PROCEDURES COMMITTEE Tuesday 5 October 1999 (Morning) £5.00 Parliamentary copyright. Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body 1999. Applications for reproduction should be made in writing to the Copyright Unit, Her Majesty’s Stationery Office, St Clements House, 2-16 Colegate, Norwich NR3 1BQ Fax 01603 723000, which is administering the copyright on behalf of the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body. Produced and published in Scotland on behalf of the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body by The Stationery Office Ltd. Her Majesty’s Stationery Office is independent of and separate from the company now trading as The Stationery Office Ltd, which is responsible for printing and publishing Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body publications. CONTENTS Tuesday 5 October 1999 Col. EMERGENCY BUSINESS .......................................................................................................................... 107 PRIORITY ISSUES ................................................................................................................................... 109 FIRST MEETINGS ................................................................................................................................... 137 TOPICAL QUESTIONS.............................................................................................................................. 138 CONVENERS LIAISON GROUP .................................................................................................................. 138 MID-WEEK ACTIVITIES ............................................................................................................................ 138 PROCEDURES COMMITTEE 5th Meeting CONVENER : *Mr Murray Tosh (South of Scotland) (Con) COMMI TTEE MEMBERS: *Donald Gorrie (Central Scotland) (LD) *Janis Hughes (Glasgow Rutherglen) (Lab) *Gordon Jac kson (Glasgow Govan) (Lab) *Mr Andy Kerr (East Kilbride) (Lab) *Mr Gil Paterson (Central Scotland) (SNP) *Michael Russell (South of Scotland) (SNP) *attended THE FOLLOWING MEMBER ALSO ATTENDED: Iain Smith (Deputy Minister for Parliament) COMMI TTEE CLERK: John Patterson SENIOR ASSISTANT CLERK: William Venters ASSISTANT CLERK: Jim Johnston 107 5 OCTOBER 1999 108 Scottish Parliament together, and have a paper from the clerks on the range of issues surrounding urgent and topical questions, emergency motions and ministerial Procedures Committee statements? The Convener: That is a fair suggestion. From Tuesday 5 October 1999 time to time, matters arise that are of pressing interest, but the Parliament does not respond to (Morning) them timeously. That can be because the matter does not arise on an Opposition day or because [THE CONVENER opened the meeting at 09:30] the Opposition does not want to raise it, or because it is not part of the Executive’s business. The Convener (Mr Murray Tosh): During our We do not seem to have the opportunity to discuss fifth meeting, we will have to take decisions on a issues as they arise. Perhaps the clerks could variety of proposed changes to the standing consider all those points together. orders. The thrust of the evidence that we heard at our previous meeting was that we should adopt a Michael Russell: Could that go on our list of minimalist approach—let the thing run and see priority issues? As the Presiding Officer says, that how it works. I therefore suggest that today we area is creating some difficulty for him. should attempt to identify issues that are genuine The Convener: The problem with accepting it problems and set in motion the necessary as a priority issue, and considering changes to the changes to the standing orders, but that on other standing orders, is fitting all that into our timetable, issues we should simply apply a touch to the tiller. because we are on the point of making some In one or two cases, I might suggest that we changes on other matters. merely offer opinions to the Presiding Officer. From some of the announcements that he has This is a big issue, on which all the political made in the chamber recently, it seems that he is groups would be best advised to reflect. We receptive to taking guidance from the committee. should give the Executive the opportunity to consider the problem and to give its own analysis. That is how I would like the meeting to proceed, Although I agree that the issue is important, I do although what we do on any of the specific agenda not think that we should try to bounce in, because items is entirely up to the committee. it is late in the process. However, we are in the process of firefighting some of the little bits and Emergency Business pieces that have come up in the past few months and we are considering making more substantial The Convener: Let us move to agenda item 1. changes to the standing orders by May. Many I have received a letter from Margo MacDonald. recent problems could be resolved by practice, I do not want to go into specifics but, essentially, rather than by trying to write standing orders for Margo has asked that we look at the way in which every eventuality. That is why I have always been announcements are made in Parliament and the reluctant to be over-prescriptive in the standing way in which questions and motions revolve round orders—there will always be new circumstances. ministerial statements. That is an area of some Michael Russell: I do not like to disagree with concern. Iain Smith, who is here today, was part of you, because we have been running on a brief discussion last week in the chamber about consensus. However, rule 13.8 is very important to the concordats. the Parliament. Emergency questions are likely to The committee, the Executive and the arise from time to time; they will certainly arise Parliamentary Bureau might have to look at the between now and next May. If the Presiding issue over time. The way in which to do that is to Officer himself writes to the Procedures move cautiously and to ask for a report from the Committee to say that the rule is not adequate or clerks; we should also engage in discussions on a sufficient, and if he uses the word “vital” in his broader front, to see whether we can all agree on letter, we should treat the matter with some the correct practice. urgency and put it on our list of priorities. If we do not do so, we will run into the problem again, Michael Russell (South of Scotland) (SNP): perhaps several times before next May. When the That ties in with agenda item 4, which is a letter opportunity exists, we should try to do something from the Presiding Officer that arose out of the about it. request last week for a statement and the fact that there was no procedure allowing the Presiding I am not suggesting that we should try to steer Officer to accept the request. The words the Presiding Officer to interpret rule 13.8 in a way “sufficiently urgent” are in rule 13.8 of the standing that would overcome the difficulty—that would not orders, but those words can be interpreted in be enough. However, something needs to be different ways. Can we bring the two issues done. 109 5 OCTOBER 1999 110 The Convener: I do not especially disagree with Executive that it is not reasonable to haul the suggestion that we should look quickly at the ministers in on every Thursday morning, or on point raised by the Presiding Officer; and Margo Wednesday mornings if we have meetings on MacDonald raises an important issue. I added a Wednesday mornings. We have also had a plea third angle. Mike added a second angle by from some members who have said that combining Sir David Steel’s point with Margo’s occasionally morning debates have lost a bit of point. Looking at the big picture will be a longer- their fizz because the matter was not decided by a term project. If you wanted a quick response to Sir full chamber, as it could and should have been. David’s point, we would have to do that while the The example that springs to mind is the debate on bigger picture was the subject of further the Holyrood building, the drama of which was investigations. sacrificed by not moving to a vote immediately. Michael Russell: I am happy to accept that. If The clerks say that it is up to the Presiding we agree that we need to take urgent action on Sir Officer to decide, on a debate-by -debate basis, David Steel’s letter, a paper from the clerks on whether there should be a vote after the debate, or both issues would be helpful. However, at the next whether to stick rigidly to 5 o’clock. I am sure that meeting, we should separate the two issues again in the vast majority of cases it will be appropriate and start to act. to have decision time at 5 o’clock; but from time to time a debate timetabled for a morning might well The Convener: For the next meeting, I will ask command considerable interest and be likely to be the clerks to produce a paper on those points, fully attended, and for such a debate it would be which will allow us to act on Sir David’s letter. appropriate to have an immediate vote. With John Patterson (Committee Clerk): We can hindsight, that might have been a better way to cope with that. handle the Holyrood debate—as a result, the issue might not have been identified as a priority. The Convener: Is the committee content to commission such a report? If we choose that option, we will not have to change the standing orders—we will simply have Members indicated agreement. to draw the matter to Sir David Steel’s attention. I Priority Issues see nodding heads—does everyone think that that is the best way to proceed? The Convener: We have a number of decisions Donald Gorrie (Central Scotland) (LD): As to take, based on paper PR/99/5/2 on priority long as the notice given is adequate. issues. The intention is to take those decisions The Convener: That is a critical point. today; at the next meeting, we will review the changes required to the standing orders. Mr Andy Kerr (East Kilbride) (Lab): Does the Depending on how quickly we can do the work, we text of that option make it clear that having a vote might require to use the meeting after that as well.