Procedures Committee, 25 Apr 2006

Meeting date: Tuesday, April 25, 2006

Official Report 156KB pdf

---

Motions and Decisions

Item 7 is on small tidyings-up of standing orders. The clerks have suggested putting use-and-wont practices into the standing orders, in case anyone challenges them. We have a paper on that, which lays out the specific proposals and the possible changes to the standing orders. At our previous meeting, we discussed whether we should seek colleagues' views, so the clerk has also produced a draft letter to MSPs. I ask members whether that letter is the best approach to what are relatively minor points.

Can we deal with the draft letter first, convener? If we are going to send a letter to members to ask them for their views, it would obviously not be wise first to make a decision on the proposals.

I have a few comments on the draft letter. Is there a particular reason why there is no question 4? I assume that that is just a mistake.

It is.

Fine.

So it is not some dubious clerking practice of which we are not aware.

Is there guidance on that?

Yes—that the number 4 is to be deleted from all correspondence.

The questions in the draft letter could be worded 100 different ways, but I have a concern about question 1. The first option in question 1 mentions the "Current system", but that option describes not the current system but the current practice. My understanding is that the third option describes the current system, which is that only a member can remove a motion, and that the current practice is different.

Let us change "system" to "practice" in the first option, then.

The issue is important, because the current system is as described in the third option, although that is not the practice. I just want us to be clear about that. Those are my only comments on the draft letter, although I have issues to raise about the paper. There are some issues on which we do not propose to consult.

Bruce McFee is right to draw attention to the fact that the first decision must be whether we wish simply to recommend the changes or whether we wish to consult members on the changes.

We should consult members.

Okay. Unless anybody objects, we will consult members about what to do with old motions.

We also need to decide whether to consult on a second issue, about pre-emption of amendments. It could be argued that, as motions are members' property, it is sensible to consult them on changes to the rules on motions, whereas the procedure that the Presiding Officer follows with regard to amendments is, as it were, a more technical parliamentary party-political issue. We need to discuss whether we should consult on that issue, too.

It would be useful to consult on that, too, because again the practice is clearly different from what the rules stipulate. We must speak to members about such a case, first, to make them aware of it—I rather suspect that most are not aware—and, secondly, to find out what, if anything, they think about it. Under a strict interpretation of the rules as they are now, it would be possible to have majorities for two diametrically opposed motions on one subject and there would be no way of changing the opposing motions. I presume that that is the reason why the rules are not interpreted strictly. We have considered the problem a number of times since it first came up. It is clear that such a situation could happen and, therefore, there must be a method of resolving it—hence the practice that has evolved over the past seven years. Members should be aware of what that practice means.

We will consult about when and how outstanding motions are removed from the list and on having a rule in the standing orders about the Presiding Officer deciding on pre-emptions. Is that okay so far?

Members indicated agreement.

The first half of the paper also deals with voting thresholds, admissibility and the withdrawal of motions. Do members suggest that we pursue those matters?

The first half of the paper is included to remind members where those issues stand. It is up to the committee whether it wishes to make decisions on them today or whether it wishes to wait until a draft report is produced.

We will wait until we have consulted members on the other matters. Does anyone want to consult on the slightly more obscure issues, such as withdrawal and admissibility?

No. If you do not want to go through those other issues today, I will bring up one issue to do with the proposed rule changes on voting thresholds. I ask for an indication of what has been regarded as an absolute majority for the purposes of the proposed change to rule 12.1.8(b).

It is defined in the standing orders. Basically, an absolute majority is achieved when the number of members voting in favour is more than half of the number of seats for MSPs—in other words, more than half of 129—or, if it is in a committee, more than half of seven, in the case of this committee.

My understanding of an absolute majority is that it is more than half of those who are eligible to vote.

Yes.

In that case, I invite you to reconsider the proposed change to rule 12.1.8(b), which concerns the removal of a member from office. The proposed change says:

"he or she is removed from that office by a decision of the committee on a motion under paragraph 8A which shall, if taken by division, require an absolute majority".

My understanding is that "if taken by division" is the new element in that. This committee comprises how many members?

Seven.

And what is the quorum?

Three.

The implication of saying that the decision to remove a member from office

"shall, if taken by division, require an absolute majority"

is that if it is not taken by division, it does not require an absolute majority. This committee consists of seven people; if three of them met and decided to remove Karen Gillon—

Please do!

She may welcome and therefore not oppose that.

As long as those three members did not have a vote, it would be possible for them to remove Karen Gillon with the agreement of less than an absolute majority of the committee. Therefore, the proposed form of wording cannot stay because it implies that a decision to remove a member from office can be taken without the agreement of an absolute majority if the decision is taken by a means other than division.

It is the converse of the situation in which we found ourselves before. I do not have a form of words to cover it at the moment.

I contest the idea that an absolute majority means an absolute theoretical majority. An absolute majority refers to those present, voting and eligible to vote.

That is why I asked for the definition of "absolute majority".

That is not what the rules say.

Exactly—there are different definitions of it.

It is the majority of those who are eligible to vote.

Yes, whether they are there or not. The quorum is set at below 50 per cent, so it is possible to have a unanimous decision but no absolute majority.

If you want me to go—

We must make the position clear in the final version of the letter.

That is a fair point, convener. Andrew Mylne can consider that.

Bruce McFee is right that the implication of the rule change, if it was agreed to, is that it would be theoretically possible for a committee of seven members to remove a convener by the unanimous decision of the only three members present at a meeting. It is simply a question of whether that is what members want. If members do not want that but want the rule to be that a decision to remove a convener from office can be taken only by a majority of the members of the committee, we can adjust the rule change to make it clear that that is the rule. The point is that the rule is not particularly clear at the moment about which way it goes.

I think that the rule is crystal clear, although it suggests that all decisions will involve a division. I accept that point, which Andrew Mylne made in previous meetings. However, the rule is crystal clear that if a committee wants to remove a member, an absolute majority of committee members must agree to it. There is a difference between changing a rule to make it clearer and changing a rule to change the intended result of the rule. That is my difficulty with this.

To be perfectly frank, I do not know just now what form of words should be used. The current rules assume that a division would take place in all circumstances, but Andrew Mylne was correct to say that if a decision was unanimous, there would be no division per se. However, the converse of that is also true if we say "only if taken by division," which in effect is what the proposed new rule says. That phrase implies, just as much as the current rule does, that something else would apply if a decision were taken in a different manner. For that reason, it might be advisable to bring all the proposed changes back in one paper.

We will do that.

Joy.

So we will send out a letter to all MSPs asking for their views. We want a rapid response so that we can discuss their views at the next committee meeting. We will then respond on the issues that are in the paper.

I thank members for their attendance. We will see how we get on in the future.

Meeting closed at 11:13.