document.
We could decorate it with photographs of Dundee.
I am going back to my marketing days. We could use the convener's proposal as the subheading. The convener could tell by my face that I was not sure about how my suggestion would go down—I simply thought that it was a bit snappier.
Fiona Hyslop's suggestion is catchy, but I suspect that most people have only a vague knowledge of the Parliament's principles. It would be helpful to state what we are on about. We could have "The Parliament's principles" in a large font and the rest of the convener's suggestion in a smaller font.
I am not sure that we should ask a question in the title. "Living up to the Parliament's principles" would be okay, but putting a question mark at the start would suggest that there are a lot of problems.
In that case, why not call it "Living up to our principles"?
That is the other way round—it implies that the Parliament has made it.
In a sense, we have found that the principles are being absorbed and applied. We might not have made it in every respect and the system might not be perfect, but the Parliament and many of its processes come out of the report with a reasonable B plus.
I am happy to delegate powers, because I do not think that we can decide on the matter by committee. Perhaps we should talk to the press people. A short, snappy title with an explanation might be helpful.
We will reflect on those comments, discuss the matter with the media relations office and come up with the same proposal or something else.
Is that a no?
No.
That brings us to the end of our consideration earlier than I thought. I apologise for being ratty with members earlier when I saw the clock going round.
We should record our thanks to the convener for the enormous amount of work that he has done on the report and for his remarkable patience.
Hear, hear.
We should also thank the clerks and our special adviser.
Indeed. We should especially thank poor Eileen Martin, who has done a lot of typing—she will be delighted to know that she is appreciated. That is not intended to detract from anyone else's contribution.
Meeting closed at 12:20.