Procedures Committee,

Meeting date: Tuesday, May 29, 2001

Official Report 286KB pdf

---

Standing Orders (Changes)

The seventh item on our agenda is a paper giving a summary of a series of issues that the committee has discussed before. They have been summarised formally so that we can submit a set of proposed changes to standing orders. Members will recall our discussion of the withdrawal of amendments to motions. The first issue in the paper clarifies how an amendment might be withdrawn.

The second issue is amendments to motions for financial resolutions. Members will recall that we discovered that, technically, such resolutions can be amended, although we accepted that it was never intended that they should be—they should either be approved or not. The paper clarifies the standing orders accordingly.

The third issue is procedures for establishing the parliamentary members of the Scottish Commission for Public Audit. It contains a recommendation that, where further appointments are made along similar lines to other bodies, the guidelines approved by the SPCB should be applied for comparable purposes.

Do members agree with all the recommendations?

Members indicated agreement.

In the report, there is a suggestion that we are looking for parliamentary time. I would not have thought that we necessarily want parliamentary time, but the Parliament will have to approve a report. What would be best—to hold the report until there are a lot of changes to standing orders, or to put it up for approval as soon as possible?

We should try to put it up for approval on the coat tails of the committee's second report, on parliamentary questions. This is a small report, so we should try to have it approved before the recess, in negotiation with the Parliamentary Bureau.

We will try and do that.

Now, item 8—no, I am sorry, I forgot to thank our witnesses. I am trying to rattle through the business before 1 o'clock; I am sure that the witnesses are not too disappointed at not being asked to speak again. That was my mistake, and absolutely no discourtesy was intended.

Convener, I am sorry, but I am being slow. If you will allow me, I would like to make a point about the proposed new rule 3.15, on the removal of members of the Scottish Commission for Public Audit, which states that "any member" may, by a motion, propose such a removal. It is not clear whether a member of the commission may propose that another member be chucked out, or whether it is a member of the Parliament. Perhaps I am being obtuse.

No—you are quite right to raise that. That is what we are here for.

The answer to that question is any member of Parliament, who could also be a member of the commission.

Perhaps it should say that. If I, in my earnest attempt to read all this yesterday, was in some doubt, other people might be in doubt as well.

Could we make that amendment to the proposed rule 3.15? The word "member" might be taken to mean a non-MSP member of the body, so it should say specifically "member of the Parliament".

I want to consider that. The words, "any member", are used throughout the standing orders to mean any MSP. I am not sure that there would be any ambiguity, but I would like to consider the matter further.

Doubt was raised in my mind by the fact that the words, "any member", which apparently mean any member of the Scottish Parliament, come just after the heading, which is

"Removal of members of the Commission".

I presume that there are members of the body who are not members of the Scottish Parliament.

There are not.

The wording could be read as meaning any member of the commission. Could I, as a member of the Scottish Parliament, propose removing those members or must it be a member of the commission?

The reference is to any member of Parliament.

The issue is clarified by the fact that proposed rule 3.15 specifies that the motion would refer to an

"appointed member of the Commission",

which means that it makes a distinction between members of the Scottish Parliament and appointed members of the commission.

It might be best if Alison Coull and Anne Peat examine the matter again and advise us whether there is any ambiguity or difficulty. If they are happy with the competence of the rule, it should proceed as we have suggested. Would that be reasonable?

Yes—I will not go to the wall over this.

A change to the proposed rule might have implications for other parts of the standing orders.

I ask you to reflect on that and advise us whether you think that we should consider certain issues. If you are happy that the position is covered adequately, the report can go before the Parliament, as we have approved it.