Item 2 on our agenda is consideration of a note from the clerk on the suspension of standing orders. The note suggests some changes to the rules on the suspension of standing orders. I seek comments and questions from members. Andrew Mylne, who drafted the note, will probably be able to answer specific questions on matters of detail.
I have a number of questions about the note, but I cannot remember discussing the issue before. Perhaps we have, but I wonder where it came from. Can you remind me why the note was produced?
The issue was on our original work programme. Along with emergency bill procedures, it is a small item that is running in parallel with our other work.
The note raises the issue of the suspension, in isolation, of smaller units, such as sentences and subparagraphs of standing orders. The last sentence of paragraph 6 of the note states:
In the first session of the Parliament, on all bar one occasion when a normal motion, with notice, to suspend standing orders was moved, that was done by the bureau. I exclude from that motions that were moved on the spur of the moment. On the one occasion in question, the motion to suspend standing orders was moved by the convener of a committee. No individual member has moved a motion, with notice, to suspend standing orders, although there is provision for that to happen. Andrew Mylne may be able to answer some of Bruce Crawford's other questions.
I am sorry, but I have forgotten the first question.
It relates to the last sentence of paragraph 6 of the note. Can you provide specific examples of a small unit in standing orders presenting an obstacle?
There have been occasions when the clerks have considered options for suspending standing orders and have been conscious that they are dealing with large paragraphs made up of a number of sentences. In certain circumstances when we have been dealing with bills, there has been pressure to take a bill through slightly more quickly than the normal time scales allow. In chapter 9 and other chapters of standing orders that deal with bills, there are paragraphs made up of a number of sentences, but we do not have the option of suspending just the relevant sentence. I cannot give the member a precise example of such a paragraph, but they exist.
Before we start to change standing orders, it would be useful for us to have the number of the rule over which there has been a problem. We need to understand where the blockages and wicked issues are. If the Parliamentary Bureau or individual members have made requests to suspend standing orders that would have been supported by the chamber but have not been able to happen because of a sentence or small unit, we would be justified in examining whether there should be a loosening of the current rules. If there have been no such instances, why are we considering the issue?
Bruce Crawford describes what is proposed as a loosening of the rules, but it might be seen as a tightening of the rules. If we suspend a specific provision that needs to be suspended, rather than a whole rule, we are not suspending the other parts of the rule. That is the issue.
I understand that. However we describe it, on occasion small units have caused wicked problems when the Parliament has tried to suspend a rule. If that is not the case, why are we considering the issue?
The origin of the issue is the cumulative experience of the clerks over a period of time. Behind the scenes, we have examined problems that have arisen in relation to the suspension of standing orders in particular circumstances. On a number of occasions, the lack of flexibility has been an obstacle.
I appreciate that.
I am happy to come back to the committee on the issue. The note that is before members is a preliminary paper that is intended to float the issue with the committee. I would be happy to come back with more specific examples.
I appreciate Andrew Mylne's advice, which is useful. However, what he says is anecdotal, rather than evidence based. It does not demonstrate why we should make a decision on the matter.
I am happy to come back to the committee with specific examples.
Can you reflect on the issue of how any suspension of standing orders would take place? The Parliamentary Bureau should be able to lodge a motion to suspend standing orders and is the only body that has done so. However, should there be other mechanisms for suspending standing orders, although such motions might be defeated? Perhaps that process already exists.
Currently, any member can move a motion to suspend standing orders. I would be uncomfortable if we supported the suggestion in paragraph 19 of the note to restrict that right to members of the bureau. Any member of the Parliament should have the right to move a motion to suspend standing orders, which could be required for any number of reasons. I would be wary of moving away from that situation.
The current rules allow any member to move that a rule be suspended for the purpose of a particular meeting. The Parliamentary Bureau can move that a rule be suspended for the purpose of a particular item of business—an emergency bill, for example—so that a motion for suspension does not have to be moved at each meeting at which the business is referred to.
If we can find a way of allowing other members to do that, I would have no objection.
It would certainly be possible to bring forward options about who might be able to move relevant motions in different circumstances. For example, conveners might wish to suspend standing orders for the purpose of a meeting of their committee. Those options can be explored in a further paper, if the committee so wishes.
I think that we need more information. Having read the clerk's note, I have genuine concerns that allowing only members of the Parliamentary Bureau to move that a rule be suspended, as is suggested in paragraph 19, would restrict members' powers. I do not think that the Parliament would accept that. We may be trying to make something more complex than it actually is. What powers does a convener currently have to suspend standing orders?
I do not know—that is the simple answer to your question.
A convener does not have specific powers as a convener; they have powers only as a member—
I think that only the Parliament can suspend standing orders; a committee cannot do so without the agreement of the Parliament. I could not move to suspend the standing orders for the purpose of this meeting, for example.
Rule 17.2.1 of standing orders seems to suggest that standing orders could be suspended for the purpose of a meeting of a committee or a sub-committee.
Yes, but only on a motion in the Parliament. I do not think that that can happen on a motion of the committee—I think that that is probably the right interpretation.
Okay.
If other members want clarification on any matter, they should let Andrew Mylne know so that we can bring forward a paper that deals with their concerns and sets out more options for consideration at a future meeting. Are members happy with that?
We agreed at our previous meeting that the next item would be taken in private, so I declare the public part of the meeting closed and wish all members of the public and press and others who take an interest in the proceedings of the Procedures Committee the very best for Christmas and the new year.
Meeting continued in private until 12:10.
Previous
Non-Executive Bills