Procedures Committee,

Meeting date: Tuesday, May 24, 2005

Official Report 265KB pdf

---

Work Programme

Item 3 on the agenda is consideration of the committee's forward work programme. We have ticked the boxes for most of the major inquiries that we highlighted at the start of this year. The only inquiry that is outstanding is on the parliamentary timetable, which might or might not take up a considerable amount of time. Do members wish to conduct an inquiry into the parliamentary week and time in the chamber? Given that the issue has arisen in most of our other inquiries, it certainly needs to be addressed.

Can I clarify—

I should point out that I do not want to go into the inquiry in any detail.

Will it involve looking at the amount of time that Parliament sits?

Well, the title

"review of the Parliamentary week and time in the Chamber"

implies that that issue will form part of it.

I just wanted to clarify that this is not just a question of trying to cut the cake in a different way.

I suggest that we do not try to define exactly what we will look at in this meeting, but that we just agree in principle that we want to look at the proposed inquiry. I propose that we have a private session at a committee away day to discuss the remit. We need to have a discussion about that because, without a clear remit, the inquiry could go in all sorts of different directions.

Is this all within the terms of the Parliament's family-friendly policies?

I do not think that it could get much more family friendly than meeting for one and a half days a week.

That is all right if one does not have a constituency, Bruce.

With respect, I do not want to have that debate today. I would rather that we had it later, so that the committee can publish a formal remit for the inquiry.

I want to be clear about a point in the work plan paper. It talks about

"the proportion of the normal sitting week"

for chamber business and implies that the inquiry should consider only the hours that the Parliament currently sits.

I am not ruling anything in or out at this stage; I am trying to avoid having a detailed discussion today about what the remit of the inquiry will be so that we can have a full and proper discussion of the remit later.

Sure—and I am just trying to find out what we are being asked to agree to.

I am asking you to agree whether we should have a major inquiry into the parliamentary week and time in the chamber, without specifying whether anything is in or out at this stage. The committee needs to have a full discussion of the remit in an away-day setting to thrash out exactly what issues we want to include in a call for evidence. That will give us enough time to have a proper discussion.

That is fine, but the wording in the paper was somewhat different to what has been said. However, I shall take the inclusive meaning of that wording.

Paragraph 11(a) refers to

"a review of the Parliamentary week and time in the Chamber",

and those words do not rule anything in or out at this stage.

Do members agree to start the inquiry at some point in the autumn? I recommend that we look at having a short committee meeting on 21 June if business requires, but with an earlier start time of 9.30, and that then we break into an away day by 10.30 at the latest to discuss the remit of the inquiry.

Will we go somewhere for the away day?

No; we will have to have it here or hereabouts—perhaps next door. We will not have time to go very far because members—including me—have committee commitments in the afternoon. The only other option would be to have the away day on a separate day—on 28 June—but that is not feasible for most members, who already have other commitments in their diaries.

The idea is that we use the existing time slot. If we have to have a committee meeting to sign anything off, we will have a brief meeting beforehand. We can decide at our next meeting in two weeks whether that will be necessary. Then we will break into a couple of hours of away day to discuss the remit for the inquiry. Are members content with all that?

Members indicated agreement.

I tell Jamie McGrigor that I was referring to a date on which we are already meeting so there will be no additional time commitment, apart from possibly having an earlier start, which we will agree at our next meeting.

Do members wish to proceed on any of the smaller inquiries at this stage? Were any of them particularly urgent?

None is particularly urgent; we will deal with them as and when.

I thank members for their attendance and constructive contributions and I look forward to seeing them in two weeks.

Meeting closed at 12:28.