Item 2 is about motions and decisions. The clerk has written a note that outlines some tidying up of minor aspects of standing orders. If we agree that there should be changes to standing orders, he will produce a more formal document that sets out the proposed changes and the reasons for them. At the moment, we are just agreeing to the idea behind the proposed changes.
I am sorry to interrupt, but will you clarify what you are asking us to do? Are you asking us to approve the actual changes, or the concept of the changes? Is there another stage in between?
Once we have agreed the concept of the changes—that was the correct phrase to use—a formal report will be produced. At the moment, we are agreeing—or not—that the clerk can pursue the half dozen or so suggestions in the paper.
I am not convinced that practice is to remove outstanding motions after six weeks. A cursory glance at the list of current motions would prove my point. Within my parliamentary group it has been the practice for business managers to say from time to time that a certain motion has been around for a while and that, unless anyone minds, it will be cleared up. I do not recognise the six-week rule.
Perhaps a bit of research is necessary.
I thought that a flurry of signatures on a motion that has been around for five and a half weeks could give it life again. Obviously, other members around the table are not entirely sure what the practice is, and it would be useful to find that out. However, I understood that if members signed a motion at that late stage, it could come to life again.
My understanding is that the majority of motions that are more than six weeks old are cleared off the list. However, the bureau has discretion. The system is ad hoc. It does not have a formal foundation, and exceptions—albeit a relatively small number—are made, particularly when a motion has a large number of supporters, which is taken into account. The system is flexible and what is suggested in the paper would not reduce the bureau's flexibility; it would simply give a foundation to what the bureau already does.
We certainly do not want to risk knocking on the head live but elderly motions if they are still exciting a bit of interest.
I wonder about the rationale of a couple of the proposed changes, particularly if we concede that the current system works reasonably well. It is in nobody's interest for old motions to lie around for ever and a day, but I do not think that that happens in practice.
My only comment is that I can see the need to clean up the list of motions regularly because motions can disappear—or we can sometimes disappear under a drift of motions. The group that might have an interest in guaranteeing that its motions lie on the list for more than six weeks are single party representatives, who might have to wait more than six weeks for time to become available for a members' business debate on their motion. Consequently, there must be a loophole so that a motion lodged by one of those members can survive until time can be allocated to debate it.
That is a good point. Do we want to ask the clerk to provide us with a fully factual account of what happens? Would that be very difficult, Andrew?
The paper in front of members is based on my understanding of the current situation, which I have discussed with colleagues who deal with the procedures regularly. The paper reflects the current situation.
I was going to suggest that after we have considered the suggestions, we should, as a courtesy, indicate to the bureau that we are pursuing them, because they would impact on the bureau. If we write to the bureau to that effect and say that the issues have been raised, we could find out its view. We do not need to accept that view, but when the matter returns to us for further consideration, we would already know the bureau's view and could reach a conclusion. Is that all right?
The subject of the removal of outstanding amendments goes with the removal of outstanding motions.
Is the pre-emption not created when an amendment is agreed to that says, "Alter that motion after word 4," and the next amendment, which says, "Alter that motion after word 10," falls automatically, because word 10 is no longer in the motion? That is, in effect, the existing pre-emption rule. The proposed change seems to introduce different criteria for dealing with conflicting amendments. Let us suppose that a motion says, "Let us paint all the postboxes red", and that one amendment to the motion is to paint them blue and another is to paint them green. If the amendment to paint them blue was agreed to, could the amendment to paint them green not be debated?
The practice is that it could not be voted on.
In my example, the vote might mean only that people preferred blue to red. We are moving away from a rule under which an amendment falls to one that refers to
I read paragraph 21 of the paper as applying to amendments that would make the motion nonsensical. I do not think that the changes would impinge on possible political decisions.
What are we trying to stop that is not stopped already?
We are trying to put into standing orders what we think happens already, which is determined by the Presiding Officer rather than in accordance with standing orders.
Paragraph 22 states:
In which case, we are not proposing doing anything different with motions than already happens with bills. The suggestion is perfectly good and we should proceed with it.
Is it simply a way of tightening up the wording?
Is it not just to introduce consistency between the procedure for amendments to bills and the procedure for amendments to motions? I do not think that there is anything sinister in it.
The last sentence in paragraph 22 states:
But the people who wanted the postboxes to be painted green would have to decide how to vote accordingly.
How would they do that? If the choices were between red and blue, how would someone who wanted green express that unless they could get an amendment in favour of green heard?
They would vote against other people's amendments.
So they would vote for the motion.
No. The vote on the motion comes last.
But the amendment would be taken against the motion. The amendment is to the motion.
People would vote either for or against the amendment. I would have thought that if one's party's amendment came third or fourth in the batting order and that party's members were keen on it, they would vote against the other amendments and in favour of their party's.
The colour of postboxes is not a devolved matter. [Laughter.]
The purpose of this part of the paper is, as the convener said, to underpin formally a practice that already exists, but Bruce McFee is right to say that the wording that is used to express any such rule is important, and the intention was certainly not to impose a narrower definition of pre-emption than operates at present. Whether there is something in the rules or not, a judgment has to be made as to what the limits of pre-emption are. There will be some perfectly clear-cut cases, and Bruce McFee gave an example of such a case. If a section of wording in a motion has already been removed, an amendment relating to that wording simply cannot be meaningfully applied. The other example given was of a case in which there are alternative changes to the same wording in the motion, and in such cases it becomes more of an exercise of judgment as to whether there is a pre-emption or not.
We obviously need to consider the issue further.
I am not against considering it in principle; I just wonder whether we need to do so at all.
The thrust of the paper is that there are a number of things that happen by use and wont that should happen according to standing orders. I agree with that, but you have raised some legitimate points of detail.
We shall see what comes back.
That is right.
Again, that sounds wonderful in principle. At present, an amendment can be withdrawn with the permission of the Parliament. Let us imagine a situation in which there are a number of competing amendments, of which only one, representing a specific viewpoint, is selected for debate. A member—or party—may decide that they do not want to continue with that amendment, but it might be that the amendment represented the viewpoint of more than one group. Under the new rule that is proposed, that motion or amendment could be withdrawn without other people being able to say, "No, we want to debate it."
Then Parliament would not agree that it should be withdrawn.
Aha! But the proposed change would allow them to withdraw it.
An amendment cannot be withdrawn until it has been moved.
The proposal is that it could be withdrawn before the debate.
The situation exists in microcosm, as experienced during stage 2 and at stage 3. The usual practice is that, if a member sees an amendment in the name of another member and feels that there is a danger of its being withdrawn, they can put their name to it, which gives them the right to move it. For example, it would be perfectly possible for Bruce McFee to move an amendment in my name in the chamber if he wished to do so.
Yes, but paragraph 23 of the paper says that the rules
Is that what has happened in practice for the past six years?
There is no rule about the withdrawal of motions and amendments before they are taken, but the practice is that members have been permitted to withdraw them unilaterally. All that we are suggesting is that that be given a foundation in the rules. We are not suggesting a change of practice. If members wished to consider a change of practice, that would be a bigger issue.
To take account of Bruce McFee's point, any change could include the provision that, if the Presiding Officer thinks that the withdrawal prejudices any other member, he could then select a different amendment or ensure that no member loses their rights because of the withdrawal.
I want to consider the issue further.
Okay. That applies to a few of the suggested changes.
All you have to do is shout "No".
I do not take that meaning from the rule. It states:
That is not correct. Paragraph 2 of the rule, which is quoted in the paper, defines "simple majority" in terms of members voting, which is normally done through the electronic system or by a roll-call vote. Just saying "Yes" or not saying anything could not be counted as voting.
In that case, a lot of motions must have been agreed to by the Parliament that we believe have not been voted on by members.
Yes. A large proportion of decisions are taken without division. That has always been the practice.
But we agreed to the motions.
Yes.
They were agreed to without division because there was no division as nobody was opposed to them.
The proposition in paragraph 27 is merely that we add the words "if taken by division". There is no harm in that and it would prevent people from subverting the rules.
It seems sensible to me.
I really wonder why we need some of the proposed changes. I understand what they are trying to do, but—
If a procedure is not in standing orders and is done by habit, the habit could change, so it is better to have it in standing orders. That is the thrust of the proposals.
Can I seek clarification? If a decision can be taken by mechanisms other than division, is it laid out how the majority is determined for all the other mechanisms?
The mechanism that you described to us does not necessitate a division.
I beg your pardon, but I was asking a different question. In paragraph 27, the suggested amendment to the rule states:
With respect, you have spent some time explaining to us that a lot of decisions are not made by division. If the Presiding Officer asks, "Is everyone in favour of X?" and members say "Yes" and nobody says "No", that is a decision of the Parliament that does not necessitate a division, as nobody has called for one.
So, that is the only circumstance in which there would not be a division, if the proposed amendment to the standing orders was agreed to. There would be no other circumstances in which there would not be a division, or in which there would be some other method of determining a decision. If we are prescriptive on this point, we will have to ensure that there is no other mechanism in the rules.
If the purpose of the report, as stated in paragraph 30 of the clerk's paper, is to formalise existing practice, I suggest that we have the report drafted and, when we consider it, we can agree that what we are doing is formalising existing practice. If there is any doubt about any part of the report, we will have the opportunity to discuss that in detail at that point.
I would assume that we would do that anyway. Will the report be distributed to business managers or for some other comment outwith the committee?
It is proposed that the matter will go to the Parliamentary Bureau as a courtesy. We will ask whether it has views on any of the issues. Those will come back to the committee with a formal report from the clerk. Is that okay?