Other Business
Agenda item 2 concerns a number of business items. The first relates to the Procedures Committee. At one of our private discussions, George Lyon raised the issue of my convenership of the committee and my holding a front-bench position in the Scottish National party. I agreed that the matter should go on the agenda.
This issue is a matter of principle and concerns the duality of conveners' roles. Three committees are affected and it is not a matter that relates specifically to you.
I understand that the issue was raised with the Presiding Officer and that undertakings were given that the conveners involved would do their best to separate the two roles. It is an important issue for the committees, and there will be times when great strain will be put on you, convener, if the committee comes to a different view to that of your party—whether on scrutinising the Executive or in an individual area of inquiry. It may be difficult in such cases for you to articulate the committee's findings.
This should be taken out of the political field. The Procedures Committee is there to consider issues such as this one, and I suggest that we should ask them to do so. It can come to a conclusion on whether there needs to be a change, or whether simply monitoring the situation is the way to proceed.
If there is a proposal to refer the matter to the Procedures Committee, I would be happy to second it. There is a danger that all our discussions on lifelong learning and the enterprise network could be lost in an argument over a procedural issue. We had an informal discussion on this matter at our last meeting. Unless there has been a change of position in the interim, there is still a dispute in the committee on the efficacy of people combining the roles of committee convener and party spokesman—whether those roles can be combined. We must ensure that the committee's independent view is articulated, as opposed to the party political interests that obviously pervade all our discussions. I agree entirely with George that this is not a political matter, but a matter of the long-term interests of the Parliament as a whole.
Given that there is a dispute in the committee, it would be correct to refer this matter to the Procedures Committee, so that it can give a view to us and to the Parliament. That is why it is there. That committee could have a look at the matter, and consider not just our point of view but those of the other committees that could be affected.
There is a problem, and it is as much a problem for the media as it is for us. Television has a particular problem in distinguishing between the two roles that you, convener, and others adopt: the roles of convener of a committee and of party political spokesman in the chamber.
I would not seek to oppose a referral of this matter to the Procedures Committee; however, I wonder if that would be going down the right route. There is more than one potential conflict of interest around this table, and around the tables of any of the committees of the Parliament. If we accept that the role of the committee is twofold—to challenge and probe the Executive and to produce our own proposals—plainly the aims of the committee are different from those of any of our parties.
A clear conflict of interest must exist for members of the Lib-Lab coalition, who must both defend the coalition and challenge the Executive. I would not want to refer that to the Procedures Committee. Doing so would not be helpful, and would be seen as a party political ruse, which is the sort of thing that we want to get away from. If that Pandora's box were to be opened, it could quickly lead to a lot of party political points being made about the performance of members on committees and about whether they were fulfilling their loyalty to their party or to their committee. I do not think that that would be productive or in the long-term interests of the Parliament, and that is why I regret that this issue is being pursued by George Lyon.
Fergus has touched on an area that concerns me, and Allan talked about a dispute. I want to ensure that the committee does not give the impression of being riven with dissent, because I do not think that it is. If George is concerned about a potential conflict of interests, and is suggesting that the matter should be referred to the Procedures Committee, I am fairly relaxed about that, but I do not think that it is a matter of great significance. However, I do not want the impression to be given that this committee is in turmoil in its early stages, because that would not be an accurate reflection of what we all feel.
Fergus has alluded to an important point: we are all political animals, and we all represent different parties. Within those parties, we have varying degrees of influence and authority. Fergus makes an important point when he talks about self-discipline and propriety—to me they are paramount. Convener, I repeat what I said at the last committee meeting. You have conducted yourself impeccably and, as that is my honest perception, it is only fair to you that I put my view on the record.
I will join the John Swinney fan club. I must put on the record that I have no complaint about your conduct in the chair, convener, and I think that that is the general view. However, the question is out of the box and cannot be put back in. It is best settled by the Procedures Committee, and I hope that it will be settled in a way that allows you to continue in the chair. It would be dangerous for this committee to try to resolve it or to take a decision about it. The Procedures Committee is the appropriate body to consider the matter and it should be referred to that committee, to maintain the convener's continued integrity, to allow us to concentrate on our work and to put a blooming lid on the matter, if nothing else.
However, I think that there is a difference between members who sit on the committee, although there may be potential conflicts, and the convener, who acts on our behalf and represents all our political views.
I agree with Duncan.
Oh dear—[Laughter.]
I have very difficult news for you, Duncan—that will get out, you know.
I want to put on the record my view that I do not have a problem with John as convener. I was concerned about other issues over the summer, but I have complete confidence in John Swinney's handling of this committee.
Let me draw this public discussion of members' views to a close.
I was immensely privileged to be elected convener of this committee. At that time, I indicated that I wanted to ensure that I worked purposefully with all members of the committee to make a difference to policy making in Scotland. I followed that approach over the summer and I certainly intend to carry on with it. I support the referral of this issue to the Procedures Committee for a resolution. If it cannot be resolved, its effects will be felt beyond this committee, as it is a parliamentary issue. The Procedures Committee will have to advise and report back to Parliament, and I will welcome that report.
I wish to clarify the issue. It was raised in two tranches, the first being over the summer, when the Presiding Officer sought assurances from the three conveners who are front-bench spokespeople. I was happy to assure him that I will be absolutely fair and impartial when I conduct the business of this committee. There will obviously be times when I perform as a party political animal elsewhere in pursuit of my party's agenda, but I will distinguish between those two roles and I am happy to give that assurance to the committee.
More recently, it was suggested that the issue should be referred to the Standards Committee. The Presiding Officer and the Convener of the Standards Committee advised me that the issue has nothing to do with the Standards Committee, as the Parliament has no rules on it. The proper course of action is to refer it to the Procedures Committee, which I am happy to do.
My election as convener was unanimous and I particularly appreciated George Lyon's action in seconding my nomination, which I felt stressed the cross-party nature of the election. I also serve on the Finance Committee and I was happy to second the nomination of Mike Watson as convener of that committee. Before the committee decided to elect me in June, I had been the SNP spokesperson on enterprise and lifelong learning for a month, and my position has not changed.
As a Parliament and as a set of committees, we must decide how we are going to operate and we have found some ways of doing that ourselves. We must also examine what happens in other places. In the Welsh Assembly, the chair of the Health and Social Services Committee is the Liberal Democrat spokesman on health, yet the issue has not been raised in that Parliament. There are comparators in new democratic institutions, where such roles coexist quite happily.
Duncan was right when he said that the issue was out of the box. However, it is being referred to the Procedures Committee, which we can allow to resolve it. I want to ensure that this committee is allowed to get its teeth into its work programme and remit without distractions and to add value to policy making in Scotland.
I will write to the Convener of the Procedures Committee to ask his committee to examine the issue.
The next item is a proposal for a Scottish utilities forum. The paper is fairly self-explanatory. The idea of the Scottish utilities forum came from joint discussion between the Executive and the utility companies and there is mutual enthusiasm for the initiative. The forum will draw together the utilities, officials from the Scottish Executive, some members from our committee and possibly from other committees, and other organisations that have an interest in energy and consumer issues.
We have been asked to submit suggested nominees to the forum; four MSPs are required. We anticipate involvement from the Transport and the Environment Committee, which shares an interest. I want to offer two nominees from the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee to join the utilities forum. We will throw open the issue for discussion in order to identify two members who are willing to do that on behalf of the committee.
I suggest Allan Wilson.
I am interested in the utilities. The question arises as to why water was not incorporated within the proposal. That is something that I would like to learn a wee bit more about. I can think of some reasons why water might not be included, but I can think of other reasons why it should be.
I can think of reasons why it is not.
That is a question that arose in my reading of the paper. I am happy to sit on the forum if that is the committee's wish.
I was also going to ask the question about the water companies. I am happy to second Allan's nomination.
The clerk, Simon Watkins, can tell us something about the issue of water.
I can find out some more about the background to that. The only information that we have is the view that the minister took—in a letter that we circulated to members—that the water authorities had a separate and distinctive reporting and accounting system, which is why there were omitted from the forum. We can pursue that further, if members are interested.
To amplify that, the paper for the proposal brought together the chief executives of electricity, water and gas, but it appears that water has been dropped from the agenda for some reason.
If it would help, I would be happy to write to the minister, on behalf of the committee, to raise that issue.
Allan has been nominated. Are any other members interested in taking part?
I am happy for Allan to sit as a permanent representative, but would it be helpful if we rotated the other representative among the members of the committee? We could rotate on a six-monthly or yearly basis and report back. I am conscious that all of us have demands on our time.
The permanent representative feels as if he is on his way to the United Nations. He is not quite there yet, but it is only a matter of time.
I do not want to be in permanent session with the utilities.
Can anyone clarify how many meetings are involved?
They are quarterly.
I would prefer that we had two defined representatives.
There must be two members if we are to have any continuity.
Can I suggest a member from one of the non-Executive parties?
You can suggest.
If cakes are involved, Annabel will volunteer.
Yes, we should ask about that.
I would be quite interested in attending, if that does not find disfavour with the rest of the committee.
Is the committee agreed that the representatives should be Fergus Ewing and Allan Wilson? That is agreed.
Can I ask a point of information? As members of other committees attend our meetings, could we attend the forum as observers?
I do not know, but I will check with the minister.
It might be interesting to dip in and out from time to time.
The next item on the agenda is a visit by the Public Accounts Committee of the New South Wales Parliament. In case members have misunderstood, this does not involve a trip to New South Wales—or at least, not yet.
The representatives of the PAC in New South Wales are coming to Scotland to consider various issues that touch on the remit of the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee. They are particularly interested in inward and outward investment. I am happy to meet those representatives when they visit the Parliament and any other members who are interested in taking part are welcome to do so.
Members should advise the clerk if they are planning to attend on 6 October.
The final issue on the agenda is the Industry and Parliament Trust. The paper highlights the purpose of the trust, which has a history of operation in Westminster. Members of Parliament are encouraged to understand and appreciate issues in relation to the wider business and economic community. I have not participated before, although I have heard many favourable comments about the work of the Industry and Parliament Trust. However, it is a bit of a commitment in terms of time.
The issue for the committee is whether we support the initiative in principle or whether we are prepared to allocate members to assist in the development of the proposal.
I think that the trust is worth supporting. Anne Begg, the MP for Aberdeen South, has been involved at Westminster, and she found it very useful.
Does the scheme take people out of other sectors to give them experience of political life as well? Is it a two-way thing? There is a scheme that involves more than politicians just spending time with industry, but involves industry representatives spending time with politicians.
Simon has advised me that the scheme is in the process of formation, so I do not think that there is a definitive position on that. Are we broadly sympathetic to the idea?
Elaine, are you interested in pursuing that?
Potentially, but it depends what it would involve. I come from an industry background anyway.
Does the paper ask for people to get involved in setting up the scheme, rather than for people to participate?
Yes, we are looking for a couple of representatives to take part in the formulation of the initiative.
I would be happy to participate.
Nick has a background in business and industry and might be a useful source of input.
Are we agreed on Nick and Elaine? What about Allan?
No, but there is another place if anyone else is interested. What about Marilyn?
Yes.
There is a reference to Marilyn in the submission. It might be that her expertise would be valuable.
Is it agreed that the representatives will be Marilyn Livingstone, Elaine Thomson and Nick Johnston? That is agreed.
That concludes today's business. We will meet in two weeks' time, when our first item will be to agree the remit of the committee. After that, we will start to make progress on the conduct of the inquiry.
Meeting closed at 11:53.