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.