PR/S2/05/15/A
PROCEDURES COMMITTEE
AGENDA
15th Meeting, 2005 (Session 2)
Tuesday 6 December 2005
The Committee will meet at 10.15 am in Committee Room 4.
1. Review of Parliamentary Time: The Committee will consider options for further evidence and for structuring the rest of the inquiry.
2. Committee debate: The Committee will consider a proposed bid to the Conveners’ Group for a Chamber debate on its report on procedures relating to Crown appointees.
3. Procedures relating to Crown appointees (in private): The Committee will consider a draft report and draft standing order changes.
4. Private Bill Committee assessors (in private): The Committee will consider a draft report and draft standing order changes.
Andrew Mylne Clerk to the Committee Room TG.01 Ext 85175 [email protected]
The following papers are attached for this meeting:
Agenda item 1 Note by the clerks PR/S2/05/15/1
Relevant oral evidence to previous Procedures PR/S2/05/15/2 Committee during its “founding principles” inquiry
Summary of comparative research information PR/S2/05/15/3 (revised and updated version)
Agenda item 2 Note by the clerks PR/S2/05/15/4
Agenda item 3 Letter from the Presiding Officer PR/S2/05/15/11
Draft report (PRIVATE PAPER – MEMBERS PR/S2/05/15/5 ONLY)
Draft standing order changes (PRIVATE PR/S2/05/15/6 PAPER – MEMBERS ONLY)
Agenda item 4 Correspondence between Convener and PR/S2/05/15/7 Presiding Officer (as chair of SPCB)
Draft report (PRIVATE PAPER – MEMBERS PR/S2/05/15/8 ONLY)
Draft standing order changes (PRIVATE PR/S2/05/15/9 PAPER – MEMBERS ONLY)
The following papers are attached for information:
Note by the Clerk on options for resolving PR/S2/05/15/10 differences on draft reports
Minutes of the last meeting PR/S2/05/14/M
PR/S2/05/14/M
PROCEDURES COMMITTEE
MINUTES
14th Meeting, 2005 (Session 2)
Tuesday 22 November 2005
Present:
Mr Richard Baker Chris Ballance Cathie Craigie Karen Gillon (Deputy Convener) Donald Gorrie (Convener) Bruce McFee
Apologies were received from Alex Johnstone.
The meeting opened at 10.17 am.
1. Items in private: The Committee agreed to consider in private, at its next two meetings, draft reports and draft standing order changes on procedures relating to Crown appointees and on Private Bill Committee assessors.
2. Review of Parliamentary Time: The Committee took evidence in a round-table discussion from—
Bill Aitken MSP, on behalf of the Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party;
Mark Ballard MSP, on behalf of the Scottish Green Party;
Carolyn Leckie MSP, on behalf of the Scottish Socialist Party;
Alasdair Morgan MSP, on behalf of the Scottish National Party;
Margo MacDonald MSP, on behalf of the Independents’ Group;
Michael McMahon MSP, on behalf of the Scottish Labour Party; and
Jeremy Purvis MSP, on behalf of the Scottish Liberal Democrats.
3. Private Bill Committee assessors: The Committee agreed that where assessors appointed to conduct Consideration Stage hearings required a transcript of the oral evidence, this should be provided through an external transcription service rather than through the Parliament’s Official Report, with the cost of this service recouped from the promoter. The Committee also agreed to recommend that a Private Bill Committee be established as quickly as possible following the introduction of a Private Bill; and to write to the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body on the question of whether the contracts for the three assessors likely to be required for the forthcoming Private Bills could be entered into separately rather than collectively.
The meeting closed at 12.34 pm.
Andrew Mylne Clerk to the Committee
PR/S2/05/15/1 Agenda item 1 PROCEDURES COMMITTEE
Review of Parliamentary Time
Further Evidence and Organisation of Inquiry
Purpose
1. This paper:
• updates members on progress to date;
• invites members to consider what, if any, further oral and written evidence they wish to invite; and
• invites members to agree a structure for handling the remainder of the inquiry.
Written evidence
2. At the request of the Committee, the Clerks wrote to the Catalan, Estonian, Finnish, New Zealand, Norwegian, Quebec and Queensland legislatures to gather information on their procedures and working practices. A summary of the responses received was circulated for the Procedures Committee meeting on 8 November. Following a recent meeting with the Deputy Convener, representatives from the Valencian Parliament were also invited to send the Committee information on their parliamentary procedures. A revised version of the summary of responses taking account of the information from Valencia, and of some additional information received from the other legislatures, is attached as a separate paper.
3. Committee members are invited to consider whether they wish to seek any further written information, either from the legislatures listed above, or from any other sources.
Oral evidence
4. The Committee has held two round-table discussion sessions – one involving interested outside organisations and one involving representatives of the parties and groups represented on the Parliamentary Bureau. These sessions appear to have worked very well and have been a good vehicle for airing the wide range of issues covered by the inquiry. No further oral evidence is currently scheduled. The Committee might want to consider now whether to invite further witnesses next year, perhaps to give evidence on specific parts of the inquiry.
5. Committee members are invited to indicate what, if any, further oral evidence they wish to invite, either from inside or outside the
1 PR/S2/05/15/1 Agenda item 1 Parliament. Options might include former MSPs, Westminster parliamentarians, academics or commentators.
Video conferences
6. A video conference with the Queensland Parliament should take place shortly and it is hoped to organise a video conference with the New Zealand Parliament in the early part of 2006. The National Assembly of Quebec have indicated that, because they have moved to their period of extended sitting hours, the organisation of a video conference would be difficult and they have offered instead to provide additional written evidence.
7. Members are invited to note the arrangements made to date and to indicate whether they would like the clerks to request any further written evidence from the National Assembly of Quebec.
Visits
8. A visit to the Norwegian Parliament has been arranged for 12-14 December. A visit to the Catalan Parliament is likely to take place at the end of January 2006 and work is also progressing on organising a joint visit to the Finnish and Estonian Parliaments in early March. The possibility of extending the visit to Catalonia to include a trip to the Valencian Parliament was raised some months ago. Unfortunately however, the budget for the visits could not stretch to this. In any case, it does not appear from the information so far obtained that the Valencian Parliament has procedures or practices that are particularly distinctive, compared with those covered elsewhere by the programme of visits.
9. Committee members are invited to note the arrangements made to date and to agree that an additional trip to the Valencian Parliament would not be necessary.
Subsequent handling of inquiry
Discussion of topics
10. As was clear from the recent round table discussion sessions, the remit of this inquiry is very broad and the issues complicated. Given this, it is important that the Committee has adequate time to consider all the relevant issues and considers matters in a structured and logical way. A suggested structure for handling the various topics raised is set out at Annex A and members’ views are invited on this. It should be stressed that this outline is meant to be a guide only and, as such, would not be set in stone.
2 PR/S2/05/15/1 Agenda item 1 Consultation with MSPs
11. Discussion of the various issues raised is likely to take at least until the Easter recess and possibly longer. However, once the Committee has a clearer idea of the viable options, or of specific proposals it is minded to make, it may wish to consult MSPs generally on these. Provided the inquiry proceeds according to schedule, this could be done in late April or early May 2006. The related question of how best to consult members also arises here.
12. On previous occasions, the Committee has issued questionnaires to members. This has proved a reasonably effective way of engaging with individual members and getting different perspectives. The response rates to previous questionnaires has been fairly good (48 responses were received to the last questionnaire on oral questions), although this provides no guarantee that we would again get a good response. Alternatively, we could we could organise facilitated “workshop” discussions for selected MSPs, or further “round-table” discussions (either at formal meetings or otherwise).
13. There is no need for the Committee to take a definitive view on these issues at the moment. However if members have preferred options, or indeed options which they would like to rule out at this stage, then it would be helpful to know that.
Wider consultation
14. When the Committee discussed the remit of this inquiry at its awayday on 7 June, the possibility of gathering views from the wider public was floated. At the time Committee members felt that, given the wide remit of the inquiry, it would be more effective to carry out any public consultation when actual options for change had been formulated.
15. If the Committee did feel that some form of public consultation or involvement would be desirable then the clerks would be happy to work up some proposals in conjunction with the Parliament’s Public Participation Officer. As with the consultation of members above, the Committee need not take a definitive view on this matter immediately. However, there can be lengthy lead times for the organisation of public consultations and/or events, so if this is a route the Committee would be interested in pursuing it would be useful to know sooner rather than later. The timing of any such consultation would also need to be considered. For instance, would it be better to do this prior to, after, or at the same time as, any consultation of MSPs? Members’ views are invited.
Conclusion of the inquiry
16. The original intention was to have this inquiry concluded in time for any proposed changes to be agreed and implemented by the start of the next session in May 2007. The lead time required will of course depend on the
3 PR/S2/05/15/1 Agenda item 1 extent of the changes proposed. However it is suggested that the Committee works towards concluding the inquiry and publishing a report by the summer recess 2006. This should be a realistic goal and should provide adequate time for any changes to be successfully implemented.
4 PR/S2/05/15/1 Agenda item 1
ANNEXE PROVISIONAL STRUCTURE FOR PARLIAMENTARY TIME INQUIRY
10/01/05 24/01/05 07/02/05 21/02/05 07/03/05 21/03/05 Debate Management - Time limits on speeches X [X] - Categories and lengths of debates X [X] - Order/selection of speakers X [X]
Business Planning - Chamber time allocated to Political Parties X [X] - Chamber time allocated to Committees X [X] - Timing, duration, scope and frequency of Members’ Business X [X] - Preparation and notice of Business Programme X [X] - Notice of motions and amendments X [X]
Meetings of the Parliament - Days of Chamber meetings X [X] - Sitting Hours X [X] - Decision Time X [X] - Early/late sittings in special circumstances X - Committees meeting at same time as Chamber X - Recess dates X
X = main discussion of topic. [X] = opportunity for a further discussion if necessary
5 PR/S2/05/15/2 Agenda item 1 PROCEDURES COMMITTEE
Review of Parliamentary Time Inquiry
Oral evidence to the previous Committee
1. At its meeting on 27 September, the Committee agreed that relevant evidence submitted to the previous Committee’s major inquiry on the Parliament’s founding principles (3rd Report, 2003 (Session 1)) should be re-circulated in the context of the above inquiry.
2. Previous notes (PR/S2/05/13/4 and 14/1) attached recommendations from the report, and extracts from written evidence, that seemed most relevant to the new inquiry. This note includes extracts from relevant oral evidence. Given the extent of the material and the difficulty of identifying all relevant references, only reasonably substantial and clearly relevant references have been included.
1 PR/S2/05/15/2 Agenda item 1 Annexe: extracts from evidence given to the Procedures Committee and published with its 3rd Report, 2003 (Session 1)
Michael Russell: […] I frequently bang on about the concept of parliamentary time, which is at the heart of this matter-and there is no need for Janis Hughes to nod sympathetically because she has heard all this before. One of the core issues for this committee is whether parliamentary time belongs to the Parliament, which shares it with the Executive, or whether the time belongs to the Executive, with other groups in Parliament occasionally getting a share. At the moment, the Executive jealously guards the time as its own and standing orders allocate no time for members' bills. We must address those issues. If the Executive does not take a lead in discussing them constructively with the Parliament and this committee, they will not be resolved. (1 February 2000, col 282)
* * * * * * * * * *
Dennis Canavan (Falkirk West): […] I am unhappy about the way in which the Parliamentary Bureau operates. As I said in my letter, at times it seems that it behaves "like a secret society, meeting behind closed doors".
That appears to contravene one of the basic CSG principles, that the Parliament "should be accessible, open, responsive, and develop procedures which make possible a participative approach".
The Parliamentary Bureau takes many important decisions about the Parliament. It takes decisions on the Parliament's agenda, timetable and delegations—including delegations to represent the Parliament overseas. All its decisions are taken behind closed doors and only some are subject to the approval of the Parliament as a whole. (30 October 2001, col 931)
[…] The more notice we get of the parliamentary agenda, the better. Even with minimal notice, we might have the opportunity to feed in. You should also bear it in mind that I am the only member of the Parliament who does not have the opportunity to get time allocated for a debate in the chamber. I therefore feel excluded in that respect, and I also feel excluded in that I have very little, if any, opportunity to influence the business of the Parliament. (cols 934-5)
The Minister for Parliament (Mr Tom McCabe): […] It is important to recognise that the bureau is not an emperor within its own domain. It does not take final decisions. The bureau discusses issues in private, but I firmly believe that there are times when that is of benefit to all parties that are represented in the bureau. In particular, when dealing with especially sensitive subjects, it encourages people to express a clear and honest view rather than be reticent, which they may be if they know that every word they say will be reported to the outside world.
However, let us remember that the bureau then produces a business motion that is presented to the Parliament, and every member of the Parliament has
2 PR/S2/05/15/2 Agenda item 1 the opportunity to express a view on that business motion. It is a compliment to the way in which the bureau goes about its work in as consensual a way as possible that on very few occasions has that motion been debated or has there been an attempt to overturn the contents of a business motion. That indicates to me that there is a fairly high level of acceptance for what the bureau produces. It is important to bear those points in mind.
The level at which representation is achieved in the bureau was set before the Parliament was established. Parliament could change that. It could reduce the number from five to three MSPs, or it could increase the number to 10. Personally, I believe that we have struck a reasonably fair balance, therefore I cannot see a case for changing the current situation. (cols 944-5)
* * * * * * * * * *
Sir David Steel: […] We are still feeling our way in the balance of how we spend our time in the chamber, and the demand for members to have more time to debate what they would like to debate—more time for committees, for example—is legitimate. The fact is that speeches are kept rather too short, because of the short sitting times and the number of members who want to speak. Four minutes, which is the standard time, is a very short space of time for members to address themselves in. Perhaps we should keep that under review. (20 November 2001, col 1003)
[…] The length of time given to members depends on the length of the debate. The longest speech in any debate is an opening speech of 20 minutes in a full three-hour debate. I have not had many complaints that that is excessive. In most debates, opening speeches are shorter than 20 minutes.
On the selection by Presiding Officers of back benchers to speak, it is well- known that there are two ways of getting called. One way is by the party managers, quite sensibly, discussing with their colleagues who would like to participate in certain debates and putting in a list of names. That does not have the status of holy writ. I assure Kenneth Macintosh that the Deputy Presiding Officers and I take care to include those who volunteer to speak, outside the context of the business managers' list. That is especially true of members' debates, which are almost entirely not governed by the business managers. The Presiding Officers are completely independent. We are sometimes aware that a particular back bencher is not currently in favour in their party. We must allow for that and enable them to have a voice. (cols 1005-6)
[…] [Responding to Donald Gorrie:] Your wider question was about the allocation of parliamentary time for what you called self-congratulatory Executive motions and critical Opposition amendments. I think that it would be useful to have more take-note type debates—from committees, all-party groups or whatever. It could be useful just to discuss topics, without having ding-dong "My amendment is better than your motion" arguments. I do not decry such debate, as it is the mainstay of parliamentary life, but there is scope for other openings.
3 PR/S2/05/15/2 Agenda item 1 I note in passing that we have sometimes had difficulty filling committee slots. In some cases, the bureau has had a slot for a committee debate, but there has been no committee report to debate. Perhaps there is another avenue into general discussion in those slots. (col 1009)
[…] The balance of legislation and committee activity in the Lords is much more like the balance in the Scottish Parliament than it is that in the House of Commons. I have seen it myself. There is a clear difference between the two Houses. Historically, the system has been weighted towards the Government being in control of what happens in the Commons, unless the majority is very narrow, which has not happened often.
How do we avoid such weighting in the Scottish Parliament? The answer lies in maintaining the views that the committee system is of paramount importance and that the chamber is only half our work. At Westminster, the Parliament is definitely the chamber and committees are a minor adjunct. One of the reasons why I have always resisted the pressure from committees to meet at the same time as the chamber is for the committees' own protection. They have a status; they are the Parliament functioning. They should not be considered an adjunct to the chamber. That is why Tuesdays and Wednesday mornings are the Parliament working through its committees and the chamber meets on Wednesday afternoons and on Thursdays. That pattern ought to be protected and preserved. (cols 1012-3)
* * * * * * * * * *
J B Raeburn (Scottish Daily Newspaper Society): […] I return to a point that we raised at a previous meeting of the committee. We still feel that having decision time at 5 o'clock gives the impression that the system is set up for convenience rather than the execution of democracy. (col 1262)
[…] The occasions on which there has been a lunch-time vote have been few and far between. The vote is held over until 5 o'clock, which is of no value to evening newspapers. (col 1266)
[…]
Fiona Hyslop: You made the point that the fact that we have a 5 pm decision time makes it appear that we were not working the same hours as Westminster.
J B Raeburn: We did not say that; I think that the point was that quite a number of MSPs have been absent from the chamber and have not taken part in the debate, yet have been present for the vote on it at 5 o'clock.
[…]
Brian Taylor (BBC Scotland): From the perspective of someone who covers the Parliament regularly, 5 pm is not a fatal problem; we are a 24-hour news broadcaster and will take the result when it comes. (col 1266)
4 PR/S2/05/15/2 Agenda item 1 * * * * * * * * * *
Blair Jenkins (BBC Scotland): There are two reasons why the emphasis in "Holyrood Live" on Wednesdays and Thursdays is on the chamber. First, chamber business is live at that time and the committees are not. Nevertheless, we carry reports from committees fairly regularly in Wednesday's programme. Secondly, there is a practical problem that relates to the grammar of television. The nature of committee business makes it difficult to boil down to a short report whilst maintaining the essence of the discussion. If there were live committees during our transmission time, we would probably carry more.
We have had the opportunity to do that only once. When the Parliament returned from its sojourn in Glasgow and the chamber was not quite ready for business, there was a day of committee meetings on a day that we were broadcasting, so we carried some committee coverage. We will have an interesting opportunity to do that again in May, when the Parliament moves to Aberdeen. There will be a week of plenary meetings, with a week of committee meetings either side. I anticipate that committees will be meeting on a Wednesday or Thursday afternoon when we are broadcasting and that we will cover some of those meetings. (cols 1284 -5)
* * * * * * * * * *
Phillippa Bonella (Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations): […] It is important that civic society knows exactly how decisions are made, and that it knows well in advance what the timetables are likely to be. The bureau does not meet in public and does not minute its decisions fully, so it is difficult first, for that level of accountability to be fulfilled and, secondly, for organisations that want to contribute to debates to know well enough in advance what the timetable is likely to be, so that they can include that in their work plans (col 1549).
The Convener: You might be surprised at how short the forward programme is, and how little any of us know about what is likely to arise.
[…]
Phillippa Bonella: […] The Executive knows what bills it wants to get through in any given year, and most people are probably aware of which committees should be the lead committees for those bills. It is a case of stepping back and realising that, although it is important for legislation to go through as quickly as possible, it is equally important for everyone to get a chance to contribute to it in order to ensure that it is good legislation. The Executive should step back and say, "We have four years to get the bill through—we don't have to do it in the next fortnight." A forward-planning timetable of legislation should be provided so that organisations can consult their members and contribute to the process at the right point.
5 PR/S2/05/15/3 Agenda item 1 PROCEDURES COMMITTEE
Review of Parliamentary Time Inquiry
Summary of Comparative Research Information
Note by the clerks:
This note was previously circulated to the Committee as paper PR/S2/05/13/3. It has now been revised to include comparative information which was recently received from the Valencian Parliament and some additional data from the Catalonian Parliament and the National Assembly of Québec. Any amendments to the original paper are underlined.
This note presents a summary of data obtained from various foreign legislatures, selected on the basis that they appeared broadly comparable to the Scottish Parliament in terms of size and functions. The data was collected through correspondence with the staff of those legislatures, and we are grateful to them for their cooperation.
The following standard terms have been used in the interests of comparability, even though they are not necessarily the terms used by the legislatures referred to. “Session” describes the period from one general election to another; “sittings” describe a day’s business in the legislature and “terms” are the sitting periods between recesses or adjournments.
SITTING PATTERN
1. What is the parliamentary/assembly calendar in a typical year (i.e. sitting periods and recess periods) and how much do these periods vary from year to year within the parliamentary/assembly session?
In the 2004/05 Parliamentary year the Scottish Parliament sat on 35 weeks of the year, which is fairly typical. Recess dates are agreed on a motion from the Parliamentary Bureau and coincide as far as possible with school holidays.
The Parliament of Catalonia has two ordinary terms: one from September to December and the other from February to June. During these periods Parliament sittings usually take place from Tuesday to Friday. The Finnish Parliament’s (Eduskunta) spring term begins in early February and generally ends at Midsummer, but can if necessary be continued until the end of June. The autumn term begins in early September and ends before Christmas. Both terms include one week when the Eduskunta does not meet. In the Norwegian Parliament (Storting), representatives assemble on the first weekday in October to begin a new term. The summer term ends sometime in June the year
1 PR/S2/05/15/3 Agenda item 1 after, usually around the 20th. The Parliament is in recess for about two weeks during Christmas and at Easter. These periods do not vary greatly.
The standing orders of the National Assembly of Québec provide for a fixed Parliamentary calendar, from the second Tuesday in March until not later than the 23 June and from the third Tuesday in October until not later than 21 December. The Assembly adjourns its proceedings for one week following the Easter holiday. The Constitution of the Queensland Parliament requires at least two terms per calendar year and no more than six months between two terms. Typically the Parliamentary calendar begins at the end of February and ends in early December. The Parliament does not identify “recess dates” but it tends not to sit during school holidays. Extended breaks between sitting weeks coincide with holiday periods over Easter, June and September.
The New Zealand Parliament sits from the beginning of February through to mid-December and an attempt is made to link adjournment periods with school holidays as much as possible. This pattern has not varied significantly in recent years, although sittings this year have had a premature end due to the recent election. Sittings of the Estonian Parliament (Riigikogu) are held from the second Monday in January to the third Thursday in June and from the second Monday in September to the third Thursday in December.
In the Valencian Parliament (Corts Valencianes) there are two terms in the parliamentary year, each consisting of 4 months. The first extends from September to December and the second from February to June.
2. On how many days did the chamber sit during the last full calendar or parliamentary year, and how many chamber hours were there in total during that period?
Legislature Sitting Days Total Hours Parliamentary/Calendar year? Scotland 67 351 Parliamentary Finland 137 536 Calendar Estonia 116 approx. 250- Parliamentary 270 Norway 98 approx. 370 Parliamentary New Zealand 96 583 Calendar Québec 77 355 Calendar Valencia approx. 53 approx. 290 Parliamentary Queensland 40 416 Calendar Catalonia 37 211 Parliamentary
2 PR/S2/05/15/3 Agenda item 1 3. Is the parliamentary/assembly sitting pattern normally the same each non-recess week?
The sitting pattern was the same in each non-recess week for all of the legislatures with the exception of the Norwegian, Estonian and Valencian Parliaments – see below for further details. a) If so, on which days of the week does the chamber usually sit and what are the daily sitting times?
The Scottish Parliament Rules define the “normal Parliamentary week” as Monday afternoon (14:30-17:30), all day Tuesday to Thursday (09.15- 17:30) and Friday morning (09:30-12:30) – with a limited facility to sit later in special circumstances. In practice, the Chamber almost always meets on Wednesday afternoons and all day Thursdays only.
In the Parliament of Catalonia sittings take place from Tuesday to Friday. They may, however, be held on other days. In the current legislative session they usually take place on Thursday from 10:00 to 14:00 and 16:00 to 21:00 (the duration can vary).
The Parliament of New Zealand meets Tuesday and Wednesday: 14:00 to 18:00 and 19:30 to 22:00 and Thursday: 14:00 to 18:00. The National Assembly of Québec normally meets Tuesday to Thursday, 10:00 to 12:00 and 14:00 to 18:00. However from 25 May until 23 June and from 25 November until 21 December it meets for extended hours: Tuesday to Friday from 10:00 until midnight with a 2 hour break for lunch and a further 2 hour break for dinner. The Finnish Parliament meets from Tuesday to Friday. Sittings normally begin in early to mid afternoon and may run on until 23:00 at the latest. The Queensland Parliament sits on Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday, with some Friday sittings. Sitting days start at 09:30 and finish when the House rises (the House aims to rise by 22:30 on Tuesday and Wednesday and earlier on Thursday). There is a lunch break from 13:00 to 14:30 and a dinner break from 18:30 to 19:30. b) If not, is the sitting pattern based on alternating weeks of chamber and committee business, or some other regular pattern, or does the parliament/assembly determine its sitting days according to its workload?
The Storting (Norwegian Parliament) usually sits on Tuesdays, Wednesdays and sometimes Thursdays. All sittings start at 10:00 and usually last until 13:00 or 14:00. However the sitting days are determined according to the Parliament’s workload, and sittings can be scheduled on all weekdays, evenings on weekdays and (rarely) on Saturdays when required. The workload is usually heavier in the run-up to Christmas and before the summer recess, but steps are being taken to even it out. It is also worth noting that when considering bills the Storting splits up in two chambers, the Lagting and the Odelsting.
3 PR/S2/05/15/3 Agenda item 1 The Estonian Parliament has a completely different sitting pattern. A week during which regular sittings of the the Riigikogu are held is a “plenary working week” of the Riigikogu. Three consecutive plenary working weeks form a “plenary working cycle” of the Riigikogu. The week following a plenary working cycle is allotted for members of the Riigikogu to work with their constituents and party groups and to perform duties assigned by the Riigikogu committees.
In the Valencian Parliament plenary sittings generally take place on a Wednesday from 10:30 to 20:00 (with a lunch break between 14:00 and 16:30) and on a Thursday from 10:00 until 14:00. On each sitting day there is a break in the morning of around 30 minutes. The Parliament normally has a three week ‘working cycle’ of plenary sittings followed by a week which is reserved for committee business. However, this pattern is flexible, allowing for plenary sittings in a committee week and vice versa, with much being determined by workload.
4. How and by whom is the parliamentary/assembly calendar and sitting pattern determined? How far in advance are such decisions made?
In the Scottish Parliament the sitting pattern is decided by the Parliament on a motion of the Parliamentary Bureau. The Parliament’s recess dates have regard to Scottish school holidays, and are usually decided at least 6 months in advance. Departures from the normal Wed/Thu sitting pattern are considered by the Bureau (and then formally decided in the Chamber), sometimes only a few weeks beforehand.
The work of the Catalonian Parliament is organised and facilitated by the Board of Spokespeople which consists of the spokesperson of each party or coalition with at least five members and the President of the Parliament. Members who do not belong to any party or electoral coalition group, or who have separated from them at any time may be represented by the Joint Group. In Finland the Central Office of the Eduskunta drafts a long- term plan (for a parliamentary term). The Speaker’s Council (comprising the Speaker, the two Deputy-Speakers and the chairs of the committees) confirms the plan for sequences of about one month at a time.
In the New Zealand Parliament a Business Committee is convened by the Speaker at the commencement of each Parliament. Each party with more than six members is entitled to be represented on the Committee by one member, parties with fewer than six members and Independent members are entitled to choose one member to represent them. The Business Committee is chaired by the Speaker and recommends a programme of sittings to the House for each calendar year requiring it to sit no later than the last Tuesday in February and to sit in total on about 90 days. The programme must be recommended to the House no later than the third sitting day in December, or if the House is not sitting in December, not later than the sitting day before the House adjourns.
4 PR/S2/05/15/3 Agenda item 1 In Norway the Presidium (which comprises 6 Presidents and Vice Presidents) decides when the Storting and its chambers are to convene. The schedule for the following week is posted and distributed at the latest on Friday at 15:00. The Presidium also drafts a parliamentary calendar for the following term sometime during the summer recess.
The parliamentary calendar for the National Assembly of Québec is provided for in its Standing Orders. However, the date of adjournment may vary as it is the Government House Leader who moves a motion to adjourn the proceedings. As a result, it frequently happens that the proceedings end a few days before the final date stipulated in the Standing Orders. In the Queensland Parliament a proposed calendar of sitting days is circulated by the Leader of the House, usually six months in advance of the sitting dates. At the conclusion of the last sitting day of the week, the Leader of the House moves that the House adjourns until a specified day. If this “special adjournment” motion is not moved, Standing Orders require the House to sit the next day (other than a Sunday) at 09:30.
In the Valencian Parliament the parliamentary calendar is determined by the Mesa (corporate body) and the Junta de Síndics which consists of the President, Vice Presidents and the spokespersons of the political parties.
5. When do Members undertake other duties such as constituency business and work for their political parties?
In the Catalan, New Zealand, Finnish, Queensland, Scottish and Valencian Parliaments members undertake much of their constituency business on Mondays and Fridays during Parliamentary terms, and throughout non-sitting weeks. This is also the case in the National Assembly of Québec except from 25 May until 23 June and 25 November until 21 December when it meets for extended hours on Tuesdays to Fridays.
In the Norwegian Parliament, Members undertake other duties when the Storting is not sitting, but sometimes during chamber meetings as well. Members are only required to be present in the chamber at the start of a meeting and for the voting at the end. In the Estonian Parliament, Fridays and the fourth (non-plenary) week of each month are set aside for other duties.
6. Have there been any recent changes to parliamentary/assembly working practices?
No substantial changes to the Scottish Parliament’s sitting pattern or meeting times have been introduced since the Parliament was established in 1999.
Perhaps the most substantial changes have occurred in the Catalonian Parliament, following the last elections in winter 2003. After six legislative
5 PR/S2/05/15/3 Agenda item 1 sessions, the previous governing party (in coalition with one other party in the last parliamentary session) has become the biggest opposition party, whereas three former opposition parties now make up the governing coalition (against the other two). As a result several changes have been introduced in parliamentary procedures including:
• the chamber now meets for one day each week (it used to meet for two days fortnightly); • the speaking time has been reduced; • the role of committees is not as important, since bills are debated and amended mainly by the ponència, a sub-committee which is made up at least of one member from each parliamentary group; • in order to rationalize the work of the Plenary Assembly, the debates are grouped into thematic blocks.
In the Finnish Parliament minor changes in procedure have been made over time but no changes of great significance are in prospect. Similarly, there is generally a review and a few changes made in the New Zealand Parliament during each parliamentary term. However those coming up for debate and adoption shortly are relatively minor.
There will be some changes to the Rules of Procedure in the Norwegian Parliament on 1 October this year. These changes will mostly concern the number and responsibilities of committees and some aspects of Question Time.
There have not been any substantial modifications made recently in the National Assembly of Québec with regard to the hours of meeting and calendar of the parliamentary proceedings. The current Standing Orders were adopted in 1984, following a major parliamentary reform. The last modification made to the sitting pattern dates back to 1997 when it was resolved that, during the period of ordinary hours of meeting, the Assembly would no longer meet during the evening. A further review was initiated in June 2004 which will (in due course) consider the parliamentary calendar and meeting times of the Assembly.
The Standing Rules and Orders of the Legislative Assembly of Queensland were comprehensively revised and a new version adopted from 31 August 2004. Longstanding procedures contained in Sessional Orders (including questions, debating of committee reports, amendments, presentation of Bills, disallowance motions, power to withdraw members, debating Private Members’ Bills; and Register of Members’ Interests) were incorporated into the Standing Orders. Only minor, detailed changes have been made in relation to the Estonian Parliament’s procedures.
In the Valencian Parliament some changes have been made to the standing orders with the adoption of a weekly thematic question time to government ministers.
6 PR/S2/05/15/3 Agenda item 1 CHAMBER BUSINESS
7. How is the business of the parliament/assembly decided?
In the Scottish Parliament a ‘business programme’ is put to the Parliament by way of a motion from the Parliamentary Bureau. Each motion normally covers a two-week period and is moved on the Wednesday of the week before the first of those two weeks.
In the Catalan Parliament this is done by the Board of Spokespeople whose key functions are to establish the criteria that help to organize and facilitate the work and debates of the Parliament, as well as deciding the competent committee to study bills. In Finland the Secretary-General presents the agenda at a meeting of the Speaker’s Council before a plenary sitting. However it is the Speaker who decides on the final agenda for a plenary sitting. The principal matters to be dealt with at the following week’s plenary sittings are announced at the Speaker’s Council meeting held on Fridays.
The New Zealand Parliament’s standing orders set out the types of business to be taken in the House on sitting days and the order in which it is to be transacted. The order of business, time to be spent on an item of business, how time is allocated among the parties and the speaking times of individual members on an item of business may also be determined by the Business Committee. Any determination of the Business Committee applies notwithstanding any other standing order to the contrary.
In Québec, the Government exercises almost exclusive control over the Assembly’s agenda. The standing orders stipulate that every meeting of the Assembly shall comprise two parts – the Routine Proceedings and the Orders of the Day. The Routine proceedings cover such business as oral questions, Ministerial statements and reports from committees (which are tabled without a debate) and the standing orders stipulate the order in which these must be taken. The Orders of the Day is basically the time set aside for debates (usually in relation to legislation) and the Government House Leader is in charge of the Orders of the Day. Several items of business are excluded from the House Leaders control, including debates on reports from Committees, Opposition debates and urgent debates.
In the Queensland Parliament, the order of Business is set out in the Sessional Orders. Any changes are moved by the Leader of the House. In Norway, the Presidium (which comprises the President and Vice Presidents) with the aid of the Constitutional Office, decides on preliminary agendas for the meetings in the following week. This must be ready by Friday at 15:00 at the latest. In the Estonian Parliament this is the responsibility of the Board of the Riigikogu, a collegiate body which organises the work of the Riigikogu and oversees its administration.
At the Valencian Parliament business is determined by the Junta de Síndics which consists of the President, Vice Presidents and the
7 PR/S2/05/15/3 Agenda item 1 spokespersons of the political parties. Decisions are adopted by weighted vote proportional to the number of seats each spokesperson represents. Normally chamber business is agreed a week before the meeting.
8. How is chamber time divided up?
a) How much of the time available is given to the government and how much to the opposition parties?
In the Scottish Parliament under the Rules, at least 16 half-days have to be given to the opposition parties each year.
In every debate, all parliamentary groups in the Catalonian Parliament have an allocated time (from three to twenty minutes) to express their position. All groups may present non-government bills, put questions to the government, submit interpellations1 and non-legislative motions etc. Consequently, the total speaking time of the opposition parties, including the minority ones, is high (sometimes more than would correspond to their proportional representation).
Members of the Finnish Parliament have an unrestricted right of speech. Parliamentary work is largely based on bills introduced by the Government. All Members can participate in the debate on parliamentary matters and no distinction is generally made between Members representing government or opposition parties. The opposition generally gets more plenary time when legislative motions are being deliberated, topical themes discussed or when an interpellation is made. A balance in the government / opposition configuration is likewise aimed for in question time on Thursdays.
In New Zealand time allocation is largely proportional to party membership in the House. During debates the Speaker will, if possible, call a member of each party to speak. Similarly, in Norway the parties are given speaking time according to size, although the smaller parties get more speaking time than their number of representatives should allow for.
In the National Assembly of Québec a debate on business standing in the name of opposition Members is held every Wednesday morning from 10.00 until not later than 12.00, during ordinary hours of meeting. This represents approximately 20 to 22 hours of debate per year. The rest of the time is set aside for Government business. The standing orders stipulate that opposition Members may move six “want of confidence” motions during each period of approximately two years (there being normally two such periods during a session). Debates on these motions last approximately 4 hours if they take place during ordinary hours of
1 Interpellations are an interruption of normal business to demand an explanation (from a Minister). They are more formal way of presenting questions and generally deal with matters of greater scope and political importance than questions. They also often lead to debates.
8 PR/S2/05/15/3 Agenda item 1 meeting, and approximately 2 hours if they take place during extended hours.
In Queensland the majority of Chamber time is dedicated to government business. There is no “opposition party business” – this is covered by Private Members’ business. These matters are not regulated in the Estonian Parliament. In the Valencian Parliament, standing orders allocate time according to types of business rather than dividing chamber time between government and opposition parties. b) Is a proportion of time allocated to particular types of business (e.g. legislation, questions, statements and debates)? If so, please give details.
In the Scottish Parliament 90 minutes are allocated each week for oral questions. Time is allocated to legislation and statements as required and most of the remaining time is allocated to debates.
In the Catalan Parliament the following time is set aside in each ordinary plenary sitting:
• A minimum of 30 minutes to answer oral questions to the President de la Generalitat (head of the Executive). Every parliamentary group asks a single question.
• A period of one hour to answer the questions to Consellers (Ministers). The Presiding Board (in consultation with the Board of Spokespeople) has decided the following number and distribution in order to respect the majority and at the same time to ensure all groups can monitor the government: 2 questions for the 2 groups which have more than 40 representatives, 1 question for the 3 groups which have less than 25 representatives (total 7 questions).
There isn't any time allocated to deal with interpellations within the plenary sitting. The Board of Spokespeople agree by consensus (generally at the beginning of each term) how many interpellations will be included and their distribution in the agenda of plenary sittings. At present, the figure and distribution is the same as for questions.
In Finland most of the time at plenary sittings is devoted to deliberating Government bills and committee submissions on them. At the beginning of the plenary sitting on Thursday about one hour is reserved for questions to members of the Government. The aim is to arrange separate plenary sittings to deliberate Government reports and notifications as well as interpellations. Some time, generally about two hours, is reserved at the beginning of a plenary sitting to discuss statements by the Prime Minister and debate topical themes.
In New Zealand the Business Committee determines the order of business and the time to be spent on each item of business. The standing
9 PR/S2/05/15/3 Agenda item 1 orders also contain references to the order in which business must be taken on certain days. In the Norwegian Parliament chamber time is allocated according to workload, not by type. One exception is Question Time which is held every Wednesday when the Storting is sitting. In Québec a period of 45 minutes is set aside for oral questions at each sitting. Time limits for the opening debate of the session, the budget debate and opposition members business are also specified in standing orders.
Question Time in Queensland is held for an hour each sitting day. The Leader of the Opposition can ask two questions without notice; other Members can ask one question. The Speaker calls non-government and government Members in turn, with Ministers having three minutes to answer (until the hour elapses).
In the Valencian Parliament, Wednesday mornings are reserved for secret ballots about points of legislation, committee proposals, motions and statements. Wednesday afternoons are reserved for oral questions. Thursday mornings begin with the Prime Minister’s Question Time and continues with the compareixença, at which a government minister is required to give a statement in reply to a question lodged by a member and the matter is then debated. c) How much time is available for committee business (e.g. the debating of a committee’s report)?
In the Scottish Parliament, under the Rules, at least 12 half-days must be allocated to committee business each year. The Conveners’ Group chooses the topic for each half-day, based on bids from committees.
In the Catalan Parliament’s ordinary legislative procedure there is no fixed time available for committees’ business. However, at the request of the Government, three parliamentary groups, or one-fifth of the Members, the Presiding Board (which comprises the President, two Vice-Presidents and four Secretariats elected by the Parliament) may resolve that certain business be transacted by urgent procedure.
In Finland deliberating committee submissions is a key part of the work of plenary sittings and there is no time limit on deliberating submissions. In New Zealand some committee reports are set down as members’ orders of the day but they rarely ever come up for debate. Committee reports on bills are debated as part of the second reading. In Norway almost all of the business of the chamber has been through the committees, with the exception of Question Time. In Québec, reports from committees not relating to a bill or to financial commitments and which contain recommendations can be debated for not more than two hours, but this accounts for only around 4 hours of debate annually.
The standing orders in Queensland require that business includes an opportunity for tabling and debate of committee reports. Sessional Orders
10 PR/S2/05/15/3 Agenda item 1 provide that each sitting Thursday committee reports are debated between 09:30 and 10:30. In practice, time is limited due to other business scheduled at that time, such as Ministerial Statements.
In the Valencian Parliament the standing orders do not allocate specific blocks of Chamber time to committee business but committee reports are debated.
9. Who decides how long debates and the speeches of individual members should be?
In the Scottish Parliament the business programme put forward by the Parliamentary Bureau normally sets out the length of time allocated to individual debates. In general the length of speeches is determined by a formula agreed by the Parliamentary Bureau although the Presiding Officers do have the discretion to vary the length of speeches if they wish.
In Catalonia, the order and length of speeches is determined mostly by standing orders. Nevertheless, in this session (the first without a single party in government) it is common practice, especially in important matters, for the Board of Spokespeople to agree the order of speeches and determine their length.
Members in Finland have an unrestricted right of speech. Recommendations have been made in an effort to limit the length of speeches, and these recommendations are observed fairly well. However, the Speaker does not have the right to interrupt a Member even if he or she has been speaking for longer than the recommended time. The number of times that a Member can take the floor in any given discussion of a matter is also not generally limited. However, during Question Time, the Speaker decides to whom the floor is given and the length of each contribution during question time is decided in advance and is usually one minute. In addition, the Speaker’s Council can decide that part of a debate should be conducted at a rapid tempo with chronologically limited contributions (e.g. 10 minutes to present a matter and 5 minutes each for other contributions). After this rapid-tempo stage, however, the Members have the right to speak for as long and as many times as they want.
In New Zealand, the Business Committee may determine the amount of time to be spent on an item of business and the speaking times of individual members. Otherwise the standing orders set out very specific time limits. In Norway, the Parliament may, at the proposal of the President, limit speaking time and the length of a debate and in Queensland the Speaker enforces the time limits set out in Sessional Orders.
Unless otherwise specified in the Rules, it is the President of the Estonian Parliament who is responsible for ensuring that speaking times are adhered to. Usually members are given 1 minute to ask an oral question, 3 minutes are allowed for reply and 8 minutes are allocated for speeches.
11 PR/S2/05/15/3 Agenda item 1 In the National Assembly of Québec and the Valencian Parliament the standing orders determine the timing of speeches. a) Are there rules which guarantee speakers an amount of time and set limits on this (e.g. a maximum or minimum speaking time)?
The time allocated for individual speeches in the Scottish Parliament depends on the overall length of time of the debate. However, there is an informal agreement in place which sets the minimum speaking time at 4 minutes.
The New Zealand standing orders set out specific time limits for different items of business. Similarly, time limits are set out in the Queensland sessional orders and in the Valencian Parliament’s standing orders, where the shortest speech in any debate appears to be 5 minutes. In the Catalan Parliament the order of speakers and the length of speeches are fixed by the standing orders and the Board of Spokespeople. In the Norwegian Parliament speaking times are covered by the Rules of Procedure. As a rule, speaking time must not exceed 30 minutes in the first speech and ten minutes in the second. However the President may propose that speaking time be limited, but usually not to less than three minutes. Ten Members of the Storting or its chambers also have the right to propose that speaking time be limited; the proposal must be submitted in writing. Such a proposal is put to the vote without a debate. At the President’s proposal, exceptions to time limits may be made for Ministers, leaders of the party groups, the leader of the standing committee whose matter is being dealt with, and committee spokesmen.
In the National Assembly of Québec, as a general rule, no member may speak for more than 10 minutes to a formal motion or for more than 20 minutes to any other matter. However the mover of a motion, the Premier and the leader of any other parliamentary group, or their representatives, may speak for up to one hour each on a substantive motion and for up to thirty minutes each on a formal motion. The standing orders also provide for certain debates having a set length of time. Instead of individual speaking time being allocated to each Member, an amount of time is in such cases allocated to the Members collectively as a group. It is divided among the parliamentary groups and the independent Members by the Speaker, following a meeting with the House Leaders. During this type of debate, individual addresses are usually not limited. It is up to the Members of a given political party to apportion among themselves the speaking time that is allocated to their group. b) Is there a set length of time for debates and how is it decided what length of time a particular debate will be?
In the Scottish Parliament the Parliamentary Bureau recommends the length of debate in the business programme and this is put to the Parliament in a motion for agreement. There is some scope under the
12 PR/S2/05/15/3 Agenda item 1 Rules for debates to be extended after they have begun, but this happens only rarely.
The unrestricted right of speech that Members enjoy in Finland precludes the possibility of setting precise time limits. In practice, parliamentary officials are able to estimate, on the basis of experience, how much time dealing with a particular matter will require and agendas are drafted in accordance with these estimates. In New Zealand this is prescribed by standing orders. The Business Committee may also set limits. In Norway at the opening of a debate the assembly may, at the proposal of the President, decide to limit the duration of the debate and allocate speaking time between the party groups.
In Queensland, sessional orders set time limits for most debates, but a Member may move a closure motion during debate on a question (colloquially known as a “gag”). There is generally no time limit for debates on legislation (other than the limit on time for individual contributions), the exception being that a Minister may move that a Bill be declared urgent and specify the time allotted to various stages of the Bill (colloquially known as a “guillotine” motion).
Most debates in the National Assembly of Québec concern the various stages of the legislative process and do not have a set length of time. The length of a debate depends on the number of Members recognized. A small number of debates have a maximum length of time that is established by the Standing Orders, for example the opening speech of the session (equivalent to the Queen’s Speech in Westminster) and the ensuing debate thereon must not exceed 25 hours.
In the Valencian Parliament the standing orders largely set out the amount of time allocated to different types of debate and in the absence of any rule, debate length is determined by the President.
10. How much discretion is left with the Speaker or Presiding Officer to decide who speaks, the order of the speakers and the length of speeches?
Under the Scottish Parliament’s Rules, the Presiding Officers have full discretion, although in practice they observe informal guidelines (agreed among the parties).
In Catalonia the Presiding Officer has very limited discretion since the order of the speakers and the length of speeches are fixed by the Standing Orders or the Board of Spokespeople. However, the Presiding Officer has discretion to grant the floor to the representatives who want to explain their vote. Similarly in the Valencian Parliament the standing orders determine the order of speakers and length of speeches though the President has some discretion in that he or she may allow members time to respond to any personal references which may have been made about them during a debate.
13 PR/S2/05/15/3 Agenda item 1
In Finland the Speaker gives Members the floor in the order that they request it. In major Eduskunta debates, the presentation speech can be followed by a so-called round of group speeches, which are made in order of size of the parliamentary groups. At question time, it is the Speaker who decides who is given the floor.
In New Zealand the standing orders set out the factors to be taken into account by the Speaker when deciding whom to call during a debate. These factors include calling members proportionally to party membership in the House and allowing a member of each party to speak in each debate where possible. The Speaker has no discretion on the length of speeches. In Norway after a debate has been opened speakers are called in the same order that they have caught the President’s eye. The maximum length of speeches is decided on before the start of the debate.
The Speaker in Queensland has discretion to determine the order of speakers and ensures government and non-government Members are called in turn. Time limits for speeches are set out in the Sessional Orders. The Speaker of the National Assembly of Québec has the power to determine the order of speakers. A Member who wishes to deliver an address during a debate must rise and ask to be recognised by the Speaker. The latter may then grant the right to speak to the first Member who rises. In practice, the Speaker observes certain rules, including the rule of rotation and the principle of alternation. The rule of rotation provides that a representative of each political party may speak at the beginning of a debate. Subsequently, the principle of alternation comes into play: one Member in favour of the motion and one against. Neither rule is absolute, however, and the Speaker is not bound by them. With regard to the length of speeches, the Speaker has no discretion as this is provided for in the Standing Orders.
In the Estonian Parliament, the President has full discretion in relation to the order of speakers.
COMMITTEE BUSINESS
11. How many committees does the parliament/assembly have and what role do the committees perform?
The Scottish Parliament currently has 8 mandatory committees, 8 subject committees and 4 Private Bill committees. All committees consider matters within their subject area or remit and report to the Parliament. Their work includes inquiries and scrutiny of legislation, and they may also propose legislation in the form of a Committee Bill. Committees regularly take evidence from witnesses and may meet throughout Scotland.
In the Catalonian Parliament there are six different types of committees and the most important ones are the Legislative Permanent Committees; currently there are eight – Organization and Administration of the
14 PR/S2/05/15/3 Agenda item 1 Generalitat and Local Government; Justice, Law and Public Security; Economy, Finance and Budget; Industry, Energy, Commerce and Tourism; Agriculture, Livestock and Fishing; Territorial Policy; Cultural Policy; and Social Policy. These committees do the background work for the discussion later held in the Plenary Assembly concerning the Government bills and Members' bills that pertain to their specific fields of interest. They can approve resolutions and require the presence of the respective ministers to oversee their work.
Three Non-Legislative Permanent Committees have also been established – Committee for Rules of Procedure; Committee for the Affairs of Members of Parliament; and Committee for House Rules.
The Plenary Assembly can create Legislative Term Committees, whose duration is the same as that of the term, to deal with problems of special importance; Research or Survey Committees to obtain information on any matter of public interest and to present motions for resolution to the Plenary Assembly; and Study Committees on any issue that directly affects Catalan society. These committees can contain not only Members but also specialists in the area being studied.
Finally, there are Parliamentary committees with special functions known as Committees created by law. There are currently four such committees: the Ombudsman's Committee; the Audit Office Committee; the Committee for the Parliamentary Control over the Activities of the Catalan Broadcasting Corporation and Affiliates; and the Committee for the Parliamentary Control over Credits Addressed to Reserved Expenses of the Administration of the Generalitat.
Committees are made up of a number of Members proportional to each Parliamentary Group. The work of each committee is led by a board, comprising a chairperson, a vice-chairperson and a secretary. The chairing of the committees is distributed proportionally among the different Parliamentary Groups; the vice-chairperson and secretary are elected by the Committee as a whole, respecting proportionality.
The Finnish Parliament has 14 special committees and the Grand Committee, which mainly deals with EU matters. Each special committee deals mainly with matters within the remit of a corresponding ministry (e.g. the Education Committee deals mainly with matters within the administrative sector of the Ministry of Education). Under the Constitution, the Grand Committee, the Constitutional Law Committee, the Foreign Affairs Committee and the Finance Committee are elected at the beginning of a parliamentary term. The remaining 11 special standing committees (Administration, Legal Affairs, Agriculture and Forestry, Transport and Communications, Defence, Education and Culture, Social Affairs and Health, Commerce, the Committee for the Future, Employment and Equality, and Environment) are chosen in accordance with the Eduskunta’s Rules of Procedure. The Eduskunta can also appoint ad hoc
15 PR/S2/05/15/3 Agenda item 1 committees when deemed necessary, but this option has been used sparingly.
Government bills, legislative motions introduced by Members, Government notifications and reports as well as reports that must be submitted to the Eduskunta are sent to committees for deliberation. In addition to the committee within the remit of which a submission falls, the Eduskunta can if necessary require one or several other committees to make their own submissions to the committee drafting a submission. When they are deliberating matters, committees arrange hearings to elicit the views of experts to the extent necessary.
The New Zealand Parliament has 13 subject committees and five specialist committees. The subject committees, whose terms of reference are broadly aligned to ministerial portfolios, undertake a scrutiny/oversight role in relation to holding the Government to account and reviewing the performance of Governmental entities. The subject committees also have the power to self-initiate inquiries as long as the subject matter is within the committee’s terms of reference. Specialist committees undertake a scrutiny/oversight role in relation to officers of parliament, parliamentary privilege, regulations, the standing orders and the business of the Parliament.
The Norwegian Parliament currently has 13 Standing Committees (recently increased from 12) plus an Election Committee that appoints members to the different committees. The main role of the committees is to consider bills and budget proposals by the government and make recommendations to the Storting.
All Members of the Storting (except the President and the Vice President) are assigned to one of the following Standing Committees: Energy and the Environment; Family, Cultural Affairs and Government Administration; Finance and Economic Affairs; Defence; Justice; Education, Research and Church Affairs; Local Government; Scrutiny and Constitutional Affairs; Business and Industry; Transport and Communications; Health and Social Affairs; and Foreign Affairs. The party groups are, as far as possible, proportionally represented on the committees.
The Queensland Parliament currently has 9 committees. The Parliament of Queensland Act 2001 requires the establishment of six committees: Legal, Constitutional and Administrative Review; Members’ Ethics and Parliamentary Privileges; Public Accounts; Public Works; Scrutiny of Legislation; and Standing Orders. The Crime and Misconduct Act 2001 requires the establishment of the Parliamentary Crime and Misconduct Committee. The remaining two committees are select committees established by resolution of the House: Impact of Petrol Pricing Select Committee (time limited); and Travel Safe Committee.
Standing Orders also allow for the establishment of Estimates Committees to consider the Appropriation Bills after they have been read a second
16 PR/S2/05/15/3 Agenda item 1 time. The current practice is to establish seven estimates committees, titled A-G. There are seven days of public hearings (one for each committee) during which time the entire budget is scrutinised.
There are 4 types of committees in the Estonian Parliament (1) standing standing committees, (2) select committees, (3) committees of investigation and (4) study committees. The Riigikogu has the following standing committees: European Union Affairs; Environment; Cultural Affairs; Rural Affairs; Economic Affairs; Constitutional; Finance; National Defence; Social Affairs; Foreign Affairs; Legal Affairs. Standing committees prepare draft legislation for deliberation by the plenary assembly, scrutinise the Government within their particular field and perform other functions assigned to the committees by law or by a resolution of the Riigikogu.
The Riigikogu may form select committees pursuant to law and in order to perform functions arising from law or international agreements. In addition, it may form committees of investigation in order to investigate the circumstances of events of public interest and study committees in order to analyse problems of considerable importance.
There are eleven standing committees at the National Assembly of Québec. Nine of these committees may be described as "sector based", each specializing in a relatively homogeneous sector of Government activities. They are the Committees on: Institutions, Public Finance, Social Affairs, Labour and the Economy, Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, Planning and the Public Domain, Education, Culture, Transportation and the Environment. The sector-based committees have the same operating procedure and all carry out orders of an identical nature. There are three types of orders: the examination of Bills, the initiation of inquiries and statutory orders which include the examination of reports and draft regulations.
There are two additional committees. The Committee on the National Assembly plays an "internal" role, that is, it is the forum for discussions and decisions concerning all aspects of the parliamentary operations of the Assembly and of the committees. Among other things it drafts the Standing Orders and the Rules for the Conduct of Proceedings in the Assembly and its committees and submits them to the Assembly for its approval. The role of the Committee on Public Administration is chiefly to examine whether the amounts allocated to the Government and to the public administration are spent in observance of sound management rules.
The Valencian Parliament has both standing committees, established for the length of a parliament and ad hoc committees which are formed to examine a particular issue. Of the 14 standing committees, there are ten which consider legislation and four which are non legislative - the Petitions Committee, Standing Orders Committee, Internal Government Committee and the Parliamentarian Statute Committee. A recent example of an ad hoc committee would be the Committee for the study of the reform of the
17 PR/S2/05/15/3 Agenda item 1 Estatuto Autonomía de la Comunidad Valenciana – the devolution Act for Valencia which established the Parliament.
12. How many members generally serve on a committee and how many serve on more than one committee?
In the Scottish Parliament mandatory and subject committees must have between 5 and 15 members - in practice usually 7 or 9. Private Bill committees have a minimum of 3 members and a maximum of 5. The membership of committees reflects the political balance across the Parliament as a whole. Probably about half of MSPs (other than Ministers and POs) serve on more than one committee.
Each committee in the Catalan Parliament currently has 17 members, with each party represented according to the political balance across the Parliament as a whole (6, 5, 3, 2, 1). One of the duties of members (except those who take part in the Catalan Executive or are senators in Madrid) is to be a member of at least one committee, although most of them are members of several committees, especially those belonging to small parties. Nevertheless, representatives can’t be members of more than three Permanent Legislative Committees. In Finland the Grand Committee has 25 actual and 13 alternate members. All of the special committees have 17 actual and 9 alternate members, except the Finance Committee, which has 21 actual and 19 alternate members. The Finance Committee does its work in 8 sub-committees. Each member holds 1 or 2 actual memberships and 1 or 2 alternate memberships. The chairs of committees rarely hold memberships of other bodies. A committee’s composition reflects the relative strengths of the parliamentary parties.
In New Zealand the Business Committee determines the size of each committee. Membership of committees must be proportional to the party numbers in the House. In general, the average size is 10 members per committee. The majority of members serve on at least two committees, some serve on three. In Norway committees consist of between 10 and 20 members. All members of Parliament have to serve in one committee and none may serve in more than one.
The Queensland Parliament standing orders require that committees have no more than eight members; currently each committee has seven members. Of the 89 members, 54 serve on committees. Six of those serve on two committees (five on the time limited Select Committee). In the Estonian Parliament Committee membership is allocated on a proportional basis and the Board of the Riigikogu is responsible for deciding the number of members on each standing committee (in practice standing committees have an average of 10 members). Normally members of the Riigikogu serve on one standing committee and may also be a member of the EU Affairs Committee, select committees, committees of investigation and study committees.
18 PR/S2/05/15/3 Agenda item 1 Each of the sector-based committees in the National Assembly of Québec consists of ten Members: six Members from the parliamentary group forming the Government and four Members from the Official Opposition. Any independent Member or Member from an opposition group other than the Official Opposition may be appointed to serve as a member of a committee. In such cases, the committee consists of twelve members, seven from the parliamentary group forming the Government, four from the Official Opposition and one independent Member or from another opposition group. There are currently 28 Members serving on more than one standing committee.
Committees in the Valencian Parliament have between 15 and 17 members with representation reflecting the political balance within the Parliament.
13. On what days and at what times of the day do the committees usually meet and how often does a typical committee meet? How many committee hours were there during the last full calendar or parliamentary year?
Days Times Frequency Total Hours Scotland Tues & Wed Morning Majority of 825 in (only am on meetings committees 2003/4 Wed) usually start at meet weekly parliamentary 09:30 or 10:00; and a few year. afternoon fortnightly or meetings at less 14:00 or 14:30 frequently Catalonia Tues-Fri Morning Majority of N/A (am & pm) meetings committees usually start at meet 10:00; afternoon weekly. meetings at 16:00. Finland Tues-Fri Morning N/A N/A (am & pm) meetings usually start at 10:00; afternoon meetings at 12:00. New Zealand Wed & 10:00 to 13:00. N/A 1,934 in Thurs 2004 (am only) Norway Tues & Meetings start Weekly N/A Thurs between 09:00 meetings but and 16:00. more if needed.
19 PR/S2/05/15/3 Agenda item 1 Days Times Frequency Total Hours Queensland Tues & Wed Mon-Fri Weekly N/A between 09:30 and 18:00 Québec Mon (pm Mon (14:00 - N/A 1157 in only); Tues, 18:00); Tues, 2003/4 Wed, Thurs, Wed Thurs parliamentary Fri (am only) (09:30-18:00); year. Fri (09:30- 12:30).2 Estonia In plenary Mon between N/A N/A weeks – 11:30 and Mon 15:00, (until15:00), Tues/Thurs at Tues (pm); 14:00 and Fri at Thurs (pm); 10:00. Fri (am) Valencia Tues and Morning N/A N/A Thurs once meetings or twice a usually start at month, 10:30, afternoon depending meetings start on business at 16:30.
14. Can a committee meet at the same time as the chamber? How many committees meet at the same time as each other?
The Scottish Parliament’s standing orders do not allow committees (other than Private Bill Committees in exceptional cases) to meet while the Chamber is sitting. It is quite common for 4 or 5 committees to be meeting on the same morning or afternoon. Occasionally all 6 of the Parliament’s committee rooms are in use at the one time.
The Catalan Parliament’s standing orders do not allow committees to meet whilst the Chamber is sitting. It is however quite common for 3 or 4 (occasionally 5) committees or sub-committees to be meeting on the same morning or afternoon. Similarly, in Finland committee meetings may not be arranged at the same time as a plenary sitting, although a plenary sitting can be adjourned to facilitate a committee meeting if there is an urgent need to complete a submission. Committees cannot meet as the same time as the Chamber in Estonia or in Valencia.
This is not the case in New Zealand, where committees can meet at the same time as the Chamber (though Standing Order 194 places certain
2 During extended hours of meeting, committees can meet Mon-Fri from 10:00 until midnight. It is also worth noting that, during ordinary hours of meeting, each Friday morning from10:00 – 12:00, a standing committee sitting is set aside for a debate known as an “interpellation” during which an opposition member may question a minister on a matter of general interest for which he/she is responsible.
20 PR/S2/05/15/3 Agenda item 1 restrictions on committees meetings in the Wellington area). The House can authorise a committee to meet at times when the Chamber is sitting, or on a Friday or during an evening when the House has been sitting. A committee cannot, however, meet during Question Time. Six committees meet on Wednesday morning at the same time. On Thursday, eight committees meet simultaneously. In Norway committees can meet at the same time as the chamber and they frequently do. It is usual for two or three committees to meet at the same time as each other.
In Queensland most committees meet at the same time as the chamber and a couple of committees usually meet at the same time. In Québec, when the Assembly is sitting, up to three committees may meet concurrently. However, no committee that is to meet at the Parliament Building may do so during the Routine Proceedings.
15. Do committees meeting at the same time as the chamber lead to difficulties (e.g. achieving a quorum of members in either committee or chamber)?
None of the legislatures which allow committees to meet at the same time as the Chamber reported any difficulties with this. The New Zealand Parliament indicated that they had no difficulties in terms of achieving a quorum, although some of the smaller parties have difficulties covering both the Chamber and committee meetings at the same time. Sometimes they raise these difficulties in the House and attempts are sometimes made to accommodate concerns. In Queensland committee members are required to return to the chamber if a division is called.
Since the number of committees that may meet concurrently at the National Assembly of Québec is limited to three or four, there is no particular difficulty in achieving a quorum. However, it should be noted that the quorum at the Assembly varies according to whether the committees are sitting or not. The quorum of the Assembly is one-sixth of the Members, including the Speaker. However, when a committee of the Assembly is sitting, the quorum of the Assembly is one-tenth of the Members, including the Speaker.
21 PR/S2/05/15/3 Agenda item 1
Annexe A: Summary of comparative legislatures (with additional information on the European Parliament). Legislature Number Sitting Chamber business Committee business of pattern Days/hours Meeting times Allocation of Speaking Number of Members Meeting times Meet Members (parliamentary/ Chamber time limits? Committees during calendar year) time Chamber debates? Scottish 129 Same each (Parliamentary) Wed Allocated by Yes - but PO 20 Average: Tues/Wed AM No Parliament week - 67 days 14:30 – 17:45 the has discretion 7 – 9 10:00 – 13:00 chamber for Thurs Parliamentary Tues PM and 351 hours 09:15 – 12:30 Bureau. 14:30 – 17:00 14:15 – 17:45 committee Catalonia 135 Same each (Parliamentary) Thursday3 Done by the Yes - 15 Average: Tues – Fri No week 37 10:00 – 14:00 Board of prescribed by 17 AM: 10:00 – for 16:00 – 21:00 Spokespeople standing PM: 16:00 - 211 hours orders Estonia 101 3 plenary (Parliamentary) Monday Done by the Yes – 114 Average: Mon No weeks 116 15:00 – Board of the prescribed in 10 11:30 – 13:00 each for Tues/Thurs Riijikogu the Rules or 14:00 – 15:00 month 250 – 270 10:00 – 13:00 determined by Tues/ Thurs 14:00 – hours Wed the President. 14:00 – Fri 10:00 – European 732 Strasbourg 54 for 282 Mon – Thurs Done by Yes – 20 25-78 1-2 meetings No Parliament and hours Hours largely Conference of prescribed by each month Brussels5 determined by business Committee the Rules of between hours of: Chairmen Procedure 09:00 – 18:30
3 Sittings may take place from Tues – Fri. 4 See Question 11 for details of committee types. 5 12 four-day part-sessions in Strasbourg and six additional two-day part-sessions in Brussels.
22 PR/S2/05/15/3 Agenda item 1
Legislature Number Sitting Chamber business Committee business of pattern Days/hours Meeting times Allocation of Speaking Number of Members Meeting times Meet Members (parliamentary/ Chamber time limits? Committees during calendar year) time Chamber debates? Finland 200 Same each (Calendar) Tues Decided by No - though 15 Average: Tues – Fri No week 137 14:00 – 23:00 (latest) the Speaker’s there are 17 10:00 – for Wed Council recommended 12:00 - 536 hours 15:00 – 23:00 (latest) speaking Thurs times 16:30 – 23:00 (latest) Fri 13:00 – 23:00 (latest) New 120 Same each (Calendar) Tues/Wed By standing Yes – 18 Average: Wed/Thurs Yes Zealand week 96 days 14:00 – 18:00 orders or prescribed by 10 10:00 – 13:00 for 19:30 – 22:00 Business standing 583 hours Thursday Committee.6 orders 14:00 – 18:00 Norway 169 Determined (Parliamentary) Tues/Wed/Thurs7 Decided by Yes – 13 Average Tues/Wed/Thurs Yes according 98 days 10:00 – 14:00 the prescribed by 15 09:00 – 16:00 to workload for Presidium. standing
370 hours orders Québec 125 Same each (Calendar) Tues/Wed/Thurs8 Set out in Yes – 11 10 Mon Yes9 week 77 days 10:00 – 12:00 standing prescribed by 14:00 – 18:00 for 14:00 – 18:00 orders standing Tues/Wed/Thurs 355 hours orders 09:30 – 12:30 14:00 – 18:00 Fri 09:30 – 12:30
6 Membership is largely proportional to party size. 7 Chamber and Committee may meet on other working days and Saturdays as required. 8 See also details of ‘extended hours’ for chamber and committee – questions 3 and 13. 9 See also questions 14-15 for restrictions.
23 PR/S2/05/15/3 Agenda item 1
Legislature Number Sitting Chamber business Committee business of pattern Days/hours Meeting times Allocation of Speaking Number of Members Meeting times Meet Members (parliamentary/ Chamber time limits? Committees during calendar year) time Chamber debates? Queensland 89 Same each (Calendar) Tues/Wed/Thurs10 Set out in Yes – 9 7 Mon – Fri Yes week 40 days 09:30 – 13:00 Sessional prescribed by Between the for 14:30 – 18:30 Orders Sessional hours of: 19:30 – 22:30 09:30 – 18:00 416 hours Orders Valencian 89 3 plenary (approx) Wed Set out in the Yes – 14 15 -17 Tues or Thurs No Parliament weeks 53 days 10:30 – 20:00 standing prescribed by AM 10:30 – each for Thurs orders the standing PM 16:30 – month 290 hours 10:00 – 14:00 orders
10 Friday sittings if required.
24 PR/S2/05/15/4 Agenda item 2 PROCEDURES COMMITTEE
Procedures Relating to Crown Appointments
Possible Debate Slot
1. We understand that, at its meeting on 15 December, the Convener’s Group will be considering possible committee business for debate in the Chamber in January, February and March 2006.
2. The Procedures Committee reports on Private Bill Committee assessors and on Procedures Relating to Crown Appointments are on schedule for publication at the end of this year and will need to be debated in the Parliament in the early part of 2006. The Executive is likely to make time available in January (not in Committee time) for a debate on the Private Bill Committee assessors report. However, time will need to be found from the Committee time allocation for a debate on the Crown appointees report.
3. Although there is no particular rush to have this report debated, it is suggested that the Committee submit a bid for time in the January committee slot. We do not as yet have a date for this slot. If this bid is unsuccessful, then it is suggested the Committee bid for time in February instead.
4. As the Crown appointments report is fairly brief and is likely to be relatively uncontroversial, it is suggested that a 1 hour debate would be sufficient.
5. Committee members are therefore invited to agree to submit a bid to Convener’s Group for a 1 hour debate in January for the report on Procedures Relating to Crown Appointments. PR/S2/05/15/11 Agenda item 3
PROCEDURES COMMITTEE
Procedures relating to Crown appointments
Letter from the Presiding Officer
Thank you for your letter of 15 November updating me on the main recommendations agreed by your Committee on the procedures relating to the re- appointment of Crown appointees.
I agree with you that in relation to the re-appointment of the Parliamentary Standards Commissioner it would be useful to make a change to the existing Rule 3A.1 of standing orders to put beyond doubt that re-appointment is explicitly covered. I am grateful to you for drawing this to my attention and would welcome the Committee making such a recommendation in its report on Crown appointments.
A copy of this letter has been sent to the Committee Clerk.
George Reid 18 November 2005
PR/S2/05/15/7 Agenda item 4
PROCEDURES COMMITTEE
Private Bill Committee assessors
Correspondence with the Presiding Officer (as chair of SPCB)
LETTER FROM THE CONVENER
I am writing to thank you for your letter of 17 November, sent on behalf of the SPCB, which was considered by the Procedures Committee at its meeting last Tuesday.
The Committee noted your comments about the likely contractual arrangements with assessors, particularly the suggestion that a formal tendering exercise may be necessary. Members expressed support for having individual contracts for each assessor, where possible. However, I appreciate that these are matters for the SPCB, and it was therefore agreed that I should write to you seeking clarification of what is proposed. In particular, it would be useful to know how long you expect it to take to establish a panel of suitably-qualified persons, as suggested in your letter. As you will appreciate, if the Executive proposal is to deliver the benefits expected of it, it may be necessary for Private Bill Committees to be in a position to appoint assessors from such a panel before the summer recess next year. It would be useful to have confirmation of whether you think this timetable can be achieved.
You also refer in your letter to the question of whether any transcript of assessors’ public hearings that may be required should be prepared by the Parliament’s Official Report staff. The Committee noted what you said about the likely additional pressures this would put on Parliamentary resources (including staff of other offices, where they are needed to support Official Report staff) and the impact this could have on the Official Report’s ability to report Parliamentary proceedings to reasonable timescales. On that basis, we supported your suggestion that, where assessors consider a transcript necessary, this should be provided through an external transcription service, with the cost to the Parliament of that service recovered from the promoter. I note in this connection that the SPCB already has the power under Rule 9A.2.3(d)(vi) to determine the categories of costs that the promoter must undertake to re-pay, and it would presumably therefore be a relatively simple matter for the cost of providing such an external transcription service to be included by means of an amendment to the current determination.
The Procedures Committee will be considering the Executive’s proposal again at its next meeting on 6 December. I would very much appreciate it if you were able to provide the further information on the contractual arrangements requested above in time for that meeting (and, if possible, in time for the circulation deadline of noon on Thursday 1 December).
I look forward to hearing from you.
PR/S2/05/15/7 Agenda item 3
Donald Gorrie MSP Convener 28 November 2005
REPLY BY PRESIDING OFFICER
Thank you for your letter of 28 November.
In relation to the questions on contractual arrangements raised in your second paragraph, I am unable to give a precise answer at this stage. Whether or not there were to be individual contracts for each bill, the SPCB must have regard to the EU Procurement Directives in deciding which procurement work to follow in establishing a panel of suitably-qualified individuals to act as assessors. The determining factors set out in the EU procurement rules will be the expected value of any contracts to be let and the market from which the services could be supplied. It is likely that the same individuals or organizations could supply assessor services for all three bills which are expected to be introduced next year. Therefore, the rules would require that the values of the contracts be aggregated. If the anticipated total exceeds the £100,000 threshold, a full EU procurement process would have to be followed. That would take 9 months to a year to complete. However, my best guess at this stage is that the proposals being considered by the Committee would not involve costs exceeding that threshold.
The parliament’s own procedures will apply. I am advised that it should be possible for the tendering exercise to be completed in a matter of three to four months, depending on other pressures on the offices involved in preparing the specifications and letting any contract.
I am pleased to note the committee’s view on external sourcing of transcription services, and agree that the determination on costs to be borne by the promoter could, if necessary, be adjusted.
George Reid 1 December 2005
2 PR/S2/05/15/10 For information PROCEDURES COMMITTEE
Resolving differences on draft reports
Note by the Clerk
1. When the Committee last considered, in private, a draft Report, clarification was sought on the alternative methods available to the Committee in resolving differences of opinion, and on how those differences would be reflected appropriately in the final, published Report.
2. This note advises the Committee of the main options that have been used, and of established practice in how these are reflected.
3. In most cases, of course, Committee members can agree by consensus on a single position that they can all live with (whether or not this position is the one expressed in the draft under consideration, or an alternative proposed by one of the members). However, sometimes the difference of view cannot be resolved in this way – and in those circumstances, there are basically three options, which can be characterised as follows:
(a) agree to disagree—
On this option, the Committee agrees by consensus an alternative form of words to be expressed in the body of the Report which describes the difference of view among its members – e.g. “Some of us are confident that the Loch Ness Monster exists, while others are more sceptical.”
(b) disagree (by agreement)—
On this option, the Committee agrees that the dissent of those who can’t sign up to the proposed wording be recorded in a footnote to the Report – e.g. “The Committee is confident that the Loch Ness Monster exists.”1
(c) disagree—
On this option, the Committee cannot reach agreement, and a division is held. The majority view is the view that is attributed to the Committee in the body of the Report – but the details of the division are recorded in an annexe to the Report – e.g.:
• in the Report: “The Committee is confident that the Loch Ness Monster exists.”
• in the Annexe (extracts from Committee minutes):
1 Mr Joe Bloggs dissented from this paragraph. PR/S2/05/15/10 For information Loch Ness Monster (in private): The Committee considered a draft Report and agreed a number of changes (one by division).
* * * * * * *
Record of division in private: Mr Joe Bloggs proposed that a reference to the existence of the Loch Ness Monster be deleted. The proposal was disagreed to by division: For 1 (Mr Joe Bloggs), Against 5 (names), Abstentions 1 (name).
4. These should be seen as mutually exclusive options. Each ensures that a single Committee view is reached, while protecting the rights of those members who find themselves in a minority on a particular issue. Members should be clear about the outcome before deciding on a particular method for resolving the difference in view.