Procedures Committee, 15 Jan 2002

Meeting date: Tuesday, January 15, 2002

Official Report 240KB pdf

---

Standing Orders

Agenda item 2 is a paper on changes to standing orders. The paper says that Andrew Mylne will attend, but it is our lucky day—we have Alison Coull instead.

I should explain that, because I drafted the proposed changes to standing orders—albeit in consultation with Andrew Mylne—we agreed that it was more appropriate for me to answer any questions that members might have.

Members have received two papers. One consists of proposed draft amendments to standing orders; the other is an explanation of the various drafts. The draft amendments give effect to decisions that the committee took on 27 November and 11 December.

On 27 November, the committee agreed to various changes to deal with problems that the Executive had identified in relation to the member-in-charge rule. The committee also agreed to a number of other minor amendments in relation to financial resolutions, amendments to budget bills, and the attendance of the member in charge at committee meetings when bills are being considered. All the draft amendments—apart from numbers 6, 7, 10 and 11 on the paper—deal with those matters.

On 11 December, the committee agreed that manuscript amendments should be allowed at stage 3 of a bill. The committee also agreed to revise the test for whether a manuscript amendment should be allowed. Amendments 6, 7, 10 and 11 make those changes.

I hope that the draft amendments are fairly straightforward, but I will be happy to answer any questions.

I am intrigued by the third paragraph in the briefing note, which says:

"a member who is no longer a member of the Executive continues to be the member in charge of an Executive Bill by virtue of having introduced the Bill."

I am looking forward to seeing Susan Deacon taking on the bill on care of the elderly.

Is not that why that bill has been deferred for three months—so that we can change the standing orders to take out Susan?

That is a good conspiracy theory.

I have no questions—I just thought that I would make a facetious comment again, convener.

Other than Frank McAveety's facetious comment, members do not seem to have anything to ask. No—Fiona Hyslop has a question.

This is probably not covered in the paper, but it is clear that interpretation of the manuscript amendments process lies mainly with conveners and the Presiding Officer. Once the change has been approved, it might be helpful—if the convener has not done so already—to ask the conveners liaison group and the Presiding Officer to assess the criteria that they will use to interpret the standing order in practice.

That is a constructive suggestion. The Presiding Officer has used the provision only once, to allow Parliament to do something that, during a debate, it had clearly worked out that it wanted to do, but had been unable to do because of the wording of an amendment.

I am aware of other times when conveners have accepted manuscript amendments to get over the time restrictions. In particular, conveners have allowed counter-amendments when that has seemed reasonable—for example, when amendments have been lodged late. A code of practice that covers the circumstances—so that everyone is familiar with the processes, understands the reasons for them and by extrapolation accepts the validity of the practice—is an eminently sensible and useful suggestion. I will ensure that that is passed on.

The intention was that the "Guidance on Public Bills" would be revised to set out the cases in which manuscript amendments might be allowed—particularly the situation that the convener described, when a manuscript amendment is in response to amendments that have been lodged late.

The legal office anticipates our every desire.