Committees (Substitutions)
The next item is a debate on motion S1M-2866, in the name of Kenneth Macintosh, on behalf of the Procedures Committee, on the committee's second report of 2002, on substitution on committees of the Scottish Parliament. I call Kenneth Macintosh to speak to and move the motion.
As ever, the Procedures Committee's work is a huge draw to the Parliament chamber.
In December 2000, the Parliamentary Bureau proposed that the Procedures Committee be asked to bring forward standing order amendments permitting substitutions with voting rights in the committees of the Parliament. The Parliament agreed, and today I have pleasure in presenting to the Parliament the committee's proposals.
The Procedures Committee agreed that the implementation of a system of named substitutes would best ensure clarity, quality, probity and administrative convenience. In terms of clarity, the MSP would be named and would therefore be clearly identifiable. In terms of quality, a dedicated MSP would have some opportunity to learn about the work of his or her committee. In terms of probity, the selection process is done openly by the Parliament. In terms of administrative convenience, the substitute's identity being known would enable the arrangements for his or her appearance at the committee to be handled with the maximum amount of anticipation.
It is suggested that, under the named system, there should be one substitute per party per committee. It would seem excessive for two or more named members from the same party to be on call as substitutes for the same committee. The committee considered that the processes of committee substitutions would follow the established practice adopted for committee membership. The political parties, through their business managers, would be invited by the Parliamentary Bureau to nominate one named MSP to serve as a party substitute for each parliamentary committee. Those nominations would then be followed by selection by the bureau and would then proceed by means of a bureau motion for decision by the Parliament. It is proposed that the day-to-day arrangement for substitutes, if required, should be the responsibility of the party business managers in the first instance. Business managers have an interest in members' work and would be best placed to manage substitution effectively.
The committee was anxious that the reasons for individual substitutions should be transparent to everyone. At the same time, any such system would be flawed if it did not provide sufficient flexibility to MSPs to enable committees to do their work. The balance of those two factors provides the rationale for our choice of the following circumstances in which we think substitution should be permitted: short or long-term personal illness; family circumstances; adverse weather conditions; urgent constituency business; and unavoidable clashes of parliamentary business. The committee considered that those identifiable circumstances would cover the key personal and professional aspects of members' lives, while offering members a reasonable degree of flexibility. I am sure that all members will recognise one or more of those criteria as pressure points in their diaries. Although most of the criteria require no explanation from me, I should point out that, in the case of family circumstances, we had in mind such events as the serious illness of a close family member as well as more enjoyable, but equally predictable and inevitable events, such as pregnancy, which one member of the Procedures Committee is currently enjoying.
This is a completely new system. The committee believes that it would be good practice to monitor the operation of the system and to review how it has worked at the end of its first year. As the report makes clear, we should be grateful for the co-operation of committee conveners in reporting to us instances of substitutions on their committees after 12 months' experience.
The committee considers that the roles of committee convener, deputy convener, temporary convener and committee reporter should not be open to substitutes. That reflects the consideration that it is unfair to expect a substitute to find time to satisfy the demands placed upon him or her in those key posts and that continuity in those posts is vital for committees to be able to fulfil their work programmes. A similar consideration of the importance of continuity is made in respect of private bill committees, where substitutions would not be permitted. That apart, where a member is substituted, it is proposed that the substitute should be allocated the same rights and responsibilities as a permanent member and that he or she should be able to take part in the same range of business. A substitute will be accorded the same full voting rights as that of the member whom he or she has replaced; that is, one vote per member.
I understand what the member is saying—all committee papers, even private papers, could be circulated to a substitute. However, could a substitute member go to a committee meeting that was held in private to keep aware of the committee's discussion? I would like clarification on that point.
That is an interesting point, which the Procedures Committee did not discuss. If a substitute stands in for a member of a committee, he or she will enjoy full rights, but when a committee goes into private session—which we all wish to discourage, I believe—the substitute would not be a current member of that committee. Currently, therefore, a substitute could not sit in on a private meeting. However, the point is interesting. The thesis behind the changes is that we want members to be expert in the work of the relevant committees. Perhaps the Procedures Committee should take that point on board as part of our review at the end of the year.
There is a strong argument for substitutes on committees, particularly for smaller parties such as the Conservatives. When Bill Aitken represented the Parliament on Commonwealth parliamentary business—that is interesting as we are celebrating Commonwealth day—there was concern because the then Social Inclusion, Housing and Voluntary Sector Committee was to consider the housing stock transfer inquiry and there was only one Conservative member on the committee. It would be difficult for a member to come cold to the committee and to substitute in such circumstances, much as that was needed. Perhaps we should look into that. A continuity aspect is involved. Members should not make judgments based on the cold calculation of one event at one meeting. Members need to absorb issues, particularly when it is anticipated that there will be a need for substitution.
Will the member also confirm that substitution will be the exception, rather than the rule? We must ensure that members continue with their responsibilities and attendance at committees and that the quality of committee work that we have enjoyed continues.
I thank the member for raising those points. It is interesting that she referred to the Conservatives as one of the smaller parties. No member batted an eye or raised an objection. I hope that she did not mind my enjoying that.
The idea behind our recommendations on substitutes is that the substitute should become an expert on the work of the committee and keep informed and up to date with its work. It is an important point that, if a smaller party has only one member, the relationship should be maintained. Perhaps committee members will place the onus on substitutes to do that.
I am happy to confirm that the Procedures Committee strongly supported the idea that committee substitution would happen only in exceptional circumstances and would not be commonplace. That is one reason why we are asking for the procedure to be reviewed after a year. We do not want substitutes to be used willy-nilly to maintain party majorities, rather than to maintain an interest in the proper functioning of the committees.
Members referred to the point that each party substitute will be required to keep abreast of the work of the committee on which they are a substitute. To facilitate that, it is proposed that a full set of public and private committee papers for each meeting should be circulated to substitutes.
The committee thought that substitutes could not reasonably make the contribution that is expected of them if they were to be present for anything less than a whole committee meeting or other committee activity. Consequently, the proposed arrangements would not allow substitutions for part of a committee meeting.
The committee was anxious to consult Dennis Canavan, Robin Harper and Tommy Sheridan on the implications of substitutions for them and it did so before drawing up its proposals. The responses received indicated that substitution was not considered useful in such cases and the committee's report consequently made no provision for single members. The committee is pleased to commend the changes to the Parliament.
I move,
That the Parliament (a) approves the recommendations of the Procedures Committee's 2nd Report 2002, Substitution on Committees of the Scottish Parliament (SP Paper 530) and agrees to amend the Parliament's Standing Orders in accordance with Annex A to the Report and (b) agrees that these amendments to the Standing Orders should come into force on 15 March 2002.
I am pleased to indicate the Executive's support for the Procedures Committee's report on substitution on committees of the Scottish Parliament, which covers proposals for changes to the standing orders. On behalf of the Executive, I thank the members of the Procedures Committee, including the convener, Murray Tosh, and the deputy convener, Kenneth Macintosh, for proceeding with the work in a positive manner. I acknowledge the consultation processes and the transparent approach that has been adopted.
I do not propose to comment in great detail on all the proposed changes. It is important that committees work to maximum efficiency and the changes are designed, in the Executive's view, to enhance the way that committees function and generally to assist the handling of business.
We welcome the Procedures Committee's recommendation to permit substitution in identifiable circumstances only. It is appropriate in the interests of transparency that the reasons for substitution should be clearly identified. Substitution will provide committees with the flexibility to carry out their business when a member is—as Kenneth Macintosh explained—unable to attend due to personal illness, family emergencies, adverse weather conditions, unavoidable clashes in parliamentary business or urgent constituency business.
We endorse the proposals that substitutes should be named, that there should be one party substitute per committee and that substitutes should be chosen by the Parliament on a motion of the Parliamentary Bureau. The naming of committee substitutes means that the process is open and transparent. The dedicated substitute will also have the opportunity to learn about the work being carried out within the committee and so contribute more effectively to the committee's work.
The Executive also supports the committee's recommendations that, with the exception of the roles of the convener, deputy convener or reporter, substitutes should be able to participate in the same full range of business as the permanent member for whom they are substituting. In that respect, we fully endorse the caution shown by the committee in relation to travel arrangements for committee substitutes, both in Scotland and abroad.
When a committee substitute attends a meeting of the committee, we support the Procedures Committee's proposals that they should have all the functions of a member of the committee, including the right to participate in the proceedings of the committee, to receive all papers and to vote, as appropriate.
We note the committee's recommendation that substitution should be permitted for whole meetings only. That will enable substitutes to make effective and meaningful contributions, but we recognise that that could prove to be a somewhat inflexible arrangement. However, any difficulty should rapidly become apparent in the course of the proposed monitoring.
Since committee substitution is a new system, we welcome the Procedures Committee's undertaking to monitor how well the arrangements work in practice and for them to be reviewed after one year in operation.
In conclusion, the changes to standing orders that the Procedures Committee has outlined today are sensible and should assist in making more effective and efficient the discharge of committee business. The Executive fully supports the report.
It is worth pointing out to the chamber that I am one of the members who was totally against the reduction of the committee system in the first place. I see the substitution system as a sop to that measure's going through Parliament, to effect the changes that are required. Nothing has happened to change my mind; I believe that my first opinion was the right one. However, I do not want to rehearse the views that I expressed at that time.
On a more positive note, it is worth pointing out that a questionnaire on the suggested changes was circulated to members. It seems to me that the Procedures Committee's proposals are very much in tune with members' views.
Ken Macintosh has given a good résumé of the proposals. I will highlight a few matters. The point that substitution arrangements are not permitted for single member parties is worth noting; it is a fairly bland statement. It might look as if bigger parties in Parliament are ganging up on smaller parties, but we canvassed opinion from the smaller parties and they thought that substitution would not be helpful to them. I should point out that there was some sympathy on the Procedures Committee towards small parties and their right to be represented in the same way as larger parties. I do not consider the Tories to be in that group of parties. I was thinking about Tommy Sheridan, Dennis Canavan and Robin Harper. However, because of the submissions that we received from the smaller parties, the matter did not go to a vote.
Substitutions should be for whole committee meetings. During last year's reshuffle, I was moved to the Equal Opportunities Committee. Unfortunately, that committee and the Procedures Committee met at the same time on the same day. Although I did not miss all the meetings of either of the committees, the pressure of work on the committees meant that keeping up to date put me under pressure. Keeping up to date does not mean only reading the papers—as members realise, not everything is in the papers. Members must keep up with what is discussed and how conclusions are reached. I found myself losing the thread of what was happening. It is a good idea to ensure, not only for the committees, but for the well-being of the Parliament, that members have the opportunity to keep up with the work. The minimum requirement should be that members must participate in whole committee meetings rather than ship out in the middle of them.
I am not in favour of the system of smaller committees and very much in favour of the previous system. There are members from all the parties who have the same reservations that I do, but the report is an extremely good attempt to square the circle and to address members' concerns. For that reason, I recommend that the Parliament accepts the report.
I will pick up from where Gil Paterson finished. I did not think of the substitution debate as being part of squaring the circle of the committee changes because, as Fiona Hyslop pointed out in quoting a specific example, substitution was a potential or live issue before the committee changes were made. The issue of parties that have only a single representative on some committees was always likely to emerge.
It is true that the report arises from the motion that was passed at the time that the committees were reduced. It has taken the Procedures Committee more than a year to bring the proposals to the Parliament. Some might think that to be a criticism, but the Procedures Committee felt that it would be unwise to rush to a judgment on the matter and that it would be improper to base recommendations on anything other than a careful survey among members of what they wished to be done.
The committee proceeded carefully and surveyed members. When members who were under pressure did not respond quickly to the survey, it was repeated. We deliberately waited until we had what we felt was a thorough and representative sample of parliamentary opinion before we produced the recommendations. Although business managers will implement the policy, it relates to how members handle their business and prioritise their work. We felt that it was right that members should determine the principles by which the substitutions would work.
Mike Rumbles raised the interesting issue of whether the recommendations allow members who are substitutes to attend private meetings when they are not acting as substitutes. I have sympathy for that point. Ken Macintosh's response to Mike Rumbles's intervention was correct. A paper that addresses some of the issues that arise from the report will come before the committee. Like every report from the Procedures Committee, this report recommends actions on the basis of a discussion or an issue. However, such reports never finally resolve issues because every report has further implications and raises further areas for study.
As Fiona Hyslop said, one important recommendation is that we should resort to substitution only in the rarest of circumstances. It is important that we monitor the system in the coming period to be certain that we have got it right and to consider possible modifications.
Euan Robson raised the question of whether the rule of substitution for a single whole committee meeting might be a bit inflexible, perhaps envisaging members coming and going. The committee considered that idea and rejected it, but would be entitled to consider it again. When I was on the Transport and the Environment Committee and a transport spokesman but not an environment spokesman, I recognised the argument for a jobshare arrangement, whereby the environment spokesman would attend the committee for some issues and the transport spokesman would attend for other issues. The Liberal Democrats might be in the same position vis-à-vis Nora Radcliffe and the more frequently rotating transport spokesman. That issue merits reconsideration in the context of further reviews.
Gil Paterson was right to say that this is not just about members' rights; it is also about members' responsibilities. The substitutes have a responsibility to keep up to date with the working of their committees and to develop a general understanding of the committees so that, when they are called upon to act as substitutes, they can slot in appropriately. It is important that all members realise that this is not a loosening up of our job that makes it easier to do, but that it puts on us a responsibility to act properly to fill the roles that we are seeking to fill.
During the final stages of the Protection of Wild Mammals (Scotland) Bill, the Labour party required two members to leave the Rural Development Committee because they became ministers. The party had to put a member on the committee for a single meeting, which earned a fair amount of adverse comment and publicity that was deeply unfair. All political parties are entitled to replace members who have to leave committees. That is especially important when the committees are dealing with bills. Had the substitution rule been in place, the Labour party would have been able to deploy a substitute and would have been saved that embarrassment. That is a practical example of the way in which substitution can help the general workings of committees.
I realise that I am breaching the recommended time limit and I shall close. The report is a good one from a committee that has worked very well. The committee has changed quite a bit during this Parliament, but it has worked well. One of its strengths has been that when good people have left, they have invariably been replaced by further good people who have contributed well—apart from Frank McAveety. Sorry, that was entirely undeserved.
Nothing stops me.
Those members have contributed extremely well to a consensual committee that has worked for the good of the Parliament. It is on that basis that those recommendations have been laid before the Parliament today. As the convener of the Procedures Committee, I hope that the Parliament will welcome and endorse the report.
As the member said, he has spoken over time. However, everybody has done so. I am quite relaxed about it because, as members can see, these internal reports do not draw a large number of members who are anxious to speak. We are all right for time.
Murray Tosh may regret the aside that he made in his speech when I get to the point that I have for him.
Members have touched on the key deliberations of the committee. The fact that it has taken 14 or 15 months to produce the report, during which time there has been a significant turnover of members, reflects the length of time that has been required to identify the specific issues. It is right and proper that we are reviewing the way in which we operate our business, which is the core function of the Procedures Committee. The fact is that substitutions have been considered reasonable and right. It was only in the late 1950s and early 1960s that it was deemed right and proper by the association football authorities in the United Kingdom to have substitutes in formal football matches. We have therefore arrived at that position much more quickly than the football associations of England and Scotland.
The role of substitutes is about trying to get replacements in at the proper time, when there are circumstances that prevent individual members from contributing. As Murray Tosh implied, we could have a parliamentary equivalent of "Stars in Their Eyes", whereby, for the occasional week, someone could be Murray Tosh. I cannot imagine anybody rushing to the barricades to dress up for that, but I can find a silver-haired gentleman in my constituency who could do so.
We deliberated in significant detail on the issues that the committee considered. It was important that we identified that it should be primarily the parties that identified how best to engage with substitution replacements. Structures already exist to place members in committees. The Procedures Committee's suggestion will not only be an addition to that process, but a refinement of it. It is important for Parliament and the role of the committees that the balance of the committees is maintained. That matter, as Ken Macintosh and others said, was a key deliberation of the committee.
We did not think it appropriate for members to have what would almost be a transferable committee membership across parties. That might be an interesting scenario, but it is hardly something that would provide stability for the parliamentary and committee processes.
We had to address the issue of the single-member parties. However, two out of three members said that they did not think that substitutions for the single-member parties would be appropriate. It has been said often in Glasgow—I am sure that Tommy Sheridan would agree with me—that there is only one Tommy Sheridan, which is probably why there cannot be a substitute for him.
On the report's final points about the roles of reporters and conveners, the committee was right to identify that the role of the substitute is not about replacements for conveners and deputy conveners, who should operate as individual members on committees. That is right and proper. Given that it sometimes takes time to identify how issues should best be dealt with, it is obvious that the role of reporter should not be substituted, unless clear circumstances were reported that indicated that it would be appropriate to do so.
Substituting committee members is a welcome refinement of procedures and will be beneficial for all members and parties, including single-member parties, in addressing how we deal with issues that are thrown up because of circumstances such as illness or pressures of work. As a member of the Procedures Committee, I welcome the report and I hope that Parliament does so as well.
I support the Procedures Committee's report. It is a reasonably balanced report, partly because the rest of the committee defeated many of my suggestions. The report has taken the middle ground and deals well with most of the issues.
I want to concentrate on one issue rather than deal with matters that have been dealt with. Just before Christmas, when I was off ill, the committee agreed that substitutes should receive all committee papers. Murray Tosh also animadverted on that matter. I honestly think that doing that will be wasteful of paper and of people's time. The system should be that all the substitutes should be asked whether they want to receive committee papers. If they do, they should get them.
I would not look at papers that were sent to me. I find it hard enough to keep up with the paperwork of the two committees that I am on and all the other work that I try to do. I am so much behind in other more important matters that substitute papers would go straight into the bucket. If I were called on to be a substitute, I would take a crash course on whatever items were coming up at that day's committee meeting. Other members might be better organised, more conscientious or whatever. I merely state my opinion.
I suggest that there should be an option for substitutes to tick a box if they want to get papers all the time and to put in a cross if they do not. That would save many of those famous trees. My colleagues suggested something that would use more trees, but I now suggest how to avoid that.
I invite Donald Gorrie to indicate whether he would be willing to receive electronic copies. It is not necessary to provide paper. I am sure that we could e-mail committee papers to him.
Mr Gorrie, I do not know whether you are an electronic person.
I am not an electronic person, but my excellent personal assistant is. The electronic stuff would merely be translated on to paper. I admire Murray Tosh's constructive suggestion, which might help some members, but not me. Making allowances for other members being more skilful than I am, I merely make my suggestion as a constructive one to save time and effort for those members for whom it would do so.
I am not an electronic person either.
The debate has been consensual, so I will not take long to wind up. Parliament sometimes prides itself on its consensus. It should do so, but I imagine that that does not make for fascinating listening for many in the chamber.
I will touch on a few points. It was interesting to think of there being a virtual Donald Gorrie. However, an important point was made about the difficulties that members have with the amount of paperwork that they receive. Everyone is aware of how conscientious Donald Gorrie is. As Murray Tosh pointed out, the system of substitute MSPs will place a responsibility on MSPs rather than make their lives easier. However, it is an important initiative and it will make the Scottish Parliament work better.
Frank McAveety made a football analogy—I would have been disappointed if he had not—and he also made a "Stars in Their Eyes" analogy, which I hope that Murray Tosh appreciated. His main point was that the substitution system is a refinement of procedures.
Gil Paterson made a couple of points about his reservations about the reduction in the numbers of MSPs. Murray Tosh said that the substitution system is not a response to that possibility but that his point had been noted, as was his and other people's concern for the situation in relation to smaller parties. That situation should be kept under review.
We will revisit this issue in a year's time. We expect all conveners to monitor the operation of substitutes to ensure that they are used only in exceptional circumstances.
On the issue of smaller parties, members were entertained by the suggestion that the Conservative party is a smaller party. It is appropriate to say at this point that the Conservative party remains a great party; it is the ambition of the electorate that got smaller.
Mr Johnstone always seems to be making remarks about size or being on the receiving end of remarks about it. I do not always know whether those are related to his party or his person.
I feel that it was unfair of me to have made fun of the Conservatives when Murray Tosh had the graciousness to talk about the unfair criticism that had befallen the Labour party. I hope that he took my remarks in the spirit in which they were intended.
This report deals with an important procedural matter and I commend it to the chamber.