Housing Stock Transfer (Report)
I formally open the meeting and thank members for their attendance. The time of the meeting has been brought forward because of our heavy schedule. Before I ask for the committee's approval to consider the draft housing stock transfer report in private on Wednesday, I want to make a statement regarding the events of last week, as it may affect the committee's decision on item 1 on the agenda.
In light of the events of last week, I wish to make the following statement to the committee. Given the very serious nature of the allegations against me, I trust that the committee will allow me to give the facts uninterrupted. I have clarified this approach with the clerks and am advised that I am following proper procedure.
The actions of certain members of the committee were extremely grave and highly regrettable. Their allegations are serious and can be rebutted completely and unequivocally.
First, the inference is that I colluded with the Executive on the amendments to the document. This has not a shred of substance. I am advised that the statements made are defamatory and I am seriously considering legal action against the deputy convener and anyone who repeats them. It is extremely concerning that the deputy convener could make such statements without any attempt to establish the facts. I ask the deputy convener to clarify that she is making no personal allegations that undermine my integrity and to offer me an apology. I thank the remaining members of the committee for their endorsement and note that that involves members of all other parties on the committee.
The deputy convener alleges that evidence was altered. Again, that is a very serious charge, which may also constitute defamation. Evidence to the committee cannot be altered. It is a matter of public record. How that evidence is interpreted is a matter for the committee.
It was agreed at a previous meeting that the report would have to accept some arguments and reject others. It was further agreed that, when we rejected some of the recommendations presented to us, we would have to change the supporting text. Let me make it absolutely and emphatically clear that all members of the committee have the right to propose any change to any document produced in the committee's name.
The deputy convener stated that the report was to be consensual. That contravenes an earlier decision of the committee when it was clearly accepted that consensus could not be reached on the major issues and that the report would reflect the majority view, indicating where disagreement took place. The deputy convener also stated that the draft report was balanced. That is her own view and not the view of the committee. I did not agree that the report was balanced. I raised that point with the writer and the clerks some time ago, which can be confirmed. I was advised that I could propose changes to the text at the appropriate time. I have considered this over some time, and was therefore well prepared for this stage of amendment. The deputy convener also stated that it was agreed that any amendments to the text would be minor. That is categorically not the case. I refer members to the e-mail sent by the clerks on Thursday 15 June, requesting members to submit their general comments on the text by a certain date. I quote:
"Comments on the deferred recommendations and the general text need to be with . . . by . . ."
I also note the contributions from a number of members indicating their desire to change the text.
I wish to explain the details of the specific circumstances of my own amendments. I appreciate members' earlier comments that there is no necessity to do this, but I am sure that everyone will understand my desire to establish the facts. I had a number of amendments to submit. Karen Whitefield contacted me to say that her computer was down and, as neither of us would be around on Friday, asked how we could deal with the situation. I phoned the clerk to ask whether a researcher could submit amendments for us. The clerk was very clear that that was perfectly appropriate procedure. The researcher also collected Cathie Craigie's amendments and submitted them, informing the Scottish Parliament information centre that the amendments were from a number of Labour members, but that he had authorisation to submit them only in my name. I had no substantial difficulty with the amendments submitted and so let matters proceed. I must say that the most cursory inquiry would have established those facts.
In the context of the above, the statements and behaviour of the members who walked out of the committee, and of the deputy convener in particular, are extremely reprehensible. It is highly inappropriate that they broke the confidentiality of this committee on such spurious impressions and took the details of their case to a waiting press, rather than allowing the committee to deal with the matter. The committee must assess such irresponsible behaviour and consider our actions so that it is not repeated on a whim.
As convener, I must insist that all members adhere to a minimum standard. I have stressed at all times that our reports are kept confidential. It is highly inappropriate for any member to release information about proceedings prior to publication if discussions are held in private. That contravenes the spirit and the letter of proceedings of this committee to date. I will and I must ensure that we adhere to those rules in all our future work.
I therefore invite the committee to agree that it accepts that there was no leak to the Executive; that it accepts the explanation of the procedures outlined; and that it agrees that we pursue our work as planned and to schedule an extra meeting to ensure publication of the report as soon as possible. Thank you.
If the committee will bear with me a second, I now intend to open the meeting to general discussion and then move on to the decisions to which I have referred.
I do not intend to apologise for expressing serious concerns about the source and authorship of the amendments to the third and—at the time—final draft of the report. Those concerns were subsequently confirmed when we learned that some of the amendments in the name of the convener were in fact submitted on behalf of another committee member. In addition—as the latest press reports imply, and as the convener has commented—some kind of group meeting or group activity took place, which could have meant that authorship extended to others. Press speculation is no substitute for an investigation.
I have a number of concerns and have repeatedly said that I am pursuing this issue through the parliamentary procedures available to me. I am doing so and, as a result, would suggest to the committee that this forum is no longer the appropriate place to continue this discussion. As I understand that, because of the volume of amendments, the current housing report has now been delayed into the recess, and as there is much business to get through, I propose that we go to the next item on the agenda.
As I said, I am taking general comments first. I will take Robert Brown and then Keith Raffan.
I must confess that I find Fiona Hyslop's observations extremely regrettable. I cannot honestly say whether there was some misunderstanding on her part at the beginning; however, it is clear that at the previous committee meeting the deputy convener sprayed unsubstantiated allegations around. The allegations included allegations against committee members generally, and Fiona might recall that, when I asked whether they included me, I received confirmation that they did not—although that was not the original phraseology. The allegations are very serious, and it seems to me that the convener's explanation is perfectly reasonable and acceptable and that the committee should endorse it.
However, the issue raises the question of the deputy convener's conduct in this whole matter. It is one thing to make allegations on the basis of evidence, but it is another thing entirely to make spurious allegations without a shadow of support for them. It seems to me that, although the matter clearly has to go elsewhere in one format or another for a decision, Fiona ought to consider her position on the committee. She must consider whether she feels that she can continue to operate as deputy convener against the observations and serious allegations that have been made. She should also consider the appropriate way forward for her in such circumstances. I must confess that I hoped that I would hear some form of qualification or apology from Fiona about her comments at the previous meeting, as they affected not just the convener but other committee members.
I want to add that any suggestion that amendments suggested by me as a Liberal Democrat member of the committee had any form of involvement with the Executive is entirely without foundation. That was a part of the original allegation. I find myself quite aghast at the proceedings to which we were subjected last time. I have no more to say on the matter, except that I think that we should add a reference to the deputy convener's conduct to any further reference on this matter to the Standards Committee.
Thank you very much. I will take Keith Raffan and then Lloyd Quinan.
I also find Fiona Hyslop's behaviour today extremely reprehensible and regrettable. I would have hoped that, after a cooling-off period of a few days, she would have greatly regretted the unsubstantiated allegations that, as Robert Brown said, she sprayed around with such abandon last Wednesday. I would have hoped that she would have come to her senses and withdrawn those extremely serious allegations.
Fiona Hyslop says that she is pursuing this matter through parliamentary procedures; it would be interesting to know which. However, I am not particularly keen to open that aspect now. Sir David Steel's letter is quite clear and categorical that he is not responsible for what happens at a private meeting.
I think that the matter should be referred to the Standards Committee; it is unparliamentary behaviour, which—I do not say this in any condescending way—might be put down to parliamentary inexperience. However, even allowing for that, I quite frankly think that the deputy convener should consider her position. I personally have no confidence in her any longer as deputy convener and will quite possibly move a motion of no confidence in her at the next meeting. I do not think that we can continue to work until the allegations are withdrawn and an apology is personally made to you, convener.
Thank you, Keith. I will take Lloyd Quinan, and then John McAllion and Karen Whitefield.
I would simply like to say that at no stage have any allegations been made. Concerns have been expressed; those are exactly the words that were used last week and that have been used consistently. We express concern about the source of some amendments. There were no allegations, and the word "Executive" did not pass the lips of any of the three SNP members on this committee. I would suggest that members of this committee have made assumptions about what we actually expressed concerns on. Indeed, such leaping to conclusions has made the situation considerably worse than it actually was.
Thank you, Lloyd. I will take John McAllion, then Karen Whitefield and Alex Neil.
I obviously very much regret the atmosphere in the committee today, the reasons for that atmosphere and the fact that the situation seems to be spiralling completely out of control. The fact is that there is not a scrap of evidence to support the allegation that the convener or any other committee member colluded with the Scottish Executive in bringing forward amendments to the housing stock transfer report. Most committee members clearly understood that to be the allegation, and I would have hoped that Fiona Hyslop could have withdrawn it and that we could have started the committee's work of tackling one of the most important subject areas that this Parliament deals with—that is what the committee should be doing instead of dividing against itself. I certainly do not want the matter to carry on beyond this meeting and spiral into the Standards Committee, some further inquiry or motions about removing people from their positions on the committee. That would be most regrettable. At this stage, I make a plea to Fiona to make it clear that there was never any imputation against the integrity of the convener, who is beyond such an imputation.
Thank you, John. I will take Karen Whitefield next.
Like other members of the committee, I must say that I am disappointed that the deputy convener has taken such a course of action, particularly because her concerns—or allegations, as most committee members most certainly interpreted them—were expressed outside the committee. She did not give the committee a proper chance to investigate the concerns, but chose to go immediately to the press. I believe that such conduct is unacceptable and calls into question her conduct as deputy convener, especially as this happened at a private meeting.
I would most certainly say that an apology is required by the deputy convener, as she has made a number of allegations and expressed concerns that cannot be substantiated. I do not believe that it is appropriate for anyone other than members of this committee to investigate this matter. We need proof that she can back up her concerns and allegations but to date we have seen no evidence to substantiate them. She has brought the good name of the committee and all its members into question. As a result, I would ask her to reconsider her position urgently.
In light of press speculation that followed last week's meeting and the comments that were attributed not only to her but to other people who are not members of the committee but might have given evidence to it, I would be particularly keen to know whether the deputy convener chose to show the report to any other member who does not sit on this committee.
Fiona, do you want to answer that?
I have not done that.
First, I want to emphasise that my clear understanding was that Fiona Hyslop was not making allegations against other committee members. She expressed, in a very focused fashion, her concerns about sources of amendments put down in the name of the convener. I think that, as a matter of record, she actually stated that she was not making allegations against any committee members.
The second point is that Fiona was not making allegations. If we check the record—although there is no verbatim record, as the meeting was in private—she very deliberately did not use the word "allegations"; she used the word "concerns". It is legitimate for any committee member to raise concerns. As members will know, at the same meeting I raised concerns about amendments that were put down in the name of the convener, because in my view they changed the whole substance of the report at a very late stage. Obviously, the convener is entitled to disagree with that—
I would absolutely.
However, right or wrong, it is a legitimate point of view.
I should point out that today's The Scotsman states that Labour members met before the meeting to agree the amendments that they wanted to make to the report. My understanding was that members of this committee and other parliamentary committees were not operating on a caucus basis. If they were, they could not operate in the objective manner in which they are meant to act.
Fiona Hyslop has expressed concerns. Clearly, members who have spoken do not share those concerns, but it is her right to express them. I do not believe that this committee is equipped to take the matter further. Fiona Hyslop has the right to refer it to the Standards Committee or the Procedures Committee, depending on what her concerns are. We should leave it to those committees to decide whether there is a prima facie case for an investigation and, if there is, to conduct that investigation. It is not part of our remit to do that.
To the best of my knowledge, there were no disclosures of the substance of this committee's work on the housing stock transfer report. I certainly saw none reported. All that was discussed was the general principle to which Fiona Hyslop's concerns related. There was no disclosure, oral or otherwise, of the substance or contents of the draft report. That remains the case today, as it has been throughout.
Fiona Hyslop has proposed that we proceed to the next item of business. I second that proposal.
A number of issues arise, but I will deal first with the allegations that have been made and the concerns that have been expressed.
If the convener is telling me that she did not have any dialogue with the Executive on the report, I am perfectly happy to accept that, just as I am perfectly happy to accept Alex Neil's statement that there was no leaking of the report's content. I would like us to operate on the basis of trust. If that trust breaks down, we will face a very serious situation.
Where I would criticise Fiona Hyslop is that my clear recollection of the meeting before last was that any textual amendments would be accepted. I would not have submitted textual amendments had I been under the impression that they would no longer be admitted. I can see how confusion has arisen, and that the manner in which the convener submitted her amendments—by the researcher operating on her behalf—could give rise to concern. However, I am happy to accept that there was no collusion with the Executive.
I would now like to direct our minds to the way forward, as I do not think that what has happened reflects terribly well on either the committee or the Parliament. I am not legally qualified to make a judgment on whether some of the comments that have been made were defamatory, but if this matter ever crossed the threshold of the Court of Session we would be laughed out of court on the ground that the law does not bother with trifles. I think that that is an established legal principle.
I suggest that it is time for us to unruffle our feathers and to get on with things. Housing stock transfer is an important issue. Every member of this committee has spent nine hard months taking a great deal of evidence and making a lot of constructive input. I did not agree with it all, but I respect the way in which it was made, after considerable effort. It is the people of Glasgow who are losing out because of this. What must they think, when they are living in appalling housing conditions and we are spending this much time dealing with a matter that, quite honestly, does not merit any attention? For heaven's sake, let us get on with things. We are not doing anybody any favours.
I will draw matters to a close, as we do not want to overload this, but there are proposals that we need to deal with.
I have a certain amount of sympathy with what Bill Aitken said. The work of this committee has been seriously undermined by the events of last week. Members will recall that at last week's meeting I proposed that we get on with the business and deal with the amendments that had been submitted. That was before the SNP walk-out. Some cynics among us might say—
On a point of order, convener. It was not an SNP walk-out. That suggests that there was some group decision—[Laughter.] You can laugh, Margaret, but—
The people who walked out just happened all to be members of the SNP.
Well, I am happy to change—
I am sorry—this is a point of order. Unlike the Labour group, we have no pre-meetings. We acted as three individuals.
I am happy to change what I said to "before the SNP members of the committee walked out", if that covers Alex's point.
I think that the conduct of those members and of the deputy convener in particular was childish and immature. We are here to get on with the business of running this committee, which includes the report on the housing stock transfer. That report is important not only to the people of Glasgow but to people throughout Scotland who want improvements in their housing stock. The people who gave evidence to this committee want things to move on quickly so that they know that their housing and the condition of their housing is secure for the future.
We are getting to the stage of playing with words. Clearly, the majority of members who met last week were very offended by the comments made at that meeting, particularly those made by Fiona Hyslop. They were also offended by the action that she took later in going public.
Today, the opportunity is before us for the statements that were made to be withdrawn and for an apology to be made to the convener. When the letter that was sent to the Presiding Officer was read out, members gasped at its contents. What it said was so unlike what we had agreed and unlike our understanding of the previous meeting. I ask Fiona to apologise so that we can move forward.
Alex Neil said that the SNP members of the committee had never had a meeting. I found that quite strange. I am happy to take that point further, but we all remember a previous meeting at which the SNP clearly took a line. I will say no more about that, but I repeat that I find it strange that the SNP members are sitting here today saying that they have never met as a group to discuss the housing stock transfer or any other issue. I find that unbelievable.
There is not much to add, but I would like to make some suggestions. It is sad that we are in this position, which, as Bill Aitken said, is not an edifying spectacle for the committee or the Parliament. These things will happen from time to time—the point is how we deal with them and move on.
I have heard what Fiona Hyslop has said. It is clear that she is not going to issue an apology, which I have got to say to Fiona was due. She was wrong on the two basic points last week. The first point relates to the understanding of what we were to do with regard to amendments to the text of the report, as opposed to the recommendations. I think that every other member of the committee—I obviously cannot speak for Alex Neil and Lloyd Quinan—or at least a clear majority of members had no doubt in their minds about the purpose of last Wednesday's meeting.
The second point was that there had been some collusion, with Margaret or others doing the bidding of the Executive in submitting amendments. That is also quite simply wrong. Lloyd can talk about concerns versus allegations, but I was in the room. The way in which the matter was presented—even if only as concerns—very much gave the impression that allegations were being made, as did the content of the letter to Sir David Steel and Fiona's comments to the newspaper the next day. There is no point in going over that again, but what was said was much stronger than a concern. There was great anger in this committee when we heard the contents of Fiona's letter.
I think that we ought to move on. Fiona seemed to be saying that she accepted that Margaret Curran had not taken advice from anybody else, and that, if she had submitted amendments in her name on behalf of other people, that was done in good faith. That is an important point to place on the record. If that is not what Fiona is saying, it is important that she clarify that.
It would also be helpful if Fiona could confirm that she will not go to the Procedures Committee, which would just keep the matter going. I have not discussed this with anybody before the meeting: I say to Margaret, as convener, that if Fiona is clear enough in saying, "As I am not following through the concerns that I had as a result of what you said, convener, you could give an undertaking not to take legal advice," we could perhaps move forward on that basis and get on with the issues in hand. That is for the deputy convener and the convener to decide.
All members of the Scottish National Party who sit on this committee failed to realise that we had to submit textual amendments by the deadline. If it had been one or two Labour members who had got that wrong, that would be fine, but every other committee member understood the requirement. These allegations—
What allegations?
Lloyd, please let people speak. No interruptions, please—you will get your chance.
The allegations—or concerns—are based on the fundamental point that the textual amendments that were submitted considerably altered the text of the committee's report. It is my understanding that those amendments had not been agreed and that it was for the committee to take a decision that morning on whether those amendments were to be agreed. Instead of being willing to take part in that debate and to discuss the matters fully, the Scottish National Party members believed that they had lost the political debate and stormed out in a temper. I think that that was unfortunate and undermined the committee's work.
The deputy convener is taking the high moral ground by suggesting that the report has been put on the back burner and slowed down. The only person who has done that is Ms Hyslop, and she should take full responsibility for it.
I call Lloyd Quinan, and I would then like to move to the proposals before us.
I again wish to put on record that, last week, when concerns about the source of some of the amendments to the committee report were expressed, that concept was rejected by the convener. At that point, Ms Whitefield intervened to tell us that some of the amendments in the convener's name were hers. I suggest that, if the convener had said at the beginning of the meeting that some of the amendments in her name were submitted on behalf of other members, that would have taken all the heat out of the situation.
I remind the committee that at no stage has any member stated that we believe that there was collusion with the Executive. That is an extrapolation of events by individual members. I make it clear—yet again—that we expressed concerns about the authorship of amendments to the report. Those concerns were confirmed when Karen Whitefield told us about amendments in Margaret Curran's name—that was before the convener told us that she had submitted amendments that she had not prepared herself. The concern was confirmed.
The concern was about—
I am now going to draw matters to a close. I am sure that members will agree that I have the right to make some statement in response to this discussion. I appreciate the climb-down, and the fact that we have moved from talking about allegations to talking about concerns. I notice the change of emphasis.
On a point of order, convener. Can someone tell me at what stage during last week's meeting anyone used the word "allegation"?
We can go back and check that, Lloyd. Please do not interrupt me; do me the courtesy of letting me pursue this matter.
The key point is whether concerns were raised or allegations were made.
I have to insist, Lloyd. I refer you to Mike Watson's contribution: this is about emphasis.
I ask members to show some decorum as to how we pursue this. I ask members to ensure that, in this instance and in all further instances, if they have any concerns whatever—be they concerns, allegations, questions or requests for clarification—they come to the committee meeting and stay long enough to ensure that we proceed with the relevant information.
I would never deny any member of the committee the right to raise any question whatever, whether I agreed with it or not. I see it as my duty to demand the right to ensure that all information is processed properly. Such matters have to be brought to the committee; it is not proper for members to express concerns, make allegations or raise question marks but not wait to hear the explanation.
But this was brought to the committee.
You walked out, Alex. Please do not interrupt me. That is not appropriate behaviour. People walked out; if they had stayed, they would have been reassured. There is a world of difference between seeking minor clarification and proceeding in the way that we did.
We have a number of decisions to take, and I wish to begin with my proposal—I am sure that you all appreciate why. A number of points have been clarified. I accept that and I am pleased that the points about what was not being said last week have been clarified.
Does the committee accept that there was no leak to the Executive? Is that agreed?
Members indicated agreement.
Thank you. I now ask the committee to accept—
Can we clarify whether that agreement was unanimous? Some people did not indicate one way or the other how they feel.
On a point of order. I moved a motion that the committee continue with the rest of the agenda. Could the clerks let us know how we can progress with that? That might mean moving a motion without notice to end this debate and proceed to the rest of the agenda. I am pursuing the matter through parliamentary procedures, and it is not appropriate for it to be discussed further in the committee.
I move,
That the committee move on to the next item on the agenda.
Members are probably aware that I have been whispering to the clerk throughout the meeting because this procedure is new to us all. I am now advised that we can vote on whether to move on to the rest of the agenda. Depending on the outcome of that vote, we can move on to my motion.
Let me get the wording of the motion right. It is proposed that we finish discussion of this matter and move on to the next item of business before we reach a decision. Who is in favour of that?
For
Hyslop, Fiona (Lothians) (SNP)
Neil, Alex (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Quinan, Mr Lloyd (West of Scotland) (SNP)
Against
Aitken, Bill (Glasgow) (Con)
Brown, Robert (Glasgow) (LD)
Craigie, Cathie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (Lab)
Curran, Ms Margaret (Glasgow Baillieston) (Lab)
McAllion, Mr John (Dundee East) (Lab)
Raffan, Mr Keith (Mid Scotland and Fife) (LD)
Watson, Mike (Glasgow Cathcart) (Lab)
Whitefield, Karen (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab)
The result of the division is: For 3, Against 8, Abstentions 0.
Motion disagreed to.
Right. Thank you. The matter is clarified and it helps that it has been put in context.
I ask the committee to accept that there was no leak to the Executive.
You should ask committee members whether they are for or against the motion, Margaret.
On a point of order. I am slightly bemused by the fact that there is an issue about the matter being put before the Procedures Committee. Can Fiona Hyslop clarify what she suggests should be reported to the Procedures Committee?
Okay. Before we move on, we will clarify that.
I said that I am using parliamentary procedures. David Steel's reply to me pointed out that I could refer the matter to the Standards Committee. The code of conduct says that we cannot discuss the matter as a committee, and that we must leave it to the process.
I suggest—and I made this quite clear at the beginning of the meeting—that it is not appropriate for the committee to continue discussion of the matter. That is why it would be appropriate to move on. We have a great deal of work to do, including work on the continuing drugs inquiry, and I am keen to get on with it. As I said, I am—I use the present tense—pursuing the matter.
It is up to members to decide. That is not a committee view.
On a point of order. It would be inappropriate for the committee to vote on something that has simply not arisen in the committee. At no stage did any member say that there was collusion with the Executive. It is entirely inappropriate and out of order for us to vote on something that has not—to my knowledge—been said.
I am advised that I can pursue the matter. The general commonsense understanding is that serious inferences and implications were made. I am asking the committee—
Can I make it clear, Margaret—
No. Bear with me. [Interruption.] There is nothing in standing orders to prevent such resolutions being proposed.
If anybody voted against that motion, the implication of that action would be defamatory—that there was collusion with the Executive. The matter has neither arisen nor been debated in the committee while I have been present. People can only extrapolate and arrive at their own interpretations of an expression of concern, which at no stage used the words "Executive" or "collusion". How can I vote on that—I would be making a statement on something that I have not said—when there is to be an investigation?
You are being very obstructive, Lloyd. It seems to be abundantly clear to the other members of this committee and to the rest of the world what Fiona Hyslop meant when she said on the BBC's "Holyrood Live" programme, "I am very suspicious about the source of these amendments." The headline of that report was "alleged Executive collusion". If you are backing off from what you said, you should have said that to "Holyrood Live". If that was a misinterpretation—
We never said that in the first place.
I am moving ahead.
I am not a reporter for BBC Scotland, Margaret.
The implications are very clear. The inference of what was being said was clear. I was named. I ask members to give me their vote of confidence that I absolutely did not collude with any members of the Executive or, indeed, with anybody else outside the committee. I ask the committee for its endorsement of that.
If members believe that that is the case, all that they have to do is vote for that. It means nothing more than that. It does not mean that they were a party to the inference; it just means that today, for the record, they accept that there has been no collusion with the Executive. That is categorical.
We move now to a roll-call vote on whether members accept that there was no leak to the Executive.
For
Aitken, Bill (Glasgow) (Con)
Brown, Robert (Glasgow) (LD)
Craigie, Cathie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (Lab)
Curran, Ms Margaret (Glasgow Baillieston) (Lab)
McAllion, Mr John (Dundee East) (Lab)
Raffan, Mr Keith (Mid Scotland and Fife) (LD)
Watson, Mike (Glasgow Cathcart) (Lab)
Whitefield, Karen (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab)
Abstentions
Hyslop, Fiona (Lothians) (SNP)
Neil, Alex (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Quinan, Mr Lloyd (West of Scotland) (SNP)
The result of the division is: For 8, Against 0, Abstentions 3.
Can the committee accept the explanations of the procedures that have been outlined to clarify the confusion? Are we agreed?
Could you repeat the detailed proposal, Margaret?
The proposal is that the committee accepts that this is an explanation as to why confusion arose over the explanation that I gave in my paper. That is it.
That what is an explanation?
The text of what I gave.
Regarding—
Regarding why they tried—
Could I have a hard copy of it, please, so that I can read through it properly?
Do you want me to read it again?
I have heard the statement only once. I request a hard copy of it, so that I can read it in detail.
No. I am not deferring the matter. I will read the statement out again, if that is what members want. I think that members are clear about what was said, but I will read it out again. This is ridiculous.
In light of the events of last week, I wish to make the following statement to the committee. Given the very serious nature of the allegations against me, I trust that the committee will allow me to give the facts uninterrupted.
The actions of certain members of the committee were extremely grave and highly regrettable. Their allegations are serious and can be rebutted completely and unequivocally.
I will not repeat the point about collusion with the Executive, as we have dealt with that. The matter is more about the details of the amendments and the procedures of the committee concerning amendments to the text. We need to get on the record that that was what the committee agreed.
The deputy convener alleges that evidence was altered. Again, that is a very serious charge, which might also constitute defamation. Evidence to the committee cannot be altered. It is a matter of public record. How that evidence is interpreted is a matter for the committee.
It was agreed at a previous meeting that the report would have to accept some arguments and reject others. It was further agreed that when we rejected some of the recommendations that were presented to us, we would have to change the supporting text.
If I am going too quickly, slow me down.
Let me make it absolutely and emphatically clear that all members of the committee have the right to propose any change to any document that is produced in the committee's name.
The deputy convener also states that the report was to be consensual. That contravenes an earlier decision of the committee when it was clearly accepted that consensus could not be reached on the major issues and that the report would reflect the majority view, indicating where disagreement took place. The deputy convener also stated that the draft report was balanced. That is her view, not the view of the committee. I did not agree that the report was balanced. I raised that point with the writer and the clerks some time ago, which can be confirmed. I was advised that I could propose changes to the text at the appropriate time. I have considered the matter over some time and was therefore well prepared for this stage of amendment. The deputy convener also stated that it was agreed that any amendments to the text would be minor. That is categorically not the case. I refer members to the e-mail that was sent by the clerks on Thursday 15 June.
I wish to explain the details of the specific circumstances of my amendments. I appreciate members' earlier comments that there is no necessity to do this, but I am sure that everyone will understand my desire to establish the facts. I had a number of amendments to submit. Karen Whitefield contacted me to say that her computer was down and, as neither of us would be around on Friday, asked how we could deal with the situation. I phoned the clerk to ask whether a researcher could submit amendments for us. The clerk was very clear that that was perfectly appropriate procedure. The researcher also collected Cathie Craigie's amendments and lodged them, informing the Scottish Parliament information centre that the amendments were from a number of Labour members, but that he had authorisation to submit them in my name only. I had no substantial difficulty with the amendments that were being lodged, so I let matters proceed. I must say that the most cursory inquiry would have established those facts.
The rest is commentary.
Are we being asked to endorse the content of that statement? I suggested textual changes to the report at the last minute, as I knew that we were able to do that. I agree with much of what Margaret has said, but there is much that I disagree with—not least her interpretation of things that I have done or said. I would therefore find it difficult to take a position on the matter.
I do not agree with much of what is in that statement. Are we being asked to vote to endorse the statement? What exactly are we being asked to endorse?
I have been getting advice from the clerks, as I genuinely do not want to make things difficult for the committee or to cause any more delay than is necessary. I shall therefore amend my proposal to ask that the committee accept the procedures as I have summarised them, first in terms of the requirements to submit amendments and secondly in terms of our conduct of the report. Can that be agreed?
No. That is too vague.
Hang on a minute. I want to hear from Robert Brown.
I have a suggestion. I think that it is probably not helpful to ask us to endorse a long statement that has a lot of things in it.
I can see that.
There are, essentially, two points at issue. You have explained the circumstances in which Karen Whitefield's amendments and your amendments were submitted in your name, convener. That should simply be noted, as that is not the ultimate issue for the committee.
You have also given an explanation that accords, as I understand it, with the recollection of the majority of the committee, about the basis on which textual amendments to the report were submitted. That explanation should be endorsed—it is probably borne out by the clerk's record anyway. I certainly recall making a number of observations about my dissatisfaction with the terms of the original report before it came to committee and before any member had had input into the way in which it was drafted by the committee's advisers and the clerk. I expressly reserved my right to submit detailed textual amendments as, if I remember correctly, one or two other members did.
The essence of the matter is that it was open to members to lodge such amendments following agreement of the recommendations. That is the essential point that we should be agreeing to as far as procedure is concerned.
That is helpful. I shall withdraw my amendment in favour of that one. Thank you, Robert.
Again I refer to the use of the word allegation. No allegations were made, and Robert Brown, as a lawyer, should know better than to use the word. I do not know what schools you all went to, but an allegation and a concern are radically different.
I think that you have made your point, Lloyd.
I do not think that there was any dispute about the process in terms of being able to submit textual amendments to the draft report. However, the scale and substance of all the amendments that were submitted in Margaret Curran's name changed the substance of the report. I understood that, at that late stage, we would not be changing the substance of the report to such an extent.
Here we go, Alex. That is what we have to clarify.
I do not want to prolong the matter any more than is necessary, but we must be careful, because some members of the committee are trying to airbrush history. I clearly remember what was said last Wednesday morning—Fiona Hyslop clearly stated that she did not believe that textual amendments could be lodged at that point. Everybody on the committee confirmed that our clear understanding was that textual amendments had to be submitted before 1 pm on Friday.
Everybody at the committee agreed that, apart from the three SNP members who chose to walk out. They chose not to be mature enough to sit and discuss the matter behind closed doors, but chose instead to take the matter to the press. We must be careful about what we are discussing to ensure that history is not rewritten because, all of a sudden, one party is on the political back burner.
Who wrote that for you?
Allow me to clarify something for the record. In the text of the letter to the Presiding Officer, the deputy convener said that she understood that only minor alterations to the report would be allowed. I am saying categorically today that that was wrong.
I agree with what the convener has said. As the meeting is being held in public, let me make it clear that the textual amendments that we were considering before the SNP walk-out last week had not been agreed by the committee, but were there for the committee to agree or disagree to.
Thank you, Cathie.
The matter can be dealt with quite simply by including in the text of your motion the paragraph that begins,
"As to the specific circumstances",
and ends, "establish the facts." That deals with the problem and gives an explanation of how the amendments were handled, which I am perfectly happy to accept.
There is clearly a disagreement about the scale of the amendments. I am trying to get the committee to acknowledge that people were free to submit any amendments that they wanted. There was no limit on the length of amendments—none whatsoever. The committee had not agreed at any time that we would make only minor amendments. That is what I am trying to establish.
I am also trying to establish the fact that we had taken no view that the report was balanced and no view that it should be consensual. That is all that I am trying to get on the record, folks. I appreciate that members may not want to endorse a long and detailed statement, but I propose that that was the view of the committee.
I appreciate that some members have a different understanding of the facts and may not want to agree to that view, but it is my job to ensure that the committee view is established. Let me see those who support that.
Support what?
Let me make it very clear that I am moving a motion that says that, to date, the committee's view has been that our deliberations on the housing stock transfer and our amendments to the report indicated, first, that we had taken no view that the report was balanced and that amendments, where required, could be of any length. Secondly, the report indicated that we had taken a view that the report need not be consensual where it did not have to be. When the clerk has written down those words, I shall read them back to you. I appreciate that there may be disagreement about that, but I must establish that for the record.
I submitted textual amendments by the 1 pm deadline—I was quite aware of the process and the deadline. I do not know that we had a discussion to specify an acceptable length for amendments. However, I was aware that we charged individual members of the committee with consideration of specific areas. I considered the areas about which I had raised concerns and I know that other people considered amendments to the bits of the report that they had raised concerns about.
There must be questions about the rules for conducting reports, given the sheer volume, content and nature of the report that the committee should be signing off today. It is clear that the role of the convener is to ensure that there is no division where there need not be any. We should certainly not have only three working days to sign off a report when amendments have been submitted that could change a huge volume of the text. I have not gone through which of the amendments have been agreed to and which have not, but my concerns make me think that we need to consider the matter further—but not in this meeting. The time that we are spending—
I think that you have made that point, Fiona.
I moved my motion. We should be getting on with our agenda instead of having this discussion.
You were defeated on that, Fiona. Sometimes you must bear with the majority view of the committee.
It is clear to me that there was no limit. Nobody on the committee is prescribed in terms of how they view a text that is presented to them. As full members of the committee, everybody has the right to comment.
I want to move on and agree procedures and get the matter settled.
There is a further point that has not emerged so far. The committee had not considered the text. We went expressly to the recommendations and dealt with them first of all. Some of the recommendations had major implications for the text and it was agreed that we would come back to the text once we had agreed the framework as laid down by the recommendations.
To be honest, I am somewhat at a loss to understand what is left of Fiona Hyslop's concerns, allegations or whatever after the way in which our conversation has moved today. I cannot identify anything in all of this that Fiona is still concerned about. I am left in considerable misunderstanding as to what on earth she was going on about when she stormed out of the previous meeting.
Thanks to the clerks, I now have a new form of words. I therefore propose that the following is the view of the committee and I move,
"That the committee had taken no view that the report would be balanced; that there was no restriction on the size of the texts of amendments; and that the report need not be consensual."
Does the committee endorse that view? Let me see a show of hands for those who agree that that was how we conducted our proceedings, and then a show of hands for all those who disagree.
For
Aitken, Bill (Glasgow) (Con)
Brown, Robert (Glasgow) (LD)
Craigie, Cathie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (Lab)
Curran, Ms Margaret (Glasgow Baillieston) (Lab)
McAllion, Mr John (Dundee East) (Lab)
Raffan, Mr Keith (Mid Scotland and Fife) (LD)
Watson, Mike (Glasgow Cathcart) (Lab)
Whitefield, Karen (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab)
Against
Hyslop, Fiona (Lothians) (SNP)
Neil, Alex (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Quinan, Mr Lloyd (West of Scotland) (SNP)
The result of the division is: For 8, Against 3, Abstentions 0.
Motion agreed to.
We now move on to the third motion.
I move,
That the committee agrees that we pursue our work as planned and that we agree to schedule an extra meeting to ensure publication of the report as soon as possible.
Are we all agreed?
Members indicated agreement.
Can we move on?
May I ask that the committee agree that a minority report can be produced? My understanding of the information from the clerks is that if there is a majority view—
Hang on, is there a point of order?
Before we move on to the next item of business, convener, I want to raise something. The whole process since last Wednesday has brought the committee into disrepute. We wasted an hour last week discussing procedures and we have wasted an hour of valuable time today. Is there a parliamentary procedure to deal with members who negate their responsibility and walk out of a committee?
I will refer that to the clerks so that we do not take up time now. I have just had advice from the clerks on Fiona Hyslop's point about minority reports. We will have to defer that to the private session, when we will consider how to take forward the details of the housing stock transfer report.
I do not want to prolong the discussion, but I agree with Cathie Craigie that the situation—or the behaviour of one particular member—has brought the committee into disrepute. I would therefore be grateful if the clerk could advise the committee, first, whether the behaviour of that member and the allegations that were made—I believe that they were allegations—can be referred to the Standards Committee and, secondly, whether we can move a motion of no confidence in the deputy convener at the next meeting.
That is a matter for you to pursue, Keith. I ask you to speak to the clerks about that separately.
Can we move on? I ask members to agree that the additional meeting be held on Wednesday in private.
I do not agree, but I am, no doubt, in the minority. I spoke to Mary Dinsdale three weeks ago when no meeting had been scheduled. Based on that discussion, I arranged to attend a school prizegiving in my constituency, which I am not prepared to call off at two days' notice. I am very unhappy, because this means that I will be unable to be present when my amendments to the report are being dealt with. It is not right to organise meetings at two days' notice and expect that members are all hanging around with a free morning to fill.
May I introduce a note of consensus by agreeing with that? There is a clear need for an additional meeting.
I agree.
Indeed, there may be a need for more than one additional meeting. However, given that we have all filled our diaries, it is totally unrealistic to organise the additional meeting for Wednesday morning. The clerks should try to fix a new date, which is acceptable to most members of the committee.
Can I say—
Sorry, Mike. I am taking advice from the clerks.
I will get in touch with members. We always want to ensure maximum attendance. Believe me, the clerks and I go out of our way to do that. I am sure that everyone—no matter what their politics are—agrees that we try genuinely to ensure that everyone gets to the committee's meetings. The behaviour last week has delayed us by one week. It is most regrettable. I am sorry that it has happened, but I am determined that we push ahead with the housing stock transfer report and get it out. Members will have to accept that there will be pressure on their diaries. I ask members to prioritise the report. I appreciate that members have commitments. My children are most annoyed, because the situation may well mean extra time in my diary—I ask members to bear that in mind. Leave it to the clerks and me. We will do our very best to ensure that members can attend meetings.
Convener—
I want to move on because of the time.
I want to clarify whether that means that we do not have a meeting on Wednesday morning.
No, it does not mean that. It means that we will go round members and see who can attend and what the circumstances are. The circumstances last week were outwith our control. We have to act. It is not right that the committee should be punished for that.
With great respect, we cannot leave the question of whether or not we are meeting on Wednesday. That is two days hence.
Okay. I was trying to see whether there was any possible way that we could meet on that day, if Mike Watson could make it to a later meeting.
I accept the problem. As it happens, Wednesday would have suited me, but if it does not suit others, it is short notice.
I think that—
Hang on a second. I am getting advice from the clerk.
I wanted to see whether we could negotiate around Mike Watson's commitment, depending on what time it is at. I think that we should always negotiate where possible to suit members of the committee. However, we need another meeting this week.
Can I say—
Mike, I have to say for the record that every member of the Parliament was told that Wednesday would be a full chamber day—that is why our committee is meeting today and not on Wednesday—so your presence in Edinburgh would have been expected. I imagine, therefore, that a number of members have not made too many commitments. That is why we want to programme the additional meeting for then. I appreciate Robert Brown's point about it being short notice, but we are left with a situation that must be dealt with. It is very difficult. If the committee wants to press a decision now, I will propose that we go ahead and meet on Wednesday.
I accept that I am in a minority position. I just wanted to record the fact that it is very short notice.
I apologise to members of the committee.
Are we allowed to meet at the same time as Parliament?
It turns out that the Parliament is not meeting, but the Parliamentary Bureau had blocked the time off in case there was an overspill of business.
We need to agree that Wednesday's meeting will be held in private. Is that agreed?
Members indicated agreement.
We need to agree to take the items under item 2 on the agenda in private at the meeting on 4 July. I therefore suggest that the agreement of questions to the minister on the inquiry into drug misuse and deprived communities, the committee's general forward work programme, the forward work programme for the inquiry into drug misuse and deprived communities and the committee's annual report be taken in private. Is that agreed?
Members indicated agreement.
We now move into private session to consider the Transport (Scotland) Bill.
Meeting continued in private.
Meeting resumed in public.