Skip to main content
Loading…
Chamber and committees

Procedures Committee, 20 Jun 2000

Meeting date: Tuesday, June 20, 2000


Contents


Rule 9.10.7 (Amendments to Bills)

The Convener:

We move to item 7, which relates to a point that Donald Gorrie raised and which has been specifically referred to us by the Presiding Officer. It arises directly from recent experience in relation to the Standards in Scotland's Schools etc Bill.

We all appreciated the way in which the Presiding Officer handled what happened and allowed the will of the Parliament to be fulfilled. We would be advised to commission a report on the matter, examining all the implications. We especially want to examine what would happen if there were not a unanimous desire in the Parliament to allow a manuscript amendment to be debated. We have to come up with a mechanism to test whether there is a majority view. It would be wrong if one person could block a manuscript amendment that everybody else wanted, but we would have to work out how many members it would take to block a manuscript amendment. A lot of practical problems need to be addressed.

I suggest that the point that Michael Russell made in the previous discussion is relevant. If there were a better system of helping members to draft legally and administratively sound amendments, the problem would not arise.

The Convener:

We can make the change to the standing orders quite quickly—if we give ourselves time to examine the issues—but the issue of how we build on the relationship between staff, members of Parliament and the Executive civil servants in the working up of amendments will take longer to resolve and might be difficult.

Iain Smith:

It is possible for members with draft amendments to consult the minister responsible for the bill in an attempt to ascertain whether the amendment is acceptable. That might not work in all cases, but it is worth trying. In the case that we are discussing, it might have been possible for the draft amendment to have been amended before it was lodged, which would have avoided the need for a manuscript amendment.

The Convener:

It would be useful if the Executive made members aware of that. It is certainly news to me. I am sure that I have the information somewhere in my paperwork and that, if I read and absorbed everything that landed on my desk, I would be aware of it. I would have benefited from knowing about it, as would other members who lodged perfectly good amendments that were knocked back because an eagle-eyed civil servant spotted an unintended implication in the wording. Many members would use the mechanism if they were aware of it.

This is a matter of the relationships between members and ministers.

Michael Russell:

We are all finished, then.

Donald Gorrie made an important point. Murray Tosh is right to say that we are talking about a quick fix on a defective standing order, but we have to consider how we provide assistance to members to ensure that they are not caught in a trap. We should deal with that in the reasonably near future. Undoubtedly, however, there are resource implications.

The Convener:

I am certain that the Parliamentary Bureau will act when it reads the discussion of the earlier report and sees for itself the concern that has been expressed. The Executive as a corporate body—if that is not a contradiction in terms—will seek ways of assisting members to grapple more effectively with this part of their remit. We should send the Official Report of this discussion, along with that of our earlier discussion, to the Parliamentary Bureau for its consideration.

The time scale is as relevant as the resource issue. That is what I tried to address in my paper.

We will accept an issues paper as soon as possible with a view to making an appropriate amendment to standing orders. Are we agreed?

Members indicated agreement.