We move on to item 4, on emergency bills. Frances Bell from the legislation team is here to answer any questions on the paper before us, which is an initial report. If there is general agreement on what it contains, it may be possible to produce a draft committee report so that we can consider the timetable for making any changes to standing orders on 11 February, when we debate the reports on oral questions. However, there is no pressure on the committee to do that; if we feel that we wish to take more time over emergency bills, we are entitled to do so. It would be useful if Frances Bell could give us an outline first, and we will then move to questions.
I do not have much to add to what is in the paper; I hope that it is reasonably self-explanatory. The main point to emphasise is that the paper refers to the distinction that chapter 9 of the standing orders draws between the general rules and the special rules. Rule 9.21, on emergency bills, is one of the special rules. The intention is that the general rules and special rules interact seamlessly when bills of one of the types that are mentioned under the special rules are considered. In practice, emergency bills have proved to be the only case in which rules have routinely had to be suspended. For that reason, it was considered worth while reviewing the operation of rule 9.21, which has resulted in the paper that is before the committee.
I do not have any questions, but I would like to say that the paper has been well laid out with regard to inflexibility. I do not have a problem with making a rule change to make the arrangements for a suspension of standing orders more flexible. However, I have some fundamental objections to some of the issues further on in the paper. We might want to divorce those issues for the moment, so that you can understand where I am coming from. Alternatively, would you like me to talk about those issues now? I think that there are some anti-democratic issues further on in the paper, which we need to consider very carefully.
We will go through the paper in the normal way, after we have dealt with any questions for Frances Bell. Let us first consider paragraphs 1 to 5, on the current rule. There are no comments. Paragraphs 6 and 7 are on the case for change.
Have I got the right paper here?
We are looking at the emergency bills paper, Bruce.
I am sorry: I was looking at the wrong paper. I apologise. I have given myself away now. On you go—bash on: it is a wonderful paper.
Do you have a copy?
I have it with me, but I was looking at the paper on the suspension of standing orders instead.
Let us therefore turn to paragraphs 6 and 7, on the case for change. There are no comments. Paragraph 8 concerns the various possible changes. Is everyone happy with what is proposed?
Moving on to other issues, the first bullet point in paragraph 9 is on whether taking all three stages of an emergency bill in a single day should be the default position. Are people happy that that should remain the default position?
The day can be extended.
Two of the three emergency bills so far have been taken on one day, and one has not.
The next bullet point is on whether it should be possible to debate or amend a timetabling motion? At present that is not possible; it is all or nothing.
Are we at stage 2 here?
We are discussing the timetabling motion for an emergency bill: the second bullet point in paragraph 9 on the second-last page.
I am fine with that.
I need all members to be clear. Do you wish that type of timetabling motion to be open for debate or amendment? At present, such a motion is simply proposed and then voted on.
Can you say that again, convener?
At present, the timetabling motion for an emergency bill is merely proposed and then voted on. There is no debate or opportunity to amend it. In other words, there is no opportunity to suggest a different timetable. Are people happy with that, or should such a motion be open for amendment?
There could be manuscript amendments.
There would have to be manuscript amendments in these situations. Would that be acceptable?
But that gives the Presiding Officer the decision-making power in the—
Every motion should be able to be amended. That should be the premise that we start from.
Do members agree that motions should be open for amendment and that we should draw up a standing order to allow that to happen?
Are we talking about the timetabling—
The timetabling for emergency—
We are not talking about amendments to the bill.
It is for a motion—
At present, if you were not going to follow the default one-day procedure, you would have a timetabling motion saying, for example, that stage 1 would be on the Wednesday afternoon and stages 2 and 3 on the Thursday. Somebody might say, "Okay, I agree that the default one-day procedure is not correct in this case, but I would rather see a week between stage 1 and stages 2 and 3." At the moment, you cannot amend the timetabling motion.
Wherever a motion comes from—whether it is a business motion or any other motion—there is an opportunity to amend.
That is correct.
I do not see why this should be any different—although the Executive would win the vote at the end of the day, because it has the numbers. That is what happens.
Okay. We will do that then.
Under what circumstances would that happen?
Is that a guillotine motion, convener? Is it designed to help the Executive to get a bit of legislation through that it is struggling to get time for?
The answer to that is that perhaps we should consider this in the context of timetabling in the legislation inquiry that we are going to commence, rather than doing things without fully considering the issues.
This morning, Mike Russell spoke about the stages of the consultation exercise. He said that that had been done before, so that might have given the bill a speedier passage.
The Gaelic language is not an emergency. The point about the emergency procedure is that it should be for emergencies and not for things that somebody—Mike Russell or anybody else—wants to hurry through the Parliament because they are running out of time. We have to keep the procedure for emergencies. I would be very worried about the potential for creating a route for hurrying something from stage 1 to stage 3.
So the answer to the third bullet point is no.
There are a couple of small technical points that do not affect the fundamental stuff in the paper. If we say in a specific rule that a stage 2 vote in an emergency bill should be cast using the electronic voting system, how would an emergency bill get through if the electronic voting system broke down?
There is a general rule that covers what would happen in such circumstances.
Would that rule still kick in although there was a specific rule that said that emergency bills must be dealt with by electronic voting, which the paper suggests?
Yes.
Fine. The other technical point that we have not dealt with is the question about the ability to amend emergency bills at stage 3. The paper states:
I am sorry—you are right. I meant to pick that up. What are members' views on the matter?
Provided that we can get the job done on the day, I do not see why stage 3 amendments cannot be lodged. Lodging stage 3 amendments might suit the Executive, as it often lodges amendments at stage 3 to improve bills. Removing that flexibility could cause difficulties for the Executive.
Perhaps I could explain how the situation has arisen. If members want to keep open the possibility of lodging stage 3 amendments, no change is required, as the standing orders currently provide for that. Originally, the interaction of the general rules and the special rules in practice prevented stage 3 amendments to an emergency bill being lodged in most cases, as such amendments could not be lodged until stage 2 had been completed. If stages 2 and 3 took place on the same day—which has happened with every emergency bill—the practical operation of the rule meant that stage 3 amendments could not be lodged because they could not be lodged until after stage 2 and manuscript amendments at stage 3 were not permitted at that time. The rules were changed and manuscript amendments can now be lodged at stage 3, but as far as I am aware, when the previous Procedures Committee agreed to that change, it did not specifically consider the fact that it would have the effect of making possible manuscript amendments at stage 3 of an emergency bill.
As the convener knows, I am not necessarily one for bailing out the Executive. However, emergency legislation by its very nature means rushed legislation, which can lead to mistakes. If we can iron out any mistakes in the final part of the process before the Parliament signs off the bill at stage 3 and if we can give the Executive the opportunity to make corrections that help legislation, it would be unwise of us to allow a door to be closed. Who knows? A correction might be on the back of a helpful suggestion by the Opposition—perish the thought. We should allow as much flexibility in the process as possible to ensure that legislation that is being passed is as robust as it can be.
I agree. We can produce a draft report and consider standing orders changes and recommendations—I hope that that can be done for the next meeting. That would allow us to consider changes to the standing orders at the same time as we debate the report on question time. Do members agree to that suggestion?
Previous
First Minister's Question Time