Standing Orders
The next item of business is a debate on motion S2M-1447, in the name of Iain Smith, on behalf of the Procedures Committee, on the suspension of, and on two minor changes to, standing orders.
I am not sure whether to wait until after the excited rush as members enter the chamber for this important debate.
The Procedures Committee's motion invites the Parliament to note two short reports from the committee and to agree to the minor changes to standing orders that are recommended in annex A of each of those reports.
Our third report of 2004, which was published on 13 February, deals with the current rule governing suspension of standing orders. Rule 17.2 enables whole rules, or paragraphs within rules, in standing orders to be suspended, but it stops short of making it possible to suspend any part of a rule, such as an individual word or number. At the moment, rule 17.2 is rather a blunt instrument that can be used only when a workable procedure can be retained in the absence of a whole rule or part thereof. The committee therefore recommends that the rule be revised to make it possible to suspend whole rules or certain paragraphs or parts of a rule, including specific words or numbers. For example, where a deadline is set for a particular piece of business, we might wish to amend the deadline by changing only the number of days that is specified.
Other additional changes are also recommended for rule 17.2. We recommend introducing a new element of flexibility into the rule to enable an alternative provision to be substituted for the part of the rule that has been suspended. For example, we might wish to substitute a particular date for the number of days' notice that is specified in standing orders. Also, having considered the extent to which rule 17.2 prevents the suspension of those rules that relate to provisions in the Scotland Act 1998, we recommend that the revised rule should set out in more precise terms the limitations that are imposed by the 1998 act, as that will usefully extend the application of the rule on suspension.
Finally, the committee recommends retaining the current balance between motions under the rule that are permitted to be moved only by a member of the Parliamentary Bureau and those that may be moved by any member. Taken together, the proposed changes will increase the clarity, flexibility and usefulness of rule 17.2 and will enable it to be used more precisely in a wider range of circumstances.
I am grateful for Iain Smith's explanation of what the Procedures Committee has been up to, but is the committee considering the system for selecting oral questions? Does he share my concern that individual members can go for months on end without one of their questions being selected, whereas one member can—as I see from today's Business Bulletin—draw first place for oral questions three times on the same day? I can assure members that I will ask three excellent questions on 1 July, but I am not sure that that is entirely fair. Will the Procedures Committee do anything about that?
After the summer recess, the committee will review the changes that were made to question time. When we consider the evidence that we have received, we will also take account of the rather strange things that the random selection ballot sometimes throws up. None of my questions has been randomly selected for several months, so I know of that problem. The committee will address that issue later.
The second report to which the motion refers was published on 10 June and recommends two minor changes to standing orders. The first of those is a change to rule 5.8.1, which sets out timescales within which time needs to be set aside for the stages of the budget process. The purpose of rule 5.8.1 is to guarantee that time is made available for the annual three-stage budget process. However, the times at which the three stages of the budget process have taken place have diverged from what was envisaged when the rule was first drafted. That does not mean that the Parliament and its committees have been in breach of the rule; the rule merely guarantees that time should be set aside within the prescribed timescales for the budget scrutiny, but it does not prevent budget scrutiny from taking place outwith those times.
So far, it has not proved necessary for committees to rely on the rule for time to be kept aside for budget scrutiny. Nevertheless, we believe that it would be preferable for the rule to match up with the practice that has developed, so that if the guarantee that is provided by the rule should ever be needed, time would be made available at the point at which it was required. Our report therefore recommends that the timeframe that is allowed for stage 1 of the budget process should begin in April rather than in May and that the timeframe for stage 2 of the process should end in December rather than in November.
Given that I will not be here next week, it is perhaps appropriate that the final change that I want to recommend today—on what will be my last day in this chamber—is a change to rule 2.7.1, which specifies the location of meetings of the Parliament. At the moment, rule 2.7.1 provides that meetings shall be held in the
"Church of Scotland Assembly Hall, The Mound, Edinburgh".
In view of the Parliament's forthcoming move, the committee's report proposes that those words should be replaced with
"Debating Chamber of the Parliament, Holyrood".
Although the change is not controversial, it is important because we need to ensure that the Parliament can meet without having to use the provisions on meeting at a different location.
Nothing would prevent some of the rule changes that I have proposed today from coming into force as soon as they have been agreed to by Parliament. However, it is sensible that the change to rule 2.7.1, which deals with the location of meetings of the Parliament, should not come into force until the start of September. Although the timetable for migration to Holyrood is no longer in doubt, if the Parliament had to be recalled during the summer recess, it would need to meet in this chamber on the Mound. We therefore suggest that all the changes should come into effect from 6 September.
I have pleasure in commending motion S2M-1447 and the changes to standing orders that are referred to therein.
I move,
That the Parliament notes the Procedures Committee's 3rd Report, 2004 (Session 2), Suspension of Standing Orders (SP Paper 93), and its 5th Report, 2004 (Session 2), Two Minor Changes to Standing Orders (SP Paper 174), and agrees that the changes to standing orders set out in Annexe A to each Report be made with effect from 6 September 2004.
The Procedures Committee's report on "Two Minor Changes to Standing Orders" recommends changes that are just that: they are minor and uncontroversial. I cannot envisage their causing any huge controversy, as the committee report makes it clear that they will do nothing more than tidy up and update standing orders. Therefore, I have little to add to the remarks of the committee convener, who has accurately reflected the report and the committee's opinion.
On the proposed change to rule 2.7.1, it is only sensible that the default meeting place of the Parliament should be changed to Holyrood. After all, having spent all that time and money on the building, we should at least try to make use of it. Furthermore, the Church of Scotland will no doubt want its Assembly Hall back. However, I also welcome the fact that, although the default venue for the Parliament will be changed, no amendment will be made to the following paragraph—rule 2.7.2—which allows the Parliament to meet in other venues. The huge success of the Parliament's meetings in Aberdeen two years ago shows that temporary relocations whereby the Parliament is taken out to other parts of Scotland can be hugely beneficial, albeit that they may be administratively challenging.
The proposed change to rule 5.8.1 will simply bring the timescale for budget scrutiny that is set out in the rule into line with current practice. Again, that is a sensible move, which I cannot imagine will cause controversy.
The changes that are recommended in the "Suspension of Standing Orders" report will merely create flexibility and make standing orders more effective in light of the current practice of parliamentary business.
I have nothing more to add to what the committee convener has said, so I hope that the Parliament will agree to the motion.
The Scottish Conservatives congratulate the clerks of the parliamentary business team and of the Finance Committee on recognising the need for the proposed changes.
The change to rule 2.7.1 simply substitutes the Holyrood debating chamber for the Assembly Hall, which we use just now. The change to rule 5.8.1 will ensure more time for the three-stage budget scrutiny process. As the current timeframes are too narrow to cover what happens in the practice that has developed in the Parliament, the proposed changes will broaden the timeframes.
No other member wishes to speak, so Iain Smith may make any concluding remarks that he feels are appropriate in response to the debate.
There is nothing that I need to add at this stage. I simply commend the changes that the Procedures Committee proposes.