Procedures Committee, 29 Feb 2000

Meeting date: Tuesday, February 29, 2000

Official Report 123KB pdf

---

Correspondence (Committee Amendments to Bills)

The second agenda item is on committee amendments to bills. The clerking directorate's paper on the subject goes through the various ramifications, and invites the committee to come to a conclusion.

I have some sympathy with the notion that, when a committee has sat and thought and worked its way through a particular issue and agrees unanimously on a change that it would like to make, that committee's opinion ought to carry considerable weight. It should also be seen by ministers, Parliament and—depending on the source of the bill—the promoting member as something to which great weight should be given.

When we try to tie that up with a rule that says that there is such a thing as a committee amendment, the situation unravels. That is my view. I am perfectly happy to hear what other members have to say.

I support the clerks' paper. As you have indicated, convener, the concept of a committee amendment is useful if it has the committee's unanimous backing. It is not as good if it represents merely a majority position. In a free and democratic assembly, every vote is, in a sense, a free vote. People like Iain Smith might, however, regard that with some concern.

It would be heresy.

If members vote the wrong way, there might be certain consequences.

If the committee agreed, for example, that all blinds should be removed from committee rooms, and it came to the point at which someone felt that they had been argued out of that position, there is no way that that person can be compelled to vote for it. I do not think that the committee would be inhibited from recording its decision that blinds should go. That carries more weight than an individual view. Would not it be possible to produce a standing order that allows committee amendments when the committee is unanimous?

Why would you want to produce such a standing order?

It is to do with your point, convener, and with the point made in the clerks' paper—that a committee amendment would carry more weight.

Does not it carry enough weight that a committee convener is able to address the Parliament in moving an amendment, or to speak to the minister before the debate?

You could argue that, convener, but I think that there is some merit in having a committee's backing of an amendment on paper.

I disagree with Donald. There is nothing in the standing orders to stop committees lodging amendments in the name of the convener. Any amount of members of the committee concerned can sign up to such an amendment—or not, as the case might be.

There would be concern if a committee came to a decision and lodged an amendment and members of the committee or the convener were dissuaded by the debate. There is no mechanism for them then to discuss how to proceed with the amendment. Committees should be cautious when lodging amendments. However, the facility exists for them to do so if they feel strongly about it. I urge caution about formalising the procedure.

I take the same view as Janis. If we remember the census debate, a committee had unanimously decided to lodge an amendment on three different subjects rolled together. However, 10 minutes before the debate, the committee had a meeting and decided that it would withdraw its amendment, although it had already agreed unanimously that it supported all three parts of it. A committee cannot be bound to a particular line of argument, given the political pressures that are put on members by parties. To be frank, I do not think that the suggestion would be workable.

I am attracted by the idea of a committee amendment carrying additional weight. A committee saying unanimously that it believes something to be the case or that it is opposed to something has considerable political significance. We can see that whenever committees are reported. However, there are practical difficulties in implementing the proposal. The suggestion has also been damaged by what happened during the census debate, when a committee took a unanimous view, but withdrew after a deal was struck, leaving members of the committee who continued to hold to its original view feeling isolated.

Like the convener, I believe that the difficulty is in moving from the principle of a committee amendment to making such an amendment stick. We are working with fallible human beings and, as Donald Gorrie has pointed out, the whipping system. Either or both of those could have a dramatic effect.

I would like us to try to come up with a strictly controlled definition of a committee amendment. That would mean that once a committee had taken a unanimous position on an issue, its amendment would have status as an amendment from that committee. However, the devil will be in seeing how such an amendment could be devised and maintained during a period of political pressure.

Does Donald Gorrie's whip have any comment to make?

I am not going to defend in the committee the role of whips. We were all elected on our manifestos and there is a reasonable expectation that members will follow the party line on which they were elected. [Laughter]

That will be italicised in the Official Report.

Does that include tuition fees?

It particularly includes tuition fees, which have now been abolished.

We need to be careful about this issue, as a committee might want to lodge an amendment for a number of reasons. It might not support the amendment, but might want to highlight an issue. The committee might be trying to establish whether the Executive intends to bring forward some changes to legislation because of issues that have been raised or, if it is the secondary committee, it might want to ensure that the lead committee debates an issue. Some members of a committee might be happy for an amendment to be lodged, even though they do not support it. There are risks in attaching too much status to a committee amendment, or in saying that because an amendment has been lodged by a committee it must have that committee's full support.

Having said that, there is provision in standing orders for a member to move a motion or an amendment on behalf of a body. Motions are moved by individual members on behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau. I do not think that allowing a motion to be lodged by the convener of a committee on behalf of that committee would involve a major change to standing orders. However, there should be no suggestion that that committee as a whole is bound to support that amendment when it is debated.

Would a change to standing orders be required to allow a convener to lodge a motion on behalf of a committee?

Elizabeth Watson (Head of Committee Office, Scottish Parliament) indicated agreement.

As part of our work programme, we intend to consider committee practice. In the fulness of time—towards the middle or the end of the year—we might want to contemplate a formal change to standing orders. At the moment, I suggest that we should not seek an urgent amendment to standing orders. However, we accept the principle that a committee amendment has some weight and that conveners should be encouraged to use that weight to ensure that the lead committee or the Presiding Officer, with the Minister for Parliament, select amendments for further debate. The committee also agrees to consider the issue that it raises in relation to standing orders in the context of other work it will carry out later this year. Are members happy with that?

Members indicated agreement.

We ought to send a letter to committee conveners, business managers and the Presiding Officer, giving some guidance on that in the interim.