Official Report 102KB pdf
The next item is consideration of a paper on the committee's work programme, which sets out the issues that we will have to spend time considering between now and the end of the session. Most of the issues are not new—they are mentioned just to remind members.
Yes. We expect to produce further material on that at the next meeting.
On members' bills and substitution, we have completed our inquiry and will soon have a revised draft report on proposed changes to the standing orders. The report will be produced soon, but it should not, we hope, take up too much time, as we have already had a lot of debate on the issue.
There was the possibility that a fairly major bit of work would come to the committee this session. Due to the timescale of the Subordinate Legislation Committee's own work that will not happen, but the referral of a small, effectively technical, change to standing orders is likely to come our way.
It was agreed that there would be a trial of electronic voting in committees in the Communities Committee, partly to accommodate those of us who put in lots of amendments to the Planning etc (Scotland) Bill. That pilot exercise will be evaluated and may lead to a change to standing orders to enable electronic voting to be more common in committees. That piece of work might come to us.
We are waiting for replies from Westminster.
Two other issues have arisen since the clerks wrote the paper, one of which concerns the volumes of guidance that are written by committee clerks for committee clerks. Technically, the committee has to approve those volumes of guidance. I am assured that there are no issues of great substance, so we will not have great debates about them. However, I warn members that a large quantity of reading may be required. Several of those volumes are coming through the system.
That is based on the assumption that you can have a normal committee of MSPs.
I said not "a committee of normal MSPs" but "a normal committee".
Careful use of language, there.
I have shown members that at least I can read. The paper is in front of members.
I have a question about the Finance Committee remit. Is it normal procedure when a committee's remit is to be changed that the matter goes to the Procedures Committee? Why is it being referred to us?
The Finance Committee is one of the mandatory committees. The definition of a mandatory committee is that its remit is set out in the standing orders, therefore any change requires to come through this committee. The remits of the subject committees are established by a motion at the beginning of the session. If there needs to be a change to a subject committee remit, it can be done by lodging a further motion and the matter need not come to this committee.
I understand. Thank you.
Why are we aiming to introduce at the beginning of session 3 rule changes that are the result of a review of parliamentary time? The twilight end of the parliamentary session is a rather odd time to have a wholesale review of the parliamentary week. What is the thinking behind that? I wonder whether it might be sensible to delay such a review until the next full parliamentary session.
My personal view is that it would be better for members who have experienced the various things that they like or dislike to comment on the review. If it were to be started by a new committee after the next election, many of the committee's members would not have given thought to the subject before, so the review would be postponed for a year or two for them to absorb the various points that they were debating. If the review could go through quickly enough, some of the rule changes could be brought into effect in this session. There is no rule against that.
I am sorry, convener, but I did not quite catch the end of your comments. I was suggesting not that the review be held over for the next session's committee to take up, but that the rule changes might come into effect at the beginning of session 3. We are in the final stages of this parliamentary session, which is why I was thinking about whether the rule changes should come into effect now, rather than at the beginning of the new parliamentary session. I was not suggesting that the review should be held over to the next committee. I am just raising the question.
So would your preference be that anything that we propose and to which the Parliament agrees should come into operation as soon as it can?
No. If it does not come into effect at the beginning of session 3, it should do so at a later point. However, I want only to put that on the agenda for thought, rather than arrive at a decision now.
Actually, it is on the agenda for thought. Under item 4 we will consider a consultation paper that lays out a number of options to which, I hope, MSPs will respond. Indeed, if they respond by saying that they do not wish there to be any changes to the rules, there will not be any changes, so perhaps we are putting the cart before the horse. I understand the rationale for saying that the changes—if there are to be any—should be made at the beginning of session 3, but I would like them to be made sooner, particularly if we are to trial any particular change. However, we will get to that when we see how keen MSPs are on some of the options in the paper.
On that point, we are probably more likely to get our colleagues' approval if they feel that they are subjecting their successors to changes rather than themselves. There may be some mileage in that.
The point is noted.
That might be something that the Procedures Committee should consider. It is not the first time that it has been raised. It has been raised with the Presiding Officer, because there are different interpretations of the rule. You may have answered the question of what your next inquiry should be.
We must remember that she was entitled to be here as a member of the Parliament. We are simply calling into question her eligibility to vote, not to be present.
Yes, she could have stayed.
The issue arose in our discussions about substitution for members' bills. We could discuss it under item 5.
Previous
InterestsNext
Standing Orders