Draft Standing Orders
We move to the main debate, which is on motion S1M-354, in the name of Mr Murray Tosh, who is the convener of the Procedures Committee, on the first report of that committee.
It is with great pleasure that, on behalf of my colleagues on the Procedures Committee and our splendid team of officers, who are arrayed along the back of the chamber, I present to the Parliament a draft set of standing orders. It is appropriate that this is the first committee report to be debated in this chamber. Members will be aware that, since 12 May, when the Parliament first met, we have operated under a set of standing orders that was conferred upon us by a statutory instrument made by the Secretary of State for Scotland.
Rule 17.1 of the Scotland Act 1998 (Transitory and Transitional Provisions) (Standing Orders and Parliamentary Publications) Order 1999 states:
"The Procedures Committee shall before 6th May 2000, by motion propose to the Parliament a draft set of standing orders."
It is a tribute to the focused work of the committee that we are able to bring a draft set of standing orders to the Parliament six months early. Today, we have the opportunity to make our own standing orders and so make a little bit of history in the development of this Parliament.
The Procedures Committee has met eight times. We considered at an early stage that it was important that the Parliament should have its own standing orders and that we should work towards presenting them to the Parliament before the Christmas recess. To be in a position to make our own standing orders is to be at an important stage in the Parliament's coming of age.
We also recognised that the Parliament was still a relatively new body and that it would be reckless to embark upon wholesale changes without the benefit of substantial experience. Furthermore, we recognised that the existing rules were of considerable merit—I pay tribute to those who thought about how the Parliament should work and to the draftsmen who turned those thoughts into the set of rules with which we have been working daily since May. Accordingly, the committee took the view that the current standing orders constituted a sound base for development and that the optimum approach was to consider priority changes in those areas in which members and clerks had detected difficulties in practice.
In identifying the priority changes that were likely to be required, the committee listened carefully to members. Two consultation exercises were carried out and, on behalf of the committee, I thank those colleagues who responded. I pay particular tribute to the contribution of the Executive, and of all political parties, to the complex process of identifying the issues for initial investigation and selecting suggested areas for substantial work.
More than 40 issues were identified in the consultation process. They were collated into subject areas and the clerks prepared papers on each area. The committee considered, discussed and debated each of those papers over a number of months. I am pleased to report that, in the spirit of the new politics, those debates were marked by a constructive approach and much good humour. That is reflected in the fact that, despite the considerable significance of the subject matter, a vote was resorted to on only one occasion—on the issue of summing up debates. Even then, after further consultation with the Executive, we were able to resolve the matter without the need to change the standing orders. That is a tribute to the sound common sense of everyone involved.
Of the papers that we considered, 15 resulted in proposed changes to the standing orders. Those are identified in annexe 3 of our report and are incorporated into a fully revised set of standing orders, which appear as annexe 4. In a moment I will touch on some of the key changes that we propose.
On all the remaining issues, the committee agreed that no change to the standing orders was necessary at this stage, but that a number of changes to parliamentary practice were required. Accordingly, on 15 October, I wrote on behalf of my colleagues to the Presiding Officer—that letter is contained in annexe 2 of the report— recommending that those changes be adopted as good parliamentary practice. I am glad to say that some of those recommendations have already been introduced—I hope that they have improved the smooth operation of parliamentary business.
In analysing the priority issues, the committee conducted research into the standing orders and procedures of a number of other Parliaments and Assemblies, and examined closely the prior work of such bodies as the Scottish Constitutional Convention and the consultative steering group. It is the duty of this Parliament and its committees to ensure that our procedures and practices are efficient, effective and in keeping with the spirit of the principles set out by the CSG.
I do not intend—nor do I have the time—to go over each of the changes in the report. It would be more helpful to members if I were to focus on some of the major changes that we think are most likely to improve the conduct of business in this Parliament. In particular, the committee has recommended significant amendments to the standing orders in relation to question time, non- Executive half sitting days and parliamentary committees.
The format of question time was a vital part of the committee's work. Question time is a key event in the parliamentary week and attracts much public and media attention, so the committee was keen from the earliest days to monitor its operation. We considered that, after what was possibly a patchy start, question time had improved significantly over the months as members became more familiar and comfortable with the format.
At the same time, we received a number of submissions from members, including the First Minister and the leaders of the Conservative party and the Scottish National party, to the effect that some adjustments to the present proceedings would improve the utility of question time as a mechanism for holding the Executive to account.
The Procedures Committee intends, in line with the CSG report, to facilitate a rigorous approach to accountability. Therefore, the committee agreed to propose an extension of the total period for questioning ministers from 45 minutes to one hour and to introduce First Minister's question time, which will replace open question time. Question time will last for up to 40 minutes and First Minister's question time for up to 20 minutes. We hope that the additional time provided, together with members' enhanced ability to pursue topics with ministers by using supplementary questions, will lead to fuller accountability of the Executive.
To improve question time further, the committee also recommends that the deadline for questions for First Minister's question time should be three days before the event, rather than eight days as for question time. We hope that that measure will aid the topicality of questions and, by doing so, add to the interest of questions and answers during First Minister's question time. The committee further agreed that the extra five minutes would allow an increase in the number of questions that the Presiding Officer might select for First Minister's question time from the present three to up to six.
The introduction of First Minister's question time is intended to address members' concern that a key element of accountability should be members' ability to question the First Minister weekly. That view was also expressed by the First Minister. My colleagues and I very much hope that the changes—if accepted by the Parliament—will add to the Parliament's standing among the Scottish people, but we are all committed to constant improvement and have undertaken to monitor the
changes carefully. If they do not work as envisaged, members should be assured that the committee will return to the issues.
On non-Executive half sitting days, the committee considered at length a request from the Green party, the Scottish Socialist party and Dennis Canavan to be allocated one half day each of non-Executive time by increasing the number of non-Executive days from 15 to 18. We concluded, first, that it was necessary to distinguish between the standing of the single-member political parties and non-aligned members. There was unanimous agreement that all political parties that are not represented in the Scottish Executive should be considered for non-Executive business. Therefore, to facilitate the provision of such business time for the two single-member parties, we propose that the number of half sitting days be increased from 15 to 16. In my letter to the Presiding Officer on 15 October, I recommended that that extra half sitting day be allocated to the Scottish Socialist party and the Green party. It will be for those parties, in consultation with the Parliamentary Bureau, to decide how best to utilise that time.
On non-aligned members, we recommended to the Presiding Officer that he and the bureau adopted a flexible approach within the current parliamentary rules, including the use of members' business time, to ensure that any such members had the opportunity to put forward the issues that were important to them. Once again, I believe that that recommendation reflects the commitment of the whole committee to the key principles of the CSG and, in particular, to the notion of sharing power.
On committee procedure, we recognised that the work of parliamentary committees was central to the Parliament's existence. I have no doubt that the Procedures Committee will consider many aspects of that side of our collective work in Parliament in future. In this round, however, the committee was able to consider only a limited number of issues in relation to the operation of parliamentary committees.
First, we were asked by Mike Watson, the convener of the Finance Committee, to consider widening that committee's remit. The Finance Committee was concerned that its remit did not allow it to inquire into the Executive's handling of financial matters beyond the details of the budget proposals or such other documents as the Executive laid before the Parliament to propose public expenditure or tax varying.
For example, the committee could not initiate a general inquiry into finance matters relating to or affecting the expenditure of the Scottish Administration or expenditure out of the Scottish consolidated fund. We agreed that the remit was unduly restrictive and recommended the change outlined in annexe 3.
Secondly, on the proposal of Kenny MacAskill, the convener of the Subordinate Legislation Committee, we agreed to recommend a change to that committee's remit to allow it to consider and report on general instruments not laid before the Scottish Parliament as a rule.
Thirdly, we considered a request from John McAllion, the convener of the Public Petitions Committee, to allow petitions to be lodged by the public during recesses, because it was felt that the present rules were restrictive. That change was also recommended.
Fourthly, on the absence of deputy conveners, the committee looked at the procedure for the selection of deputy conveners and made recommendations about temporary conveners. I understand that the matter of deputy conveners has been resolved and that the Parliamentary Bureau will bring forward a motion on that soon, but we have left the proposal on temporary conveners in the report as cover against the possibility that if, for whatever reason, a committee finds itself without a convener and deputy convener, it can continue to discharge its business.
Finally, we recommended a change to the standing orders that addressed an anomaly whereby the oldest committee member was not able to decline to chair the initial committee meeting and remain at the meeting. There are many other changes, but I have run out of time and must close.
Our intention in bringing forward this report is to begin a process of looking at and revising our standing orders. We want to move forward from the initial statutory instrument, so that Parliament has its own standing orders, which it can improve on an on-going basis. The report is not the last word; it is merely the beginning of a process that is evolutionary and on-going.
The committee found the process to be useful and stimulating. I hope that Parliament will find that the recommended changes are acceptable and that they add value to our debates. Anything that we have not touched on can be improved in future, because this matter will continue to be an important part of the committee's remit.
I move,
That the Parliament notes the terms of the First Report of the Procedures Committee entitled Draft Standing Orders of The Scottish Parliament (SP Paper 28); approves the draft standing orders set out in annex 4 of the Report and now makes the standing orders of the Parliament in terms of that draft, and agrees that those standing orders shall come into force on 17 December 1999.
During this morning's statement on housing, I was described as a revolutionary, so it may come as a surprise to members that I support Murray Tosh's comments about the process being evolutionary. The Procedures Committee should be congratulated on bringing together a good document, which shows clearly that it has listened to all members about how Parliament operates.
We are all finding our feet. This is a new Parliament. We are still working out when we are allowed to smoke, if we are allowed to smoke, and, if we are allowed to drink, when we are allowed to drink. I am sure that matters such as that will be discussed in future debates.
The idea that the Executive should be as transparently accountable as possible to the whole Parliament is important, so I welcome the overwhelming majority of the changes that Murray Tosh mentioned. However, we feel that an amendment is necessary because of the newness of Parliament, which signifies a new politics in Scotland. We have moved from a Westminster situation in which politics is dominated by three parties—that always was out of synch with the reality in Scotland, where there were always four main political parties—to the election of this Parliament in May and the emergence of six political parties. That is a welcome development, and I hope that it will flourish in the years to come.
The election of Dennis Canavan as an independent member signified the fact that individuals in constituencies could use proportional representation to vote for either party list members or independent members. A number of individuals tried to stand as independents and were not successful, but Dennis was, and that will encourage those with independent minds who feel that they have something to offer Scottish politics to fancy their chances a bit more at the next election.
It is important that we recognise that Parliament has not only two smaller parties, but an independent member. We should try to arrange our procedures to take on board that fact in determining the time that is allowed for non- Executive business. We must also recognise that things may change in future elections. Other independent members may be elected, for whom we would have to make time as well. We want to put down a marker that this Parliament will give due recognition to members who do not represent any political party.
I hope that the amendment will be non-controversial and will get cross-party support. It should not cause major problems for the arrangement of parliamentary time. There has been justified criticism of the time scales that have been set for some debates as compared to the time allowed for others. We are learning and I hope that those mistakes will not be repeated.
It should not be too much to ask for accommodation to be given for non-Executive business not just for the Scottish Socialist party and the Scottish Green party, but for members who do not represent any political party.
I commend the amendment to Parliament and hope that it is non-controversial enough to encourage individuals of an independent mind to support it and not be whipped one way or the other.
I move amendment S1M-354.1, after "that draft"
insert:
"with the addition of, in Rule 5.6.1(b), ‘after "under Rule 5.2.2" insert "or by members who do not represent a political party.'"
I am speaking on behalf of the Executive to indicate our full support for the Procedures Committee's work so far on the draft standing orders. That work takes account of issues raised by members of the Parliament and others based on the early experience of the workings of the Parliament.
As members know, the standing orders of the Scottish Parliament are an essential framework within which Parliament can function and carry out its everyday business. We must get them right to enable the procedures of the Parliament to flow efficiently and smoothly.
Although there is a requirement for consistency and certainty in the application of standing orders, there is also a need for flexibility. That is a key requirement, as no standing orders can cover every eventuality and the time has come when the Parliament needs to develop its own operating practice.
Before commenting on the detail of some of the key changes, I want to express the Executive's thanks to the members of the Procedures Committee and its convener, Murray Tosh. The committee's balanced and conscientious approach to reviewing and revising the standing orders is to be commended. The Executive has every confidence that the future work of the committee will be soundly based.
At this stage, and for the most part, the proposed changes to the standing orders are of a technical nature and reflect the Parliament's experience of operating under the existing standing orders. The Procedures Committee has, however, addressed a few substantive issues. I
will outline the Executive's position on those.
The substantive revisions include changes to question time, including the proposal that open question time be changed to First Minister's question time. The revisions reflect the views on question time expressed by the First Minister in his letter of 24 June to the Presiding Officer. They also reflect the Executive's recognition of the need for First Minister's question time to be more attractive to a wider audience.
Accordingly, we welcome the fact that the revised orders propose that questions for First Minister's question time can now be tabled up to three days before the event rather than up to eight days as at present. That change, which the Executive supports, is proposed to meet criticism that members have found it difficult to raise issues of recent and current topicality. However, we look to members to frame questions in specific terms so that the First Minister and Scottish Executive departments will have a clear idea of the issues to be raised and will be able to prepare adequately in the much shorter time available. We welcome the proposal that the times allowed for both question time and First Minister's question time are to be extended.
The committee has also proposed that the time for answering written parliamentary questions lodged during recess should be extended from 14 to 21 days. That recognises that, during those periods, the Executive, like the Parliament, may be less than fully staffed and that the usual timeframe can reasonably be relaxed. It is perhaps worth noting that, unlike at Westminster, recesses bring us no respite from having to consider questions from members.
I take this opportunity to remind members that a statistical analysis, to which my colleague the Minister for Parliament referred in a recent answer to a parliamentary question, is currently being undertaken on the parliamentary questions tabled to date. A number of issues are being considered, including the number of questions asked since 1 July and the time scale for responses. The findings of the audit should be available shortly. However, I can say that there has been a 200 per cent increase in the number of questions, of which a substantial proportion are either about matters that are not the responsibility of the Executive or relate to issues where information is already in the public domain.
In addition, we are looking at all aspects of parliamentary question procedure, including the appropriateness of questions asked, the use of holding answers and the asking of questions during recess.
An extension of the remit of the Finance Committee is proposed. As Mr Tosh mentioned, the committee's remit is restricted to matters connected with parliamentary scrutiny of the annual budget and committee reports that set out proposals covering public expenditure. The proposed additional strand of the remit will allow the committee to consider any other matters relating to expenditure of the Administration and of the Scottish consolidated fund. The revised orders will allow it to examine financial matters that do not fall within the remit of any other committee and on which documents may not necessarily be laid. That is welcome, as it will give the committee wider scope for its work within areas for which the Executive is responsible.
On the issue of flexibility, members will know that new procedures are proposed to allow standing orders to be suspended on a motion from the Parliamentary Bureau. That will, for instance, enable the rule requiring a financial resolution to be passed within three months of the introduction of the relevant bill to be suspended in appropriate circumstances. That will deal with the criticism that the rule places unnecessary pressure on the timetables of committees, as was suggested in the case of the two Executive bills recently considered by the Justice and Home Affairs Committee.
Greater flexibility is also proposed in the extension of Wednesday meetings of the Parliament to 7 pm, which will give more time for parliamentary business while retaining family- friendly working hours. The intention is that MSPs will be made aware, well in advance, of when business is likely to be extended. The extension will enable MSPs to have a full work programme in the Parliament while not encroaching on their time in their constituencies on Monday morning and all day Friday.
It is proposed that the number of Opposition half days be extended from 15 to 16 days. The committee agreed that this additional half day could be used by the minor parties, such as the Green party and the Scottish Socialist party. The convener has asked the Presiding Officer to take that into account.
As I said, the Executive commends the work that has been undertaken by the Procedures Committee and we are happy to support its recommendations. The revised orders reflect close joint working on the details between committee and Executive officials and we are grateful for the spirit of co-operation in which the work has been taken forward.
In particular, we very much welcome the extent to which the committee's views accord with those of the Executive as set out in the First Minister's letter on question time to the Presiding Officer. We are also pleased with the way in which they accord with the Executive's memorandum of 16 September, with the evidence given by the
Minister for Parliament to the committee on 21 September and, I am happy to note, with several of my own recent contributions.
The changes to the standing orders recommended by the Procedures Committee provide a coherent framework for the effective working of the Parliament in the future. Of course, this is just the beginning and the task is by no means completed. I fully expect that further changes will be required to standing orders. The Executive believes that the Procedures Committee could usefully consider, in the light of experience to date, the effectiveness of parliamentary procedures in relation to the legislative process, to the operation of the committee system and to parliamentary questions.
The Executive stands ready to assist the work of the committee and both the Minister for Parliament and I look forward to continued joint working and a productive relationship.
We now move into the open part of the debate. The time limit for speeches will be four minutes. I advise members that it will be impossible to call everyone who wants to speak.
I repeat what has become a constant theme: gratitude to Murray Tosh, my fellow members of the committee and John Patterson and his clerking team for making the Procedures Committee a pleasurable experience.
I know that members believe that people on the Procedures Committee are anoraks of parliamentary procedure who enjoy nothing more than dissecting rule 15.1(b). Their impression is correct. There are many sad people similar to ourselves in the world, but at least the Procedures Committee keeps us from train-spotting; it also contributes to the greater good of the Parliament. The committee has worked well, in no small measure because of the leadership of Murray Tosh.
A colleague said to me last night that, now that this report was before the Parliament, the work of the Procedures Committee would be over and we could go and do something useful. The reality is that the work of the committee has only just started.
Today's debate is about making the ideal standing orders that the consultative steering group gave us into something workable. There were elements of the CSG standing orders that were impossible to make work practically in the Parliament. The job of the Procedures Committee from now on is to take the workable standing orders and make them better and perhaps, through the work of the chamber and the committees, to convert them back into something ideal.
A number of issues still need to be addressed. There are the abstruse but important issues surrounding the allocation of parliamentary time, a matter to which Tommy Sheridan has referred. To whom does the time of the Parliament belong? Does it belong to the Parliament, which can give it away to the Executive or to others? Alternatively, does it belong to the Executive, which simply doles it out in small amounts to the Opposition parties? I stand firmly on the side of the argument that the time of the Parliament belongs to the Parliament and that the Executive should be allowed to use it, but not all of it. There is a great need for that time to be used by Opposition parties and by individual members in bringing their concerns to the Parliament.
We heard two statements this morning, both of which overran and neither of which contributed a great deal to the parliamentary debate, leaving many members feeling frustrated. I would like the Procedures Committee to discuss the way in which the time of the Parliament could be put at the disposal of the Parliament's members, not just at the disposal of the Executive.
There is the question of private members' bills and committee bills, a process that we have not really started yet. We have a great deal to learn; as we do, and as those pieces of legislation go through, we will have to return to the standing orders and look closely at the best way in which to assist individual members to bring legislation through. We do not know precisely how that will happen.
We have to consider the relationship between the Parliament and other institutions. As we speak, the First Minister is taking part in a committee in London on which the Parliament has never been consulted. The joint ministerial committees will be important to the work of the Executive and the Parliament, yet the issue has been debated neither in the chamber nor in any of the Parliament's committees. It is extremely important that the Procedures Committee looks at such issues, makes a judgment on them and brings its recommendations to the chamber so that Parliament can be consulted.
The committee can also discuss the bizarre ideas that emanate from individual members, including the First Minister, who seems to think that there is a role for the House of Lords in scrutinising the work of the Parliament, an idea so odd that it must have been some sort of joke that simply fell flat on its delivery.
Lord James.
In such circumstances, I welcome scrutiny from James Douglas-Hamilton, whom one might call the acceptable face of the House of Lords. In reality, there is no place for an unelected or appointed chamber furth of Scotland to scrutinise the work of this Parliament—we should say that formally and strongly.
The Procedures Committee has made a good start in the work that it has done. More is to be done, and I look forward to working with my colleagues on that. I believe that the committee is putting in place the ways in which the Parliament can serve the people of Scotland within the limits of the legislation; from my perspective as a nationalist, I hope that it is also putting in place the ways in which a fully independent Parliament can serve the people of Scotland without such limitations.
I add my thanks and support to Murray Tosh and the officials who have worked diligently with us to try to improve arrangements.
The committee looked carefully at the issue raised by Tommy Sheridan and came to a conclusion that I will support. I hope that it is not the subject of a whipped vote, as each member should make up his or her mind about the best mechanism for being fair to small parties and individual members such as Dennis Canavan, who all deserve an equitable but not excessive share of the Parliament's time and energy.
On a theme similar to the one that Mike Russell raised, I should say that we have done well so far but we now have to look at more fundamental issues. He mentioned some of those—for example, how the parliament exerts its authority over the Executive in getting questions answered in a reasonable time, which does not happen at present.
We must also consider how the Parliament exerts its authority over people who are apparently in the pay of the Executive yet spend much of their time denigrating members of the Parliament, parliamentary committees and so on. The Procedures Committee would be an appropriate vehicle to tackle that issue.
I look forward to the committee taking a similarly harmonious approach to thorny problems in the future. I congratulate Murray Tosh on the report.
I welcome the opportunity to speak in today's debate. Mike Russell mentioned the anorak's interest in detail but, as a woman involved in several fields, I am always conscious that the devil is in the detail—it is often the subtext that does one in. Debates such as this are important, because the organisational structure often reflects the opportunities for people to contribute.
Perhaps I should declare an interest—Fay, who is four, and Colin, who is two. They are the pressures on me to seek assurances that Parliament will honour its family-friendly rhetoric. Members will be aware that the Scottish Parliament was launched with great aspirations— particularly those held by women. Women saw the Parliament as an opportunity to develop a new model of working, to bring Government closer to the aspirations of Scottish women and to get rid of the synthetic anger and adversarial indulgence that we see in Westminster, where our MPs are separated from their families all week and deprived of sleep. For some reason, we are led to believe that that leads to good legislation.
We thought that the Scottish Parliament would offer the opportunity for more efficient working practices, with less ritual and more delivery of the goods. We also thought that it would provide a better opportunity for women to stand. Those who fought for the Scottish Parliament believed that it would commit itself to having representatives who lived in the real world. In the past, too many women who might have been interested in political life had to decide between standing or having a family.
If our MSPs are not rooted in real life, they are unlikely to be tuned in to what our society needs. There is no better way of putting yourself and your self-importance in perspective as you prepare for a parliamentary meeting than having to persuade your son that his clown outfit for the Hallowe'en do is really very nice and should not be taken off as he comes down the stairs and having to persuade your daughter that she ought not to do that with the broomstick.
I do not pretend that this job brings with it the stresses that many people face in a range of occupations for far less remuneration. However, in a world that is driving towards more flexible—not easier—working, it is ironic that our arrangements make it difficult to build flexibility into the care of our children. We argue that family friendliness should be not about doing less, but about allowing people to choose where and when they work. For many women, that means organising their lives so that they can get home but work later on.
I want to underline our concerns about the recommendation that Parliament should, on a vote, be permitted to sit until 7 pm. I am disappointed that that recommendation is being made, although I understand why it is being made. Women are used to managing time imaginatively; I contend that this is the least imaginative option. I
urge members to ensure that the late sitting takes place only in extreme circumstances, when all other options have been considered. Perhaps we should consider sitting late but holding the vote the next morning—that would allow some flexibility.
We must not do anything to hamper or prevent those MSPs with families from playing an active role in the work of the Parliament. We need an attitude that is more likely to enable us to be in tune with those outside the chamber and to listen to their concerns.
We should remember that being family friendly is not about providing the means to arrange child care, but about allowing us the space to work and care for our children ourselves. That is a model for good working and a challenge to employers who drive towards presenteeism. Encouraging employees, particularly men, to spend long hours at work away from their families causes many problems.
This is a real test for our new Parliament; we will see the result in four years' time, when the electorate sit in judgment. It will also be a test of our idea of family-friendly working. There are two questions. First, will those members who have families stand again? Secondly, will young people, particularly women who may wish to have children in the future, see being an MSP and having a family as a viable option?
I hope that, when we come to put the standing orders into practice, our family-friendly rhetoric is matched by family-friendly action. In only the most difficult circumstances should we consider using a Wednesday night. At the heart of our procedures should be a desire to be flexible and considerate to all who wish to participate in the work of the Parliament.
I wish to speak in support of Tommy Sheridan's amendment. In my first speech to this Parliament, away back in May, I made the point that I was the only member who was not a member of any party. That was not entirely of my own volition. The way in which I was elected to this Parliament was not my preferred way, but I felt that I had no option but to let the people of Falkirk West decide, which they did by giving me the biggest vote and the biggest majority in Scotland. I could therefore argue that I have the strongest democratic mandate of any member of this Parliament; but I am not going to go down that road. I take the view that, once elected, we should all be treated as equals.
Unless Tommy Sheridan's amendment is accepted, under standing order 5.6, I shall be the only member of this Parliament without any opportunity to initiate a debate. I consider that to be unfair discrimination—not just against me personally, but, more important, against the people whom I represent. There are also longer- term implications for other non-aligned candidates who may be elected to this Parliament in future; and for present members who may find that their party membership is withdrawn, for example, for voting against the party line.
I signed the letter written jointly by Tommy Sheridan, Robin Harper and me to Murray Tosh, the convener of the Procedures Committee. The letter asked for some opportunity to be given to the three of us to initiate debates under standing order 5.6. We did not ask for any debating time to be taken away from any other parties. We were not asking for a slice of the existing cake; what we were asking for was a slight increase in the size of the cake and for a few crumbs.
I am very pleased that the Procedures Committee has responded positively, at least in part, to our request, and has allowed some opportunities for Tommy and Robin. However, I fail to understand why I have been excluded. Murray Tosh said that it was necessary to distinguish between single-member parties and non-aligned members, but he did not say why. For the purposes of standing order 5.6, does it really make much difference whether a member belongs to a party with only one member in the Parliament, or whether that member does not belong to a party at all? A member is a member is a member. We have been told recently by the Presiding Officer himself that all members of this Parliament have equal status. Well, I am not of equal status if I am prohibited from initiating a debate under standing order 5.6.
It is rather anomalous that I could presumably get round that prohibition by going out and forming my own party. I have no intention of doing so, but I have every intention of doing what I was sent here to do, namely, represent my constituents. Tommy Sheridan's amendment would allow me more opportunity to do the job that I was elected to do. I therefore support it, and ask all fair-minded colleagues to do likewise.
I can call Janis Hughes if she can keep her remarks to under three minutes.
Thank you. I will try.
I would like quickly to echo the comments of my colleagues on the Procedures Committee and congratulate Murray Tosh on the professionalism with which he has guided us, and the clerks on their commitment and hard work. It is a reflection
on the consultative steering group's excellent work that only a few changes are needed to the standing orders at this stage. Murray is right to say that the Procedures Committee has worked very well together. I have found it a very enjoyable experience. We have exercised a common-sense approach in the spirit of the new politics.
Johann Lamont is right to say that we have always to bear in mind the family-friendly aspects of the Scottish Parliament, especially as they encourage more women and people with caring responsibilities to participate. However, when we weighed up the issue of extending the evening meeting on Wednesdays to 7 pm when necessary, I certainly supported that on the basis that it would happen only when necessary and where notification was given. I will bear Johann's comments in mind and say to her that this is not the slippery slope to the Parliament becoming much less family friendly.
As for Tommy Sheridan's amendment, he is right to say that the Parliament has moved away from three-party domination. Six parties are represented in the chamber. However, no one is saying that independents should be discouraged from standing. We need a flexible approach and have asked the Presiding Officer to exercise such an approach within the parliamentary rules, which allow non-aligned members to participate.
We need to create standing orders that stand the test of time and that take into account changing circumstances. Bearing in mind that I need to keep my comments short, I commend the first report of the Procedures Committee as it stands.
I have many comments to which to respond. Tommy Sheridan welcomed the fact that all political parties have been drawn into the parliamentary process, so at least we agree on that. As for the substance of his amendment, the issue with which the committee had to grapple and to agree was how to handle a situation where we might have several independents. How realistic would it be in practice to give each independent a half day for a debate? We felt that we could not make allowance for that suggestion within the rules that govern political parties.
Dennis Canavan asked about the difference between a one-member party and a non-aligned individual. A political party has a manifesto and a programme that ranges widely and far beyond the individual member's constituency. A constituency member is a member for the constituency and Dennis is the member for Falkirk West. When we discussed the issue, we felt that any matters related to Falkirk West could be dealt with through members' business, which allows MSPs to lodge motions on an enormous range of issues that might impact on their constituencies but not necessarily be specific to them.
I drew that fact to the Presiding Officer's attention when I wrote to him and asked him to give Dennis Canavan what amounted to preferential treatment within the members' business category. Although we recognised that he had no way in which to bring forward his election manifesto, we did not believe that he had such a manifesto. We hold Dennis in the greatest respect, as does every MSP; and I should say that, as an Opposition party, the Conservatives hold him in some affection. I am sure that, if pressed on the point and confronted with arguments that it did not take into account, the committee would reconsider the matter, as it would all matters in future. However, I cannot accept the amendment, because it does not reflect the committee's decision or recommendation.
I thank Iain Smith for his helpful involvement in the committee's work. He highlighted the fact that the report goes for flexibility and balance. His points about the extension of parliamentary time on Wednesdays and the suspension of standing orders show how we have tried to balance members' rights and the Executive's need to dispatch its business. He also referred to items that he wanted the committee to consider in future, which is what it will do. The committee will address all the procedures and practices of the Parliament. The Presiding Officer has written to me in terms similar to Iain's.
Mike Russell referred to remits from the Executive and the Presiding Officer and talked about on-going points from MSPs. Indeed, this week, members have raised several such points. The process will not stop—ever. MSPs and members of the public and the press, who write to us on a huge variety of issues, should be confident that the committee will continue to review its practices in the light of their points. Mike also mentioned members' bills and committee bills, which are enormous areas that we have still to consider. I will not, however, be drawn on what he said about independance.
Donald Gorrie spoke very helpfully, if briefly, about the on-going difficulties that the committee must address. I always welcome Johann Lamont's contributions to less adversarial politics. Her point about the Parliament being family friendly was important. Janis Hughes will have been able to give her some assurance on that. There is a need for the Parliamentary Bureau to handle the issue sensitively and to give adequate notice of extended hours in all cases.
I thank members for their positive comments and in particular for the warm comments that
many of them made about me, which are always nice to enjoy. I assure Parliament that the committee's intention is to continue to try to be fair to everybody involved. Nothing is finished; nothing is closed. The Parliament will continue to evolve and develop through the Procedures Committee. I hope that we can continue to operate in the same consensual and positive way that we have hitherto.