Procedures Committee, 13 Jan 2004

Meeting date: Tuesday, January 13, 2004

Official Report 310KB pdf

---

Suspension of Standing Orders

Item 5 is consideration of a paper from the clerk on the suspension of standing orders. If members want a copy of the report on the issue that they received at our previous meeting, there are spare copies. Shall we go through the report section by section? We can discuss the issues that Bruce Crawford wants to raise when we reach them.

The section headed "Inflexibility of Rule 17.2" contains examples of when that inflexibility has caused problems in the past. Does anyone have any comments on that section?

Given the discussion that we have just had about the problems with First Minister's question time in relation to standing orders, the more flexible we are the better.

Are members content that we proceed to allow more flexibility?

Members indicated agreement.

We have to consider how to do that. If we are not going to leave the rules unchanged, we must amend them either to enable smaller units of the standing orders to be suspended or to allow standing orders to be suspended to whatever extent is specified in the motion. We must also decide whether we want to add a rule that would allow specific additional rules to replace those that have been suspended. Which option of the two that I have mentioned would members prefer? The second option is the more elegant.

The power to suspend standing orders to the extent that is specified in the motion would be quite a power to give the Executive; it would allow the Executive to move to suspend anything that it wanted to, without defining it first in specific words. If the specific words were defined first, that might bring more clarity to the process so that everyone could see exactly what suspension was being suggested.

If we allow smaller units of the standing orders to be suspended, that would enable us to do what we have to do and to achieve the changes that we are seeking. That option would provide more clarity than a catch-all provision would.

That is a valid point. Perhaps I misinterpreted the second bullet point. Do members agree with what Bruce Crawford just said?

Members indicated agreement.

The second question is whether we want to add a rule that would allow an alternative rule to be put in place on certain occasions.

I do not know. I do not understand that bit.

If a member wanted to suspend the timetable for lodging amendments, a separate rule could be put in to allow a new timetable.

No, that is different.

I shall ask the clerk to clarify.

The convener outlined the intention behind the suggestion. If a specific limit, either in time or number, is imposed in the rules, then even if individual words can be suspended, the most that can be achieved is the removal of the limit that currently exists. The option of allowing an alternative rule to be put in place would allow members to substitute a slightly different limit for that limit, in such an instance. It would provide a definite answer rather than removing the limit that was already there. In certain situations, that might provide greater clarity of outcome. However, you might want to limit it to certain specific cases; we can consider that.

All that I have said is subject to the caveat that I will talk about when we discuss the next issue. If we do not sort out that issue, I will go back on everything that I have said.

Are members happy for a draft report to be produced that will outline the rule changes? We can then decide whether the power is too wide or not wide enough.

Members indicated agreement.

We move to the slightly more contentious issue of the right to move to suspend standing orders. That is covered in paragraphs 11 to 17 of the paper, and in the second part of the conclusions.

I have fundamental difficulties with this. Some of the narrative suggests that the power might be misused. Frankly, if we wanted to misuse the provisions for the suspension of standing orders, we could do so right now if we were in the mood. To my knowledge, on no occasion has a suspension of standing orders been misused. Fergus Ewing's motion related to a committee matter. There is no evidence that the Opposition or any individual has acted inappropriately or misused the process. That is a red herring.

To remove anybody's fundamental right to propose a suspension of standing orders would be anti-democratic and would remove important checks and balances. The Executive has a majority and if somebody were minded, for mischievous reasons, to move to suspend standing orders, the Executive would win.

The paper says that such a motion could succeed only if it had general political support, so the process already contains checks and balances; otherwise, members would have misused the provision. The case is far from proved that we should give only the bureau, members in charge of bills, ministers or committee conveners that power. Doing so would remove a right of individual MSPs and I cannot accept that. Such a move would be wrong.

The paper tries to reflect the two sides to the argument, which is not straightforward.

I accept that.

Standing orders differentiate between meetings and items of business. Another question is whether that distinction is required.

That does not remove the checks and balances.

I do not dispute that. I am just saying that we must consider whether we want to leave the rule unchanged, which would mean that at any meeting of the Parliament, any member could move a motion to suspend standing orders, but that on any item of business, only the bureau could do that. If we want to change that, do we want to apply the same rules to everything or do we want to differentiate between meetings and items of business?

I want to protect the right of every MSP, in all circumstances, to move that standing orders be set aside.

That means that you are suggesting an extension of existing standing orders to any member. At present, the ability is limited to the bureau in some cases.

The power to deal with timetabling issues is limited to the bureau.

Standing orders refer to suspension

"for the purpose of any item of business".

Anybody can propose a suspension in relation to general business. I could stand up tomorrow and move such a motion, although it might not be accepted.

At present, any member can move to suspend standing orders for a specific meeting. Only the bureau can do so for an item of business—for example, the bureau can propose that a rule should be suspended for such-and-such a bill. Do you suggest that any member should be able to do the latter? That would represent an extension of standing orders. I will let you think about that.

If I have understood what the convener said, under rule 17.2.1, any member could suspend standing orders

"for the purpose of a meeting of the Parliament or of a committee or sub-committee",

so a member could move for standing orders to be suspended at every meeting at which a bill was to be discussed. Rule 17.2.2 allows the bureau to suspend standing orders for the whole passage of a bill, for example. Rule 17.2.2 is an extra power only in so far as it allows the bundling of a set of motions that any member could move under rule 17.2.1. Is that right?

That interpretation is reasonable.

The existing rule does not seem to be a problem, as any member could keep on moving to suspend standing orders under rule 17.2.1.

However, a private bill committee, for example, would have to keep returning to the Parliament to suspend standing orders every time that it had a meeting, which might cause practical problems.

Right.

In those circumstances, there would be a question whether to extend the right to include committee conveners, for example—although not necessarily to all members—as well as the bureau, for an item of business. The alternative would be to allow any member to have that right for any item of business, as well as for any meeting.

I was arguing against the second bullet point in paragraph 17, under "Conclusion", which seeks

"to restrict the right to move such a motion to members of the Bureau only, in all cases".

That would mean deleting rule 17.2.1.

I accept that.

That is the key point—we cannot extend that power just to the bureau. I should have made myself clear when I started off on my rant.

I understood that that was what you were referring to, but it is important to be clear about what the existing standing orders stipulate in relation to suspension and whether or not we want to change them.

We are arguing that we should leave the existing standing orders unchanged.

If we are trying to improve flexibility, would it be worth adding references to the member in charge of a bill, ministers and committee conveners to rule 17.2.2?

I am not sure that I am interested in ministers having special status; I am more interested in the member in charge of a bill having such status.

The paper sets out three alternatives. If the committee were minded to keep the option to move that standing orders be suspended open to any member, it would not be necessary to specify special rights for the categories that are listed in the third bullet point, because all those who are listed would be caught up by the phrase "any Member". Those categories would be covered automatically, if the committee preferred that option.

That would involve extending rule 17.2.2 to include any member, which at the moment it does not. I am not sure that there is a willingness to do that.

No, I think that we should stick where we were. Why was there a move for the proposed change? Where have we experienced difficulties?

Two examples of where inflexibility has caused problems are given at the beginning of the clerk's paper, but I think that there is general agreement on how to deal with inflexibility. We are now trying to establish whether we want to amend the rules about who has the power to suspend standing orders. At this stage, I think that the general view is that we do not want to do that, because the rules are probably sufficiently flexible.

I want to clarify whether we agree that we will produce a draft amendment that will allow smaller units than full rules in standing orders to be suspended and that will, in certain circumstances, allow an alternative rule to be substituted—for example, on the timetable for lodging amendments. It is also suggested that we agree that there be no changes to the standing order on who can move that standing orders be suspended. Are those points agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

We hope to produce a draft report on that for our next meeting. We can take forward any proposals on standing order changes to the debate on 11 February, although the committee is under no pressure if it wishes to give further consideration to that issue and to emergency bills.