The first item on the agenda is a set of extracts from standing orders incorporating a variety of changes. I propose that we do not go through these documents page by page and paragraph by paragraph, but that we take them section by section. If any member has a question to ask or points to make, they will have the opportunity to do so.
In chapter 2, there is a change to rule 2.2.
I would like to say something, as the change involves consequential changes. The effect of this change, and subsequent changes, is to imply that Parliament's normal meeting day on a Wednesday should continue until 7 o'clock. I am pretty certain that the intention of the committee—and, I know from discussion, the intention of the Parliamentary Bureau—was that there should be the option of meeting until 7, but that it should not be enshrined in standing orders that that should happen every Wednesday. We need a form of words that makes it clear that it is possible to meet until 7, but that members will be given substantial warning if that is to happen. That should be included here and throughout the standing orders.
That is a pertinent point. I see from the indications that members are making that everybody agrees with what Michael Russell is saying. We will instruct that the necessary changes be made.
Consequential changes will have to be made to rule 5.6 as regards times for meeting on a Wednesday.
We will make those changes throughout.
Under rule 5.6.1(b), there is no formula for the division of the half sitting days for Opposition business, apart from one agreed between the Opposition parties. I do not have a problem with that, but it needs to be pointed out. Although the Procedures Committee decided that it would offer a half day to the two smaller parties, that will take place on the basis of a decision by the committee, rather than being enshrined in standing orders.
If we have not done so, we can cover that by a letter to the bureau indicating our intention. I think that the bureau would be likely to accommodate that.
The Tories and the SNP have agreed a division of five and 10 half sitting days for Opposition business. The two half sitting days for the smaller parties will now have to be added. The bureau should be notified of that.
Is everybody happy with that?
That takes us to chapter 7, on the conduct of meetings, to which rule 7.2.5 has been added. Iain would like to comment on that.
I want to question whether it is necessary to include this provision in standing orders. The Executive is now content with the view of the Procedures Committee, as expressed at its previous meeting, that in Opposition day debates it should be the normal practice for the party that moves the motion to sum up. It does not seem necessary that that should be specified in standing orders. It might complicate standing orders unnecessarily to include something about who should sum up in debates. Perhaps we should simply accept that the practice will be as the Procedures Committee has agreed and advise the Presiding Officer accordingly.
If the committee were minded to accept that, we could outline our decision in a letter to the Presiding Officer. As an Opposition debate is scheduled for later this week, we would do that immediately. By adopting Iain's proposal, we would be attempting to avoid being over-prescriptive in standing orders.
I accept what the clerk says about this creating something of an anomaly, but I hope that if we sent a letter to the Presiding Officer, he would be minded to rule that a precedent would be set this Thursday and followed thereafter. We have fought hard on the issue, and I am grateful to the Executive for the attitude that it has taken. In those circumstances, we want to ensure that this becomes established practice, rather than merely something that happens from time to time.
I think that Sir David is very receptive to guidance notes from this committee.
I am sure that the Presiding Officer can be given such advice at today's meeting of the bureau.
I voted for the suggested change, but it is quite clear to me that, on all other occasions—whether it is moving a motion or seeking to put through legislation—the Executive should have the right to reply, regrettable though that may be. However, if a member were to propose a bill on fox hunting, for example, I am not sure whether he or she would have the last word. Do we need a ruling on that, or should it be a decision for the Presiding Officer? Again, if the Procedures Committee, for example, were pushing through a bill that was not a Government bill, would the convener have the last word? It would be worth examining that in the future.
I agree. I do not think that we need to add this to the priority issues, but the committee will need to consider and, if necessary, act on it, before the first member's bill comes before Parliament. We will, of course, be examining the procedures for members' bills. Donald Gorrie has made a pertinent point, which, as he says, also applies to committee bills.
There needs to be a good system for informing members of the Parliament about the late reconvening of a meeting that has suspended. If it is a needle issue and members do not hear about what has been decided, they will moan about being disfranchised.
Again, that is a matter for the operation of the chamber. The Presiding Officer should attend to it, in any suspension that he initiates. Here, again, we should not be over-prescriptive in standing orders. However, as with all these matters, if we misjudge that, we can return to it.
Rule 7.4.1(e) might be slightly over-prescriptive in referring to "a lunch break". One can imagine circumstances in which there was an emergency meeting that went on all evening. We would then have to suspend for "a lunch break", although we were actually breaking for dinner. I do not want to be picky, but I wonder whether we should not add something to make it clear that the meeting can be suspended for lunch, coffee, meals and so on.
It stands as a reproach to our legal advisers that they did not pick up on that technicality. However, Mike Russell makes a pertinent point—should we change the wording to "a lunch or other break"?
Yes.
One man's lunch is another man's dinner.
I was wondering whether rule 8.16, on adjournment and closure of meetings, when moved by members, should not logically be included under rule 7.4. At present, rule 8.16 follows the rule on motions for adjournment of a debate, but it seems more logical that it should be included under the rule that deals with suspension and closure of meetings.
We will consider that. I think that we have ruled out a disturbance. Is everyone happy with that?
That takes us to rule 7.8, about which there is also a legal question. The suggestion is that, currently, the rules applying to committees are more flexible and we would be wise to leave matters as they stand. I think that we should accept that.
That takes us to chapter 8. There is a change to rule 8.2, to deal with the issue of sub judice.
Can Gordon or some other expert tell us whether there has recently been a definition of offensive language? I am asking him as a lawyer, rather than as a propagator of offensive language.
It is like an elephant—it is hard to describe, but you know it when you see it. I cannot offer a definition of the word "offensive".
I think that people work round the fringes of any definition.
I am worried about the sub judice rule. I hear constantly about people being advised under the sub judice rule that they cannot raise a particular matter. I accept that the rule should be in standing orders, but either now or later I would like us to receive papers from the clerks on the sub judice rule and the rule of privilege. Members need to understand those rules, and it would help if the Procedures Committee considered them first.
We can include that in our on-going work programme.
I agree with what Michael Russell said. Recently, in the Justice and Home Affairs Committee, the deputy minister appeared before us and we were given legal advice by the staff that he could not speak about certain things. The convener, Roseanna Cunningham, thought that that was ridiculous, and I thought that she was absolutely right. I could not see any sense in the ruling. The issue needs to be clarified.
The interpretation of the rule is so tight that we might not be able to discuss changes to parental placing regulations, if any appeals against such regulations were under way anywhere in the country. That has not happened yet, but there is some suggestion that it might. It would mean our ending up with complete gridlock on certain matters.
That sounds sensible. Is everybody agreed?
Rule 8.5 remains the same, but there is a change to rule 8.16. That concludes our consideration of chapter 8.
In rule 11.2.2, 18:30 must be optional rather than prescriptive.
We will pick that up, in the spirit of what we agreed earlier.
An issue arises out of rule 11.7.2(a), which will be relevant to other parts of the standing orders. I presume that somewhere in the standing orders it is stated, "for Presiding Officer, read Deputy Presiding Officer"—and that it is understood that the Deputy Presiding Officers are Presiding Officers for the purposes of the standing orders.
We ruled on that in a sense, in handling the terminology, when we said that we would address them as Presiding Officers and would therefore regard the deputy as the Presiding Officer for all those definitional purposes.
I would not want a challenge to them on that basis.
I ask about the sentence underlined in rule 11.8.2. The first time that I read:
When a question is put and a member disagrees, there is a division.
Okay. It is just that the first time I read it, I misunderstood it, which means that other people might do the same.
I wish to make a similar point to Donald's. On rule 11.4.3, is it necessary to have the part about casting votes again in that paragraph, because it makes it cumbersome and complex to read? When a division is taken again, it is not a fresh division—it is still part of the same division. Is it necessary to include that, as it adds to the confusion?
The officials debated this long and hard. Our advice was that it should be made crystal clear that members were casting their votes again. That is why that form of words appears.
That is probably correct.
If a member is very swithery on an issue, can he vote differently the second time from the first time? Is it a revote or a new vote? That could be an important point if someone was nobbled between divisions.
Heaven forfend.
I cannot imagine that happening.
I might change my mind on an issue such as hunting, on which I am ambivalent. Am I allowed to do so between the first and second divisions?
Are you saying that if—for the purposes of argument—hunt saboteurs were to interfere with the electronic machinery, they would still have a chance of getting your vote, as long as you had to vote twice?
That could well be in The Guardian again, chaps.
The issue cannot be addressed in the standing orders. It is a political point.
We had reached rule 11.10. I was galloping through, or attempting to—no hunting analogies, please.
The officials raised a valid issue on rule 12.1.12. We agreed unanimously that we did not need a vice-convener or deputy convener, but if the convener was ill and there was work to be done between meetings, to whom would the clerk relate to get it done?
Rule 12.1.11B deals with that. It states that the temporary convener
How would we establish a temporary convener if, during the recess, when a lot of work was being done, the convener were to walk under a bus or get hit by a golf club and were incapacitated?
Or fell off his horse while hunting.
If the convener were incapacitated, to whom would the clerk relate in progressing with any business?
The oldest member.
Presumably there would then be a meeting to elect a temporary convener.
The only difficulty is that if those tragic circumstances were to arise in the summer, a meeting would have to be called in the recess.
The point that Donald is making is that if urgent business was to be decided, a meeting would have to be called anyway. If a decision had to be taken, a meeting would have to be called at which a decision could be made about a temporary convener.
I think that is covered.
Failing which, it would be the oldest member. Donald should have declared an interest.
I was trying to relieve myself of some work.
I well understand that point.
Is the issue of the oldest member being unwilling to act covered?
There is an issue about the oldest member chairing the first meeting to elect the convener. That is taken up in one of the later papers.
That still imposes a burden on the oldest member, who might not be willing to act.
That is covered by rule 12.11C (b).
Yes. The rule states that any reference to the oldest committee member means the oldest member of the committee
In those circumstances, it could conceivably be that the oldest member was the youngest member.
Yes. I feel a press article coming on; you had better be careful about that remark. We should not discuss it.
Rule 12.2.1 states:
Yes, it should. Well done.
Apologies.
That is a black mark.
That is 1-0.
Surely more than that.
Yes, it is about 100-1.
That takes us to chapter 13, on statements and parliamentary questions.
I agree with the principle of what you are saying. I am not sure that there should be such a tight prescription, given that we are moving to a 20-minute open question time.
A number of questions must be published. If it were left open, all the questions would have to be published. I think that four is unduly prescriptive. On Thursday, we could have fitted four questions into 15 minutes. Perhaps five or six should go on the order paper. We need to specify the number of questions to be published, but four is too low.
It depends on the sort of questions that they ask. At present they are asking, not quite, "What are your engagements for today?" but questions such as, "When did you last meet the secretary of state?"
That is because questions had to be in eight days in advance.
Absolutely. If there was an assurance from the Opposition leaders that they would ask genuine, topical questions, which would be answered, that would be fine.
I do not think that an assurance will be given.
If we are moving the time of lodging First Minister's questions to ensure that they are more topical, we should ensure that the questions lodged are topical.
We are straying away from strictly procedural matters and into bureau business. We are examining the standing orders, and those mechanics are not necessarily for us to resolve.
I suggest that we publish six questions in the business bulletin, rather than four.
Is everybody happy with that suggestion?
Yes.
Perhaps two questions could be selected and four chosen by ballot.
I do not think that we will specify that, but it would seem to be a logical conclusion, applying existing practices.
The logical conclusion of applying existing practices is that the Presiding Officer can select questions. I would have no objection if there were two questions from the leaders of the principal Opposition parties and four by ballot.
We could suggest that to the Presiding Officer, and it would be up to him how he dealt with it.
Mike is making the point, which is correct, that the standing orders specify that there is a ballot for closed questions and that there is a choice by the Presiding Officer in open questions. If we wanted to operate the bulk of First Minister's question time in the same way as the existing closed question time operates, we would have to change the standing orders further than they have been changed here.
In stipulating that there are two questions from the principal Opposition parties and then four others, we are legislating only for this Parliament. There could be three principal Opposition parties in a future Parliament. We should leave it to the Presiding Officer, but he should receive a note from the Procedures Committee stating that what we expect is that there would be questions from the principal Opposition leaders and he would select others on their topicality and to achieve balance in the Parliament.
Would it be acceptable if we made it clear that we see balloting as a reasonable way of selecting some of the questions? The standing orders would not then need to be changed, as it would become a matter of interpretation.
As long as there is always space for the principal Opposition parties to ask questions.
I do not think that anybody is disputing that.
In closed questions, supplementaries must be relevant to the original question. Is that the case in open question time?
We would have to follow the original question.
In that case, the leaders of the Opposition parties must have the right to lodge a question, as it is possible that none of the questions drawn—however good—would raise issues on which they wish to do battle that day.
Yes, that is a key issue.
The same line should be followed in open question time.
That is a very good reason for allowing the principal Opposition leaders to lodge a question themselves. However, the Presiding Officer should not be obliged to ballot. If questions are submitted three days before, he will have a better opportunity to draw a spread of questions on topical issues across the political spectrum for the 20-minute slot. He should be free to ballot if he wishes, but it should not be axiomatic that he has to do so.
The current practice is that the third question in open question time is chosen from questions that are generally submitted to the Executive. The Presiding Officer should continue to choose such questions on that basis, if he thinks that they are good and topical.
Okay.
It will make life a bit more complicated for the Presiding Officer, but someone has to pay the price for greater flexibility.
There is a tiny anomaly between rules 13.6.4 and 13.6.4A. The closing time for lodging questions is 2 o'clock for closed questions and 2.30 pm for First Minister's questions. That will cause confusion in members' minds. Cannot the closing time be 2.30 pm for both question times?
I do not see why not.
The closing time for closed questions was 2 o'clock because the Presiding Officer had to have an opportunity to select questions for open question time before the ballot. Obviously, that had to be done before he went into the chamber.
Shall we make it 2 o'clock for both closing times?
The system has changed and the Presiding Officer does not have to do that anymore.
That is true. Shall we make it 2.30 pm for both, then? That is a natural time, with members entering the chamber and so on.
Let us agree that both closing times should be the same; the officers will work out which time is more sensible.
One way or the other, the time has to be the same.
Yes, in the light of reflection and advice, we should standardise the closing times.
Another issue that puzzles me about rule 13.6.4 is why oral questions can be lodged only on the eighth or ninth day before question time. Although I understand the need for a cut-off time, I have never quite worked out why questions can be lodged only on those days.
These things are given and lesser mortals do not challenge them.
Well, I am a lesser mortal and I am challenging the rule.
Iain has a good point—I have never thought about it before.
This is a particular problem in recess. It seems a bit daft that members have to be in Edinburgh on specific days to lodge questions for when Parliament meets again.
Perhaps it is like buying lottery tickets—nobody buys tickets for the lottery after next. However, people may want to lodge questions on the 10th day, as well as on the ninth and eighth days.
I myself have tried to lodge a question on a day when the clerks would not accept it.
What does the chamber office think? Presumably the issue centres on work load.
As I understand it, the raison d'être of the rule about the eighth and ninth days is to give the Executive notice of the questions that will be asked and to give it time to prepare for question time.
So the rule should say that questions should be lodged by the eighth day.
There should also be a starting point, because one set of questions should not run into the previous set of First Minister's questions. Members should not be able lodge questions until at least the Friday after a question time on the Thursday.
Logically, members should be able to lodge questions at any time from the end of question time.
But that would be almost two weeks before that particular question time.
A member might know that he or she will not be in the chamber for a particular question time, but want to lodge a question for the following week.
There is a case for expanding the time for lodging questions to the Monday.
I think that the officials have got the gist. We will ask them to consider any necessary changes to the standing orders.
Rules 13.7.5 and 13.7.6 deal with the general issue of supplementary questions. The committee discussed supplementary questions from MSPs who had an interest in a specific issue for reasons of locality or otherwise. That has not been written into the rule. Can we firm up on that point?
That would be difficult, as it relies on the Presiding Officer knowing that a particular MSP—out of all the MSPs who have pressed their buttons to speak—has an interest in a particular issue.
But is not it the case that, at Westminster, the Speaker might be told that a group of MPs—perhaps from neighbouring constituencies—has a vested interest in an issue that has been raised and could be called to speak?
It is not a question of being called to speak; such MSPs are motivated to ask questions. I do not think that anything could be written into the orders to cover those circumstances. A member might be passionate about a certain topic; however, the rest of us will not know that until the member asks a question, at which point we suddenly discover that they are an expert on, say, embroidery—unlikely as that might seem.
Although I hear what Mike is saying, I am concerned that members with vested interests will not be able to ask a supplementary question because other members have got in before them. Is there any way in which we can give priority to members with such vested interests?
Although Janis is right to raise the point, Mike is also right that it cannot be written into standing orders. In the periodic letters that the committee sends to Sir David, perhaps I should reflect our suggestion that, as he exercises his discretion, he should be aware of other members in the chamber with an interest in the topic under question.
That would be helpful.
Janis will be a marked woman after this meeting.
She should not expect to get another supplementary question.
Next
Priority Issues