We have three volumes of revised procedural guidance to consider. Hugh Flinn is here to tell us about one or two of them.
Two of them.
Will Peter McGrath tell us about the third volume?
Yes.
We will start with "Guidance on Parliamentary Questions", which I just happen to have in my hand, and which updates existing guidance. It is for internal use by clerks and other people who have to deal with these matters, but it is also available for MSPs and our friends outwith Parliament who are interested in such things. Is there anything new or altered that you would like to draw to our attention?
There have already been three editions of the guidance, so we needed to make only minor changes. The only section that is substantially different is section 4, on oral questions. Paragraphs 4.1 to 4.11 reflect the new procedures for oral questions that the Procedures Committee proposed a year or so ago. There are now themed and general questions. There is a two-stage process for members to submit their names and for selected members to then lodge questions. That is the only significant area of change in the guidance.
The change reflects the current system.
Yes.
Do members have any questions or observations on the paper on oral questions? I know that the committee has spent many hours on the subject and that we all have our views. However, this is not the occasion on which to make suggestions for changes. We are considering whether the guidance reflects accurately the status quo.
I received the papers on Saturday. Given that there are 100 pages of detailed text, I will not be able to clear any of the guidance for publication, although I will be happy to abstain in a vote, because I simply have not had time to read and digest the papers. To clear the guidance would suggest that we have read and understood it and checked it against current practice.
The volumes of draft guidance are not our papers. We are invited to cast an eye over them. I do not know whose documents they are. Do they belong to the chamber desk?
I think so.
I accept Chris Ballance's point—there is a lot of stuff to read—but our scrutiny does not need to be as precise as it normally is.
I just wanted to put that on record.
It was a fair comment.
It was a fair comment, because although the papers are not legal documents, they set out what becomes the practice and convention of Parliament. In the past, things that have appeared in guidance, which have become practice and convention, have not been discussed with anyone. We should say in our legacy paper that documents of this sort should be sent out to members two weeks in advance, so that they have adequate time to consider them in detail, particularly given that members have other engagements at weekends and on Mondays.
It might assist members to know that we will not be sending the documents to print until dissolution. If they have any comments to make over the next week or so, we will endeavour to take them on board.
That is helpful.
If, when they have had a chance to read the document more carefully, members have any comments, should they send them to Andrew Mylne or to Hugh Flinn?
If members send their comments to me, I will pass them on.
Andrew Mylne will also note for discussion of our legacy paper the point that members should have adequate time for reading such documents. In this case, we are nearing the end of the session, so our timetable is a bit tighter.
I am happy to answer questions. As the covering note makes clear, the changes that have been made to the first edition reflect established practice and precedent that have not been put in guidance before. That applies in particular to section 5, which concerns amendments.
I liked the Loch Ness monster motions in that particular section.
I understand that, but we are constrained by the Parliamentary Bureau's decision on the matter. Paragraphs 2.18.a and 2.18.b at the top of page 7 of the guidance follow the wording of the bureau's decision, which was, in turn, reflected in an announcement in the Business Bulletin. We did not feel that it was for us to put an additional gloss on the matter.
The guidance seems to be fairly straightforward. As with the guidance on questions, if members have any afterthoughts on the document they can contact Hugh Flinn via Andrew Mylne.
That is correct.
Is there anything in particular that should be drawn to our attention? Where are the bodies buried, so to speak?
No significant changes have been made, except with regard to standing orders, in which respect I should highlight four changes: first, in the section on members' bills, from page 23 onwards; secondly, in the section on timetabling motions at stage 3, on page 53 at the very end of the document; thirdly, in the section on amendment deadlines at stages 2 and 3, on pages 38 and 39; and, finally, in the section on revised accompanying documents and the memorandum on delegated powers, on page 13.
I have just noticed that paragraph 1.6 on page 2 refers to "the Sewel convention". This committee established the convention of referring to legislative consent motions. Ought that to be adopted in the wording?
The Sewel convention led to the use of legislative consent motions and that is reflected in the wording of paragraph 1.6. It goes on to refer to legislative consent motions. However, there was something called the "Sewel convention".
The whole point of the parliamentary inquiry was to move us from where we were to where we want to be. If we start going back to using the words "Sewel convention" and "Sewel motions", what was the point of the work that we did?
The wording is, in a sense, literally correct. We changed the expression "Sewel motion" to "legislative consent motion", but the Sewel convention is like the Hague convention, or some such treaty, in the way that it is named.
But the Sewel convention is not written down anywhere. Lord Sewel said it in a statement to Parliament. The only thing that is written down is the legislative consent motion procedure.
I am happy to remove that phrase if members would prefer it not to be there.
The members are correct. We did not quite sweat blood over it, but we did make quite a lot of effort to persuade our colleagues to adopt the phrase "legislative consent motion".
Perhaps I could clarify that point. The wording in paragraph 1.6 reflects the actual position. The convention is essentially an agreement between the United Kingdom Government and the devolved Administrations. Although the deputy convener is correct to say that "Sewel convention" is not a formal name for it—it is more of a shorthand term—the point is that the Sewel convention exists outside Parliament and it is not within Parliament's gift to change it. It is within Parliament's gift to change the terminology of its own documents and procedures and that is what was done by retitling Sewel motions as legislative consent motions. "Sewel convention" is still the term that is used in other circles, including Westminster and UK Government, to refer to the convention. It is therefore not really up to the committee or Parliament to change that. It will continue to be referred to as the Sewel convention regardless of the view taken within this Parliament.
The phrase "Sewel convention" comes first in the paragraph. Could the two sentences be rejigged slightly so that they show that, in the Scottish Parliament, the procedure is based on legislative consent motions that sprang from the Sewel convention and the Parliament doing its own thing?
I would be happy to do that.
That would be helpful.
Some colleagues do get agitated about it.
I am not agitated, convener.
I was thinking of the largest Opposition party.
We must acknowledge that a great deal of work goes into such documents. They cause great excitement for only one or two people outwith Parliament, but I am sure that they are very useful to the officials who keep our operations going. I thank Peter McGrath and Hugh Flinn for their attendance. Andrew Mylne will pass on any of our thoughts.
Next
Parliamentary Time