Standing Orders
Good morning. The first item is a debate on motion S1M-1884, in the name of Murray Tosh, on behalf of the Procedures Committee, on changes to standing orders.
I am grateful to you, Presiding Officer, for selecting me to speak in the debate.
The Procedures Committee's first report of 2001 is substantial and contains a number of detailed changes to standing orders. Many of the changes are minor and technical, which reflects the kind of work that we have to do to consider the evolution of our procedures and standing orders and the experience of working them. However, there are some significant changes, which I will highlight. Broadly, the amendments are to chapter 9 and chapter 9A—the relatively new chapter in standing orders—which relate to public bill and private bill procedures respectively.
The preparatory work undertaken by the committee and many of the changes that we have recommended arose from requests made by the Presiding Officer and Margaret Smith, the convener of the Health and Community Care Committee, that we should examine the time scales for consideration of bills and for the lodging of amendments. All the recommended changes are set in what is essentially the existing process—the current sitting pattern and the current times available for legislation. The changes that we have made have therefore largely been to refine that process and to dot a lot of i's and cross a lot of t's.
One of the first issues that we considered was the notice period for lodging amendments and the intervals between stages of bills. The committee took the view that, in order to provide members with the final marshalled list of amendments sufficiently far in advance of stage 2 consideration and stage 3 debates, the periods of notice for lodging amendments should be adjusted. In the case of amendments at stage 3, the committee agreed to recommend that the notice period should be extended from two days to three. Although that results in a slight reduction in the time available for members to lodge amendments, the committee considered that that was outweighed by the advantages for members of having the marshalled lists earlier than they currently do and of therefore being able to prepare more effectively for the debate.
We did not feel that it was necessary to recommend the same change to the notice period for amendments at stage 2 or at what we are proposing in the report to call the reconsideration stage. However, we thought that bringing forward the final daily deadline for those stages would be beneficial; the report therefore recommends that the deadline on the final day should be brought forward to 2 pm for those stages. The committee took the view that an earlier daily deadline at all stages would increase the ability of the clerks to discuss with the members within normal working hours those amendments—it can be a considerable proportion of them—that require some clarification and reworking before they become fully admissible. The committee therefore endorses the suggestion by the clerks that the daily deadline be amended from 5.30 pm to
4.30 pm. That standardises the time for lodging questions and motions with the chamber desk.
The committee has recommended changes to the minimum intervals between the stages of bills in order to take out the imprecision that arises from talking about two weeks. If the intervals are defined in terms of sitting days, we would know exactly how long there will be between each stage. We have recommended a number of other changes. We have suggested that the deadlines for withdrawing or supporting amendments should be brought into line with the deadlines for lodging them. One of several further minor changes worth drawing to the Parliament's attention is that, as things stand, when a new Parliament is elected, members will be banned from introducing a member's bill for six months, either if a similar bill has been defeated towards the end of the previous session or if it has simply lapsed at the end of that session. We felt that that was unreasonable and that, in a new session, members should be able to begin afresh so that a member's bill can be introduced quickly after the dissolution.
We recommend changes to the rules on financial resolutions. One substantial change is that the role of the Finance Committee to consider the provisions that give rise to the need for a financial resolution should be delegated to the lead committees, which ought to consider the financial provisions in the context of the subject of the bills. We spent some time in committee discussing whether ministers should be required to adhere to an earlier deadline than that for other MSPs for lodging amendments to bills. We discussed that with the Executive and decided to make no recommendations to standing orders on the matter. We will review that in a further phase of work in some six months' time.
We have considered and endorsed the advice given by the Presiding Officer in the business bulletin of 9 February on stage 1 and stage 3 amendments. We considered that no changes to standing orders were required on that.
I hope that members will find that the detailed recommendations in the report are sensible and satisfactory and that they improve the working of our legislative process. I hope that members are looking forward to a fresh dose when we come to consider further changes to standing orders, as we will in a few months' time.
I move,
That the Parliament (a) approves the recommendations of the Procedures Committee's 1st Report, 2001, Changes to Chapters 9 and 9A of the Standing Orders of the Scottish Parliament (SP Paper 316) and agrees to amend the Parliament's Standing Orders in accordance with Annexe A and Annexe B (Appendix B) to the Report and (b) agrees that these amendments to the Standing Orders come into force on 4 May 2001 and that the amendments set out in paragraphs 1 and 3 of Annexe B (Appendix B) to the Report shall apply only in relation to Bills introduced on or after that date.
I am pleased to indicate on behalf of the Executive our support for the Procedures Committee report, which proposes a range of procedural changes to chapter 9 of the standing orders on public bill procedures and parallel changes to chapter 9A on private bill procedures. I can confirm therefore that there will be no Executive amendment to the motion.
As members will be aware, standing orders of the Scottish Parliament are an essential framework within which the Parliament can effectively operate and carry out its daily business. It is important therefore that the standing orders are kept under constant review so that the parliamentary processes can continue to flow smoothly. I express the Executive's thanks to the members of the Procedures Committee and its convener Murray Tosh for the positive way in which they have approached this work and for providing the Executive with the opportunity to comment on the proposals for change.
We also acknowledge the work of the financial resolutions working group, which comprised parliamentary and Executive officials. The group was set up to examine the procedures on financial resolutions and to consider whether any changes to standing orders were needed. Its recommendations have been incorporated into the Procedures Committee report.
The committee has suggested a number of changes which the Executive has endorsed. Members may be relieved, as I am, that I will not comment in detail on those changes. The changes, which are mainly minor, reflect practical experience gained in operating the present provisions and are designed to clarify, ease and simplify parliamentary business. We are indebted to officials for their detailed and painstaking work.
The revisions include changes to the time scales for lodging amendments to bills and intervals between stages and time scales for bill stages. They also include a wide range of minor changes that will clarify the interpretation of and rules and procedures in relation to a number of areas, including: member in charge of a bill; accompanying documents; terminology relating to committees; Subordinate Legislation Committee procedure for considering delegated provisions and the reporting process on budget bills; participation of junior ministers on non-Executive bills; selection of amendments; process for consolidation bills; and consequentials for private bills.
The changes to time scales for lodging amendments to bills and intervals between stages are designed to ease the management of parliamentary business. Some time scales are currently expressed in weeks, but it would be more practical to calculate the intervals in sitting days.
The Executive has a substantial programme of new legislation and committees and members have a number of important proposals for legislation. It is therefore vital that the Parliament's procedures assist the process of consideration by committees and members. Of course, we cannot rely solely on rules for the smooth flow of parliamentary business, so it is important that members and officials co-operate to ensure the best outcomes.
The changes to standing orders outlined and recommended by the Procedures Committee should assist in the more efficient and effective discharge of parliamentary business. This is an evolutionary process and, as Parliaments go, ours is still in its formative stages. It is therefore important that we are ready to adapt the framework according to the practical realities and our experiences. The proposed changes are based on experience gained in the past year. The Executive stands ready to assist any future work of the Procedures Committee and we look forward to a continued joint-working and productive relationship.
The motion is non-controversial. However, the decision on a procedure for dealing with private legislation is important to the Parliament and has been considered at length by the Procedures Committee. Although no private legislation has yet been lodged in the Parliament, it is important that the structures and processes are in place to deal with such bills when they are submitted.
It is estimated that, once the guidance is in place, there will be one or two private bills a year. Although the volume may initially be larger—I believe that some parties are holding back from lodging private legislation until a decision on procedures is made—it is vital that private legislation is processed through the Parliament, so that the public interest can be taken into account.
This is a non-controversial issue and all that it remains for me to say is that the SNP supports the Procedures Committee report.
We now move to the open debate, and Donald Gorrie has the entire slot to himself. You have up to five minutes, if you want, Mr Gorrie.
I will not take up that amount of time, Presiding Officer.
At the Liberal Democrat group meeting this week, I was able to assure my colleagues that the Procedures Committee report was not a sinister establishment plot but had been agreed unanimously and represents a modest step in the right direction on the timing of bills. As Gil Paterson said, it also sets out the procedure for dealing with private legislation, which is not the same as members' legislation. I think that some people are confused about that, but private legislation is what would be needed if someone wanted to build a railway or something like that.
As the convener of the Procedures Committee said, there will be continuous scrutiny of our procedures. Lengthening the period of notice for amendments and the period between the different stages of a bill is a step in the right direction, even though the increase is only small. I think that we still have not got it right and will have to lengthen the times so that we can deal with things in a measured and thorough way.
This week, the committee had a good session with the Minister for Parliament, who rightly said that he did not want life here to be a sort of war between the Parliament and the Executive. I am sure that we all sign up to that. However, there are occasions on which what may be convenient for ministers and civil servants in promoting their legislation may not be convenient for the Parliament in dealing with it. We must address those issues fairly and find a balance, but the report moves a little way in the right direction. It is a good example of people working by agreement within the Parliament and I therefore welcome it.
I call Kenneth Macintosh to wind up for the Procedures Committee.
I thank members for their brief contributions to this morning's debate. The debate has been short, but we have agreed a large number of detailed changes to parliamentary procedure. Few, if any, of the changes have been controversial, as Gil Paterson said, and credit for that is due to the work done by members of the committee and by John Patterson and the committee clerks, whom I thank. I also thank Andrew Mylne and his team from the Parliament's directorate of clerking and reporting, which also put in a lot of work on the report. Finally, I thank the financial resolutions working group, which was responsible for many of the detailed changes.
Our convener, Murray Tosh, outlined most of the substantial points. I had written on my speaking notes, "Not much I wish to add." The update is that there is nothing I wish to add to what has been said by other members. However, this is not the last word on procedures. I emphasise that the committee recognises that future changes in operational procedures or the work load of the Parliament, or simply the accumulation of more experience of our legislative process, may well result in the requirement to revisit those procedures. The committee is happy to play its part in that process.
There has been a willingness on all sides, from all parties and from the Executive, to ensure that the new Parliament works effectively and to allow procedures to evolve and improve. No one likes change for its own sake, but institutions have a habit of quickly fossilising. I am glad to report that there are no fossils here and I commend the report to the chamber.