Procedures Committee, 28 Mar 2000

Meeting date: Tuesday, March 28, 2000

Official Report 102KB pdf

---

Committee Agendas

The third item on the agenda, which is my letter to Sir David Steel following the discussion at our previous meeting on how committee agendas should be composed, is simply for information.

I am sorry to delay you, convener, but an important point arises out of that issue. Discussion on Dennis Canavan's letter eventually focused on the way in which a ruling from the chair could be challenged. An element of that question was highlighted by the points of order that were raised in the chamber about the Spencely report.

I do not want to address that substantive issue, but the procedural issue that arises out of those points of order—perhaps John Patterson could circulate them to members—is how members can challenge a decision of the corporate body in Parliament. The corporate body is elected by the Parliament, as its representative, to make certain decisions. If there is disagreement, is the proper procedure to challenge the decision in the chamber or to challenge it in writing when the minutes of the meeting of the corporate body are distributed, which can be a considerable time after the meeting? Should the proper procedure be, as I suggested on Thursday afternoon, to seek permission to move a motion without notice, or to lodge a motion taking issue with a decision of the corporate body—a motion without notice would be an emergency action?

The chair of the corporate body is the Presiding Officer, so when one challenges the actions of the corporate body through the chair, one challenges the Presiding Officer's interpretation of what took place and how procedure is followed. This is the first time that such a case has arisen, and we should consider the matter seriously. Perhaps in the first instance we should seek the views of the corporate body and the Presiding Officer. It would be useful to have a procedure in case the situation arises again.

That point is obviously only tangentially related to the matter that is covered by this letter, but it is essentially the same point. It is a question of how matters are put on the agenda for discussion. I accept that, although it has arisen in relation to the Spencely report, it is a general point about how members might question what the corporate body is doing, which is an appropriate matter for us to consider.

I understand the points that Mike Russell has made. It is important to remember that the corporate body is a separate legal entity. The Scotland Act 1998 sets out a specific function and remit for the corporate body. I think that once it is appointed it has a legal status that is separate to that of the Parliament, to which it is ultimately accountable. For any discussion on challenges to the decisions of the corporate body, we would have to have a clear legal note about its powers and about the Parliament's rights to challenge its decisions.

I entirely accept that point. A problem that we face is how we ensure that the corporate body is accountable in practice to Parliament in view of the status of the corporate body—that term is a tautology—as the legal entity of the Parliament. It is important to work that difficulty out. We need a paper from the clerks on the matter and we need a discussion.

I agree, although you will accept that that will take time. The whole debate that sparked this discussion will have moved on by the time we examine the issue.

It is not about that particular debate.

That is probably a good thing, because we will be able to examine the procedural point separately from the policy matter.

I do not have a problem with that. We probably need to address the issue. However, we also need to address the number of points of order that are being raised. Many of us in the chamber are fed up with points of order being raised that are not points of order. Last week, decision time was delayed by 15 minutes because of the number of points of order, none of which was valid. The Presiding Officer agreed to allow some leeway only because it was such an important subject. We need to incorporate that issue into any paper that comes before us.

Having indulged Mike Russell, I felt that I should indulge Janis Hughes on that point, but we are taking the discussion a wee bit far away from the spirit of my letter on the setting of committee agendas.

It is not possible to come up with a form of words on points of order. It is impossible to tell which points will be raised until someone is on his or her feet. It is up to the Presiding Officer to decide. I do not think that we can rule on the matter.

That is right. We are not capable of resolving the issue.

The Presiding Officer is entitled to be severe with people who abuse the system, but people will always abuse it.

He is very practised at that.

I have seen our convener do it.

I disagree with Gil Paterson. This is not just a question of the Presiding Officer making a ruling; it is about members taking collective responsibility and raising only points of order that are valid. We all know what those are.

That is a piece of political hopefulness.

I am ever the optimist.

We all admire that, but it will not happen.

In the general spirit of amity that exists around the table, I have allowed this discussion to take place. It was not on the agenda and it is out of order. We should probably conclude at this point.

I see that Michael Russell wants to intervene. Is it a relevant point?

You have just glowered at me. It is a pity that we do not have a visual record of the meeting, because people would know that I am now pushing my luck.

When did you ever do anything else?

Not at all.

I want to raise one final point. I give notice that I will be writing to you and the clerk to ask the committee to consider another point of order that was raised in the chamber last week, on the serious matter of entitlement to emergency statements. Members have great difficulty in getting emergency questions and emergency debates. We have discussed the matter before. Last week's business raises the issue of emergency statements. Once you receive the letter, convener, I hope that the matter will be scheduled for discussion by the committee.

We will include the matter in our on-going work. There is a file on that topic already. Your letter will simply be added to the extensive input that we have received.

Thank you for your attendance, ladies and gentlemen.

Meeting closed at 10:32.