Item 2 is consideration of a brief paper from Donald Gorrie, who wants to discuss some proposed changes to standing orders.
There are three points at issue. The first two proposals relate to the same point and are about the general principles of bills. Nowhere is it defined what the general principles of a bill are. Recent examples have shown that it is quite possible to support the general principles of a bill—whatever that concept is—but still to think that the bill should not be progressed. There could be a motherhood and apple pie bill, stating that we support motherhood and apple pie. Nobody could be against that, but if such a bill were to state that it is compulsory that we eat apple pie for lunch every day, we would be against it.
We will discuss that proposal. Hugh Flinn has joined us. I ask him whether, as things stand, the chamber desk would accept as admissible a reasoned amendment along the lines that Donald Gorrie's paper suggests.
I apologise, convener. I have come to the meeting prepared for the next item, so I will have to refresh myself on that point.
My understanding is that a reasoned amendment to a stage 1 motion would be perfectly admissible. I cannot think of any examples offhand, but I am sure that there must have been stage 1 amendments that have done something similar to what Donald Gorrie suggests. I cannot think why such an amendment would not be admissible. As I understand it, what currently happens is that the member in charge—usually the minister, but in the case of a member's bill it is the member who promotes the bill—lodges a motion asking that the Parliament approve the general principles of the bill. I would have thought that it would always be competent for a member to lodge an amendment that says that Parliament approves the principles of the bill, but argues that it should not be introduced in this session or whatever. I see that Hugh Flinn has cottoned on to what we are talking about.
Yes. I apologise.
Donald Gorrie's concern is that he wants it to be made clear that a member can express approval of the general principles of a bill but can still, nonetheless, block its passage because of circumstances, reasons or calculations that would be included in the reasoned amendment. An amendment could state, for example, that we agree with Tricia Marwick's Proportional Representation (Local Government Elections) (Scotland) Bill, but that we do not agree to pass it at the moment, pending the arrival of an Executive bill.
I would have thought that that would be possible, because the Parliament would have agreed to the general principles of the bill.
I have a concern about the way in which we are approaching the discussion. Many of the aims and aspirations in Donald Gorrie's paper and the intentions that underlie it are ones that most of us would be sympathetic to or, at the very least, open minded about. However, I am not convinced that we can drill effectively into some of the technicalities through this exchange of views. I realise that the problem is that this is the committee's last meeting but, in the normal scheme of things—if the committee had been continuing to meet—I would have requested that Donald Gorrie's paper be accompanied by a paper from the clerks to test out the questions that the convener has put to Hugh Flinn. Is the best that we can do today to commission such work for the future? I do not see how we can come to conclusions on some of the points at this stage.
I did not envisage that my proposals would be nodded through and become law tomorrow. If there was sufficient interest in the proposals and it was not thought to be completely daft to make those suggestions, the matter could be considered further.
There is scope for further work on the first two proposals. My immediate reaction, when I looked at the proposals before the meeting, was that Donald Gorrie was not seeking to introduce anything new, but I think that we need to be clear about whether that is the case. We could kick the points about and get a report back to the next committee.
First, I think that somewhere in standing orders it should state what "general principles" means. Secondly, it is logical that a member should be able to state in an amendment that they support the general principles of the bill, but oppose the bill. My understanding, from people who are involved in such matters, is that there has been fierce resistance to that from whoever resists these things.
There must be somebody resisting such changes.
We might be working along some of the fault lines that exist within the coalition.
I think that there were other problems. I would like the committee to agree that the points should be examined.
We have covered the idea behind that point within the CSG report; there is work being done on that.
It would be helpful if a paper on the issue could be presented to our successor committee.
Are we happy for further work to be done on those points, and for a paper to be put to the next committee?