Procedures Committee, 27 Nov 2001

Meeting date: Tuesday, November 27, 2001

Official Report 339KB pdf

---

Members' Business

The third item on the agenda is on the method of selection of members' business. The paper that members have in front of them is simple and straightforward. It states that we are to receive a paper in due course and suggests that in the meantime, we agree to seek the view of the Parliamentary Bureau.

It is worth while seeking the view of the bureau. However, I wonder whether we should have a questionnaire so that we could ask members at this stage, or later on, how they feel about the method of selection. I take it that if there were a ballot, members who were successful would drop out so that their name did not reappear. The number of names in the ballot would drop throughout the session.

We had not thought about the niceties of the matter at this stage. We can consider them in the context of the paper.

The request to go to the bureau is based partly on the fact that the bureau works on the selection of members' business at the moment. When I write to the bureau, the view is expressed sometimes that I am voicing my opinion. I did not raise this matter at all; I do not know where it came from. It might have gone from members to the Presiding Officer. The paper seeks the committee's authority for writing to the bureau.

I am relaxed about the idea that we should do a survey of members' views. I think that we should. I am not entirely clear whether we should do that now or whether we should do it when we have an issues paper and a more fully fleshed out set of proposals to put to members. I agree that we should speak to members in the widest sense before we come to conclusions.

This is one of the issues of transparency. The question is why business managers decide which debates take place. It is for members to determine which rules and regulations they would be comfortable with.

I am happy to defer my suggestion until we have received a paper. I am happy that we will take members' views at some point.

Do we agree to proceed on the basis that the consultation process will be part of the paper that we receive?

The paper could explore the fact that the bureau never chooses any controversial motions of any description whatsoever.

There is also the issue of a vote. The standing orders permit a vote on some resolutions. We have never had one. It has always been decided that we will not have a vote.

Other issues arise, such as whether we could have a matter debated at the suggestion of, say, the Public Petitions Committee. The suggestions could go beyond members. There might be ways in which people could channel suggested topics through members. It is worth exploring all those areas.

Do members agree to proceed on that basis?

Members indicated agreement.