Procedures Committee,

Meeting date: Tuesday, May 29, 2001

Official Report 286KB pdf

---

Conveners (Speeches in Chamber)

For agenda item 3, we have been joined by Alex Neil, who initiated the item and who has sat patiently through our previous discussions. Welcome, Mr Neil. Would you like to give us your thoughts on the time that is allocated to conveners of lead committees for speeches in the chamber?

I begin by reminding members about the general principles of the CSG—in particular, the "sharing of power" both inside and outside the Parliament. Inside the Parliament, the "sharing of power" between the front benches, the committees and back benchers is critically important. Striking a balance between those three groups is also critically important, if we are to adhere to the basic principles on which the Parliament was founded.

The way in which the Parliament's legislative process has been designed is clearly different from that of Westminster. Our legislative process recognises the importance of the committees. There is pre-legislative scrutiny; submission of stage 1 reports by committees to the Parliament as part of the stage 1 debate; and the fact that all of stage 2 is taken in committee—none of it is discussed on the floor of the chamber, as the process goes to the chamber only for stage 3.

The role of the committees must be recognised, particularly at stage 1 and stage 3. Stage 1 involves the production of an often substantive report on a bill, with recommendations to the Parliament from at least one committee and sometimes two or three committees. At stage 3, the bill goes before the Parliament as amended by the committee at stage 2.

My suggestion is that there should be an opportunity at stage 1 for the convener of the lead committee to supplement the written report with a full report to the Parliament that recognises the role of the committee and that gives the committee equal status with the front benches. The convener should be given a similar opportunity at stage 3.

Let me deal with two of the genuine concerns that have been expressed, the first of which is that committee conveners would take up all the time for speeches. I do not believe that that would happen. My suggestion is that speeches at stage 1 and stage 3 should be limited to the convener of the lead committee, who would speak for eight, nine or 10 minutes, depending on the allocation. At present, those conveners have about four minutes, and it can be difficult to squeeze in comments on pre-legislative scrutiny.

Let me take members back to the Abolition of Poindings and Warrant Sales Bill or to the Education (Graduate Endowment and Student Support) (Scotland) Bill. Substantive written stage 1 reports were produced on those bills, but a number of points should also have been brought out by the conveners of the lead committees during the stage 1 debates in the chamber. To be frank, the suggestion that an additional four or five minutes for a convener's speech would denude the back benchers of a substantial amount of time does not hold water.

On the second major objection, I refer members to the letter from Sir David Steel in which he said that there might be resentment because conveners have already had an opportunity to put across their point of view in committee. With all due respect to the Presiding Officer, he is missing the point. The role of the committee convener during stage 1 and stage 3 is not to give his or her personal view, irrespective of how long their speech is. Rather, their role is to report on behalf of the committee and to explain some of the reasoning behind the stage 1 recommendations or the stage 2 amendments.

I will give a quick example. The Education (Graduate Endowment and Student Support) (Scotland) Bill was dealt with by the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee, which is the committee that I convene. That bill contained five sections, three of which were not particularly politically controversial, but to which we made improvements. The first two sections, which dealt with the graduate endowment, were politically controversial, but nevertheless, the committee agreed to accept our political differences in order to try to improve the bill. The convener should have the opportunity to explain to the Parliament in a reasonable amount of detail where the committee is coming from in relation to its recommendations and proposals.

My suggestion is a fairly modest proposal, which reinforces the principle of equality in the legislative process between the front benches and the committees, without damaging in any way the opportunity for back benchers to speak in debates.

In the light of subsequent discussion and correspondence, it has become clear to all that you speak on behalf of the conveners of lead committees—that was not Sir David Steel's assumption, nor was it mine when the matter arose initially. Are you broadly content with the proposal from Sir David and George Reid that an attempt will be made to allocate some additional minutes to the convener of the lead committee? I think that that proposal was made in George Reid's letter, rather than in Sir David's, but it is also implicit in Sir David's letter.

As you know, we had a fairly good discussion on that issue at the conveners liaison group. The general view of the group—there was not one dissenting voice—was that the recommendation was right in principle. However, I am not satisfied with an attempt to allocate more time to conveners; I would like more of a commitment from the Presiding Officer that more time will be allocated to the convener of the lead committee. The onus would then be on the bureau to ensure that, if it is expected that a number of back-bench members will want to speak and time might be tight, there is scope to extend the time that is allocated to the debate.

Acceptance of that proposal would mean that the convener of the lead committee would get an extra four or five minutes, which is—at the outside—the equivalent of a back-bench speech. If the bureau believes that time might be tight, it is the bureau's responsibility to address that problem. The important thing is to get a commitment from the Presiding Officers to establish the principle that, at stages 1 and 3, the committee conveners will be allowed the same time—they may not take it all up, especially in consideration of smaller bills—as the front-bench members. That would reinforce the principle, during the legislative process, that the committees have the same status as front-bench members.

A number of members feel that the Parliament has slipped too far the other way, so that front-bench members—irrespective of whether they are from the Executive or the Opposition—enjoy more power than back-bench members and committees. The proposal would redress the balance, to some extent.

Can you clarify what length of time allocation you are seeking? In normal, Executive-led debates—say at stage 1—a substantial amount of time would be allocated to the leading minister, and the time allocations would then decrease as members from other parties entered the debate. Are you looking for parity with the time that is allocated to Conservative and Liberal front-bench members?

Broadly, yes. The job of the lead committee is to scrutinise and comment on an Executive bill, not to introduce it. Giving the convener broadly the same amount of time as the Opposition spokespeople would be satisfactory.

Do members have any points to raise or questions to ask?

Have you had discussions with other conveners on the matter?

We discussed the matter at the conveners liaison group. Some conveners wanted to go further than I did—on this issue, as on most others, I am a very moderate person. For example, the convener of the European Committee believed that the principle should be extended to debates that were not part of the legislative process, but which concerned subjects on which a committee had reported. He believed that, in such debates, the Presiding Officer should allocate the same time to the committee convener that he allocates to the Opposition spokespeople. There is an argument for that, but I am not here to argue that case.

My point is that it is critical that committee conveners are given more time to speak in the legislative process. We establish the importance of the lead committee's role right up to the stage 1 debate, when we seem to downgrade it. I am saying that we should recognise the work of the committee and award the committee the status that it deserves and requires.

I am with you on your basic proposition. However, if the committee convener is also a party spokesperson, is it reasonable for them to say, "I am now speaking as the committee convener," and then, halfway through, to say, "I am now speaking on behalf of my party"? Alternatively, if the committee convener makes a major speech as a committee convener, should he leave the party fighting to other people and stick entirely to putting forward a committee view?

Ideally, that should not happen. However, some members hold both positions—especially in the Tory party, as their numbers mean that they are left with no choice in the matter. Whoever is in that position should make it absolutely clear at the start which role they are speaking in. If they decide to try to combine the roles, they should be up front about it. If they combine the roles, they should not get double the time. If I were in that position, as convener and party spokesperson, I would invite the deputy convener of the committee to make the committee speech and I would make the party speech.

You have suggested a time limit of eight or nine minutes. However, during longer debates, Opposition spokespeople sometimes get considerably longer than that—up to 15 minutes or longer for SNP members. Would you expect conveners to be allocated the sort of time that is allocated to Conservative or Liberal front-bench members, which tends to be less generous than that which is allocated to SNP spokespeople?

It is up to whoever is presiding over the meeting of the Parliament to choose the order in which members speak, but their choice is usually informed by the submitted party lists of those who have requested to speak. Should the committee convener be discounted from the party list to speak after the party spokespeople on behalf of the committee?

Irrespective of whether my proposal to change the time allocations is accepted, my view is that members who speak on behalf of the committee should not submit their names to the Presiding Officer as part of a party list or be counted as part of a party list. The role of the committee in the legislative process should be fully recognised. It debases the committee if the convener has to put himself or herself on a party list. The whole point of the convener's speech is that it is a report to the Parliament from a parliamentary committee, not from a committee of a party. Irrespective of the time that is allocated, a convener who speaks on behalf of a committee should not have to submit their name as part of a party list. That is a contradiction in terms, because the point of allowing a convener to speak is to get a non-partisan report on the outcome of the committee's deliberations, not the outcome of party deliberations.

In stage 1 and stage 3 debates, the time allocations have seldom reached 14 or 15 minutes. If they did, that was because we did not have a busy agenda or because the subject was of such import that it required that amount of time to be spent on it.

Excuse me for interrupting, but if the Parliament was engaged in a three-hour debate, the Liberal and Conservative spokesmen would be allowed around 12 minutes. However, they are usually allowed less than that.

I am trying to establish a principle. We recognise the importance of the lead committee's role right up to the stage 1 debate, then we downgrade it. I am suggesting a way in which we can continue to recognise the importance of the committees in the legislative process. It is absurd that we place so much emphasis on pre-legislative scrutiny and the hours of committee work that results in a two-volume report—the committee recommendations in one volume and the evidence in the other—and then ask the committee convener to sum up that work in three and a half minutes.

I have some sympathy with Alex Neil's proposal, at least as far as stage 1 debates are concerned. Stage 3 debates are a totally different ball game, and I do not think that the principle that Alex Neil has outlined should apply to them.

I support Alex Neil's view on the allocation of time to committee conveners in stage 1 debates. If the time allocations were to be rejigged—and the rejigging could have substantial impact on back-bench members—the Presiding Officers would have to know in advance that a committee convener wanted to speak, and the convener would have to speak exclusively on behalf of the committee. On occasions, when conveners have been allocated some extra time, they have got halfway through their speech and said, "That is what the committee thought. I will now tell you what my party thinks."

Obviously, extra time is allocated not so that party business can be discussed, but so that the conveners can represent what has been said at the committees. I have a lot of sympathy with that view.

I agree. The onus would need to be on the convener to make it clear to the Presiding Officer that they were speaking in their role as convener of the committee, and to have submitted their name to speak accordingly, rather than on the party list. If they have submitted their name through the party list, they should be given the same time that is allocated to a party back bencher.

Patricia Ferguson's second point is also valid. If a member has submitted their name to speak as the convener of the committee, but starts to give their own or their party's point of view halfway through the speech, the Presiding Officer would be well within his or her rights to remind the member that they have been given that allocation of time on the basis that they are speaking on behalf of the committee, in the same way as the Presiding Officer can interrupt a front-bench speaker if he or she tries to speak on behalf of another party. I have often heard the Presiding Officer say, "You are not here to comment on that. You are here to comment on this." That is a judgment for the Presiding Officer but, in principle, Patricia Ferguson is absolutely right.

We have probably evolved a general agreement that, in stage 1 debates, we would like greater credence, including a proportionate additional amount of time, to be given to the lead committee convener, on the clear understanding that the convener accepts the responsibility to speak for the committee. The situation is not the same at stage 3, when the formal debate after amendments is only 30 minutes long, but it would be reasonable for the committee convener to ask to speak in that debate as well. I am sure that that could be accommodated without any reference to time.

If we can broadly agree that view, it could form the basis of the advice that is given to the Presiding Officer and the Parliamentary Bureau when they consider the allocation of time for stage 1 debates.

If we were to proceed along those lines, we would also have to have an agreement or understanding with the Presiding Officers that the conveners' time would not be taken out of the balance of the party arrangement.

That is implicit in the view that I have outlined.

I was going to make a similar point. In making its decision on timetabling, the bureau should take account of that allocation. If it meant, for example, that all the party spokesmen had their allocation reduced from 12 minutes to 11 minutes to counterbalance the additional time, that would be better. The problem of stealing back benchers' time would not then arise.

My point exactly.

I think that cutting back the time of the front-bench spokesmen would be a very popular measure.

We shall proceed on that basis and see how it goes. I see no reason why we should not be able to work things out to everyone's satisfaction. Is that agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

I thank the committee very much indeed.