Finance Committee, 09 Nov 1999

Meeting date: Tuesday, November 9, 1999

Official Report 181KB pdf

---

Committee Decisions

The second item on the agenda is a matter that I discussed with the clerk, Sarah Davidson, and relates to the discussion that we had last week on amendments to the Public Finance and Accountability (Scotland) Bill. When we discussed our view of the bill and the amendments that we might pursue, it was agreed that I would move an amendment on behalf of the committee, relating to the figure of £50 million, which we thought should be uprated annually. It was my understanding—although reading the Official Report there is no formal decision—that that was the view of the committee; I would be surprised if members disagree. When I moved the amendment at the next meeting I thought that I was doing so on behalf of the committee. I thought that it was inappropriate for Keith Raffan to move an amendment that sought to do something different. I do not mean to be too hard on you, Keith.

Not at all.

I also thought that it was inappropriate for Richard Simpson to indicate his support for Keith's amendment, in preference to the committee's amendment. I must emphasise that I am not coming in with a heavy stick. We need to clarify where we stand when, in discussing a bill, the committee agrees to pursue an amendment that I, as convener, move on behalf of the committee. In my view, that binds the committee to the decision and individual members should not put alternative views. If members have other views, they should be made clear in the debate. Without spelling it out, I am sure that there are ways and means of ensuring that an amendment that seeks to do something different from the committee's decision could be lodged by someone other than a committee member.

There is a second, wider issue. We must consider what happens when parties are unhappy with an amendment that the committee has agreed. Are we, as committee members, bound by a committee decision, even if our parties instruct us to vote against something because it is not in line with party views?

Those are issues that need to be clarified for our work in the future. There was little difficulty last week, but in future we need to be clear where we stand and what the implications of such decisions are. Do members have views on the matter?

One way to get round the problem is for us to receive papers in good time, while we are still in the Parliament, and not at the weekend when we have gone our different ways. If that happened, before we arrived at a meeting, we would have an opportunity to speak to the party to clarify any thinking and to ensure that we could agree such decisions.

I agree that, where possible, the committee should be seen to be collectively responsible. However, there will always be occasions when a party manifesto promise or a particular strategy is at odds with the other views on the committee. That is a sensitive area for us to work in. If a member is away from the office, without all the papers, and something that needs to be dealt with arrives during the weekend, it is not always easy to ascertain the party line. That reinforces the need for papers to be released on a Thursday, while members are still at the Parliament. In that case it would be up to individual members to take the opportunity to deal with such party matters as they think fit.

To be fair, the papers arrive as soon as the clerking staff can get them out. There have been a number of occasions when information has not been available and they have been waiting for it. I take the point, but if we decide something in a committee meeting, it is sure to be well in advance of the occasion when the amendment is to be moved; there will be an opportunity to take advice on a specific point. If there were some party difficulty, that could be flagged up before the committee dealt with the amendment.

I accept that. However, one of the difficulties that we have had is a delay in receiving papers from the Executive. That is not the fault of the clerks, but it may sometimes cause us a problem.

The amendment related to a technical point. Admittedly, I should have given a percentage of 0.3 repeater, rather than 0.5, if the amendment was to reflect directly £50 million at 1999 prices. I was trying to make the amendment less clumsy.

I am against committee amendments. If there is a committee amendment that has a majority, that is fine, and the convener is perfectly entitled to move it, but the minority must still be allowed to propose an alternative. In other words, an amendment can be deemed to be a committee amendment only if it is unanimously supported.

I do not want to undermine your authority, convener, nor was I trying to do so last week. We are trying to get the best possible legislation. We are not in private session, so I had better not say what I was going to. However, I had indications that a percentage would be looked upon favourably. I thought that the calculation required by your figure, convener, would be too long.

David is slightly clouding the issue, which is not really about receiving papers on time. You have raised a specific point, convener.

I am not taking that as criticism, nor am I criticising individual members. Nothing had been established and folk were not clear about it. I accept that and attach no criticism. I just thought that it was a bit odd and that we needed to formalise the procedure somehow.

We are now discussing a different issue, which is whether a committee decision carries weight if it is unanimous. In my view, the majority makes a committee decision and once those decisions have been reached, individuals should not speak against them. I think that the committee generally shares that view.

Is there any way that committee members could register their dissent from a committee decision that was taken on a majority vote? Perhaps they could agree not to raise another point against the committee decision in the committee, but would still be free to raise the matter in the Parliament. In the case of a bill, they could lodge a separate amendment.

I am a wee bit concerned that everyone should be totally bound by committee decisions. That is fair enough within the committee, but members need to be able to raise issues in another forum, as members of Parliament.

That is a fair point. In that case, even if we reach a decision, it must be made clear that an individual is moving an amendment, rather than me doing it, as convener, on behalf of the committee. That is my point. If I am moving an amendment on behalf of the committee, it is a bit odd for another member of the committee to argue for something different. It is about how we go about it.

Surely every party and every member has the chance to debate the substance of the amendment during the initial committee discussion and before we reach a committee view. Once we have come to a decision, any dissent among committee members will be a matter of public record. Everyone's position will be clear. Once a decision has been formally reached, as convener, you should be in a position to move the amendment unopposed.

If, in a subsequent debate, the issue reaches the floor of the Parliament, everyone is free to put his or her own point of view. In committee, once we have had discussions and reached a conclusion, I think that the convener should be able to move the amendment on the committee's behalf.

For the record, I should emphasise that the issue is clouded by the fact that we did not take a formal decision. I simply said "Is that agreed?"; nobody spoke against it and so I took it to be agreed. If we formulate an amendment, it would be appropriate to record that clearly in the Official Report. If any member is unhappy, he or she should say so and then it would be put on record.

The downside of George's point is that I could not go to a parliamentary debate and argue against something that, in a committee, I previously voted for, or in respect of which I had not indicated dissent.

I suggest that, in moving a committee amendment, convener, you expose yourself only when the amendment has unanimous backing. If it does not have unanimous backing, it becomes a personal amendment. As convener, you are putting the position on the line by saying, "here is the committee's position." An amendment has more status if it is pushed by you, and we do not want to lose that.

I suggest that dissent should be recorded and that if an amendment is not unanimous there is no point in you, as convener, pushing it forward.

I agree with Andrew. We are on new ground. Although last week the matter was relatively technical, in future it could become more serious. It was the first time this committee had undertaken stage 2 consideration of a bill. We are making up procedures as we go along. I am not saying that the committee cannot make a decision on the matter, but I think that it should be referred to the Procedures Committee. It will affect other committees when they consider bills. It is important that committees act uniformly in that respect; we should not have different procedures.

We should refer the matter to Murray Tosh, the convener of the Procedures Committee. I also agree with Andrew: for the convener to move a committee amendment, it should be agreed unanimously. We must have as open a debate as possible to ensure that legislation is as good as possible.

There seems to be some consensus. Would it be fair to say—

I am concerned about Keith's point. If we are coming up with a new procedure, it should be considered in terms of all the committees, not just this one. It is worth consulting on a wider basis.

I think that that would be helpful. I agree that there should be uniformity. Would I be right in thinking that members agree that, in future, a committee amendment should be pursued only on the basis of unanimous agreement?

Members indicated agreement.

We will not get into a discussion about the position of people who happen to be absent when a vote is taken. We will have to come back to that.

I will ask the clerk to refer that matter to the Procedures Committee, indicating that we have agreed this procedure and we think that, as far as possible, it should apply to other committees in similar positions.

We will now move on to item 3, which we have agreed to discuss in private. I ask those people who are not members of the committee or clerking staff to leave the room. If we finish our discussion on item 3 before 12 pm, we will adjourn until that time.

Meeting continued in private.

On resuming—