Point of Order
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I hope that you received a detailed letter from me on the point of order that I intended to raise before decision time. It follows on from yesterday's points of order regarding the Parliamentary Bureau's decision on setting up an ad hoc committee to consider Margo MacDonald's End of Life Assistance (Scotland) Bill.
I refer you to the statement by Paul Martin at column 23701 of the Official Report of yesterday's meeting. He made it clear that there are cases for the Health and Sport Committee and the Justice Committee to be nominated as lead committee on the bill. He went on to say that, because of that, the bureau had opted for an ad hoc committee.
Mike Rumbles gave a different explanation. He said that it was
"because the bill clearly deals with serious moral and ethical issues and is not only a health matter."
He went on to say that
"Some business managers argued that the Justice Committee has a major role, too."—[Official Report, 10 February 2010; c 23702.]
Presiding Officer, in my subsequent point of order, at column 23703 of yesterday's Official Report, I referred you to the guidance for Parliamentary Bureau members, which states:
"Where there are any overlapping remits or doubts as to the most appropriate committee, committee conveners and clerks will"—
I stress "will"—
"prior to making recommendations, hold discussions with the clerks".
Discussions were not held. The key word is "will": the provision is mandatory. With respect, Presiding Officer, I do not think that you responded to that point. It would be of assistance if you could do so tonight.
I refer to rule 6.13.1 with regard to the appointment of an ad hoc committee. It is of course quite competent, under rule 6.1.3, for the bureau to propose the establishment of such a committee. However, in my view rule 6.1.3 must be read together with rule 6.2.1 and rule 6.13.1. I will take your guidance on that. Rule 6.2.1 says:
"A committee shall examine such matters within its remit (referred to as ‘competent matters')".
I interpret "matters" to include bills, as well as inquiries, petitions and so on. I consider that that is relevant to our reading of rule 6.13.1, which says:
"Any question whether a matter is within the remit of a committee shall be determined by the Parliamentary Bureau."
So far, so good. However, rule 6.13.1 continues:
"The Parliamentary Bureau shall consult the Conveners Group on any such question."
The bureau did not so consult. Again, the important word is "shall"—the provision is mandatory.
Presiding Officer, I seek your guidance on whether in this instance the bureau breached its obligations under rule 6.13.1. [Applause.]
We do not need applause for points of order, thank you.
Ms Grahame, I am grateful for the advance notice of your point of order. I believe that I dealt yesterday with the point that you have asked me to look at again. I think that I dealt with it firmly. Your point of order yesterday was predicated on the first paper that was received by the bureau. As I pointed out yesterday, the bureau then received another paper, after which it made its decision. That decision, which was to propose the establishment of a committee to consider the End of Life Assistance (Scotland) Bill, was made under rule 6.1.3. Under that rule—the one under which the decision was made—there is no requirement to consult the Conveners Group on the proposal. Rule 6.13.1 therefore does not apply.
For the avoidance of doubt, I repeat what I said yesterday. The bureau has not breached standing orders. I hope that that is quite clear, and I hope that it is the last that we will hear of the matter.
On a point of order, Presiding Officer.
I had a funny feeling that that was coming.
I have written to you, Presiding Officer, and I apologise if my letter has not yet reached you. You said that a paper that went to the bureau determined the outcome of yesterday's proceedings. On the basis of what you have ruled, is there anything that says that the whole Parliament cannot now know the contents of that paper?
It was not the bureau that determined the outcome of yesterday's proceedings, but the Parliament. I think that that is as far as we need to go.