European Committee, 18 Jun 2002

Meeting date: Tuesday, June 18, 2002

Official Report 199KB pdf

---

Remit

We move on to item 8 on the agenda, which concerns extending the committee's remit into external affairs. Although the matter has been under discussion for some time, the clerks have endeavoured to seek the clarification for which members asked at our previous meeting. Perhaps it will be helpful if we agree today to the proposed changes to the standing orders in this respect. Although it is up to the Procedures Committee to recommend whether we should accept the addition to our remit, we can express our view by agreeing the recommended changes to the standing orders. Do members have any final comments on the matter, or can we simply agree the changes?

On scrutiny of the Parliament's external relations policy, paragraph 13 of the briefing paper states:

"The advice offered to Members is that this is not an appropriate function for the European Committee to undertake this task on behalf of the Parliament."

Where did that advice come from?

I think that that was legal advice. However, Stephen Imrie might be able to clarify the matter.

After the previous committee meeting, I sought advice from a number of sources in the Parliament, including the legal office and clerks. It is not appropriate for me to name individuals on the record, but I am happy to discuss the matter with Dennis Canavan afterwards. My name appears at the top of the paper, but the document contains a compilation of the views of those sources, which resulted in the advice that is set out in paragraph 13 and the following paragraphs.

Was advice received from any members of the Parliament, as distinct from clerks of the Parliament?

I did not ask for advice from members of the Parliament other than members of the European Committee who had previously discussed with me their views on the matter.

You may remember that, at previous committee meetings and at the meeting with Paul Grice, I raised what can only be described as the very secretive behaviour of the external relations unit of the Parliament. Many decisions seem to be taken behind closed doors. Little information is given out before such decisions are taken, and even afterwards many members seem to be unaware of exactly what is going on. There seems to be a cosy attitude on the part of those who could be politely described as the parliamentary establishment that they do not want to be made accountable in a wider sense to the Parliament as a whole. I do not think that any such body—the external liaison unit, or cosy meetings of the Presiding Officer and his deputies, perhaps with the business managers, or indeed the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body—should be allowed to behave like some kind of secret society. I wish to register my objections to their resistance to the suggestions that were made in this committee and at the meeting that we had with Paul Grice.

I realise that we might be up against strong resistance, but I understand that the convener is invited to attend certain meetings of the Parliament's external liaison unit and meetings with the Presiding Officer and Deputy First Minister, as referred to in paragraph 19. I hope that the convener will report back to the committee what goes on at those meetings. I do not think that I am alone in objecting to the secrecy of much of the work that is being done. The Parliament was supposed to herald a new era of open democracy in Scotland, but the way in which some bodies and some of the individuals involved in them behave cannot be described as open or democratic by any stretch of the imagination.

I would like to say two things. First, I am happy to report back to the committee. We in the Parliament always pride ourselves on an open and transparent system; the committee is an integral part of that. I have had only one meeting with the Deputy First Minister and the Presiding Officer on external relations policies and activities. The meeting was about proposed visits and the Committee of the Regions. Whenever such a meeting takes place in future, I will be happy to report back to the committee about it.

Secondly, we have developed an informal link with the external relations unit. We called Paul Grice in and he has also given us a monthly report on the activities of the external liaison unit. That is something that we should continue to ask for. I am certainly happy to develop that procedure so that the committee can continue to scrutinise the external liaison unit—informally, as opposed to on the sort of legal basis that I suspect might be causing the difficulty here.

I agree with Dennis Canavan. I cannot stand the secrecy that is involved in decisions of the external liaison unit and the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body. We are never allowed to know who dishes up what. I know that back benchers of all parties are miffed by the fact that they are never sure why particular announcements and nominations have been made. The Presiding Officer's office does not seem to have a policy on external relations: it simply emerges that the Presiding Officer was in Barcelona last week, for example.

I would not want to go as far as Dennis Canavan suggests, but we could do more than the convener has suggested. If the Presiding Officer indicates that he wants to go to Belgium, he should be permitted to go only if the visit is for purposes that are set out in guidelines. It is not all right for him to decide to go on a whim, over a cigar. We do not possess open, transparent guidelines that set out the criteria for visits by the Presiding Officer. We need more information. I would have no problem with our extending the committee's remit. Too much is agreed informally and behind closed doors.

We raised that issue in informal discussions with Paul Grice. However, this is a matter for the Parliamentary Bureau. Through our business managers and political parties, all members—with the exception of Dennis Canavan—have access to the bureau. I know that Dennis has approached the Presiding Officer directly.

The comments of both Ben Wallace and Dennis Canavan are interesting. Some of the arrangements that have evolved recently are the result of our putting pressure on our colleagues. Nominations were invited recently for members to represent the Parliament at meetings of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association. One of those meetings was in Malaysia. Decisions about such matters were previously taken within the bureau. Dennis Canavan will agree that we have taken a step in the right direction.

The minutes of meetings of the SPCB might not be full enough, but they are published regularly in the business bulletin. I agree with Ben Wallace that we need clarification of whether there are guidelines that set out when the Presiding Officer should represent the Parliament—regardless of who the Presiding Officer is. In the briefing paper that we have received, the word "represent" is underlined. It is not for David Steel or any other Presiding Officer to make the policy—the Presiding Officer's job is to represent the Parliament. We should seek further clarification of the circumstances in which people are asked to represent the Parliament.

Paul Grice's monthly report to the committee is intended to provide that clarification. The report should inform us of visits abroad that the Presiding Officer and Deputy Presiding Officers plan to make, and of the reasons for those visits. We are provided with that information as a courtesy. It is right that we should have access to it, so that we can plan our affairs and activities around it. For example, we might want to plan visits that complement those of the Presiding Officer.

Members have highlighted problems in the way in which the Parliamentary Bureau and the corporate body work. Today we should deal with the proposed changes to standing orders that are set out on page 6 of paper EU/02/9/8. I recommend that we support those changes.

I want to be helpful. I will not go on about the issue unless I have the support of other committee members. Helen Eadie made a very good point about the welcome change that has been made to the procedure of the Scotland branch of the CPA. That change in procedure came about as a result of a change in the rules of the CPA Scotland branch at the previous annual general meeting. I proposed the change, which was approved unanimously. From now on, every member of the Scottish Parliament is invited to express an interest in participating in all CPA activities—conferences, seminars, outgoing delegations and so on. The CPA executive will consider the various expressions of interest and come to a decision about who can go. That makes the process more open and democratic.

I do not have a business manager, so my only input to the Parliamentary Bureau and the SPCB is through the Presiding Officer. I wrote to the Presiding Officer suggesting that the bureau and the SPCB adopt a similarly open and democratic practice, but I am afraid that I received a negative reply.

By way of compromise, I suggest that—if we cannot get such an approach incorporated through a change in standing orders, and given the probability of our remit's being extended to include external relations—we mention to the Procedures Committee that concern has been expressed in this committee that, when dealing with external relations, the external liaison unit of the Parliament, the bureau, the SPCB and the Presiding Officers should conduct themselves more openly and democratically, rather than in the secretive way in which they currently operate.

I am in the hands of the committee. Are there other views?

Dennis Canavan has articulated more or less the same point that I was going to make. Extending the committee's remit is fine, but we are left with a sort of gap. The Presiding Officer and the SPCB are accountable to the whole Parliament, but what is the mechanism for exercising that accountability? We should refer the matter to the Procedures Committee and ask it to consider a mechanism that would allow the whole Parliament the opportunity to question the Presiding Officer and the SPCB. That is a gap in the checks and balances and total accountability of the system.

Looking at the front of the papers, I see that we have suddenly had a change of logo. How did that happen? Who decided and was anyone consulted? That sort of thing seems just to happen; nobody knows why it has happened or is consulted about whether it should happen. There is a gap in accountability and we should refer that to the Procedures Committee.

I have three points to make. First, we should crack on and approve the new standing orders changes today. I would like us to get on and have our new remit in place so that we can start acting on it. Secondly, as members have said, things have improved—the process is more open. We are getting e-mails giving us reports and information on potential visits, which gives us slightly more context. Some progress has been made. Thirdly, it would be useful to get the Procedures Committee to cast its eye over the matter. However, I would frame the request diplomatically. I would perhaps excise some of Dennis Canavan's words, although I would keep the spirit of the request in order to hear the Procedures Committee's views. In the meantime, the fact that Irene Oldfather is invited to some of those meetings is a good way for us to put the matter on the committee agenda—it can be reported directly to the committee in the convener's report.

This is part of work in progress and we should give ourselves the chance to move on from where we were. If we approve the standing orders changes, I presume that after today we will become the European and external affairs committee.

No. That has to be agreed by the Procedures Committee. That is another reason for trying to move things forward today.

That is a concern. We should address the points on transparency and openness, but we should not do that at the expense of getting our own changes through.

I apologise for arriving at the meeting so late. I have been chairing an unusually timed meeting of the Holyrood progress group at the site. I endorse Sarah Boyack's point, although I understand Dennis Canavan's point, too. There appears to be a lack of accountability in some aspects of the activities of the Presiding Officer and others at that level. Nevertheless, it is important that we move on and extend the remit of the European Committee along the lines that have been suggested. That would not rule out the possibility of further amendments at a later date. It is important that we make progress now.

If I read the committee's view correctly, we want to agree the proposed changes to standing orders today, but along with that report we will highlight the concerns that have been expressed about the accountability gap and we will ask the Procedures Committee to look into that. It would also be worth the committee's while to note the progress that has been made—we now receive a monthly bulletin, which never happened previously, and I am now invited to the meetings, although I have been to only one. However, we can point out that the committee still has some concerns and that we would like the Procedures Committee to consider the matter. Do members agree to that course of action?

Members indicated agreement.

That brings us to the end of the public part of the meeting. I thank the members of the public for attending our meeting and wish them all a good holiday season.

Meeting continued in private until 16:55.