Procedures Committee, 28 Mar 2000

Meeting date: Tuesday, March 28, 2000

Official Report 102KB pdf

---

Amendments to Motions (Meetings of the Parliament)

Item 2 is a report on a letter from Mr Carnegie, who is here this morning. Members will have read the report and Mr Carnegie's letter. If, once we have discussed the matter, Mr Carnegie wishes to participate in the meeting, he will be welcome to do so, but it is not obligatory that he should.

The question is whether there is a need to change standing orders to redefine amendments or to accommodate alternative types of motion in Parliament: should there be counter-motions rather than amendments?

Politicians are incorrigible and will make their point, no matter what. It would not be helpful to make it more difficult for them to do that, by making it procedurally more difficult to lodge motions and amendments and by policing those more rigorously. If a motion with which one disagrees is lodged, the right thing to do is to move a direct negative or to try to amend it in such a way that one finds some common ground between oneself and the movers—even if that requires only a millimetre movement in the motion.

On this point, the standing orders are very similar to those that apply in almost all Parliaments, and in political parties, school debating societies and anywhere that debate takes place. Therefore, I do not think that there is an urgent need to make the way in which we operate more restrictive. With respect to Mr Carnegie, I do not think that his suggestion would help debate in the Parliament, because, inevitably, we would find ways round any restriction.

One might agree with the whole of a motion, or one might agree only within narrow parameters. The suggestion means that one would have to lodge a definitive motion rather than one that was flexible. A very small change might make a motion acceptable—Mike Russell articulated that point better than I can. I am against change on this point.

I sympathise with Mr Carnegie's position. As a trade unionist, I come from the same school of thought as he does. I was always taught that amendments should not change the spirit of the motion—that they should add to the motion without making substantial alterations. However, I accept Mike Russell's point about the present practice being the norm in Parliaments elsewhere. The essence of a debate in Parliament is different from that of a debate at, for example, a trade union conference. I agree with the ethos that an amendment in Parliament is regarded as an alternative proposition; it is a counter-motion, which allows both sides of the argument to be debated, rather than an amendment changing one part of a motion. The rules that apply in other forums might be appropriate there, but our current practice is right for this forum and I do not recommend any changes.

As a matter of semantics, what we have should be described as counter-motions. Following on from Janis Hughes's point, debate at a meeting of a body such as a trade union is trying to establish the policy of the trade union; if the issue is, say, blinds, one's amendment must be on that issue. In Parliament, members might know that they will not win the vote, but they wish to stake out the policy of their party—that is why amendments at Westminster and in other Parliaments will say something like, "delete all after ‘believes'". Our practice is correct and should be retained, although we should probably call amendments counter-motions.

I think that there is general agreement on the matter. I thank Mr Carnegie for raising it. He has focused our minds on what we are doing. I am glad that he has attended regularly—I hope that he enjoys our meetings and will continue to attend.

It was not my intention to restrict debate in Parliament. It was a matter of semantics. I thought that it was unfair to describe many amendments as such, as they change the wording straight after the first three or four words. A motion might state that the Parliament recommends, proposes, or notes something and the amendment will delete everything after "notes" and insert completely new wording. I agree that often that new wording is relevant to the motion, but in some cases there is so much disagreement in the wording that it amounts to a counter-motion.

I agree that Parliament is a particular forum. I was pleased to receive a reply from the committee clerk, which explained your thinking. I would not want to restrict debate and am happy with the answer that I received. The type of amendments that are used certainly provoke debate and debate has never suffered because of the small semantic point that I raised.

We agree that you are right in principle. You are now a member of a small and select band of people who understand amendments and counter-motions.

The committee should thank Mr Carnegie for drawing the matter to our attention. Committees are meant to be open and accessible. It is encouraging that as part of the parliamentary process someone can sit at the committee table and take issue with us on a question of semantics or procedure.