Procedures Committee, 23 Nov 1999

Meeting date: Tuesday, November 23, 1999

Official Report 112KB pdf

---

Remit

Members have copies of our proposed remit. Attached is a report that we agreed to discuss at fuller length with the chief executive of the Parliament when he comes to our meeting in December. Today, we should confirm whether we are happy with the broad thrust of the report.

There is an incomplete version on the last page of the report, but that is subject to reassessment and reconsideration by our legal advisers. The idea is that we get a final draft remit for the committee, which accords with the report. If we are happy with that, we can agree to include an amended version in our final report. The difficulty is that we will need to see that version subsequent to today's meeting, but before it goes into the final report; we will have to call a meeting if there is disagreement.

There is an issue of time scale. The same will hold for the previous discussion about the suspension of standing orders. If we have agreement, we can proceed; if not, we will have to hold a further meeting. We are not taking any more priority issues from anyone, under any circumstances. We have to get this piece of work done.

Does the committee have any comments or questions about the report?

An important part of the Parliament's work is its relationship with the Executive—we are here to keep it under control, although we are failing to do so at the moment. That could be construed as being covered in paragraph 1(b), which refers to

"the relationship of the Parliament with any other parliamentary, governmental, administrative or other body, whether within or outside the United Kingdom".

However, it is such an important part of our work that it might have to be specifically itemised.

I am raising that because of my concern as a member of the professional awkward squad.

I am sorry—you lost me there.

We could create a new subparagraph on the relationship with the Executive. Whether Sir David Steel talks to the Speaker of the Parliament of Madagascar is of no relevance to anyone other than him, but the relationship between the Parliament and the Executive is important. We could interpret paragraph 1(b) as covering that relationship or, as I would prefer, create a new subparagraph on monitoring the way in which we deal with the Executive.

Is not that covered in paragraph 1(a), which refers to considering

"the practice and procedures of the Parliament"?

That would encompass the interface between the Executive and the Parliament.

As long as it is construed in that way.

That would be my immediate reaction. Are there any other comments on the report?

I have some concerns about the proposed remit—it seems to be very open-ended. It might stray into areas that are of concern to other committees. For example, the Standards Committee would have an interest in liaison and discussion with other Parliaments on standards issues.

I wonder whether we need to tighten the remit to clarify the areas for which the Procedures Committee is responsible and how it would be asked to consider some of the wider issues that are mentioned in paragraph 4 of the report. Otherwise, the Procedures Committee might spend its entire life considering issues that are of no interest to anyone other than the Procedures Committee. I am not suggesting that that would happen, but it is a concern. At present, the remit is wide.

In that context, I wonder whether the remit is a priority issue. Perhaps we should consider the issues in relation to liaising with other Parliaments and the various interests of other bodies—the bureau, the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body, the committees and the Parliament—before we present a detailed change to the remit.

I do not think that the proposed remit would lead to the Procedures Committee examining standards in the UK Parliament; it is about picking up matters that are not covered by anyone else. Although there are many specific things that the Procedures Committee would cover, it is not about dealing with those matters, but about working out a way in which someone can deal with them. It is fair to say that the remit needs to be tightened; it is explicitly an incomplete draft, which is under consideration.

The other question is whether we decide not to prioritise the matter, but to consider it in the fulness of time. I am quite relaxed about that. I am more concerned with getting a report to the Parliament.

Members indicated agreement.

Once that report has been completed and standing orders have been adopted, it will be possible for the Procedures Committee to deal with other issues. The remit is on the priority list, because the chief executive has prodded us. He is concerned that several important matters are being addressed in the name of the Parliament, by him or by the Presiding Officer, when they have no real way of gauging opinion. He also anticipates issues arising from the reform of the House of Lords—the Parliament might want some input, particularly on how that might affect our legislation. At the moment, there is no forum, mechanism or procedure for doing that.

Therefore, the matter is reasonably urgent. However, I doubt whether this needs to be done before the end of the year. I see no difficulty if members would prefer to spin it out a little longer.

I do not see any point in prioritising the matter for the end of the year. We have a heavy work load and other issues that need to be addressed more urgently. There is no problem with spinning it out until the beginning of next year.

That is spinning in its traditional sense.

There are only two issues: flexibility and scope. We are almost there. We are wrestling with maintaining the focus, while allowing a perspective that is wide enough to do the job that is needed. Would the committee have any objection to the clerks pursuing the matter? If the committee came to an agreement about the form of words, it could be popped into the priority issues list.

An agreement with whom?

With the form of words that we would produce and circulate.

Who would be agreeing with the form of words?

The committee.

Iain Smith has registered some concern about the remit, and it should be understood that, for that reason, Iain attends the committee meetings.

I have no problem with including the remit on the priority list and I have no problem with leaving it out and dealing with it later. If the draft that is arrived at in the next couple of days seems laudable, we will put it in. If there are any difficulties, rather than scramble to get a further meeting, we should let the matter go and pick it up later.

The point that Iain Smith made about the Standards Committee wanting to do things with other Parliaments is fine. However, it is our duty to organise the mechanism whereby other committees carry out their business. If the Rural Affairs Committee wants to examine how reindeer graze in northern Scandinavia, the mechanism of how it does that should be decided by us. We do not want to talk about reindeer, but we should discuss the procedure for talking about reindeer.

Indeed. Is there agreement on that?

Members indicated agreement.