European Committee, 22 Feb 2000

Meeting date: Tuesday, February 22, 2000

Official Report 226KB pdf

---

Scottish Parliament European Committee Tuesday 22 February 2000 (Afternoon)

[The Convener opened the meeting at 14:10]

Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. Welcome to the fourth meeting of the European Committee in 2000.

I have received apologies from Tavish Scott, who has an exceptionally good excuse for not being here today—the birth of his second son, Cameron James John Scott. We all send our best wishes to father, mother and child. Winnie Ewing has also given her apologies, although not for the same reason. [Laughter.] I do not know—nothing Winnie does surprises me.

I think that Mr Ewing would be surprised.

We have with us today Andrew Wilson, who is here in his capacity as a member of the Finance Committee. We are expecting Mike Watson, the convener of the Finance Committee; David Davidson, another member of that committee, may also attend.

The first item on the agenda—

Before we begin, I wish to raise a point about today's agenda. I wish to know why the issue of the joint inquiry into additionality by the European and Finance Committees has not been put on the agenda, particularly as it was expressly called for in a joint letter of 15 February by myself and Andrew Wilson. That letter says:

"We will be making formal proposals for a joint enquiry at the next meeting of both committees and would be grateful if you could ensure that an item to that effect was included on the agendas."

I have also had a letter from other members of the committee indicating that they believe that it should be purely for this committee to undertake such an inquiry. Both Mike Watson and I agreed to meet you, Bruce, and Andrew Wilson to discuss the question that you raised and to see whether the issue is relevant. If it is agreed that it is relevant, we will discuss the terms of reference with you.

We have had some difficulty convening that meeting—it has been dragging on for some time. However, as you know, both you and Andrew will meet Mike Watson and me at 9 o'clock tomorrow morning. Following that meeting, I expect to bring back to this committee a proposal that will flow from our discussions. I think that the sensible way in which to approach this matter is to discuss the matter and the terms of reference and to bring the matter back to the committee. We will consider that at a future meeting—it is not on today's agenda.

That is inconsistent—

Sorry—it is not on the agenda.

On a point of order, convener.

Not a point of order on this issue, Dennis, as we have already dealt with it.

Following the previous meeting, I wrote to the clerk suggesting two items for the agenda, either for today's meeting or for as early a meeting as possible. I also lodged two motions, S1M-573 and S1M-572, one of which refers specifically to the item raised by Bruce Crawford.

I appreciate that you are holding private discussions with members of other committees and with some members of this committee, but why is there this continuing reluctance on your part to have an open discussion on these matters in this committee?

There is no such reluctance. We have differences of opinion about how the matter should be dealt with. In fact, some would suggest that it is not even relevant. I happen not to hold that view.

As the convener of this committee, it is a matter for me to undertake my responsibilities in an appropriate way, which is what I am doing. We agreed some time ago with Andrew Wilson and Bruce Crawford how we would proceed with this matter, which I intend to bring back to the committee. Dennis, we have been through the way in which business is tabled at committees. I do not intend to pursue that discussion again today. I will now move on to the first—

Convener—

No, I am sorry—

In more than 25 years as a member of parliamentary committees—

Dennis—

I have never seen such a negative and obstructive attitude on the part of a convener.

Please, Dennis.

May I draw your attention to rule 12.1.8, which states:

"The convener of a committee shall hold office for the duration of the committee unless . . . he or she is removed from that office by a decision taken by an absolute majority of the committee"?

If you continue in this negative and obstructive way, I shall have no option but to move a motion of no confidence in you as convener of this committee.

Dennis, I would be quite happy to deal with that issue now, to get it out of the road so that it does not hang over the committee. Another thing that is becoming an issue is your inappropriate behaviour in this committee and the way that you are disrupting it. If you would like to move that motion now, Dennis, let us do it—let us deal with it and get it out of the road. Would you like to move that motion?

Convener, the reason—

No, sorry, Bruce. You do not have the floor. Dennis has made a suggestion. I am quite willing to countenance it, and I am asking him if he wants to proceed with it.

If there is a seconder to the motion.

On a point of order. I have been advised that, if there is to be a motion of no confidence, it should be on the agenda for the next meeting, rather than an impromptu vote now. I do not think that it does the committee any favours if we suddenly debate no-confidence motions on a whim. It should be on the agenda.

I happen to agree with you, Ben, but Dennis is the one who is making the suggestion.

Ben has a seconder.

The problem, convener, is the difference between the Finance Committee this morning, and this committee this afternoon—

Sorry, I will bring the clerk in. Dennis, you seem intent on disrupting proceedings. You made a fool of the committee in front of others at the previous meeting—

You made a fool of yourself.

Not at all. I have taken advice, Dennis, which has been consistent. You have raised a point of order, and you have suggested a motion of no confidence. Ben has made a helpful suggestion, but I will bring the clerk in.

Before the meeting started, I looked up the provisions for motions of no confidence and took some advice from other officials in the Parliament. The key rules governing motions of no confidence are in standing orders rule 8.1, rule 8.2 and, specifically, rule 12.1.8(b). The procedure for a motion of no confidence is to place the item on the agenda for the next meeting. The committee has no relevant item on today's agenda under which to deal with such a motion. Time has to be allocated to an agenda item to enable the committee to consider such a motion.

If the committee agrees to put the item on the agenda for the next meeting, the procedure would be for members to lodge the motion with the chamber office in the same way as other motions on business in the chamber would be lodged. At the next meeting, the committee would take that motion and decide on it. As Dennis Canavan said, that decision has to be taken by an absolute majority, which means that the number of members voting for the motion would have to be more than half the total number of members of the committee.

Does the committee wish to place this matter on the agenda for next week? Dennis would you like to suggest that it should—

The clerk has just said that I have to lodge the motion with the chamber office.

The clerk also said, before that, that the committee should consider whether we wish to put it on the agenda.

On a point of order. Would it be in order to debate the issue when the motion is moved; or is the motion moved and decided on without debate?

If the motion is taken, the member moving it would have the opportunity to speak to it. I understand that if there is an amendment to such a motion, the member moving that amendment would have the chance to speak to it. Essentially, it operates in the same manner as the chamber, in relation to motions, decisions and voting.

Dennis, do you want this to be put on the agenda of the next meeting? You can follow it up with a motion to the chamber.

I will adopt your tactics and discuss it privately with colleagues first.

That is fine.

Can we have clarification about what the outcome of that vote would be? My understanding is that the convenerships of committees are decided by the parties, which would mean that the outcome of such a vote would not necessarily be implemented. Is that correct?

Hold on. We can discuss that as and when the event arises. At the moment, we do not have a motion to put this on the agenda for the next meeting. That is quite clear—it is on the record that there is no motion to that effect for the agenda of the next meeting. I now propose—

Can I raise a second option?

No, I propose to go to the first item on the agenda.

I am asking for a letter to be circulated.

No, Bruce. I am going to the first item on the agenda.