Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee

Meeting date: Thursday, January 19, 2023

Official Report 497KB pdf

---

Correspondence

Item 4 is correspondence that we have received from Graeme Dey MSP, in which he raises a number of concerns about parliamentary motions and how they are being used, particularly those that congratulate individuals or organisations. Do any members of the committee have any comments on that?

In the six years that I have been in Parliament, I have noticed exactly the same thing. I have also noticed the amount of time that it takes for motions to be approved and come back through from the Parliament, which suggests that there is a problem in resourcing the system, possibly in funding it, and with the number of motions.

It has changed. In the past, such motions were to congratulate groups and organisations, and now, although I am not saying that we have got to this level, in some cases we are almost at the level of congratulating somebody for baking a cake. I wonder whether that is what the system was proposed for.

We do need to look at this. It would be helpful to have views from people who have been members of the Parliament for longer than I have, to see whether they have noticed the same. Graeme Dey might also come to give evidence to the committee.

That is helpful.

Can I flip this around? I agree with Edward Mountain about the length of time that it takes for a motion to be approved. I am going to link this to CPGs, which is relevant to what we have been discussing today. I am a member of the CPG on medicinal cannabis, which is an issue that affects a constituent of mine. Given the evidence that was presented at that CPG, I lodged a motion and I got such strong support for it that it was the first time that I was able to lead a members’ business debate in the chamber. That was really effective, and it is evidence of how effectively CPGs can work and how motions can take such issues forward.

Equally, some of the motions that have been lodged are particularly weak, and I strongly agree with Edward Mountain on that, as well as with Graeme Dey’s letter.

That is helpful.

Graeme Dey makes some valid points about the structure and type of motions, but I also acknowledge that motions are a great opportunity to highlight worthwhile causes. We just have to look at the amount of information that is transmitted to see that motions can be a way to recognise an individual and an organisation within a region or a constituency as well as nationally.

However, I acknowledge that there seems to have been an erosion of some of that and that it would be a better conclusion for everybody if there was a standard that members would be expected to always reach when lodging motions, and a level that goes below the bar, if a bar has to be produced to suggest what we would expect. That would be a useful guide for staff and MSPs. In reality, nine times out of 10, a staff member might be putting together the motion on behalf on the member, and that needs to be considered. A bit of training might be required when it comes to what researchers, communications officers and managers within the Parliament are trying to do.

All of that needs to be looked at, and, if we can capture that, it will be easier for everybody to manage the process.

Mr Dey has dared to put on the record in the public domain something that many MSPs have been thinking for some time. That said, some MSPs who have been thinking it for some time might also be guilty, if that is not the wrong expression to use, of lodging motions about someone who wins a contest for baking a cake. Mr Mountain, I can tell that you have never tasted my cake. I will not be the subject of any such motion.

Mr Dey made a serious point, but there can be—there always are—unintended consequences. This Parliament needs to find a way to shine a light on remarkable people, at all levels of society, who do something worthwhile. Such people deserve to be commended, whether that happens in this Parliament or elsewhere.

Such commendation does not always have to come through a conventional motion of the Parliament. I know that some parliamentarians have ideas about various ways in which constituency and regional MSPs could use parliamentary mechanisms to shine a light on the remarkable people in our constituencies who deserve to be recognised. That recognition will not always come through a motion of the Parliament, but there should be some mechanism for it. If we are to review the situation, we must not block opportunities for members of this Parliament to recognise remarkable people, irrespective of whether they have contributed in a substantial way at a regional or national level or in a small or micro way that made a difference locally, in their community. With that in mind, I am keen to look at the issue in more detail and hear the ideas of parliamentarians and others.

If we are to look at motions, we might consider another way in which the nature of motions is changing. When I was first elected to the Parliament in 2007, motions for members’ business debates tended to be consensual. They might be thought provoking and challenging, but they were rarely tribal in nature and they rarely involved playing out entrenched party positions. I feel that, in the past few years, such motions have, at times, set out much more entrenched positions. They have been much more tribal, with some MSPs seeking opportunities to play out entrenched party positions. I do not think that that was ever the intention behind members’ business debates and the motions that are lodged in that regard.

If we are to look at the issue in more detail, we should consider the totality of motions. There are some wonderful members’ business debates; there can be a great dynamic, with a fantastic debate on thought-provoking ideas, among members of all parties. We should not restrict such vibrant debate. However, there is a tendency for members’ business debates to be tribal, which was not the intention behind such debates. We should look at motions and debates in the round.

I agree with Bob Doris. I have noticed a far more tribal approach to motions. The debates that are interesting are the ones in which members can inform themselves about an issue. There are issues about which I have no idea, but I will volunteer to speak in a debate on such an issue, because the debate will inform me about what is going on. Those are the useful motions: they highlight in the Parliament important things that are going on.

I agree with Bob that some motions that are lodged for members’ business debates are purely political. I think that that is wrong, but it probably reflects frustration about the lack of ability to debate such matters in other parliamentary time.

We should have members’ business debates not to make political points but to inform debate. The reason for such debates is to inform us and sometimes celebrate things that are going on.

I echo Bob’s views. We should have a wider inquiry into all those things and consider costings—that is important. We have all found ourselves settling down at 9 o’clock in the evening only to have a heap of motions flood into our inboxes—sometimes there are six motions from just one person. I am not saying that such motions are meaningless, but flooding members’ inboxes with six motions on quite minor issues is not a way to get parliamentarians informed or involved in processes.

10:00  

All of those contributions were helpful. Graeme Dey’s letter, for which I thank him, is specifically about motions that simply seek MSPs’ support, rather than motions that are intended to go forward to a members’ business debate. However, I am cognisant of what members said. There seems to be an unspoken—or, rather, quietly spoken—concern among MSPs, and I think that committee members agree that they want to give the matter further consideration. Are members content for a short paper to be drafted that seeks costings and information, so that we can put parameters on our inquiry? I noted the comment about seeking the wisdom of more experienced members who have been here over a number of sessions; we could ask them to give us, at the very least, their subjective opinions of changes when it comes to motions and debates. That would be helpful.

Are members content for such a paper to be prepared and then considered at a subsequent meeting?

Members indicated agreement.

I am grateful.