Petition
Fishing Industry (PE804)
The matter that I want to raise with the committee is the procedural issue around the votes on petition PE804 at our previous meeting. Members will remember that, at that meeting, Richard Lochhead voted twice as a committee substitute. I have since asked the Presiding Officer for a ruling on the standing orders relating to committee substitution, and members have a copy of his ruling in the letter that is before them. Members who were in the chamber last week will remember the Presiding Officer talking about the issue.
As members can see from the letter, two rules apply: rule 6.3A and rule 12.2A. Taking those rules together, all five conditions listed in the letter must be met for a member to be able to substitute for another at a particular committee meeting. The rules also apply to other committee work, such as fact-finding visits. The condition that was not met at our previous meeting was number 3, which is that a member can substitute only for a member of the committee. When a member, whether by reason of resignation, death or otherwise, ceases to be a member of a committee, there is, therefore, no one to substitute for—there is simply a vacancy on the committee.
The Presiding Officer's ruling in the chamber last week, which is the same as that in the letter that he sent me at my request, was prompted by an error that we made in good faith at our previous committee meeting. Discrepancies have since shown up in other committees. I am glad that we have the Presiding Officer's ruling because this committee has now clarified the position on committee substitutes for all. I think that there will be stricter adherence to the rules than there was previously.
It is also relevant to recall what the Presiding Officer said in the chamber last Wednesday:
"I cannot overturn a committee resolution, however it is reached. I repeat that it is up to a committee itself to decide whether it wants to revisit any decision that it has made."—[Official Report, 19 April 2006; c 24690.]
I open up the issue to members for general discussion.
I must place on record my concern about the fact that two rulings in relation to the eligibility of committee substitutes to act as such were made over such a short period of time. Clearly, there has been significant inconsistency. Who has responsibility for deciding competency in relation to whether a substitute member can vote?
This committee, to which Mrs Ewing made a significant contribution, made a decision in good faith. I think of my experience of committees in Europe, where substitute committee members regularly take part in votes. I would have hoped that the Health Committee would have come to the same decision as we did but, clearly, it did not. I think that there is an inconsistency. I would like further advice on the issue of who makes rulings on competency in relation to committee proceedings.
I understand that the Procedures Committee recommended the current rules relating to substitutes on committees. It has been quite clear that those rules were being interpreted inconsistently by various committees—not only the two to which Irene Oldfather has referred, which were the Health Committee and this committee—because of advice that was given by clerks to conveners.
I understand that, at the end of the day, the decision is for the convener. Certainly, it should be of help and assistance to all conveners that the matter has now been clarified.
On the issue of rulings, the Presiding Officer would make a ruling in a circumstance in which there was any dubiety. However, looking at the rules that were laid out by the Procedures Committee and agreed to by the Parliament, it now seems that, if properly applied, they are fairly straightforward. I think that the Parliament got into some habits with regard to substitute members that were not, strictly speaking, correct.
I seek clarification of one small point. What sparked off this request to the Presiding Officer for a ruling? Was your decision challenged in some way? Was a complaint lodged about the votes in the committee?
I will tell you exactly what happened.
Members will have noticed that I wrote to the Presiding Officer as an MSP, rather than as a convener. After the previous committee meeting, the clerks came to tell me that the Executive had spoken to them to say that it had been noted that a substitute member had taken part in the two votes and that that was procedurally wrong and should not have happened. In the circumstances, the Executive graciously agreed to let the decision stand.
When I had a look at the standing orders, I felt that we needed proper clarification of the issue so that we would all be aware of the situation from now on. That was why I took it upon myself to write to the Presiding Officer.
The next week, after word had got round about the fact that our committee had done something wrong, the convener of the Health Committee did not allow a substitute member, who had come along to take the place of someone who had resigned from the committee, to take part in a vote. That was the correct decision, if you like, based on a straight interpretation of the procedural rules. Meanwhile, there were anomalies in other committees. The result was the discussion in the chamber last week, but it seems that, now, the issue has been clarified.
I acknowledge Irene Oldfather's gracious remarks about acceptance of the verdict. Perhaps that is dependent on contacts that have been made with those with whom the committee wished to make contact.
I passed to the clerks an e-mail that was sent by Barbara Strathern of the Scottish Executive. It attempted to dissuade United Kingdom ministers from appearing before this committee. To my mind, that is totally wrong. This committee is the voice of the Parliament, not the Executive. If the committee wishes to invite people to speak to it, it should be free to do so without interference from the Executive or anyone else.
I drew the issue to the attention of the Presiding Officer, who referred it to you and the rest of the committee, convener. I seek clarification of whether the e-mail was sent by Ms Strathern of her own volition—that is, whether a mistake was made by a civil servant. Alternatively, did the minister—presumably Ross Finnie, who is associated with the matter—request that it be sent? In either case, I would like a full apology for its being sent and an undertaking given by ministers and the civil servants who work for them that there will be no recurrence of this incident and that committees will be allowed to get on with their job in the way that they feel appropriate.
You are saying that you wish the committee to undertake an investigation into the incident. As the Presiding Officer said—quite rightly—it is up to this committee to take that action.
In order for the issue to be discussed and for a decision to be made by the committee about what to do, we will have to place it on the agenda of a future meeting, so that all members know that it will be discussed. I suggest that we put the matter on the agenda of our next committee meeting. Do members agree?
Members indicated agreement.
I am happy to agree to that. I am not sure who some of the people mentioned in the e-mail are. For example, I note that the e-mail has been sent to "Bertie". Who is Bertie? I would like some more information so that we can determine exactly the implications of the e-mail.
I would like to return to the initial matter that we were discussing, which we seem to have moved away from. I am happy for other members of the committee to express their views, but I want to say that the approach that this committee is taking in relation to the Cod Crusaders, given that the invitations have already been sent out, shows some common sense and is in the interests of good governance. Frankly, however, I would like that approach to be taken by other committees. Perhaps the committee could write to the Health Committee to outline the approach that we have taken. We could also raise with the Procedures Committee the implications of vacancies arising in committees with regard to the official representation of members by substitutes. As I said, in Europe, substitute members can vote whether there is a vacancy on the committee or not. Perhaps we should flag that up to the Procedures Committee.
Irene Oldfather has asked that we write to the Health Committee. I think that the situation that it was in was rather different from the one that we were in. Bearing in mind what the Presiding Officer said about committee decisions, I do not know whether it is the role of one committee to interfere with the decision of another.
There is probably no reason why we cannot write to the Procedures Committee if members want to express concern about the role of substitutes, although I suspect that the Procedures Committee's response would be that every member of the Parliament had the opportunity to participate and express an opinion on the procedures when that committee went through the issues, which I understand was not all that long ago.
Yet there has clearly been inconsistency in the application of the rules.
I suggest, with respect to our clerks, who all work very hard, that the inconsistencies have been in the advice given by the clerking teams. It is up to them to know exactly where they are coming from and to ensure that there is consistency across all committees from now on so that conveners are given the proper interpretation.
As members know, I am meant to be at another committee for its deliberations on a stage 1 report, but I will comment briefly. I hear Irene Oldfather's point, but I suggest that the letter that you have received from the Presiding Officer covers the points that need to be covered. The important point is that the letter, which is addressed to you as the convener of the committee, probably ought to go to all committees and to everyone concerned to clarify once and for all the application and interpretation of the rules on substitute members.
On the point about what to do about what was, in effect, a null and void decision made at this committee, I agree with Irene Oldfather that it would be pointless and churlish to step back from that decision at this stage. The decision was made in good faith on the basis of a misunderstanding. It would be right and proper for the committee to hear what the petitioners want to say in due course.
Are there any other comments? I see that Phil Gallie is plugging in is headphones. Does he want to say something?
No. I wanted to ensure that I did not miss any of John Home Robertson's comments.
That draws the matter to a close. I thank members for their views.