Procedures Committee, 02 Dec 2003

Meeting date: Tuesday, December 2, 2003

Official Report 168KB pdf

---

Work Programme

Item 2 is consideration of our work programme. Before we consider the paper that is before us, I remind members that we are still carrying out a number of pieces of work. I hope that we will be well down on the oral questions by the end of the year. At the beginning of next year, we will have to consider the timing of First Minister's questions, which we agreed to review after Christmas. The clerk and I will write to the various parties involved, such as the journalists and broadcasters, to get their views on the changed timings and the information that we need on audience figures. We are in the middle of our inquiry into the non-Executive bills unit, and an outstanding, relatively small, item on emergency bills is due to emerge shortly.

I am interested in members' views on the next major inquiry that we might want to undertake and whether they think that we should undertake any minor inquiries in parallel with that. Members have a paper on the work programme and a summary of some of the main points that arose in last week's debate on the consultative steering group principles. I invite comments.

The paper is useful and gives us a good outline of the tensions that we face in drawing up our work programme. We will hear feedback from the Scottish Civic Forum event shortly. By necessity, we need to take on board what members are telling us, because we are here to make procedures work best for them. However, we also have to think about people outside the Parliament.

My perception of last week's debate—I do not know whether Richard Baker will share this view—was that the time scale for bills, particularly at stage 2, was a primary issue. Points were raised about whether stage 2 was too quick, whether there might be ways to do it smarter and how we can involve people more by giving them feedback. That issue should be a priority.

I am not sure whether the issue of Sewel motions is as high up the agenda as it was previously, because we have a generally agreed procedure for dealing with such motions. I am not diminishing the importance of Sewel motions, because there are issues around them that we have to consider. We also have to consider members' bills.

Two issues that arose in the chamber debate and the Scottish Civic Forum event could take higher priority in our work programme than options 2 and 3 in the paper. One of those issues is committees meeting in private, on which there was a lot of discussion and divergence during last week's debate. There was also discussion at the Scottish Civic Forum event about the difficult problem of whether we should provide general guidance for committees on how they should deal with issues in private and when that would be appropriate. I do not know whether we could take action on that quickly, but we should not sweep the matter away just because it is not easy. I do not feel comfortable with the issue, but it has been raised so we have to think about it.

Secondly, a number of members commented last week on whether the Parliament is in control of its procedures to the extent that it should be and on matters such as what we call ourselves. Given that the Scotland Act 1998 is about to be reviewed, there might be no better chance for us to sort out a matter that is not politically sensitive—it should not be politically sensitive if what everyone said in the chamber was true about our needing to take more control of our procedural affairs. If we can get that on the agenda now, given that the Scotland Act 1998 is about to be amended, we might be able to deal with the matter. If, however, the matter was seen to be political in the context of the Scotland Act 1998, it would not have a hope in hell of flying and it would not be worth doing. Others might think that it is not worth dealing with such procedural matters now; I think that it is, but I recognise the constraints around me.

It would be useful to add those two matters to a discussion about where our priorities lie.

The purpose of last week's debate was for the committee to sit back and listen to what members were saying. There was much consensus around the chamber on a number of issues. However, it would be worth while our looking through the Official Report of the debate to see whether we can pick out some headings for our discussion before we agree to take action on anything. The committee paper that is before us does not go into the analysis of chamber business.

There is a summary of the main points in annex B, although that is not included in the work programme paper. We do not have to make final decisions on our work programme today, but if there is consensus, we can start doing some of the background work on one or two of the big areas outlined.

The work programme makes the point that we should allocate some time—not just as part of another agenda item—to speaking about what members said in the debate last week and seeing whether we can deal with their points.

I am relatively comfortable about doing some work on the legislative timetable because there have been times when we have all been frustrated, particularly at stage 3, when we have had to consider amendments and new measures that have been introduced at that stage. That is the main priority for me. We are in a good period of the parliamentary year to consider the legislative timetable, because most of the bills are still at stage 1. As we progress into the parliamentary year, there will be more pressure on getting legislation through.

I am not convinced that we will ever be able to reach consensus or offer advice about committees meeting in private. The advice exists that we should only ever go into private session when the committee believes that it is absolutely necessary. If the committee decides not to go into private session to discuss a report, that is for the committee to decide. Every committee must take a balanced decision. We must be careful that we are not forced into decisions that will lead us into problems in the future. There are people who are vocal about what they would like to happen and that could pressurise us into doing something that might not be the best thing for the Parliament. We need to leave the decision to committees, which must exercise their judgment; each committee must live by the decisions that it makes.

One of the issues that came out of the Scottish Civic Forum event was about the timetables for stages of bills and the need to ensure that a proper opportunity is provided for people to feed back on consultation exercises that are conducted both before a bill's introduction and at stage 2. That is another reason for thinking about changing the timetables, but it is not mentioned in the list of reasons that we have.

The Scottish Civic Forum met only last week, so that issue has arisen since the report was prepared.

Yes, but I emphasise that as an additional reason for considering changing the timetables. Some Green party members are concerned about specific Sewel motions, and Patrick Harvie may have lodged a motion suggesting that amendments to Westminster legislation should be allowed to come from committees of the Scottish Parliament. When Patrick asked me about that, I read what I could find but was not able to give him particularly good advice. Perhaps we can get clarification of what the procedures and possibilities are, and the process of clarification might come up with some areas that might have been missed.

Do any other members have any thoughts?

Can I just reverse a wee bitty? I threw in private stuff because I know that we will have to discuss it at some stage. I share a lot of Karen Gillon's concerns, but if we are not going to produce guidance on committees meeting in private, we must reach a firm conclusion on that.

Mark Ballard raised an important issue on Sewel motions. The other issue on Sewel motions is the financial implications that the Westminster bills will have on the Scottish Executive's budget. Although the Executive's memorandums have improved considerably, they do not yet tell us in a significant way what the bill's implications will be for finance, sustainability or equal opportunities. We could do a bit more work on those three areas before we say whether a Sewel motion is acceptable or not. We need a bit more information, and we could still usefully do some work on that.

I accept all those points. My inclination is to recommend to the committee that we deal with option 1, the legislative timetable, as our next major inquiry. We can ask the clerks to draft a paper on how we might handle that. We can then consider Sewel motions as our next inquiry after that, on the grounds that we might want to allow the present procedure to bed in a bit to give us a clear idea of what is and is not working within the revised procedures. We would not be throwing out that issue, but addressing it slightly further down the track.

We can probably deal with the specific items that are referred to in option 3 rather than hold a wider inquiry on public bills, and we can address the issue of flexibility in the rules as an under-the-wire thing. A lot of the background work can be done and the proposals for the required changes to the standing orders can be produced without our holding a full inquiry, as the two bullet points under option 3 are largely technical matters. We may look at the whole private bill procedure in more detail at a later date.

I suggest that we proceed on that basis. Are members content with that?

I am reasonably content. However, there is one issue that I want to come back to: whether we have enough powers to do what we should be doing. Would it be possible for us to ask Westminster what the time scale for the lodging of an amendment to the Scotland Act 1998 is likely to be? If the amendment needs to be lodged soon, we might miss out on influencing that debate.

We will find that out and bring a paper to the next meeting to let the committee know what the position is. I agree with what you are saying in principle, as it seems like a good opportunity. However, I am pretty sure that the Westminster Government wants to have a specific bill that deals only with the issues on elected members and that it does not wish to open up any other areas of the act. Even if we agreed to do what you suggest, it may be difficult for us. If the bill is timetabled to be introduced next month, there will be no chance for us to do anything; if it is to be introduced in May, we could have a look at it.

We need that information before we can make a decision.

We will try to find out.

Sometimes, ye dinnae get if ye dinnae ask.

I appreciate that, but I suspect that we will not get in any case.

I was wondering about option C, which relates to the review of the parliamentary week. We have been considering specific elements of the parliamentary week, namely the two question times, and we also have to consider Dennis Canavan's point about the allocation of non-Executive business, in option 7 on our work programme paper. I am aware that that is a hefty item for consideration, but do you think that we might discuss that at some point in the future?

The legislative timetable, which might throw up a few issues about the timetabling of business, and a few other developments suggest that we might have to consider the issue at some point in the not too distant future, either in an ad hoc way or as a full inquiry.

It would be better if we could avoid taking an ad hoc approach, as there might be knock-on effects.

Absolutely. It could be a major piece of work, of course. The main issue is whether the parliamentary week is long enough or whether it should be reshaped across the parliamentary year. There have been a few comments about the subjects of the parliamentary debates at this time of year, when there is not a lot of legislation going through, while there never seems to be enough plenary time in May and June, when we are trying to get bills passed before the summer. We might have to consider how the Parliament balances its business. That would be a major inquiry, however.

I agree, but some of the issues relating to the fact that there are six parties and four independent members in the Parliament will become quite difficult by June. There might be pressure for us to consider how the available speaking time is divided up in each debate.

My information is that we should leave that to the Parliamentary Bureau and the Presiding Officers at this stage. The allocation of time in the chamber is at the discretion of the Presiding Officer and I am not sure that we should be too prescriptive in that regard. However, we might have to discuss the matter.

But sometimes the standing orders change. With regard to First Minister's questions, a standing order change was required to give the Presiding Officer the flexibility that he needed.

That was mainly to do with the time scale, though.

Yes, but other issues might affect that matter.

Those points are noted.

Are there any items on the draft work programme that members think we should drop at this stage on the ground that we need not consider them further?

Option 5.

Do we agree to drop option 5? Items that are dropped do not drop off for ever and can be dealt with at a later date.

Members indicated agreement.

What about option 6, on petitions?

I think that that is a fair point. The Public Petitions Committee is supposed to be a vehicle by which the public can gain access to the Parliament. It should not be used by MSPs, as they can use various methods of bringing the attention of the Parliament to issues of concern. If the issue that the MSP wants to raise is of concern to the general public, I am sure that a member of the public will be equally able to submit a petition.

It is a question of whether we should leave the matter on the work programme. If members are happy to leave it on, we shall do so.

What about Dennis Canavan's point, in item 7?

Is rule 5.6 being complied with?

Perhaps the clerk can explain exactly what the rule is.

The rule requires the Parliament to allocate time to all the political parties. As independent members, Dennis Canavan and the other independent members are not entitled to any time under that rule. His argument is that they should be. There is no dispute about what the rule means; the question is whether the rule should be changed to extend to independent members the rights that are enjoyed by parties.

So the rule is being complied with. Option 7 asks us to find out

"whether Rule 5.6.1(b) is being complied with".

If the rule is being complied with, I assume that the independent members would have to take their opportunity in members' business sessions, the same as any other back bencher would.

You can imagine why it might seem anomalous for the Scottish Senior Citizens Unity Party to be given time but not the independent members for the Lothians and Falkirk West, or the member who stood for the campaign to save Stobhill hospital.

But they would just need to add "party" at the end of their name and they could argue that they were eligible for party time.

I do not think that it is as simple as that.

It would be quite simple to form a party. We have seen how simple it is to do that.

I am not sure that it is as simple as that. It might be possible for Jean Turner and Dennis Canavan, because they were elected on a constituency basis. Anyone who is elected on a list has to be a member of the list on which they are elected. The question is whether we want to keep the issue on our forward work programme as something to consider in future, or whether we are happy with the present process.

Is it our responsibility?

The Dennis Canavan point would require a change to standing orders.

I know that there is a slight anomaly because in the first session Tommy Sheridan and Robin Harper got a whole lot of time in the chamber to promote themselves and what they wanted to be, yet other people who were equally elected to the Parliament were unable to do that because they were independent. That is an anomaly. Tommy Sheridan and Robin Harper benefited politically from having the time in the chamber to showcase what they stood for. It may not be a priority, but there is an issue for the independents if they are unable to do that.

There is a wider issue to do with what constitutes a party, because the definition in standing orders applies to the Scottish Senior Citizens Unity Party but not to a platform to save Stobhill hospital. However, if there had been one more independent member they could technically have come together as a group and got a place on the bureau as a political party. They might have had a place on the bureau, but they might not have had access to members' business. It is a complex issue, because there are two different definitions in standing orders.

For clarification, rule 5.6.1(b) provides a right to any political party that is not represented in the Scottish Executive, regardless of size and regardless of whether the party is represented on the bureau. That covers the Scottish Senior Citizens Unity Party and any group that is formed under rule 5.2.2, which is what you are talking about. However, independent members do not become a political party by becoming a group. If there are fewer than five independent members, or if they choose not to group together, they do not qualify for a share of time under rule 5.6.1(b).

Is your advice that the Scottish Senior Citizens Unity Party could sit on the bureau?

No. The Scottish Senior Citizens Unity Party is entitled to a share of non-Executive debate time under rule 5.6.1(b) simply by virtue of being a political party, regardless of the fact that it has only one member.

So when there are four of them they can get on the bureau.

Five of them.

And do they get a share of the time according to their size?

The rule says nothing about how the time is distributed among those who qualify.

Who decides?

The bureau, but essentially it is by agreement among the non-Executive parties. They allocate the time proportionately.

So essentially it is a case of saying that one week out of 10 the independents can have the morning.

But there is a question about non-Executive time.

The time comes out of the existing allocation for non-Executive time, which means that the existing non-Executive parties could lose time, and they might not be happy about that. A number of issues have to be addressed, and we should do that as a proper inquiry, rather than as part of the discussion about the work programme.

Are there any other issues that should be included in the work programme but which have not yet been included? We can pick up stuff from the debate on the committee's consultative steering group report, which is already contained in the annex.