Official Report 102KB pdf
Item 3 concerns proposed changes to the standing orders. It is all a bit peculiar, but the clerks have been trying to improve the rules on how we deal with these things. Rule 18 of the standing orders consists of a long list of defined expressions that are defined better elsewhere. The clerks argue that it is a nuisance to have to change it when things are changed elsewhere and that, as it exists, rule 18 is almost entirely unnecessary and unhelpful. They say that the two or three useful bits of the rule could be incorporated in rule 17 and that the rest of rule 18 could be deleted.
I have read the paper a couple of times and it is starting to make sense. I am broadly in favour of clarifying the rules by deleting some of them. That sounds like a good idea and it might be a policy direction that could be recommended.
We have thought about this carefully and are pretty confident that what we are proposing will not reduce the usefulness of the standing orders document in any way and that everything that is important in those rules will be preserved. The exact rule changes that we are proposing are part of the papers for consideration in private later on and points of detail could be addressed then. However, in terms of the principle, we are confident that the changes are technical and uncontroversial.
The paper says that a trial was conducted over the summer. Could you outline how extensive that trial was and whether it was 100 per cent successful?
Some of that work is still under way. The professional indexers who work in the Scottish Parliament information centre produced the new index to the standing orders, which is a big and technical task. The next step was to get some feedback on it by sending it out to a number of clerks who are used to working with the document. They sent back comments on aspects of what has been done. Those comments are being incorporated by the indexers, who aim to complete their work quite soon.
Were any outstanding problems highlighted by the experiment?
Some points were raised—obviously, you get feedback of various sorts. However, they are being acted on and we are confident that the index will be a good document and will have been reasonably robustly tested by the time it is published.
I am content to approve the paper if the proposals will be successful. The only thing I will say is that we should have some kind of formal confirmation that a process has been followed and that no difficulties have been found.
Presumably, the matter would reappear in the form of changes to standing orders. Is that right?
The paper deals with proposed changes to chapters 17 and 18 of the rules. The context for proposing them was the preparation of the new index. However, the index itself is not part of the rules. Strictly speaking, the new index does not require the approval of this committee or the Parliament because it is not part of the rules; it is merely a useful adjunct to the document. I would be happy to circulate a copy of the index to committee members before it is published.
I do not know whether that is necessarily what we need. However, it would be useful to have confirmation from those who are qualified to judge that this is an appropriate index to use. If we are going to delete most of chapter 18 and move the residue into chapter 17, I want to be confident that we are not imposing on people within the parliamentary structure a change to which they have not given their full approval.
No one has raised any basic objections. There has been some feedback about ways in which the index could be improved, and it is being taken on board.
If we agree to the paper, will it be implemented in the form of changes to standing orders?
The actual rule changes will be dealt with under item 5 in private.
Okay.
Meeting continued in private until 13:00.
Previous
Work Programme