Procedures Committee, 23 Nov 1999

Meeting date: Tuesday, November 23, 1999

Official Report 112KB pdf

---

Priority Issues

The next point in Iain's letter is the remit of the Finance Committee. The senior assistant clerk to the Finance Committee is here. He might bring us hot news on whether the Finance Committee accepts the Executive's suggestion on its remit.

Perhaps Iain can explain the difference between the original change that was proposed to the remit and the proposal as redrafted by the Executive.

Again, this is a straightforward matter of clarification, to ensure that the committee deals with what it was intended that it should deal with. I understand that the convener of the committee has accepted the Executive's proposal, but I am sure that the clerk will be able to advise members on that.

Unfortunately, we have been unable to get hold of the convener of the Finance Committee for the past couple of days. However, we have taken soundings from the Executive and we are happy with the Executive's proposed amendment to the remit. We intend to get the committee's approval to the revised amendment at the next meeting.

The Executive amendment is more than satisfactory. The amendment that we had agreed to rule 6.6(d), which relates to the moneys for which the Parliament has responsibility, is undoubtedly too wide.

Yes. Our original proposal raised the possibility of the Finance Committee being able to consider public finance that is outwith the remit of the Scottish Parliament, which would allow it to consider the range of Westminster activities. That would not be appropriate.

We agree therefore to the change to the Finance Committee's remit as worded in the letter from Iain Smith. If the convener of the Finance Committee is not happy with that, it will be up to the senior assistant clerk to mollify him and explain what went wrong.

Presumably, if the Parliament thinks that Westminster is making a hash of things, it will still be able to debate the issue, as it can debate anything. It is only that it will not be within the remit of the Finance Committee.

That is the theory, although getting such a motion past the Parliamentary Bureau might be another matter.

I thank Callum Thomson.

We move now to the issue of suspension of standing orders and the three-month, six-month and 12-month time limits. Iain, feel free to speak to the proposal in your letter.

Members will have had a chance to read the suggestions that the Executive has made. The issue is whether it should be possible to suspend standing orders only for a particular meeting or on an item of business. The Executive has requested that the standing orders be changed to allow a suspension on an item of business so that there is additional flexibility.

Last week, the matter was referred to specifically in relation to financial resolutions. I tried to suggest then that the issue applied to a wider range of matters. I have included one or two examples in my letter, such as lodging amendments during a recess. The Finance Committee has already had to defer for a week consideration of the Public Finance and Accountability (Scotland) Bill to allow amendments to be lodged in accordance with the rules about sitting days. If it had been possible, we could have suspended the standing orders to allow amendments to be lodged—still with adequate notice—on days when the office of the clerk was open rather than on sitting days.

Such a change would allow the Parliamentary Bureau additional flexibility in timetabling business where necessary. I would be grateful if the Procedures Committee could accept that that is a sensible way forward. The Executive is not trying to take control.

I understand your position. The bureau should have the power to move a motion to suspend standing orders for an item of business that might spread over several parliamentary meetings, committee meetings and days when the office of the clerk is closed.

I am intrigued by the final paragraph of your letter, which suggests the possibility of adjusting the wording of rule 17.2 by inserting:

"including retaining the right for members to table motions"

in relation to suspending standing orders. I assume that that means that such a right had disappeared. Are there any other circumstances in which standing orders might be suspended, including suspensions without notice at the discretion of the Presiding Officer? In such an event, would members still have the right to move a suspension of standing orders?

When it suggested the amendment, the Executive did not intend to reduce the existing rights of members to suspend standing orders. The amendment is meant to introduce additional flexibility, but with the safeguard that the Parliamentary Bureau can suspend standing orders only for items of business. We would be happy with an amendment that kept the existing rights of members to suspend standing orders, but which introduced additional flexibility for items of business.

I understand that and am quite happy with your suggestion in principle. The only difficulty is the time scale for drafting, which has become pressing. We had hoped to have a draft revised rule 17.2 this morning, but that has not arrived yet; even if we receive the draft revision this morning, it is asking a bit much of Iain and the committee to agree that draft today without a further meeting, which would complicate our timetable.

The real problem is the time scale. Although I am not opposed root and branch to Iain's suggestion, it requires a bit more teasing out. The Executive has drawn an attractive distinction on the issue. The bureau's role is to suspend standing orders in relation to items of business; members should have the right to move a suspension of standing orders at any meeting.

However, the real difficulty is that we are trying to decide quickly on an issue that is not only complex but is a foundation stone of the standing orders. At the previous meeting, Donald Gorrie made an extremely important point that the use of a get-out clause in standing orders to get us out of difficulties that standing orders have created is bad procedure. Standing orders should be good enough to carry us through, and we should not need to pull a parachute rip-cord when things get difficult. In such circumstances, we should stick with our decision to allow a 12-month period for financial resolutions and to examine the mechanism for suspending standing orders in our review, which will take us up to next May.

I have discussed the matter with Iain Smith and Tom McCabe and, although I understand the Executive's keenness to tidy things up now, to do so in this way might lock us into areas that we do not fully understand. We are trying to draft quickly a new part of the standing orders that might have far-reaching implications. As a result, on balance—a fine balance, as I am sympathetic to the Executive's arguments—I think that we should stick with the decision made at the previous meeting, but put the suspension of standing orders at the top of the priority issues list for our May review.

Iain, how do you feel about that?

Mike Russell's proposals have a degree of illogicality. We are most likely to need a suspension of standing orders when we are still trying and testing them—some aspects of the standing orders have not yet been tested. I hope that we will have ironed out all the problems after the first full review. In a sense, this is almost a temporary measure to allow us to get through business without undue problems until we are confident that the standing orders are robust, which will be after the review.

I concur with Iain. A three-month period for consideration of financial resolutions allows us to focus our minds on the matter. Extending that period to 12 months might allow us to let consideration of bills to drift. We need an incentive to get on with business. Perhaps we should leave the three-month period but allow some increased flexibility that gives us a month if we need the time.

Iain is right. We are doing ourselves an injustice to leave the standing orders as they are at a time when we most need some flexibility.

Much of the problem seems to stem from trying to introduce business at the beginning of a term after a recess. Perhaps the three-month period should exclude recesses, or we could change the rule for business that is considered immediately after a recess.

It is false to base any procedure on an assumption that we can easily turn it upside down whenever we want. What is the difficulty with changing standing orders meeting by meeting? We can raise the matter at one meeting and if people are persuaded, it can be put on the agenda; however, members have the right to raise concerns. That is important. I am an anti-steamroller person and, as the proposals potentially favour the steamroller, I am against them. There are better solutions.

Iain, are some steps between meetings possible only if standing orders are suspended?

Yes.

Can you give us an example?

Under the standing orders, amendments have to be lodged on sitting days. Committees that want to meet immediately after recess to deal with legislation cannot do so unless amendments are lodged before the recess, which might be a month or two before the meeting.

Furthermore, standing orders do not allow committees to suspend their standing orders, which means that if an item of business goes on for more than one committee meeting, the committee has to go back to the Parliament every week to have the standing orders suspended for the next meeting. It seems much more sensible to do that through an item of business rather than through a meeting-by-meeting suspension.

It might also take more than 40 days to consider statutory instruments—which, as Donald hinted, is probably a recess issue—or a committee might want to discuss an instrument for more than the allotted 90 minutes. Committees are not allowed to suspend their own standing orders to do that.

We were not actually sure whether the 90-minute rule applied to committees. The standing orders make it explicit that the Parliament has 90 minutes to deal with an instrument. That is one of the areas where we are not sure whether what applies to Parliament also applies to committees. Nevertheless, I see what you are getting at.

This is not a star chamber matter. An over-reliance on the suspension of standing orders is, in principle, a bad thing. We need a draft revision that sets out three principles. First, it is properly a bureau matter to move a motion to suspend standing orders in relation to an item of business, as the bureau has set the timetable for business.

Secondly, the right of an individual member to move a suspension of standing orders—which is universal and common in standing orders—should be retained. I know that that right is universal because, as part of my bedtime reading, I have been perusing the standing orders— which John Patterson has provided for me—in a variety of odd places.

Thirdly, we must have some flexibility in the three-month rule. I appreciate that we must remain focused, but this is our job, and a change from three months to 12 will not make us say, "Whoopee—we can go away for a few months and not be focused on anything." The three-month rule is unduly restrictive. Unrealistic pressure is being put on some committees, with a heavy legislative work load. A draft version might work that combines the bureau's role, the member's role and a slight loosening of the three-month corset and which perhaps bears in mind Donald's suggestion that the three months should exclude recesses.

If that is a priority issue, obviously we must proceed quickly so that we keep our focus on completing the process on the standing orders before Christmas. If we can do that, perhaps the Executive's response to the final report will have a light touch. We should also re-examine the matter when we review the standing orders.

That sounds acceptable. The point about being flexible on the three-month issue follows if we accept that the bureau can move a motion to suspend the standing orders for an item of business. We will make progress if we agree to find a form of words that will give the bureau the power that it seeks and also protects the rights of members. The Executive will have to accept that that solution is very partial and that the whole matter should be re-examined.

Yesterday evening, we spent an hour and a half going round the circuit on the matter and all sorts of other issues arose. Donald Gorrie has made an attractive and helpful suggestion that the three-month period should not include recesses, although it seems sweeping to apply that rule now to everything. All sorts of ramifications need to be taken into account and if we accept that this will be only an interim solution, we might have the basis of a compromise.

Perhaps the new draft should not only mirror the wording of the existing rule on the suspension of standing orders, but say that the Parliament may, on a motion of the Parliamentary Bureau, suspend any rules for a specific item of business of the Parliament or committees. The end of the draft could make it clear that such a suspension would apply only for that specific item of business.

That sounds attractive enough, but we would need to see a draft version.

Before I go, I want to congratulate members of the team whose file has proved to be the ideal format for putting out papers. Although there was probably a lot of work with sticky tape, the file is excellent and I hope that the practice continues.

They learned that in primary school and it has stood them in good stead.

I am sure that I saw a squeezy bottle in there somewhere.

We have disposed of item 2 satisfactorily and have already dealt with item 3. That takes us to item 4.