Official Report 138KB pdf
Agenda item 2 is on the Journal of the Scottish Parliament. Karen Gillon raised an issue on the journal and the clerk has written an explanation of the matter. We have two options. We can accept that, when the rules were changed earlier, one particular rule should have been changed but was not and should now be changed to fit in. In other words, there was never any intention that committees should produce a journal, so we should change the rules to accept that. Alternatively, we can decide that committees should produce a journal of their minutes and then either tell them to do so or say that it would be nice if they had a journal and they can produce one if they wish. I am not sure whether anyone feels strongly on the subject.
We should go for the option of making a consequential change to rule 16.5 to correct the anomaly. We should not deal with the matter any further, because there is no point.
Do we have any evidence on who uses the journal and what its purpose is?
The clerk has a pretty volume, which I think is the first volume of the journal. If I remember rightly, we are several years behindhand.
The journal is now nearly up to date.
To be perfectly honest, it would be a waste of money to do anything else. As nobody even knew what the journal is, it is obvious that we do not all spend our time looking at it.
Either the journal is a waste of money and we should not produce it at all—including for the proceedings of the Parliament—or it is useful and we should therefore produce a journal for committees, too. The present situation seems to be an anomaly, and it treats the meetings of the Parliament as if they are more important than committee meetings, which is not necessarily the case. If the journal has no use and if nobody uses it or is aware of it, why not scrap the whole idea?
Do we have any evidence on how many people consult the journal? If it is a bit behindhand, it may be difficult to get evidence.
It has been behindhand for some time but, as I say, it has now nearly caught up. The journal has a purpose internally, for staff, but it primarily exists as an historical record. It is not intended primarily for the immediate use of members; it is intended more as part of the long-term record of what the Parliament has done. In that sense, it is part of the archive. For somebody who wants to research what the Parliament has done, it is certainly a lot more convenient and easier to use the journal than look at a lot of individual documents. In particular, the journal has an index that allows people to find when a statutory instrument was laid or when a bill was considered much more quickly than they can do otherwise. The journal has a use.
That suggests that we should extend the procedure to cover committees.
In effect, the issue is about archiving and about the wee bits of history that are created. Somebody has to create the journal at some point for people in the future to look back on. I am not against the journal, but I am not in favour of expanding its use. Just as minutes of meetings do not cover every word that is said, neither will the archive cover everything that was said or decided in every committee in every nook and cranny of the Parliament. We should go with the option in paragraph 15 of the paper. An explanation of certain matters was sought from the clerk and a reasonable one has been given. We should therefore make the appropriate changes. We should not expand the journal so that it covers the committees.
I feel that most people will look at the Official Report. That is the full report of committees and so on.
But probably not in 20 years' time.
I am told that it is all available up in the ether, on the electronic system.
Yes. All these documents are on the Parliament website. My understanding is that they will be available on the website indefinitely.
Let us just go with the option set out in paragraph 15.
That is a relief. People will be able to look back at the minutes of the Procedures Committee nostalgically.
And a tear will roll from their eye.
The general feeling is that we accept the option
Previous
Members' Bills