Procedures Committee, 12 Sep 2000

Meeting date: Tuesday, September 12, 2000

Official Report 227KB pdf

---

Amendments to Motions

We now proceed to item 8. We are supported on this item by Andrew Mylne, and I welcome Tricia Marwick, who wrote to the committee on the issue of reasoned amendments, following the introduction of the Abolition of Poindings and Warrant Sales Bill. I invite Tricia to make a few introductory remarks to the committee, after which we will talk about her paper.

Good morning. I welcome the opportunity to speak to the committee. As the convener has pointed out, the issue arose from the stage 1 debate on the Abolition of Poindings and Warrant Sales Bill. However, I must stress that my comments do not relate to the debate on the Abolition of Poindings and Warrant Sales Bill. The significance of that bill is that it was the first member's bill to receive a stage 1 debate. My interest is in how we move on from there. That is why I would welcome the comments of committee members on the matter.

I heard several objections to the acceptance of a reasoned amendment. I felt that a key consultative steering group principle was undermined and that there were already sufficient options in standing orders to deal with any bill—to oppose it, to reject it or to refer it back to the lead committee. I acknowledged that the Presiding Officer's acceptance of the amendment was not ruled out explicitly by standing orders, but I believe that it should have been ruled out explicitly. The committee needs to consider whether reasoned amendments such as that which the Presiding Officer accepted to the Abolition of Poindings and Warrant Sales Bill should be employed in Parliament's procedures.

Irrespective of whether one supports reasoned amendments, a provision that relates to them needs to be included in standing orders. If there are to be reasoned amendments, we must all know what the rules are. We should never again get into a situation where the Presiding Officer has to rule on whether such an amendment is acceptable. As I pointed out to him, on the basis of standing orders he would have been equally justified in not accepting the amendment. The standing orders need to be adjusted to make it quite clear where we all stand.

That is helpful clarification. I am aware that in recent months there has been some confusion about whether reasoned amendments are allowable. Much heat was generated by the fact that the first time a reasoned amendment was lodged was during the stage 1 debate on the Abolition of Poindings and Warrant Sales Bill, which meant that the atmosphere became charged. It is important to clarify in the standing orders whether reasoned amendments are allowable.

I will make my pitch at the outset: I think that reasoned amendments should be allowed, for the good reason that most amendments to bills are likely to be amendments to Executive bills. It is important that, if we as parliamentarians seek to amend a bill or propose either to defeat it or to accept it while noting reservations, we should be allowed in our motions to specify our objections. We give away that right at our peril—that would disadvantage members.

I do not think that Tricia Marwick has ever proposed that the right to lodge a reasoned amendment should be removed from the Executive alone—such a right would have to be available to everybody or to nobody. She asks for clarity one way or the other, so that we all know what the rules of the game are. We can all subscribe to that. I have had my say. Would other members like to chip in?

I agree. It is important that, if a member opposes a bill, the reason for their opposition should be documented and recorded. That can be done by way of a reasoned amendment, or whatever we want to call it.

From the information that we have been given, it is clear that a number of other Parliaments throughout the world take a similar line. If a motion is voted down, it is not always clear why people are opposed to it. However, if they are able to lodge a reasoned amendment in opposition to the principle of the original motion, the reasons for their opposition are clear and are recorded as part of the motion that is passed. For that reason reasoned amendments should be admissible.

It is good that the issue has been raised; the rules should be made clearer. I agree that there is a need to allow reasoned amendments so that members can set out their positions. To take the example of the Abolition of Poindings and Warrant Sales Bill, if the Executive had persisted with its amendment and that amendment had been agreed to, at least the promoters of the bill would have had the Executive's promises on the record. One could argue that making promises in a speech is enough, but signing up to a motion to that effect goes a stage further. As Janis Hughes said, if opposition groups disagree with an Executive bill they should be able to set out their position as well. That is particularly the case for hybrid bills. I felt that the Conservatives had a raw deal over the Ethical Standards in Public Life etc (Scotland) Act 2000, on to which the Executive—wrongly, in my view—tacked the clause 28 issue. There was no real opportunity for the Conservatives to say that they agreed with the stuff about keeping councillors honest but that they hated the clause 28 bit. If a bill covers two or more separate issues there needs to be a way for parties that like A and B but hate C to put that in an amendment and possibly move that A and B progress but C be remitted. Parliament should have the right to set out reasoned amendments.

Hybridity is a separate issue to which we should return, but it is related.

Tricia Marwick has made the most important point, which is that it was the discretion in the debate on the Abolition of Poindings and Warrant Sales Bill that caused the problem, not the procedures thereafter. We should home in on that, so that all members know where they stand and the rules are clear.

Discretion on such amendments has to remain with the Presiding Officer as it does for all other amendments, but we are considering whether his interpretation—that reasoned amendments are acceptable—is right or wrong. If the committee agrees that his interpretation is right, the standing orders do not need to be changed. If, however, the committee thinks his interpretation is wrong, that will probably require a change to standing orders.

It is probably right to allow reasoned amendments. The best example of why that is the case would be when a committee had completed its report on the general principles of a bill and was minded to recommend to the Parliament not to accept the general principles. The committee ought to be able to lodge a reasoned amendment to indicate why it does not support the general principles of the bill.

The motion in the name of the promoter of the bill is always to accept the general principles, so the amendment from the committee needs to be a reasoned amendment as to why the general principles of the bill should not be agreed to. That is perfectly legitimate. As the convener pointed out, that also gives rights to the opposition parties to say why they do not support an Executive bill.

Even if members do not support the general principles and do not agree with the reasons in an amendment, they can still get rid of the bill in the final vote, if it comes to that. They can vote against the reasoned amendment and still vote against the general principles in the final vote.

Andrew Mylne has listened to everyone's point of view. I would like to hear his guidance.

I have little to add. However, it might be confusing to use the word hybridity in relation to a public bill. I understand Mr Gorrie's point that the Ethical Standards in Public Life etc (Scotland) Act 2000 brought together quite distinct subject matters. However, hybridity is a technical term that applies more to the previous agenda item during which we talked about private bills. A hybrid bill is a bill that is primarily public in character but has some private provisions. I do not know what the correct term for what Mr Gorrie is describing is, but it might be safer to steer away from using the term hybrid.

It was used in 1912 when the Speaker of the House of Commons disallowed an attempt to amend the Parliament Franchise (Women) Bill to create female suffrage. He used the expression hybrid at that time.

I bow to your superior knowledge on that point. Tricia Marwick's point is about the standing orders on motions. There is no real uncertainty about what the standing orders allow. The amendment that the Executive lodged on that occasion and any similar motions are clearly allowed under the standing orders. The difficulty arose because it had not been appreciated that such an amendment might be lodged in that context. I can understand why members were somewhat taken by surprise when they saw the amendment for the first time.

The document "Guidance on Public Bills" covers the whole process. The current edition does not refer to the possibility of reasoned amendments at stage 1, but we are in the course of preparing a second edition of the guidance. It would be possible to include a paragraph explaining that possibility and how it might work, if that would assist in interpreting standing orders.

That is a helpful suggestion. As Iain Smith said, if we agree that there should be reasoned amendments, we do not require to change standing orders, but we would be required to make members aware of what standing orders mean, which could be done in the guidance. When the guidance is ready, or at some other point when we have concluded our discussions, it would be appropriate for the Presiding Officer to make an announcement in the business bulletin. That would be another way of making crystal clear to all members how the matter is to be interpreted for everyone's benefit.

I would like to make a couple of points. As you said, the term "reasoned amendment" is used nowhere in the guidance. Had we realised that the amendment that we had been discussing was a reasoned amendment, we would probably have challenged the Presiding Officer's interpretation—if one takes guidance at Westminster and the rules for lodging reasoned amendments, the amendment in question did not fit the bill. If the guidance indicates that there will be reasoned amendments, it will also need to include clear instructions to members on what constitutes a reasoned amendment. That is as important as accepting that we can have reasoned amendments in the first place.

We can generate a sufficiently robust explanation that will satisfy all interests. We have talked the matter through and come to an agreement on how we will proceed. I thank members for their contributions and Tricia Marwick for raising the matter.

The committee has agreed that we will make all those changes and that we will recommend an announcement—in a suitable format—of the interpretation of reasoned amendments. We proceed to the next item, which is on manuscript amendments.