Procedures Committee
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
PROCEDURES COMMITTEE Tuesday 10 December 2002 (Morning) Session 1 £5.00 Parliamentary copyright. Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body 2002. Applications for reproduction should be made in writing to the Copyright Unit, Her Majesty‟s Stationery Office, St Clements House, 2-16 Colegate, Norwich NR3 1BQ Fax 01603 723000, which is administering the copyright on behalf of the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body. Produced and published in Scotland on behalf of the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body by The Stationery Office Ltd. Her Majesty‟s Stationery Office is independent of and separate from the company now trading as The Stationery Office Ltd, which is responsible for printing and publishing Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body publications. CONTENTS Tuesday 10 December 2002 Col. CONSULTATIVE STEERING GROUP INQUIRY REPORT ................................................................................. 1933 PROCEDURES COMMITTEE th 18 Meeting 2002, Session 1 CONVENER *Mr Murray Tosh (South of Scotland) (Con) DEPU TY CONVENER *Mr Kenneth Macintosh (Eastw ood) (Lab) COMMI TTEE MEMBERS *Susan Deacon (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab) *Donald Gorrie (Central Scotland) (LD) *Fiona Hyslop (Lothians) (SNP) *Paul Martin (Glasgow Springburn) (Lab) Mr Gil Paterson (Central Scotland) (SNP) COMMI TTEE SUBSTITU TES Phil Gallie (South of Scotland) (Con) Trish Godman (West Renfrew shire) (Lab) *Richard Lochhead (North-East Scotland) (SNP) *attended CLERK TO THE COMMITTE E John Patterson ASSISTANT CLERK Lew is McNaughton LOC ATION Committee Room 4 1933 10 DECEMBER 2002 1934 would result to a person or company from publication) Scottish Parliament these should remain private. How ever, we have concerns that the criterion „w here an issue is ongoing‟ - w hich w e interpreted to mean policy development - could be overly Procedures Committee restrictive, and could exclude from debates on policy and resource issues people w ho have an interest in the Tuesday 10 December 2002 outcomes. We recommend that this criterion should not be applied routinely, but only in cases w here ongoing issues merit being debated in private under other criteria. (Morning) Fourthly, w e recommend the maximum degree of [THE CONVENER opened the meeting at 09:02] publication of SPCB papers - consistent w ith the criteria immediately above - in order to be consistent w ith the Parliament‟s princ iples.” Consultative Steering Group The cumulative effect of those recommendations Inquiry Report would be to broaden public access to the SPCB beyond publication of SPCB minutes. The The Convener (Mr Murray Tosh): Richard Lochhead, who is the substitute for Gil Paterson— recommendations include publication of papers for meetings and that meetings should be held in from whom I have received apologies—has public, unless the SPCB is to discuss arrived so we are quorate. We have a lot of ground to cover, so we will get under way. commercially confidential matters. I throw the matter open to discussion. Richard Lochhead is Welcome to the 18th meeting of the Procedures free to contribute, although I appreciate that he Committee, which is our penultimate meeting in does not have the background to the item under 2002. We resume our consideration of the discussion. consultative steering group inquiry draft report. We Richard Lochhead (North-East Scotland) have reached paragraph 138 of annexe A, which is the section on the Scottish Parliamentary (SNP): I have no objection to the recommendations. The additions seem to be fair Corporate Body. As on previous occasions, we will enough. go through the clerk‟s draft report and add my tentative recommendations, which are subject to Paul Martin (Glasgow Springburn) (Lab): As I final ratification by the committee. have said previously, I have some difficulties with SPCB meetings‟ being held in public. It is The first section on the SPCB is largely descriptive of its work and track record. I do not important for the Parliament to be open to the public in respect of its legislative work and policy plan to make changes until after paragraph 149, at development, but I do not see any evidence to which point I propose that we insert four paragraphs, as follows: support the SPCB‟s role as a legislative or policy development body, which would require it to meet “Firstly, w e note that the SPCB publishes its minutes in public. On that ground, I do not believe that we regularly, and w e recommend that it should publish its should ensure that SPCB meetings are held in agendas.” public. There is an issue about public awareness That was something that came up during the of the SPCB, but I do not believe that holding its course of evidence taking. It was felt that that meetings in public would meet that requirement. If recommendation would give members a better the Parliament was to set the precedent of holding track on what was happening. The second SPCB meetings in public, that could lead to a paragraph would be as follows: number of other areas of the Parliament‟s work being held in public. I am thinking of meetings “Secondly, w e accept that the internal resourcing of the Parliament does not attract much attention, w ith notable between the Executive and civil servants to exceptions, from the media or the public. How ever, w e do discuss parliamentary business. think that it is important that the public is given the opportunity to understand the issues dealt w ith routinely by I repeat that I have difficulties with the the SPCB, and w hich affect every aspect of the daily life of recommendation because of the precedent that it the Parliament. The development of such an interest is would set. I appreciate that the SPCB plays an arguably as much an indication of taking a „stake‟ in the important part in making decisions about business Parliament as interest in Scotland‟s political business. We in the Parliament, but I do not see that there is a consider that openness on the SPCB‟s part, and an effort to requirement for public access to those meetings. raise the profile of its w ork, w ill strengthen the outreach effort of the Parliament generally. We therefore recommend The Convener: Okay. Because we will not that the SPCB should ordinarily hold its meetings in public.” today reach an agreed position on the issue, we Although that is the key paragraph, I will go over will hold over that recommendation until our last the other two paragraphs at this point. They state: meeting. “Thirdly, w e agree that, w here discussions centre on The next change that I propose is to add a individual MSPs and staff, or genuinely commercially paragraph after paragraph 150. I suggest that we confidential matters (w here serious commercial damage add: 1935 10 DECEMBER 2002 1936 “We recommend therefore that the SPCB should prescriptive and, given that the SPCB is consider w hether the broad extent of SPCB responsibilities undergoing a review of governance, to urge the and the current number of SPCB posts is in the correct SPCB to accept in principle our approach—which balance. We suggest that a modest increase in the size of the SPCB might allow the members to exercise a stronger is based on openness, transparency and role in the development of SPCB policy and the monitoring accountability—and to report to the Parliament on of the w ork of the SPCB‟s Directorates.” the recommendations of the review. A similar approach might be in order in relation to the The thinking is not that the role of SPCB expansion of the SPCB. If the SPCB needs more members should necessarily be reorganised— help and more members, I am not against that, but although there has been public discussion about the proposal should come from the SPCB. that—but that, if the body was slightly larger, it would be possible to give members a range of The Convener: It is helpful to put the issue into specific responsibilities, including carrying various the context of the overall approach. Mr portfolios, if that is the way in which the SPCB Macintosh‟s suggestion will allow us to produce an decides to go. Do members have any thoughts on amended text that might command more that? general—possibly unanimous—support. If Mr Kenneth Macintosh (Eastwood) (Lab): I members agree, we will leave everything in that apologise for my late arrival. section and consider the matter further in the light of the final outcome. I am not sure that the SPCB appealed for an expansion so, in the absence of such an appeal, The next section of the report is on the why should we recommend an expansion? conveners group. I have three suggestions, the Although we sometimes say that there are no first of which is to amend paragraph 157 to read: domestic committees, the SPCB has established a “We recommend that the CG should publish its agendas number of advisory committees, including the in advance of meetings; CG papers should normally be Holyrood progress group, the art group for the new publicly available, unless dealing w ith matters w hich are Parliament building and a broadcasting group. The genuinely confidential; and that meetings should ordinarily SPCB establishes sub-committees, although they be open to the public, the media and MSPs. We suggest further that MSPs should, w ith the agreement of the tend to have a short life, to be fairly specific and to chairman, be able to participate (but not vote); that no make recommendations to the SPCB. The facility Official Report of any public meeting is necessary, but that exists for it to establish committees. I am not a clerk‟s note should continue to be draw n up of CG against the suggestion, which seems eminently decisions taken and published. Finally, w e suggest that the sensible, but I am not sure why we should make it CG should publish an Annual Report.” when the SPCB did not ask us to do so.