Standing Orders (Changes)
The next item of business is a debate on motion S1M-2656, in the name of Kenneth Macintosh, on two reports from the Procedures Committee.
I was heartened a few minutes ago to see an influx of my colleagues. I thought that they must all have heard that I was about to lead off in a Procedures Committee debate. Unfortunately, I have just discovered that their arrival was due to a false bleeper message. I will not take it as an insult if they take this opportunity to leave. As I mentioned to my ministerial colleagues, I have managed to clear many a hall before now.
Despite the large number of MSPs now leaving the chamber, I am delighted with the calibre of those who are left. It has been said of the Procedures Committee that we are not the most glamorous of committees, a fact that that my colleague, Frank McAveety, took great exception to. I am delighted to be surrounded by so many glamorous colleagues.
I will proceed now with what might be described as the worthy, but dull part of our business. The purpose of the debate is to present to the Parliament the Procedures Committee's fifth report of 2001 and first report of 2002. The two reports cover 11 proposed changes to the standing orders. Members will be pleased to hear that I do not intend to deal separately with each change.
It might be helpful, however, if I list the subject matter of the changes. They are: the suspension and closure of committee meetings; the joint consideration of subjects by sub-committees; the removal of committee conveners; the order of consideration of a bill's long title at stage 3; the setting up of selection panels for parliamentary appointments; the ability of committees to meet when the Parliament is suspended; the rules on who can be the member in charge of a bill and their attendance at and participation in committee proceedings on the proposed legislation; allowing any minister to move motions for financial resolutions; allowing junior ministers to lodge and move amendments to budget bills; and allowing the Presiding Officer or committee conveners to accept manuscript amendments at stage 2 and stage 3.
I will now discuss in a little detail some of the more significant changes that are recommended in the two reports. One proposed change, which conveners might have noted with alarm, is that relating to their removal. Perhaps it would be helpful if I clarified the change. The current rules do not preclude a convener from being removed. The decision to accept such a motion, however, rests with the relevant convener. That seems to be something of an anomaly. We therefore recommend that, in the interests of sound committee management, the rules be changed to ensure that such a motion is accepted and taken within a finite time, provided that it has the support of at least one other member of the committee.
The discussions between Parliament and Executive officials on selection panels for appointments identified that several forthcoming bills were likely to require the Parliament to nominate a person for appointment by the Queen. Examples of such bills include the bill to introduce the post of Scottish information commissioner—the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Bill—and the bill that has just been debated, the Scottish Public Sector Ombudsman Bill. The Procedures Committee agreed
"that a mechanism to set up a selection panel was required and should provide for any such panel to include the convener of the committee whose remit covers the relevant legislation, the Presiding Officer and at least 4, but no more than 7, other Members appointed by the Presiding Officer. The Committee also agreed that the Presiding Officer should be required to have regard to the balance of the political parties in the Parliament when appointing Members to the selection panel."
The committee further agreed that a discretionary power to set up such panels immediately following parliamentary approval of the bill at stage 1 could be of significant benefit. That would allow for appointment as soon as possible after the bill had received royal assent. The committee noted the apparent anomaly of commencing a recruitment process prior to royal assent, but recognised that such a bill's general principles would usually include a proposal to create a post and that the Parliament's decision on the issue at stage 1 would therefore be explicit. Of course, no appointment could be made prior to royal assent.
I will make a brief comment on committees meeting when the Parliament is suspended. The committee discussed a joint proposal from the conveners liaison group and the Parliamentary Bureau that committees should be allowed to meet
"exceptionally and at the discretion of the committee concerned, when the Parliament is suspended for a meal break."
I believe that that has happened before, but it has required the suspension of standing orders. The Procedures Committee agreed that this could be of benefit when there is an urgent requirement to finalise a report or conclude stage 2 of a bill. Under the current sitting programme, that would usually be on a Thursday.
The committee was aware that the
"existing standing orders could cause a potential difficulty in relation to the member in charge of a Bill because under the current rules a Minister who introduces an Executive Bill becomes the member in charge of that Bill and would continue to be the member in charge even if no longer a Minister."
That was revealed recently during the reshuffle. A similar anomaly could occur with a committee bill when the convener changes. It is also the case that a member in charge can designate an additional member, who does not have to be a member of the Executive or, in the case of a committee bill, a member of the committee. The Procedures Committee agreed to recommend a change that would ensure that
"the member in charge was linked, in the case of an Executive Bill, to the relevant ministerial posts or, in the case of a Committee Bill, to the convenership or membership of the relevant committee."
Under the current rules, the member in charge of a committee bill would not be entitled to participate in committee proceedings on the bill at stage 1, while the relevant minister would. A broadly similar restriction applies in the case of an Executive bill. The committee thought that the member in charge should be entitled to participate and recommends a change to give effect to that.
The Presiding Officer asked the committee to consider the matter of manuscript amendments at stage 3 of the legislative process. Under the current rules, manuscript amendments are not permitted at stage 3. The committee recognised that there could be occasions when a member fails to meet the deadline for lodging amendments. There could be genuine reasons for that. For example, complex technical or legal problems may be raised by the amendment, there may be a need to discuss the amendment with a third party who raised the point initially, or there may be a desire to secure cross-party support before lodging the amendment.
I emphasise that the committee did not think that manuscript amendments were a legitimate alternative to lodging amendments before the deadline. The committee still encourages members to meet the deadline whenever possible. We recognised that there might be clear benefits, particularly when stage 3 proceedings were under way, in allowing such amendments at stage 3 when they were justified. The committee has also recommended that appropriate guidance be drafted to support the change. I confirm that that is now being undertaken as a priority.
I have a point about a provision that I think the member is not going to mention—the provision for amendment of the long title of a bill at stage 3. Can the member, with his superior wisdom and knowledge of standing orders, clear up something that has puzzled me? As far as I am aware, under rule 9.10.5 of standing orders, amendments are not admissible if they are
"inconsistent with the general principles of the Bill".
What kind of amendment could be passed that was consistent with the general principles of the bill and yet required an amendment to the long title? Can the member think of an example?
I will have to ponder that question. Perhaps I can come back to Alasdair Morgan in my summing-up speech at the end of the debate. The reason for providing for the amendment of the long title at stage 3 is that currently the standing orders could be read to suggest that the long title be taken before the amendments, but the amendments may amend the long title, so that would be the wrong order.
Although each of the changes that is under consideration today is relatively small, the committee believes that they are all necessary to improve procedures and is pleased to recommend the changes to Parliament.
I move,
That the Parliament (a) approves the recommendations of the Procedures Committee's 5th Report 2001, Changes to the Standing Orders of the Scottish Parliament (SP Paper 441) and agrees to amend the Standing Orders in accordance with Annex A to the Report; (b) approves the recommendations of the Procedures Committee's 1st Report 2002, Changes to the Standing Orders of the Scottish Parliament (SP Paper 495) and agrees to amend the Standing Orders in accordance with Annex A to the Report, and (c) agrees that these amendments to the Standing Orders should come into force on 4 February 2002.
I wish to indicate the Executive's support for the Procedures Committee's two reports, which cover proposals for changes to standing orders.
As members know, the standing orders are the vital framework within which the Parliament carries out effectively its daily business. Therefore, it is essential that we review the standing orders regularly, so that parliamentary business can flow smoothly.
On the Executive's behalf, I thank the members of the Procedures Committee—including Murray Tosh, the Deputy Presiding Officer, who is convener of the committee, and Ken Macintosh, the deputy convener—for the positive approach that they have brought to their work. The Executive has been consulted fully and I am pleased to note that account has been taken of the suggestions that we made to the committee.
I do not propose to comment in detail on all the proposed changes. The changes, which are relatively minor, are designed to clarify and simplify parliamentary processes and to improve handling arrangements for bills. The Executive endorses fully the changes in the committee's fifth report of 2001, which includes several detailed suggestions for assisting the effective discharge of committee business. The same attention to detail is given to relatively minor issues, such as the long title of a bill, when that is to be considered at stage 3.
We welcome the committee's agreement to provide a mechanism for setting up selection panels for appointments by Her Majesty the Queen on nomination by the Parliament. That change, which was initiated by the Executive, takes account of Executive policy. When implemented, it will standardise procedures for such appointments and will assist in the timely implementation—following royal assent—of the Scottish Public Sector Ombudsman Bill and the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Bill.
The Executive also endorses the changes that are proposed in the committee's first report of 2002, a number of which were initiated by the Executive. We are grateful for the committee's careful consideration of the issues. The proposal to include an amendment to simplify the definition of the member in charge of an Executive bill is designed mainly to avoid a potentially difficult situation, which could arise should the member in charge cease to be a minister. That proposal is especially welcome and helpful.
Further changes will ensure that any member in charge of a bill can attend any meeting of a committee at which the bill is being considered, and that the relevant member of the Scottish Executive can attend any committee proceedings that relate to non-Executive bills and other business.
The changes to rules on motions for financial resolutions will provide administrative convenience—any Cabinet minister or junior minister will be able to give notice of or move a financial resolution motion without having to be named specifically as a supporter. The proposed changes to the handling arrangements for budget bills will provide increased flexibility by enabling junior ministers to lodge and move amendments.
The introduction of arrangements for the submission and selection of manuscript amendments at stage 3 of a bill—broadly similar to the arrangements that are provided at stage 2—is designed to simplify parliamentary processes. We welcome the committee's acknowledgement of the Executive's good record of timely lodging of amendments to bills. We note that the Procedures Committee proposes to keep the matter under review. We will continue to do as we have done in the past.
The changes to standing orders that the Procedures Committee has outlined and recommended should simplify and improve the handling arrangements for bills and they should assist in making more effective and efficient the discharge of parliamentary and committee business. As always, the Executive looks forward to continued joint working and a productive relationship with the Procedures Committee. We support the two reports.
I pay tribute to the writers of the Procedures Committee's first report of 2002, because it is one of the most easy to read and easy to understand reports that I have ever read. To pay tribute, I intend to read from the report.
The proposal on the member in charge of a bill is about giving ownership to the person who has the relevant knowledge and can make an input into the bill in question—that person should be in the driving seat. The report also covers continuity of responsibility in the event of a change at ministerial level.
To show members how easily the reports read, I will quote directly from the committee's first report of 2002:
"14. The current rules allow only Cabinet Ministers or junior Scottish Ministers to lodge and move a motion for a financial resolution. Additionally, the rules make it clear that any motion may be moved only by the member who lodged it or by a member whose name appears as a supporter. In practice, motions for financial resolutions are always lodged in the name of the Minister for Finance but with the deputy Minister for Finance and the Cabinet Minister and junior Scottish Minister responsible for the Bill named as supporters. The objective in adding these supporters is to ensure that if the Minister who lodged the motion is unable to be present, the motion may still be moved.
15. The Committee considered that this need to add specific supporters for such motions is unnecessarily restrictive. The Committee thought that it would be more appropriate if any Minister was able to move a motion for a financial resolution whether or not that Minister had added his or her name as a supporter. The Committee so recommends and believes that this change would not materially affect the interests of other members."
As an Opposition MSP, I recognise the responsibility and the right of members to hold the Executive to account and, where necessary, to put the blockers on it. However, standing orders should be well above that. I compare the changes that are proposed by the Procedures Committee to the explanation that some railway companies offer when trains cease to run. We have heard the excuse that, when certain types of snow land on the rails, the whole shooting match closes down. The committee's reports seek to put equipment in place so that our wagons can continue to roll and the business of the Parliament can be delivered, in particular by ministers.
When first I joined the Procedures Committee, I thought, "God, I'm going to die in here", because the issues that the committee dealt with were so dry. I have been a member of the committee for a while now, so I realise that it is even worse than that. However, to be serious, although the changes that are proposed in the reports look simple and straightforward, the reports reveal how much time and energy the Procedures Committee puts into unblocking provisions in standing orders. I commend the reports to the Parliament.
We in the Conservative group have always been in the useful position of being able, on procedural issues, to defer to a man who knows what he is talking about. However, because today that man finds himself in the Presiding Officer's chair, I have taken on the responsibility of saying a few words on the subject.
You can handle it, Alex.
I have been heavily briefed by someone who knows more about the matter than I do.
Most of the changes that are proposed in the Procedures Committee's reports are sensible. They will help to grease the wheels of the Parliament—to take up Gil Paterson's analogy—and will encourage the development of our business in a sensible and straightforward manner.
Other members who have spoken have focused on one of the changes and sought to demonstrate how it will be useful to Parliament in the future. The change that jumps out at me is that which relates to joint consideration of matters by sub-committees of more than one committee. When I was convener of the Rural Development Committee, Andy Kerr was convener of the Transport and the Environment Committee. As luck would have it, during that period we had to deal with a number of subjects, such as fish farming, that were of equal significance to both committees. We decided that the best way in which to proceed would be to set up a joint sub-committee. However, the lack of a relevant provision in standing orders meant that we had to hold informal discussions. Decisions that were made in the course of those discussions had then to be confirmed by one or other of the committees. Occasionally, that led to strange situations in which, in effect, the two committees met as a joint committee. Members of the Rural Development Committee would sit in as guests at meetings of the Transport and the Environment Committee and then switch on a television to see what members of the Transport and the Environment Committee had said after they left. Giving committees the power to delegate business to sub-committees meeting jointly will have a genuine impact in such circumstances, should they arise. They will arise when we least expect them to.
I am delighted to say that the Conservatives will support the changes that are proposed in the motion. I hope that they will have the effect that we all want them to have on the workings of the Parliament.
Like other members, I am happy to support the proposed changes to standing orders. They are sensible and have been agreed fully by the Procedures Committee.
One change that causes me concern is the provision that would allow the convener of a committee to suspend meetings for breaks such as coffee breaks. I am under strict instructions from my doctor and—far more important—from my wife to reduce my intake of coffee. As I am a weak-minded man, the introduction of more coffee breaks will cause me great problems. I will have to sort that out.
All the changes that are proposed are relatively minor. An underlying problem is that changes that are proposed in the Procedures Committee that cause serious concern to the powers that be seem to disappear into a black hole. We should examine that issue more closely. However, the changes that are proposed in the two reports are sensible and will help to make the Parliament operate better. I am very happy to support them.
It is a surreal experience to speak to members today when the Presiding Officer is the convener of the committee that proposed the detailed changes that we are debating.
On behalf of the Procedures Committee, Ken Macintosh ably identified the key elements of the proposed amendments to standing orders. Those changes are aimed at improving the quality of the parliamentary process. They are necessary and will enable us to deal better with legislation and to improve committee engagement.
A frisson of excitement ran through the chamber when the provision that relates to the removal of conveners was referred to. Mike Rumbles shifted rather edgily in his seat at that suggestion, perhaps fearing that, if he continues in his time-honoured fashion, there might be a cross-party agreement on removing him. I reassure him that the intention is not to allow for the summary dismissal of conveners. Rather, the proposed change would allow for the measured dismissal of a convener, should the convener disagree with views held broadly by members of a committee.
The Procedures Committee is trying, after examination, to sort out an anomaly that has emerged. I am reminded of Provost Pawkie in the John Galt novel "The Provost", which is set in Ayrshire. The provost said that he loved the job of trying to preserve his leadership of the local council through what he defined as enlightened self-interest. In the novel, Provost Pawkie describes how
"the cloven foot of self-interest was now and then to be seen aneath the robe of public principle."
I hope that that will not be the case with future conveners in the Parliament.
I want to draw attention to three of the committee's recommendations that I regard as important. I welcome the commitment to setting up selection panels for appointments to public bodies. That ties in with the concerns that members have expressed in the past two and a half to three years about how candidates for such appointments are identified. The fact that Parliament will now be involved in that process is a welcome development.
Another welcome change that members have not yet highlighted is the provision for committees to meet at times when meetings of the Parliament have been suspended. The fact that a number of committees have indicated that they would have liked the opportunity to meet over lunch to carry out stage 2 scrutiny of a bill or to consider the final draft of a committee report is evidence of members' hard work and commitment, which is often under-reported. On Tuesday morning, as part of its inquiry into the implementation of the principles of the consultative steering group report, the Procedures Committee took evidence from representatives of the press. It is a pity that members of the press are not here to hear this debate on an issue that seems mundane, but that shows that folk want to get the job done and to conclude the business of the Parliament appropriately.
Another issue is the anomaly that has emerged whereby the person who introduced a committee bill or an Executive bill would remain the member in charge of that bill even after that person had ceased to be the convener of a committee or a minister. That is a strange situation, which reminds me of Norman Lamont's claim that, under John Major, the Conservatives were
"in office but not in power."
The remedy that the Procedures Committee has proposed seems sensible.
I broadly welcome other members' contributions to the debate. They acknowledged that the Procedures Committee is trying to refine our systems by developing changes to standing orders—we are in a continuing learning process. Like other members of the Procedures Committee who have spoken in the debate, I welcome the proposed changes to standing orders. I hope that the changes achieve our intended objective, which is to maximise the effectiveness of the way in which the Parliament and its committees work.
I welcome all the proposals that are made in the Procedures Committee's reports and in the motion that we are debating.
I will focus on one aspect of the reports. I am sorry to disappoint Frank McAveety, but I will not be focusing on the proposal on the removal of conveners—that is not the issue that has brought me to my feet. I want to talk about the proposal to rectify an anomaly in the way in which manuscript amendments are treated. Conveners can accept manuscript amendments at stage 2, yet the Presiding Officer cannot accept them at stage 3. The proposal is to right that wrong. Members may ask why I am concerned about righting that wrong. As Ken Macintosh said, the committee's proposal provides for flexible deadlines and he identified several good, positive reasons why that proposal should be accepted.
However, I will introduce the only note of controversy—so far—in the debate: my concern is that the wrong should be righted in order to prevent from happening abuses of the system such as those that have occurred in the past. In my experience, the worst example occurred during consideration of the Protection of Wild Mammals (Scotland) Bill. Several members who were not content with the bill, including me, lodged amendments weeks in advance of stage 2. We did so because we were interested in ensuring that the legislation would be both proper and effective. Despite the urgings of the convener of the Rural Development Committee, members who supported the bill, including Mike Watson, resisted lodging their amendments until the very last moment. Mike Watson was perfectly entitled to do that, but I remember receiving pager messages and telephone calls, as did other members of the committee, about those amendments. Members who lodge amendments at the very last moment do not assist the production of good legislation, because other members are prevented from lodging amendments to those amendments. The convener, who read the rules, had the good grace to advise members that there was flexibility to ensure that there was a reasonable period of time in which members could lodge manuscript amendments, which were then accepted.
Following this debate, we will consider a motion in the name of Patricia Ferguson to hold the stage 3 bill on the Protection of Wild Mammals (Scotland) Bill in two weeks. Back in November, I lodged an amendment on compensation for consideration at stage 3. I lodged that amendment to allow members who are opposed to my amendment or who want to tweak it to lodge subsequent amendments, and to allow the Executive to make suggestions about it. I understand that Patricia Ferguson's motion proposes an extension to the stage 3 debate. At six hours, it will be the longest stage 3 debate that the Parliament has held. I stand to be corrected but, according to today's business bulletin, the motion proposes that on 13 February, the stage 3 debate on the Protection of Wild Mammals (Scotland) Bill will commence at 1 o'clock, with decision time at 7 o'clock. Why are we to hold a six-hour debate, which is most unusual? The answer to that question is that everyone expects that a raft of amendments will be lodged, which means that we will spend the entire afternoon and early evening going through them. I have no objection to that approach, but I hope that members who wish to lodge amendments for stage 3 will listen to the Presiding Officers and lodge them in time to allow other members to consider the amendments properly and therefore to enable us to pass good, decent legislation. I fear that that raft of amendments will be lodged at the very last moment, as happened at stage 2.
The Procedures Committee's motion will give the Presiding Officer—or Deputy Presiding Officer, if appropriate—the authority to accept manuscript amendments, in order to prevent what I call a clear abuse of the system. I hope that members who support the Protection of Wild Mammals (Scotland) Bill are listening to this debate or will read the Official Report of it, and that they will lodge their amendments in enough time to allow other members to see what we are to debate on the day. That will allow us to pass decent, good legislation and, for that reason, I support the motion.
I did not think that I would have anything to say at the end of the debate, but I will respond to a few of the points that have been raised.
Alasdair Morgan asked whether amendments would be admissible at stage 3 if they fell outwith the general principles of a bill—at least, I think that his question was along those lines. Would he care to elaborate?
Perhaps I should clarify my question, which came up during the early discussions on the Protection of Wild Mammals (Scotland) Bill, when I was a member of the then Rural Affairs Committee. Under standing orders, members cannot move amendments that go against the general principles of a bill. The Rural Affairs Committee had a debate about what the general principles of a bill were as the term "general principles" is not defined anywhere. Some members thought that the general principles of a bill were that bill's long title. However, if one cannot lodge an amendment that goes against a bill's general principles, is an amendment that would necessitate a change to the long title of a bill admissible? I appreciate that that is a bit of an anorak question.
Alasdair Morgan's point is well made, and I thank John Patterson and the Procedures Committee's clerking team for giving me an example of such a situation. The long title of a bill is not the same as that bill's general principles. A recent example is that of an amendment to the Bail, Judicial Appointments etc (Scotland) Bill, which amended the number of judges that were required. The amendment did not run against the bill's general principles, although it amended the long title. Therefore, it fell into the interesting category that Alasdair Morgan mentioned. Perhaps he would like the Procedures Committee to consider his point further. If so, I ask him to put his point in writing to the committee, so that we can consider it in the course of our business. I hope that he is assured that, as far as the motion that we are debating is concerned, we have addressed the issue that was troubling the committee.
I was grateful to Gil Paterson for deciding that he would not use standing orders to put the blockers on the Executive. Mike Rumbles raised a number of interesting points. Many members have raised the procedure that was followed throughout the Parliament's and the Rural Development Committee's consideration of the Protection of Wild Mammals (Scotland) Bill. Members have expressed a great deal of concern that procedures have been used either to slow down the bill's progress or to obfuscate deliberately the issues that are at the heart of the bill. Those matters are of great concern to members on both sides of the argument. To be fair to Mike Watson, there is no reason to believe that he lodged his amendments at the last minute for reasons that were different to those of any other member who lodged amendments at the last minute. There are issues that concern Mike Watson, just as there are issues that concern Mike Rumbles.
I disagree with Ken Macintosh's opinion on that point. Mike Watson was asked on a number of occasions to lodge his amendments as soon as possible, because members genuinely wanted to consider them in line with their desire to pass good legislation. The situation is being repeated at stage 3. Members who, like me, are opposed to the bill and want to change it have lodged amendments well in advance of stage 3. In my opinion, some members are abusing the system. The Procedures Committee has given us a mechanism through which we can ensure that we address such abuses, but we should prevent them from arising in the first place.
Mike Rumbles's point is well made, but Mike Watson thought that he should defend himself and there is no reason to think that he has used amendments differently to the way in which amendments have been used by members who oppose his bill. My remarks on the abuse of process could be equally—if not more so—directed at those who have tried to slow the bill's progress, despite the view of the majority of members. However, it is not for me to discuss the Protection of Wild Mammals (Scotland) Bill. I simply share Mike Rumbles's concern that the procedures of the Parliament should not be used to create obstacles that would get in the way of the will of the Parliament.
If I may deal with the other points—I am afraid that Mike Rumbles set the fur flying—I want to comment on what Alex Johnstone said. Someone told me before the debate that Alex Johnstone was going to make a slim contribution. I am not sure whether the words "slim" and "Alex Johnstone" have been used—
Oh, go on.
However, I welcome Alex Johnstone's contribution. He said that the proposal to allow joint consideration by sub-committees "jumps out" at him. I was just astounded that something could jump out of a report in that manner.
Donald Gorrie commented on the long debate that we had on the use of the terms "comfort breaks" or "coffee breaks" and how those breaks should be described. I think that we just went for "breaks" in the end. I am sorry if that will cause him any discomfort. I also welcome my colleague Frank McAveety's words of reassurance for conveners, although I suspect that he might have put ideas in members' heads that will make conveners more unsettled.
On that note, I welcome all members' contributions to the debate. I believe that the Procedures Committee's report will make us more effective in the delivery of legislation. I commend the report to the Parliament.