Procedures Committee, 28 Nov 2006

Meeting date: Tuesday, November 28, 2006

Official Report 138KB pdf

---

Papers for Information

Before we end the public part of today's meeting, I want to mention that we have received a letter from the Conveners Group on committee time in the chamber. The letter makes two points. First, it suggests that there should be greater flexibility in the rule that requires that 12 half sitting days in each parliamentary year be made available for committee debates. The Conveners Group thinks that the rule should be more flexible. I am not quite sure what that means, but we can discuss that.

Secondly, the Conveners Group suggests that a distinction should be made between reports from committees such as ours that deal with housekeeping issues and the quite different reports from subject committees such as the Health Committee or the Environment and Rural Development Committee, which deal with issues of policy that committees want to discuss. The Conveners Group thinks that budget reports, Procedures Committee reports, and Standards and Public Appointments Committee reports should be in a separate category and should not be included in the ration of debating time for committee reports. It says that the Parliamentary Bureau will have to find time for them. I have a lot of sympathy with that point.

The advice that I have received is that the flexibility argument is sufficiently covered in the present rules, but members may wish to pursue the issue.

I am not aware from reading the letter of what the argument is for part of that—I do not know whether there is a separate briefing on the matter that I do not have—so I will address the point about the 12 half sitting days. There seems to be a misunderstanding of the current rules on the part of the Conveners Group, unless what is being argued—but not explicitly—is that some of the half days could be banked so that they can be used towards the end of the session. That seems to be implied in the comments in the letter from the Conveners Group about the number of committee reports building up towards the end of the session. Unless the Conveners Group is making the specific argument that some days in the earlier part of the session should be banked and put aside until the last year of the session, I do not know what its argument is. If it is making that argument, I am not sure that the proposal is practical.

Either way, I think that the Conveners Group's suggestion falls, because either it is catered for in the current rules or it would be impractical to try to make a change. I find it hard to see what the Conveners Group is arguing for, in that what it is explicitly arguing for is already the case; if it is implicitly arguing for something else, it should say so.

Yes. I was trying tactfully to say roughly the same thing.

I do not think that we are in a position at this point in the review of parliamentary time to address an issue that we have not even considered and to slot in a rule change without consulting anyone. We would be making a fundamental change to the rules in relation to our committee's debates and Finance Committee debates.

A point that emerged from our discussions with other Parliaments is that unless there is a specific rule that allows such debates to be held, they are not held. One of the Parliaments whose representatives came here had rule changes waiting to be implemented for two sessions, but nobody had timetabled debates on them so they were not heard. At least if the debates are held in the committee slots, we have some control over their inclusion, through the parliamentary process and the back-bench Conveners Group. It would give me cause for concern if we were to say that we want a rule change that would introduce new days without discussing the issue with anybody or considering its implications, how many days would be required and what it would mean for the parliamentary timetable at this point in the session or early in the session.

We have not considered the matter in sufficient detail to slip a wee rule change in at the last moment.

I agree with much of what Karen Gillon has said, but I part company with her on the issue of rule changes. I do not see that any rule changes are being requested.

The final paragraph in the letter from the Conveners Group suggests that

"debates on Finance Committee budget reports, Procedures Committee reports on Standing Orders changes and Standards and Public Appointments Committee reports on code of conduct changes should not be included in the 12 half sitting days".

Okay. I agree that we should not do that.

I am not aware of committees not securing debates when they want them. Is that fair comment?

No, it is not fair at all. There is a serious queue for committee debates. Some committees will not get the subjects debated that they think should be debated.

I do not think that we can address the issue at this stage, but at some point it must be examined. The power is currently in the gift of the bureau. Standing orders state that on the 12 half days committee business is "given priority over" other business. Nothing precludes the bureau from giving priority over Executive business to a debate that a committee wants to be held. My understanding of the rules is that they set a minimum figure.

I do not know whether a cure can be provided by not including the Finance Committee debates and other debates to which the letter refers as business that would come under the 12 half days and therefore increasing the amount of time that would be available for debating other committee business or by having a bureau that is more sympathetic to committees that want to debate issues of substance.

For the next meeting, could we get a breakdown of the number of debates that have not taken place, the implications of not including the debates that are mentioned as business that comes under the 12 half sitting days and the number of days that not including those debates would free up? Such information would be useful if we want to make an informed decision. I certainly do not want to make a decision at this meeting.

I am not aware that the Procedures Committee has taken up masses of debating time. However, I am certainly prepared to support a cap on the time that is spent on mundane debates.

It would also be useful to write to the Minister for Parliamentary Business to ask about what the implications would be if we were to proceed with what has been suggested. We cannot proceed with the suggestion unless we have sufficient information and evidence to do so.

I agree.

I entirely disagree with Karen Gillon's point of view. It is important for the Parliament that budget reports, Procedures Committee reports and so on are treated properly and are guaranteed debating time by the bureau when there is reasonable demand for such time to be made available, rather than the Finance Committee and the Procedures Committee having to take their chances with all the other committees. If a Procedures Committee subject is debated, another committee will not have its subject debated. Debates on policy papers from committees and debates on necessary decisions that the Parliament must take on conducting its affairs should be clearly distinguished.

We can certainly consult anyone whom we want to consult. We are not talking about a huge amount of parliamentary time, but separate orders of activity are involved. Confusing committee policy subject debates with parliamentary housekeeping debates is neither logical nor sensible—there should be separate categories.

I have a clear view on the matter; if members disagree with me, I will have to live with that. We are here to defend the Parliament's running of its own affairs. That debates on the things that have been referred to must go into a queue with other committee debates is unsatisfactory.

I do not want to widen the argument even further, but some of us argued about Executive time and parliamentary time some time ago, and what we are discussing was addressed by what was said then. However, suggestions were knocked out elsewhere and we are seeing the ramifications of decisions that were taken.

We should remember the Parliament's job of holding the Executive to account as opposed to its job of defending itself. That will not be done if we start from the point of view that all time belongs to the Executive unless otherwise stated, which is, unfortunately, what currently happens. However, what was proposed previously was deemed unworthy of being further consulted on.

The issue that we are discussing is not an item on the agenda, but we could put it on the agenda for the next meeting. We could then discuss any factual information of the sort that Karen Gillon wants if it is provided. Would that be okay?

Members indicated agreement.

We have also received a letter from the Equal Opportunities Committee on amending the standing orders so that committees will report on mainstreaming equalities in their work at the end of every parliamentary session, which means every four years. What do members think about that?

I did not know that the matter was going to be discussed. Could we put it on the agenda for the next meeting?

That would be useful.

Fair enough. We will do that.

That concludes the public part of the meeting. We will now move into private session.

Meeting continued in private until 12:59.