Procedures Committee (Sixth to Ninth Reports 2006)
The next item of business is a debate on motion S2M-5311, in the name of Donald Gorrie, on behalf of the Procedures Committee, on its sixth, seventh, eighth and ninth reports of 2006.
The Procedures Committee's reports respond to requests that were made by other committees. We have proposed four sets of changes to standing orders. None of the proposals will result in epoch-making excitement, but they will usefully tidy up the Parliament's procedures.
First, I will deal with the report entitled "Members' Interests (Parliamentary Determinations and Resolutions)". A few months ago, the Parliament got excited about determinations, but nobody knew exactly what they were. The Standards and Public Appointments Committee, under whose auspices determinations come, asked the Procedures Committee to set out the parliamentary rules for dealing with them. "Determinations" is merely a technical word for resolutions passed by the Parliament on things such as standards of behaviour. Our report is a response to the Standards and Public Appointments Committee. The rules that we propose are in line with what the committee has proposed, but members may be happy to hear that that committee will have to consult members before determinations are proposed to the chamber.
The eighth report deals with consolidation bill procedure, which is an even more recondite—I hope that I pronounced that correctly—matter. The Parliament has learned from the one consolidation bill that it has dealt with, and the Procedures Committee has made several suggestions in light of that experience. The committee has dealt with the difference between consolidation and codification, which is an even more obscure matter. A consolidation bill restates the law in a particular area, but it cannot contain any new law. Codification is the process of restating existing law, but amendments can be made to make that law more relevant. Parliamentary procedures exist to deal with both processes so that proper scrutiny rather than overscrutiny occurs. I am not talking about ordinary bills; usually, the processes are used merely to restate the law in more modern language.
The ninth report deals with the so-called 20-day rule. The Subordinate Legislation Committee asked the Procedures Committee whether it could have slightly longer to consider certain issues so that that would fit in with its work cycle. Following consultation with lead committees, we reached a reasonable solution, which has been generally accepted. Currently, the Subordinate Legislation Committee must report on instruments within 20 days. We suggest that it should normally report within 20 days, but that the time limit could be extended to 22 days, which would fit in with the Subordinate Legislation Committee's meetings without stealing too much time from the other committees that must consider the instruments.
Finally, I turn to the sixth report, "Public Bills and Substitution", which is perhaps of more interest to some members, given that it relates to committee substitution. The issue grew like Topsy. It started with a request about what to do about a member who had lodged a member's bill and who was also a member of the committee that would scrutinise the bill. It then grew to include areas such as the position of Government ministers and substitutions in general, including what the reasonable grounds for substitution are.
In our report, we propose a system of substitutes to address the situation that was set out in the original request. We propose that substitution can be made for the part of the meeting during which the bill is debated. The member can withdraw for consideration of the bill and the substitution can be made, but the member can continue to take part in consideration of other agenda items. We also set out the rules by which parties can arrange substitution, the arrangements for which depend on the size of the group. I think that our proposal in that respect is fair. The existing substitution system, under which the member who is substituted for has to miss the whole of a meeting, works. However, we decided to change the rules to allow substitution to be made a bit more sensibly.
I turn to the slightly peculiar wording in the rules that sets out what happens when a member resigns from a committee, the effect of which is to create a gap before a substitution can be made. If a member resigns unexpectedly or is very ill, the new rules will allow the substitute to attend meetings straight away.
We also propose that substitution should be allowed if a member is absent on "other Parliamentary business". The current wording,
"other business in the Parliament",
does not cover proper parliamentary work that is done outwith the Parliament, such as trips abroad to promote the Parliament. That work will now be counted and a substitute will now be allowed to attend if a member is absent for that sort of reason.
At the moment, if a member is unable to attend committee because of "adverse weather conditions", they have a legitimate reason for demanding a substitute. We propose changing the wording to read
"adverse travel conditions beyond the member's control".
That will cover circumstances such as the railways being all fouled up or a member being caught in the fog at Heathrow. We have broadened the wording of the conditions under which substitution is allowed.
I believe that we have made sensible suggestions. As I said, the reports were produced in response to committee requests. We consulted ministers and discussed some of the proposed wording with them. I think that they are satisfied with the proposed changes. None of this is very exciting, but it is useful progress for the Parliament. I am happy to commend to the Parliament the four reports and the relevant changes to standing orders that they set out. If agreed to, the changes will take effect from 22 December.
I move,
That the Parliament notes the Procedures Committee's 6th Report, 2006 (Session 2), Public Bills and Substitution (SP Paper 652), 7th Report, 2006 (Session 2), Members' Interests (Parliamentary Determinations and Resolutions) (SP Paper 659), 8th Report, 2006 (Session 2), Consolidation Bill Procedure (SP Paper 676) and 9th Report, 2006 (Session 2), Rule 10.3.2 (the "20-day rule") (SP Paper 685) and agrees that the changes to Standing Orders set out in Annexe A to each of these reports be made with effect from 22 December 2006.
I will be fairly brief. I will throw away my lengthy prepared speech.
I welcome the changes and clarifications that are proposed in the "Consolidation Bill Procedure" report. Consolidation bills exist to bring together all the bits of statutes that have been passed in an area over the years, in order to make the law in the area clearer for everyone who has to deal with it. I consider it a shame, therefore, given one or two substantial Executive bills that were brought before the Parliament lately and which substantially amended legislation by inserting whole new sections, that the opportunity was not taken to consolidate the legislation. I know that the committees involved found it difficult to consult on bills that effectively just inserted huge chunks into legislation of 10 years or so standing. Such bills when passed are also much more difficult for users of the legislation to deal with. I know that it takes more time to draft consolidation bills, but I make a plea to the Executive to consider whether it would be sensible to consolidate the existing legislation when it introduces major bills in the future.
As a former member of that august body, the Subordinate Legislation Committee—my time on which I enjoyed greatly—I am sure that, under certain circumstances, the extra two days that will be available as a result of the proposed change to the 20-day rule will be helpful.
The clarification that has been provided on parliamentary determinations, particularly as they relate to the Interests of Members of the Scottish Parliament Act 2006, is most helpful. I was one of the members who caused a bit of a stushie on the subject during the Parliament's consideration of the Interests of Members of the Scottish Parliament Bill. In effect, we were being asked to pass a bill that referred to a procedure the meaning of which none of us was sure about because there was simply no provision in standing orders on how it would be dealt with.
Finally, I turn to the report "Public Bills and Substitution" and who can be on committees that examine bills at stage 2. Given that the Parliament does not have a revising chamber and is not likely to get one—because of the physical constraints of the existing building and the unfortunate reception that any proposal to build an extra building would be likely to receive—it is essential that the detailed scrutiny of bills, which can take place only at stage 2, is carried out by members who are dispassionate and do not have a vested interest in them. The proposed changes are welcome.
The other changes to the rules on substitution are helpful. If we are to have substitution at all, it is essential that we continue to clarify the rules on who should be a substitute, to avoid the unfortunate occurrences that took place after the tragic death of Margaret Ewing, after Mike Rumbles's resignation from the Health Committee and on the one or two occasions on which members legitimately thought that they were substituting within the rules but found out that they were not. I am grateful that the Procedures Committee has provided clarification on that and I will be happy to support all the proposed amendments.
As I look back over an increasingly lengthy lifespan, I realise that some things that have happened to me are probably punishments for things that I did in a previous life. Appointment to the Procedures Committee is probably an altogether more immediate response.
No—that was because of what the member has done in this life.
In committee debates, it is traditional to take the opportunity to thank the clerks for their hard work in preparing the report. I am in the unique position of being able to thank the clerks for their hard work in preparing four reports for the purpose of this afternoon's debate. It is surprising for such a large amount of material to be gathered together for one purpose, and it makes one realise how hard the clerks in the Parliament work at times.
Many people might assume that membership of the Procedures Committee is a less than entertaining experience, but we have had some interesting meetings and discussions, which have led to the production of the four excellent reports that I can recommend to the Parliament. I do not intend going through them in great detail, because we have already had the privilege of hearing the convener do that, and later we will be equally privileged to hear the deputy convener sum up at the end of the debate. However, I thought that it would be appropriate for me to mention a few events that took place during the preparation of the reports. Sometimes, even the Procedures Committee can be current and slap bang up to date in reacting to events.
That was the case when we were considering substitution. Our sixth report rightly deals at some length with substitution as it relates to the activities of members who promote their own bills and who are members of committees that consider those bills. As we discussed the suggestions for substitution in such cases—which is an important issue—we found ourselves in an unusual position. I believe that it was Karen Gillon who was not present for that day's meeting. Her substitute Irene Oldfather arrived at the meeting, only to be told that she did not qualify to act as a substitute on that day. Karen Gillon was definitely away on parliamentary business, but because she was not involved in business in the Parliament itself, she was not entitled to be substituted. It was important that the Procedures Committee took the opportunity to address that issue as part of that day's consideration of the subject of substitutions. I am glad that proposals have been made that clarify the position in such situations and simplify one or two other matters.
The committee took the view that the opportunity to provide a substitute should not be widely extended, because the privilege of substituting a committee member should be protected and should operate within fairly narrow limits. The proposed changes will not extend the current limits greatly and will simply allow us to accommodate what we all consider to be important parliamentary business.
I briefly read the Executive's response to the report on consolidation bill procedure. It appears that the Executive does not entirely agree with the committee proposal that there should be the opportunity to debate consolidation bills at stages 1 and 3. I will not question that response now, but I am interested in hearing the minister's view in more detail at the end of the debate.
When the Procedures Committee was discussing the 20-day rule, I took the view that we should jealously protect the system in the Parliament whereby a strict timetable is adhered to for dealing with subordinate legislation that is subject to the negative procedure. I did not want the timetable to slip, so I supported the committee's initial rejection of the Subordinate Legislation Committee's request that we extend the 20-day period to 25 days. However, I am happy to support the proposal to make it clear that the Subordinate Legislation Committee will normally report to the lead committee within 20 days but that on some occasions it may report up to 22 days after an instrument is laid. That will allow the Subordinate Legislation Committee limited flexibility while helping to maintain a strict timetable for dealing with secondary legislation.
I support the convener of the Procedures Committee and add my support to the proposals for changes to the standing orders.
A Procedures Committee debate that addresses several reports on parliamentary procedure might be regarded as a tidying-up exercise and might therefore not be awaited with the anticipation that accompanies a report on parliamentary time. However, it is important to ensure that parliamentary processes work effectively and that there are no controversial proposals.
The proposal that has perhaps been most debated is in our report on public bills and substitution. The proposed approach will create a level playing field for members who introduce bills and ensure that they will not have an additional impact on the bill's consideration by taking part in private committee discussions simply because they happen to be a member of the lead committee. Of course, it is easier for the larger parties to supply substitutes, but the Procedures Committee has made it clear that the recommendation of a substitute, on a motion of the Parliamentary Bureau, will not upset the party balance on the committee, which is crucial. I hope that members agree that the committee struck the right balance. As Alasdair Morgan and Alex Johnstone said, it is also important that we clarify the general rules on substitution, to ensure that there is a consistent approach.
On parliamentary determinations and resolutions on members' interests, the committee thinks that it is sensible to follow the model that was helpfully proposed by the convener of the Standards and Public Appointments Committee, which will allow for appropriate consultation on relevant proposed determinations. We acknowledge that it is for the Parliamentary Bureau to allocate time for debates on motions that will be lodged under the proposed new rule. The allocation system has worked adequately in the past, so the new approach should not present a problem.
Consolidation bill procedure is important, if technical. The Procedures Committee's convener said that the procedure is recondite—I do not know what that means, but I am sure that he is right. I commend Murdo Fraser for his diligence when he was convener of the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries (Consolidation) (Scotland) Bill Committee and thank him for his evidence to the Procedures Committee. Again, the Procedures Committee has emphasised the need for flexibility by proposing that the rules be changed to make it clear that there will normally be no debate at stages 1 and 3, rather than having an absolute prohibition on such debates.
Flexibility also informed the committee's approach to the rule that the Subordinate Legislation Committee must report on statutory instruments within 20 days of their being laid. The Subordinate Legislation Committee said that it needed greater flexibility, not least because of its significant workload. The Procedures Committee's recommendation is to substitute a deadline of no later than 22 days for the previous deadline of 20 days. That sensible change will accommodate the Subordinate Legislation Committee's needs and the demands on the parliamentary schedule.
I hope that Parliament will agree that the Procedures Committee has taken a sensible approach and has ensured that, for each of the parliamentary procedures that we have considered, our recommended changes will be improvements and will offer a flexible approach that will allow the procedures to work in the most expeditious way in the specific circumstances with which they deal. I commend enthusiastically to Parliament each and every one of the reports.
As I have listened to the members who have spoken so far, I have been reminded of the real debt that the rest of us owe to those who serve on the Procedures Committee. The reports that it has put before us are excellent—Solomon in all his wisdom did not produce such documents. The committee has arrived at proposals that will undoubtedly improve the workings of the Parliament. For example, on the proposals on substitute members, there is no doubt whatever that the existing procedure has caused problems because the rules are far too rigorous and are not reasonable. Overall, there is little that I can say to add to the debate. The proposals are completely sensible and I congratulate the committee on its work. We certainly do not wish to delay the progress of the changes.
It is great when there is an outbreak of festive consensus. I place on record my support for the Procedures Committee's work. In my previous life as a Unison branch secretary, I was a bit of an anorak when it came to rules, standing orders and constitutions. I understand how important it is to get rules right rather than have them act as a barrier to achieving the aim of ensuring that the organisation—whether it is a Parliament, a trade union or a political party—works and does what it is supposed to do. I congratulate all the members of the Procedures Committee on their dogged work.
The Scottish Socialist Party sees nothing contentious in the proposals, which are helpful. However, I want to mention one issue that arises in my head. I hope that the members of the Procedures Committee or those who are better versed than I am in the Parliament's procedures will be able to help me with it, as they may have considered it.
The proposed rule change on substitutes refers to having regard to the balance between Executive and non-Executive parties in the composition of a committee, which is a natural and right concern. However, the report does not deal with the situation, of which several parties have experience—the Tories have very contemporary experience of it—when members change their political allegiance, leave or are turfed out of a party. Using the size of the political parties when the Parliament is convened, they are given a set number of committee places and are offered convenerships and places on particular committees. However, a member who takes up a place on that basis but then leaves the party can choose not to resign from the committee, which changes the political balance in the committee. There does not seem to be anything in the rules or procedures to deal with that situation.
I want to provoke a bit of a debate about whether it is right not to continue to reflect the balance in the membership of committees and the convenerships that the electorate voted for in the election. I seek comments from Procedures Committee members about whether they have discussed the issue and, if so, whether they might return to it. Otherwise, the proposals are sensible and I am happy to support them.
Like everyone else, I am thrilled to be here this afternoon. I would like to wish everybody a merry Christmas. I would also, genuinely, like to pay respect to the Procedures Committee, whose work interfaces with my responsibilities to a considerable extent. I appreciate the commitment that its members have shown with regard to the significant issues that we have been discussing. I put on record my thanks to the convener, the deputy convener and the members of the committee for the work that they have done in relation to the reports.
The Executive welcomed the opportunities that it was given to contribute to the committee's inquiry. We are pleased that the committee broadened the original inquiry in order to consider the substitution rules in relation not only to member's bills but to Executive and committee bills.
I am sure that all members agree that the committee system is one of the great strengths of the Parliament. The process of accountability is important not only in theory but in practice. It leads to better legislation and we are fundamentally committed to it. Obviously, an effective and reliable substitution system is vital to ensuring a smooth and uninterrupted flow of committee business. We have already documented our support for that.
I welcome the fact that the Procedures Committee proposes the introduction of a new rule that is aimed at preventing an MSP who is in charge of a member's bill or who has lodged a proposal for a member's bill from participating as a member of the committee that is scrutinising that bill.
We faced a number of difficulties as the situation with regard to substitute members developed. I am glad that the committee has now clarified the situation, as there were some misunderstandings about what the position was. We all appreciate the importance of party balance, and we need to ensure that it is properly honoured and respected. I think that the committee has found a way of dealing with that.
As I do not want to eat into any of Karen Gillon's speaking time, I will simply offer my thanks to the committee for the work that it has done, which has helpfully addressed some of the key issues that needed to be considered.
I want to put on record the fact that I am in no way an anorak. I am on the Procedures Committee as a penance for bad acts in a previous life. I am sure that I will be rewarded in heaven for the role that I have played on the committee.
I have some sympathy with Alasdair Morgan's proposal that bills should look at the whole area rather than enter new sections into existing legislation, which can sometimes be confusing. However, the clerks tell me that that would not, strictly speaking, be a consolidation bill as it would combine the consolidation of existing enactments—
Will the member give way?
Willingly.
I was not talking about a consolidation bill; I was talking about a normal bill that would have the added effect of also consolidating various other pieces of legislation.
I hope the that the Executive will reflect on that and consider how practice can be improved with future legislation, particularly when we are required to scrutinise detailed bills that impact on a number of acts.
Carolyn Leckie raised a point about committee balance and the role of conveners. We have not considered the issue in any detail, but I understand her point. Obviously, any committee has the right to remove its convener if that is the will of the committee. Committees will make decisions about that for various reasons. However, I appreciate the point that she makes. I am sure that the convener of the Procedures Committee has heard her point and that we will consider the issue as our work progresses.
Carolyn Leckie's point was interesting. Does Karen Gillon think that the current procedures cater adequately for what happens when the lone representative of a party on a committee changes party? Do we deal correctly with the question of what happens with regard to the substitute member? I am sure that the chamber would be happy to know whether the substitute member would also change in that circumstance and whether the party that the person joined would be entitled to put a new substitute member on the committee.
The Procedures Committee was clear that substitution by a member of the same party should not only apply in relation to issues such as the one to do with member's bills. Substitutions should reflect the balance on the committee between Executive and non-Executive parties. For example, if a member is from one of the Executive parties, they should be replaced by another member from one of the Executive parties.
We had a long discussion about the matter and we were clear that no member has the right to nominate a substitute. It is for the Parliamentary Bureau and the Parliament to determine who the substitute should be. The substitution should reflect the balance of the Parliament rather than the needs or concerns of an individual party.
Alasdair Morgan made some powerful points about the fact that we do not have a revising chamber. For that reason, the role of the committees at stage 2 is crucial and, as far as possible, should be seen to be devoid of interference and influence from those who are promoting bills. Bills should be considered as simply and clearly as possible by all members of the committee without the influence of vested interests. Our committees have a good record of doing that, but we were conscious of a potential conflict of interest and we wanted to resolve the matter. That is what the new rule does.
Carolyn Leckie's points were well made and the Procedures Committee will want to consider them further in the next few months as we continue to consider matters that are to be included in our legacy paper.
I think that everything else has been said, Presiding Officer. It would be churlish of me to speak for the sake of it. I am tempted to give you a little carol, but I will not. [Interruption.] On behalf of the Procedures Committee, I thank members for coming to the debate. They obviously have very little to do with their time, but I am glad that they find our work so meaningful and worth while. If any Labour member wants to swap, they should come and speak to me later.
Before we move on to the next item of business, I point out to members yet again that someone has their mobile phone on.