Procedures Committee, 02 Oct 2001

Meeting date: Tuesday, October 2, 2001

Official Report 233KB pdf

---

Selection Panels

Agenda item 2 is consideration of a paper on selection panels for the appointment of office holders. We welcome the return of Alison Coull and Huw Williams, whom we obviously rattled the last time, because this time they have decided to play their joker—I welcome Ken Hughes to the meeting.

Our original paper proposed a change to standing orders to allow selection panels to be set up and for the panels' work on the recruitment process to commence after stage 1 of a bill. After consideration of that paper, the Procedures Committee asked for a further mechanism to be introduced that would allow the Parliament to take a separate, conscious decision on the beginning of a recruitment process, instead of automatic approval arising from agreement to stage 1 of the bill.

We do not expect such appointments to be numerous—as you know, we are aware of only two at present. However, given that either the Executive or a committee can introduce a bill, our view was that the Parliamentary Bureau could instigate an additional mechanism to ensure uniformity of approach. It was proposed that the bureau would lodge a procedural motion.

The bureau considered the matter at its meeting last week and we understand that its decision has been conveyed to the committee. The bureau's view was that Parliament's approval of a bill at stage 1 should be sufficient authority to proceed with the appointments procedure, particularly if the bill's general principles include a proposal to create a post. The bureau considered that separate parliamentary approval to start the selection procedure was not necessary.

Was any thought given to some less formal way of flagging that up? For example, it could be commented on in the report that goes for approval at stage 1, or it could be added to the stage 1 motion—not necessarily as a separate procedure or resolution, but simply in such a way as to draw Parliament's attention to the implication that passing the motion would trigger the selection procedure for a new post.

That was discussed, but the overall view was that as the general principles of a bill indicate the intention to create such a post, that was the only mechanism that was necessary to provide the authority to proceed with any selection process.

I understood that the general principles of a bill were summed up in its long title.

No. That is not the case. The general principles of a bill are laid out throughout the bill. The long title is a starting point, not the end point.

I confess that I was at the bureau meeting when this matter was discussed, so I come with two hats on.

Which hat are you wearing?

I am arguing the Procedures Committee's point.

I raised with the bureau the Procedures Committee's point that it was important to have an obvious, positive, separate statement about the recruitment process going ahead. However, as has been explained, a committee's stage 1 report would have to report on the general principles of a bill, one of which would be the appointment—or not—of an office-holder. Again, still wearing my procedures hat, I assume that if any party or member were not happy about the appointment of a commissioner, for example, being part of the general principles and did not want the selection process to go ahead—I think that that is where the Procedures Committee was coming from—it would be within their power to amend the stage 1 motion. Any party or member could amend the motion to say that they were not happy with that aspect of the general principles. Existing procedures provide a mechanism to draw out the appointment aspect from the general principles. That mechanism might satisfy the Procedures Committee.

It also makes sense, however, from the bureau's point of view, that a stage 1 motion on the general principles of a bill must include the appointment of an office-holder. That might be a mechanism to help resolve any potential problem. Is that explanation of the procedures correct?

Yes. Reasoned amendments at stage 1 could pick out something like that. That seems to be an entirely plausible course of action.

Are there any other points?

I am glad that Fiona Hyslop gave that explanation, because I found the letter from the Presiding Officer a little short. I did not get the impression that there had been a huge discussion at the bureau. I am glad that Fiona Hyslop has commented, particularly on that point, because the convener, at our previous meeting, suggested that there should be an explicit mechanism to flag up this issue. There is no reference to that in the letter from David Steel. However, I understand now that it was considered. I would not say that I am entirely content, but I do not want to prevent progress on the matter any further.

Parliamentary procedures are a bit vague about what we are voting for when we vote for the general principles of a bill. I raised that point once before, when the Conservatives, after we had voted to accept the general principles of a bill, were thereafter not allowed to make what seemed to me perfectly legitimate amendments—with which I disagreed—because it was alleged that Parliament had covered that matter in the principles of the bill. It would be possible for a member to support the principles of the bill, but to want some other method of achieving the appointment of an office-holder. I doubt whether it is correct to argue that because we voted for the principles of a bill we are committed to having such an appointment.

If a bill proposed the creation of a royal appointment post, I assume and anticipate that that would be a fairly fundamental element of the bill. I do not think that such a proposal would be hidden, or would not be a key part of any deliberations that went on in the committee at stage 1. I take your point and I see where you are coming from, but the creation of a royal appointment post is such a fundamental aspect of a bill that I do not think that it would be missed or just glanced over.

Would an amendment that would delete a provision that created such a post, or stop the process of filling the post, be a wrecking amendment and therefore inadmissible?

That is a judgment for the Presiding Officer.

I am sure that he would take advice from a reliable source.

Such an amendment could be a wrecking amendment.

The conclusion to the report to the committee asks us to consider the proposed changes to standing orders and recommends that the changes be agreed. Do we agree to that?

Members indicated agreement.

That recommendation is grudgingly agreed. Perhaps the author of the letter in question will reflect on the gap in the response that was given to the committee. I thank the witnesses for attending.