Procedures Committee, 23 Oct 2001

Meeting date: Tuesday, October 23, 2001

Official Report 182KB pdf

---

Standing Orders

That takes us to item 4, which is a draft report on proposed changes to the standing orders that reflect a range of issues that the committee has considered recently. I do not think that there is anything in the paper that will surprise anybody or raise any concerns, but I give committee members the opportunity to raise any points that they noticed.

I have a few points. On paragraph 3, is there any way of rewording the phrase,

"suspend meetings for refreshment breaks"?

Meetings might be adjourned not only for refreshment breaks.

Perhaps "comfort breaks" might be better.

"Breaks" would be better. We are open to a bit of ridicule if we say that we will break just for tea.

"Comfort" might be a better word to use.

I have a more substantive point on paragraph 22, which concerns the selection panel for appointments. I have raised the point previously. I suggest that, for cases in which we want to make an appointment and the remit of more than one committee covers that appointment, the proposal in paragraph 22 is too tight. It states:

"where the relevant legislation does not fall within the remit of any committee, the Committee suggests that the Bureau should decide which committee convener is to be appointed to the panel."

I suggest that we change that to "committee convener or conveners". The committee should bear in mind that between four and seven members can be appointed to the panel. I would not like a restriction that only one committee's convener could be appointed. It might make sense that there could be two.

That seems to be a perfectly sensible suggestion. I thank you for it.

On paragraph 3, I am no keener on putting in "comfort breaks" than I am on including "refreshment breaks". We could just put "breaks". There are natural gaps in a meeting. We might reasonably have allowed a couple of minutes to clear up the equipment at the end of the presentation today, but I chose to press on. We should perhaps just accept that there are gaps in committee meetings, call the breaks "breaks" and not have to defend them.

Members indicated agreement.

Do we approve the recommended changes to the standing orders that are set out in annexe A of the report, subject to anything being changed to take into account the decisions that we have just taken?

Members indicated agreement.