Procedures Committee, 23 Jan 2007

Meeting date: Tuesday, January 23, 2007

Official Report 156KB pdf

---

Legacy Paper

From the conversation that we have just had, it seems that members think that there should be a legacy paper. Is that a fair statement?

Members indicated agreement.

The guidance from the Conveners Group is that it is best to produce the legacy paper as a committee report. Are members happy to go along with that?

Members indicated agreement.

We have a paper from the clerk that lists various items that have arisen out of committee reports and which we could include in the legacy paper. We have just mentioned the issue of political balance on committees. We have discussed previously the issue of the cut-off date for members' bills—we thought that it was for the Parliament in the new session to work out its salvation in that regard. We have also discussed whether the committees should produce a once-a-session report on equal opportunities. Again, we felt that the committee in the next session of Parliament should consider that.

The next suggestion is about the proposed interpellation procedure. If, at some unknown date in February or March, the Parliament accepts our proposals and the interpellation procedure is trialled in the new session, some scrutiny will obviously need to be carried out to find out how the procedure has worked during the trial period.

The allocation of Opposition debating time is an issue that it seems particularly sensible to leave to the new Parliament. Given that it is conceivable that the Parliament's composition might alter, the new Parliament might feel that there is a fairer way of allocating debating time among the parties.

Convener, are you looking for comments on each suggestion as we go through the paper?

You may fire away with any comments as we go through it.

I am content with the previous suggestions, but I do not agree with the suggestion on rule 5.6.1(b). We did not come to any conclusion on that issue—as the clerk's paper says—so we should not include it in our legacy paper. The legacy paper should recommend issues that our successor committee should take forward. We do not want to recommend that it should take forward that issue, although it might want to reconsider the matter if things change.

We can draw the new committee's attention to paragraph 88 of our report "Review of Parliamentary Time".

Why?

The paragraph points out that the new committee can decide whether to reconsider the issue. The legacy paper cannot tell the new committee what to do, but it can flag up issues that we suggest it might wish to consider if it so desires.

I am not convinced.

I can see Karen Gillon's point, given that there is the potential that the issue will become history after the election. If we end up with a minority Government, decisions on debating time will be based on the make-up of the Parliamentary Bureau and the distribution of power in the new Parliament rather than on an agreement that there should be 16 half sitting days of non-Executive business. Conceivably, if the current situation is not repeated at the election, the recommendation in paragraph 12 of the clerk's paper could look rather dated when we return here in May.

As long as the legacy paper states the committee's view clearly, I think that it can cover both issues that we have not had time to consider and issues that we have considered but not resolved for lack of time. However, the legacy paper should not include issues that have been discussed and decided on by this committee. We should not expect a future committee to rehash decisions that we have made. As long as the committee's recommendations are clear, I think that it does not really matter what is in the legacy paper because it does not commit a future committee to anything. The legacy paper should highlight those issues that we have not had time either to consider or to resolve and which we think merit further discussion.

The wording needs to state clearly that we are not urging the new committee to make any change. The reference to the lack of consensus is a factual statement. We can point out that the new committee can do what it wants with the issue. Is that a reasonable suggestion? Would that meet the point that Karen Gillon made?

I would want to see the wording. There are some issues that were flagged up to us but which we have not been able to take forward because we have run out of time, but they are different from the issue of rule 5.6.1(b), on which we took a view. We decided not to recommend any change to the rule.

We made a decision and we should not ask our successor committee to re-examine it.

We did not really make a decision. There was no consensus on the matter.

We made a decision. If we—

Having no consensus is not the same as coming to a decision.

We decided not to change the status quo. That was our decision. If a majority of members of the committee had supported a change, we would have changed the rule, but there was no majority on the committee, so we continued with the status quo.

But that happened by default rather than anything else. We did not make a decision to continue with the status quo. We just could not decide whether or not to change the rule, and therefore—

The fact that we did not move to a vote does not mean that there was not a majority on the committee.

Whatever we say, the matter will be considered in the new session of Parliament, so the question whether we include it in our legacy paper is perhaps not important.

It is a question of how we include things in our legacy paper. There are things that will need to be examined sooner rather than later. For example, the guidance on members' bills will need to be examined if members are to know when the cut-off point will be and what the expectations on them will be.

The convener is right that the matter will come up whatever we decide. However, I guess that it will come up because of the Parliament rather than because of the Procedures Committee. Alex Johnstone is right. There could be a minority Administration or a different coalition, or there could be a further election after six months. We do not know what will happen after the election.

I do not think that there will be a further election after six months. I do not think that that is statutorily possible.

It is possible if we cannot elect a First Minister.

That would be fun.

I am relaxed about including the matter in our legacy paper, convener, but I am concerned about how that will be done.

We can ask the clerk to word it in a neutral, factual way; we can state that we decided not to decide. Our successor committee can make what it wants of that.

Members indicated agreement.

On legislative consent procedures, the paper suggests that we state in our legacy paper that our successor committee should review the new rules in due course to see how well they are working. Is that all right?

Members indicated agreement.

Private bills should not be an issue because there is a new procedure in the Transport and Works (Scotland) Bill. Our successor committee can look into the matter when the new procedure is in operation.

In previous inquiries, we highlighted the usefulness of post-legislative scrutiny. Beyond what we think should be improved in the Transport and Works (Scotland) Bill, I anticipate that there might be a case for changes later on. We should state in our legacy paper that we participated in the consideration of the new procedure and that we want to see how well it works in practice because we believe that committees should engage in the scrutiny of bills that have passed into law.

That is a good way to put it.

I presume that our successor committee will undertake post-legislative scrutiny, but it would also be worth while to suggest that it ensures that the committee that deals with the area of work rather than with the procedures—at present, it would be the Local Government and Transport Committee—should also undertake such scrutiny.

Yes—our successor committee should encourage that.

That is a good point.

The next topic in the paper is hybrid bills. I am happy for someone else to consider that, but it is worth while to include it in the legacy paper as the clerk suggests. The new committee might have a view on the matter.

The next topic is subordinate legislation procedures. The Subordinate Legislation Committee published a draft report on proposals for a new regulatory framework in Scotland. If the Subordinate Legislation Committee's successor feels that, because so much subordinate legislation is being produced, the Parliament cannot scrutinise it all as well as it should do, I do not know whether that will be an issue for the Procedures Committee or for the Parliamentary Bureau and the Parliament as a whole, or whether we will just leave the Subordinate Legislation Committee's successor to get on with it. The issue depends on the bill that the committee introduces and whether that involves a change in the standing orders.

That is a bit of an unknown quantity. We do not know what will be in that bill.

Yes. If there is a new bill on subordinate legislation that requires standing orders to be changed, the new Procedures Committee will have to address that. We could state in the legacy paper that we acknowledge that the issue is important, but feel that it is not the time for us to take action on it.

The next question is whether our successor committee should propose a bill or take the lead if an Executive bill is produced to replace the statutory instrument that is mentioned in paragraphs 20 to 22 of the clerk's paper. As members have nothing to say about that, we will just say that we feel that the issue is not for us to deal with.

Do members have any other specific topics that they would like to be added to the legacy paper?

I want to raise a matter that another member raised with me the other day. I am not sure how to bring it to the committee's attention or whether including it in the legacy paper would be the right approach. A member asked me whether the Official Report could record when members leave committee meetings, as well as when meetings start. It was suggested that one or two members sometimes stay long enough to get their name in the minutes and then leave and that, if a committee is taking decisions, the Official Report ought to record the members who are in the room at that point.

It would have to say when members arrived, too.

Yes, it would. I am afraid that I arrived at 10.22 today—my apologies.

Me too.

That is on the record now.

I know—that was deliberate.

I am not sure what would be the right mechanism for recording that information, but a member raised the suggestion with me last week.

The point is valid, but I am thinking about the practicalities. For example, would the Official Report record every occasion on which a member went out to the loo or to make a telephone call and then came back, or would it record only permanent absences?

The member who spoke to me was thinking about permanent absence.

The clerks would not know whether the absence was permanent, unless the member said that they were leaving early.

I ask the clerk what he feels, as the person who might have to deal with such an arrangement.

I certainly think that that would not be a matter for the Official Report, which is there to record what people say. The minutes record who is present, but we have always taken the view that they simply record whether a member was present at some point during a meeting. Logistically, it would be extremely complex to record members' every coming and going throughout a meeting and it would be difficult to do so reliably. However, if members wish to pursue the suggestion, I can look into it in more detail and take soundings about the practicalities.

Perhaps the Conveners Group could consider the suggestion. If a decision was controversial, there would be a record of any division and of who was there, so we would know whether someone was missing. I am not saying that there is not an issue; I just do not know whether the committee needs to conduct an inquiry into it.

That is a valid point. Votes are recorded.

That raises the issue of members voting in the chamber. During stage 3 proceedings, I, along with most other members, end up running back and forward from the coffee room and asking people what we are voting for. If we are going to say that everybody has to be present for every debate in which they are going to vote, that will have wider implications than what happens in committees. Members are less guilty of voting in committee without having heard the debate than they are of doing so in the chamber. The next Procedures Committee will have to consider the issue carefully before introducing any rules on it.

Chris Ballance was concerned about the current set-up. We know whether members are there for important divisions. If they are not there, perhaps that is because there are no important decisions to make. We have to strike a balance. The status quo is far from perfect. I am not sure what the right forum would be in which to discuss the matter further.

I was not sure whether one of the implications of what Chris Ballance's colleague said to him was that some people skive off and do not work as hard as they should. I would have thought that if that was a concern, it would be up to the convener of the relevant committee to say to Mr X that it would be nice if he turned up more often. Did my dirty mind read into your remarks something that you did not mean?

There might have been that nuance. There was the suggestion that one or two people tended to skive off regularly.

One option is to tell the Conveners Group that the matter has been raised and ask it whether it wants to do anything about it. Alternatively, do we feel that the present system is as good as we will get it?

Members are adults and are responsible for their own actions. If the convener of a committee is concerned that a member is not giving the committee their full attention, they are quite at liberty to have a wee word, either publicly or privately. I do not know what we would gain from having something different from the current set-up. Some members might be brass-necked enough not to turn up. Do we really think that people will trawl through the Official Report to see when members left meetings or whether they did not attend? We should keep the status quo. There will be enough to do in the next session without considering that. However, it could be considered if it became an issue.

A letter or a quiet word from the convener of the relevant committee might be the answer.

It was a good point to raise.

The technical difficulties could be overcome by simply recording when members put their cards in. I notice that we are not as disciplined about putting our cards in in committee as we used to be. The fact that cards can be put in a slot surely means that a member's presence at a committee could be recorded. In that way, we would get a good indication of whether a member had left simply to go to the toilet or take a phone call, or whether he had left with no intention of coming back.

I have another issue. I do not think that we ever got question time right. There is still not an avalanche of attendance for it and there is not a lot of interest from the gallery. We should flag that up in our legacy paper.

The potential pilot and review of interpellations will cover one aspect of questions in the chamber, but how questions to the Executive work needs to be considered, whatever happens. At the moment, they do not generate the kind of debate and interest that we want.

Question times were better at the start of the first session of Parliament. Perhaps we were all more bright eyed and bushy tailed then, and more inclined to stay for questions. However, it definitely worked better to have general questions—mixed rather than themed—followed by First Minister's questions. More people were in the public gallery and there was more interest from the press and from members in general questions. Now the only thing the press are really interested in, and the only thing that fills the chamber with members, is FMQs. When Parliament started in 1999, attendances in the press gallery, in the public gallery and on members' benches were quite good for question time. We should go back to that arrangement.

Hear, hear.

It is true that the changes that we have made have not worked as intended.

Every change has made things worse.

I would be disappointed if it were felt that interpellations were in some way a substitute for questions, because they are very much separate. The arrangements for the question times certainly have to be scrutinised. That point should go in the legacy paper.

Do we want to include in the paper our views on which procedures have worked well? I am thinking for example of round-table discussions or visits to foreign Parliaments—on specific issues, as opposed to on jaunts. I feel that we have benefited from our visits abroad; we brought back the idea of interpellations and we learned many other useful things. We have also held one or two quite useful round-table discussions. Is it worth making such points to our successors?

It is worth saying that the committee has benefited from using a variety of mechanisms for gathering evidence. We could say in the paper, "Among the mechanisms that we have used are the following, and you may wish to consider them."

That puts the point very well.

I have been in other committees at which evidence was taken via videolink, but my experience in this committee was the best that I have had of videolinks. It was very effective.

Yes, we should certainly mention that. We will include Karen's point, the point about videolinks and the points about round-table discussions and foreign visits.

Are there any other points for our legacy paper? Are there any more jewels that we wish to pass on to our inheritors?

I think there are enough to be going on with.