Procedures Committee, 05 Oct 1999

Meeting date: Tuesday, October 5, 1999

Official Report 191KB pdf

---

Emergency Business

Let us move to agenda item 1.

I have received a letter from Margo MacDonald. I do not want to go into specifics but, essentially, Margo has asked that we look at the way in which announcements are made in Parliament and the way in which questions and motions revolve round ministerial statements. That is an area of some concern. Iain Smith, who is here today, was part of a brief discussion last week in the chamber about the concordats.

The committee, the Executive and the Parliamentary Bureau might have to look at the issue over time. The way in which to do that is to move cautiously and to ask for a report from the clerks; we should also engage in discussions on a broader front, to see whether we can all agree on the correct practice.

That ties in with agenda item 4, which is a letter from the Presiding Officer that arose out of the request last week for a statement and the fact that there was no procedure allowing the Presiding Officer to accept the request. The words "sufficiently urgent" are in rule 13.8 of the standing orders, but those words can be interpreted in different ways. Can we bring the two issues together, and have a paper from the clerks on the range of issues surrounding urgent and topical questions, emergency motions and ministerial statements?

That is a fair suggestion. From time to time, matters arise that are of pressing interest, but the Parliament does not respond to them timeously. That can be because the matter does not arise on an Opposition day or because the Opposition does not want to raise it, or because it is not part of the Executive's business. We do not seem to have the opportunity to discuss issues as they arise. Perhaps the clerks could consider all those points together.

Could that go on our list of priority issues? As the Presiding Officer says, that area is creating some difficulty for him.

The problem with accepting it as a priority issue, and considering changes to the standing orders, is fitting all that into our timetable, because we are on the point of making some changes on other matters.

This is a big issue, on which all the political groups would be best advised to reflect. We should give the Executive the opportunity to consider the problem and to give its own analysis. Although I agree that the issue is important, I do not think that we should try to bounce in, because it is late in the process. However, we are in the process of firefighting some of the little bits and pieces that have come up in the past few months and we are considering making more substantial changes to the standing orders by May. Many recent problems could be resolved by practice, rather than by trying to write standing orders for every eventuality. That is why I have always been reluctant to be over-prescriptive in the standing orders—there will always be new circumstances.

I do not like to disagree with you, because we have been running on consensus. However, rule 13.8 is very important to the Parliament. Emergency questions are likely to arise from time to time; they will certainly arise between now and next May. If the Presiding Officer himself writes to the Procedures Committee to say that the rule is not adequate or sufficient, and if he uses the word "vital" in his letter, we should treat the matter with some urgency and put it on our list of priorities. If we do not do so, we will run into the problem again, perhaps several times before next May. When the opportunity exists, we should try to do something about it.

I am not suggesting that we should try to steer the Presiding Officer to interpret rule 13.8 in a way that would overcome the difficulty—that would not be enough. However, something needs to be done.

I do not especially disagree with the suggestion that we should look quickly at the point raised by the Presiding Officer; and Margo MacDonald raises an important issue. I added a third angle. Mike added a second angle by combining Sir David Steel's point with Margo's point. Looking at the big picture will be a longer-term project. If you wanted a quick response to Sir David's point, we would have to do that while the bigger picture was the subject of further investigations.

I am happy to accept that. If we agree that we need to take urgent action on Sir David Steel's letter, a paper from the clerks on both issues would be helpful. However, at the next meeting, we should separate the two issues again and start to act.

For the next meeting, I will ask the clerks to produce a paper on those points, which will allow us to act on Sir David's letter.

We can cope with that.

Is the committee content to commission such a report?

Members indicated agreement.