Committee
Procedures Committee, 06 Mar 2007
06 Mar 2007 · S2 · Procedures Committee
Item of business
Parliamentary Time
The next item is our review of parliamentary time. Members have a paper that contains the correspondence on the subject between the committee and the Parliamentary Bureau. The head of the chamber office wrote to us to say that the bureau was not minded to allow time for a debate on our report on the use of parliamentary time. He said that Chris Ballance had strongly argued our case but that the other members of the bureau did not support him.On behalf of the committee, I wrote to the Presiding Officer and asked whether Karen Gillon and I could meet the bureau to clarify the points that arose from its decision. George Reid replied and said that Karen and I could attend the bureau's meeting on 27 February. After the meeting, which I will talk about in a moment, Murray Tosh wrote formally to us and stated that the bureau had agreed not to schedule time to debate our report.I have to be careful what I say about the Parliamentary Bureau meeting—it was a private meeting, so I am not allowed to say that X said this and Y said that, but I can explain the position in general.Unfortunately, Karen Gillon was unable to come to the meeting, because she had to deal with a constituency matter. However, I spoke to her on the phone and mentioned my two main lines of approach, which were first, to ask members of the bureau why they objected to our proposal, and secondly, to argue that the bureau's proposal that we should pass the matter on to our successor committee in the next session of Parliament is not an intelligent idea. We cannot expect our successor committee to take up a somewhat controversial issue that has been bequeathed to it. Karen Gillon agreed that it was fair for me to make those points on behalf of the committee, which I duly did.I was told, in general terms, that certain members of the bureau do not like the interpellation proposal and are worried about the idea that motions and amendments for ordinary debates in Parliament should be lodged earlier. Members of the bureau thought that most MSPs have not addressed the issue at all, but we know that we went to exceptional lengths to consult members. We had two rounds of consultation, debates and meetings, but the bureau thought that the whole thing might come as a surprise to most MSPs and that they needed more time to consider it.The bureau argued that it was more logical for the next Parliament, which will enjoy the benefits or otherwise of the changes, to make the decisions. That is a debating point, although it does not seem to be a very good one.Following consultation, I suggested that if the bureau had said what upset them about our proposals, we could have divided our motion, or had one motion but two or three different votes on different aspects of it so that members did not need to vote down or accept the whole proposal—they could vote for what they liked and against what they disliked. The bureau members claimed that that would be "unprecedented"—the worst thing one can say about anything—and that it would cause confusion, which does not suggest a high estimate of members' IQs and is not a very good argument.However, there was some support for at least having a debate, but not necessarily a vote. Chris Ballance—oh, I am not allowed to say that.
In the same item of business
The Convener:
LD
The next item is our review of parliamentary time. Members have a paper that contains the correspondence on the subject between the committee and the Parliam...
Chris Ballance:
Green
Feel free. I have no desire for privacy.
The Convener:
LD
Chris Ballance spoke up and some others in the bureau expressed some support for us, but it was clear to me and to Andrew Mylne, who came to the meeting as a...
Kate Maclean (Dundee West) (Lab):
Lab
To a certain extent, I am fairly ambivalent about whether the report goes ahead or not, because I have not been involved in the tortuous process of compiling...
The Convener:
LD
Chris Ballance has two angles, as it were, on the issue.
Chris Ballance:
Green
Again, without breaching any of the confidences of a bureau meeting, a particular business manager argued on the one hand that MSPs hate parts of the report ...
Richard Baker (North East Scotland) (Lab):
Lab
I am perhaps more sanguine about the situation. The committee has been here before. The previous committee, of which I was not a member, held a massive inqui...
Kate Maclean:
Lab
It is the same with any committee.
Richard Baker:
Lab
Yes, that is right. Although colleagues did not grasp our report, it would have been worse had we gone to the floor of the chamber with it and found out that...
Karen Gillon:
Lab
Richard Baker is right that the previous Procedures Committee dealt with the subject before. Reports by other committees have also not been debated—it happen...
Kate Maclean:
Lab
I have a further point on something that the bureau said. If one of the criteria for getting items debated in the chamber was that members had read the relev...
Chris Ballance:
Green
I should add that there is substantial opposition from more than one business manager to the concept of giving more notice of motions. That is deeply depress...
The Convener:
LD
It is helpful to get colleagues' views. We come from slightly different angles, but we all agree that we are disappointed.The only opportunity to mention the...
Kate Maclean:
Lab
Are you suggesting that we have that debate and not push the matter to a vote?
The Convener:
LD
Whatever colleagues think. I have challenged the business motion several times in the past. Occasionally, the vote in favour of my challenge has got into dou...
Kate Maclean:
Lab
That would be 10 votes, then.
The Convener:
LD
It is, nevertheless, an opportunity for setting out a case on which members of the committee have strong feelings. I presume that the Minister for Parliament...
Chris Ballance:
Green
That is quite a good idea. The advantage of challenging the business motion is that the convener would get three minutes in which to tell the entire chamber ...
Karen Gillon:
Lab
I would be cautious about that approach, convener. It might look as though we had had a fight, lost it and were taking our ball away in a big huff. Some othe...
Kate Maclean:
Lab
Have certain committee reports not been debated because the bureau did not like their content? I cannot think of any precedent for that.
Karen Gillon:
Lab
They were never scheduled for debate by the Conveners Group, so we do not know whether it was because the bureau did not like their content. Committee busine...
The Convener:
LD
You are right to say that it would not be something to do lightly or inadvisedly. Nevertheless, if there was a brief debate and the subject was aired, that w...
Richard Baker:
Lab
It would be good to put on the record the fact that we have looked into the issues in some depth and that they should not just go away. However, I am torn as...
The Convener:
LD
If we wrote to the bureau, is there any means by which the letter could become a public paper and the figures would be on the record?
Kate Maclean:
Lab
Could we not write to the bureau and copy the letter to all members?
Richard Baker:
Lab
Why do we not do that? That would be sensible.
Kate Maclean:
Lab
We could include a copy of the Official Report of today's meeting.
Chris Ballance:
Green
It would not be on the public record in the same way.
Karen Gillon:
Lab
It is on the public record as a result of this meeting.
Kate Maclean:
Lab
To be honest, if the matter is discussed in the chamber at decision time—when there are never any members of the press there—it will not be any more on the p...