Report of the Consultative Steering Group on the Scottish Parliament. page :8

Report of the Consultative Steering Group on the Scottish Parliament

SECTION 3.3:
PARLIAMENTARY BUSINESS
1. This section sets out our recommendations on the programming of business in the Parliament, the sitting pattern of the Parliament, the conduct of Parliamentary business, the reporting of proceedings and related issues. In considering these issues we have been guided by the principle that power should be shared in the Parliament, and that the interests of non-Executive parties and individual members should be protected; the principle of openness and accessibility, reflected in our desire to deliver procedures which are modern, accessible and relevant; together with the principles of accountability and equal opportunities.

*Programming of Business*
2. Consistent with our key principle of openness and accessibility, we recommend that the Parliament should seek to operate open and transparent systems for planning and timetabling business. The sitting pattern of the Parliament including the allocation of time for Committee, Plenary and for party political and constituency business, together with details of planned Summer, October, Christmas and Easter recesses, should be publicised at the beginning of each Parliamentary year (recognising that this might need to be changed, in the light of unforeseen developments).

3. We propose that the Business Committee should put a regular programme of business to the Parliament for the Parliament to approve. This might be done on a weekly basis looking at the forthcoming two weeks. The Business motion should be debatable but the debate on it should be time limited. We recommend that Members should be able to table amendments to the Business Programme, provided a minimum number of MSPs, say 10, subscribe to the amendment.

4. The Business Committee as well as recommending a forward programme for business in the Plenary, should agree the timetable for the consideration of legislation in Committees (subject to any provisions in Standing Orders about timing of stages of Bills). It should also agree an overall timetable for the consideration of other business in the Committees, including the conduct of inquiries. Parliamentary Committees should be able to programme their own business within the timescale agreed by the Parliament on the proposal of the Business Committee.

5. The Business Committee should also plan the daily timetable of Business in the Plenary, including the timetabling of debates on Bills. This would provide an agreed approach to the handling of debates and legislation aimed at ensuring that Members had sufficient time to focus on areas of interest to them, balanced against the need to conduct the business of the Parliament efficiently.

6. Some Parliamentary business is likely to be prescribed by Standing Orders eg the periods to be devoted to Questions to Ministers. Standing Orders should at least prescribe a minimum amount of time for matters such as Committee and other non-Executive business.

Private Members' business
7. We recommend that time should be set aside after the votes at the end of the day specifically for private members' business. This would allow members to raise non-controversial, constituency-related issues. Members should also be able to table motions for publication on the order paper. It will be for the Business Committee to make recommendations to the Parliament on which motions should be debated and voted upon.

8. In the case of legislation initiated by Private Members, it is suggested that it be left to the Business Committee to allocate time to Bills which are to be introduced. It is thought that the approval of the Scottish Parliament itself (which will already have been secured) for the Bill to be given time should be sufficient to drive that process.

Committees
9. Standing Orders should prescribe a minimum amount of Parliamentary time when Committee business eg the discussion of Committee reports and the introduction of Committee-initiated legislation approved by the Parliament, should be given precedence over the business of the Executive. One option would be for Standing Orders to specify a weekly/monthly period of time for such business; alternatively Standing Orders could provide for a minimum period of Parliamentary time to be distributed at the discretion of the Business Committee.

Non-Executive Parties
10. It might be helpful at the outset to provide some framework or guidance for the Business Committee in allocating time to non-Executive party business. Once the Scottish Parliament has been operating for some time, the Parliament would be able to take a view on the necessity of such a provision. We propose that Standing Orders prescribe a minimum amount of time for such business, say 12 days per year. The division of this time could be done on the basis of the balance of the parties in the Parliament.

11. There are other categories of business where it might be considered more appropriate for Standing Orders to give the Presiding Officer a role in the allocation of Parliamentary time, eg in consideration of a request from a member to debate a matter of urgent public importance in Plenary session and it is proposed that the Presiding Officer should be given such discretion.

Sitting Periods
12. In keeping with the concept of a family-friendly Parliament, the Parliament should be in session for approximately 30-33 weeks per year. This would allow an 8-10 week break in summer from mid-June until end-August and with 2-4 week breaks at Easter and Christmas. Additional mid-term breaks in February and October could also be built in. The sitting pattern of the Parliament including the allocation of time for Committee, Plenary and for party political activities should be agreed and publicised at the beginning of each Parliamentary year (recognising that it would be possible for this to change, based on the requirements of the Parliament).

13. Committees should not sit when the Plenary is in session, to facilitate maximum participation in debates. We also believe that time for party business should be built in to avoid the possibility of party business encroaching into non-Parliamentary time, ie evenings and weekends.

14. A possible model for the sitting pattern of the Scottish Parliament might be:
Monday am	- Travelling and constituency business
Monday pm	- Additional Committee/Plenary business and party political activity
Tuesday 9.30am-12.30pm	- Committee
Tuesday 12.30pm-2.30pm	- Lunch/time for party political and constituency activities
Tuesday 2.30pm-5.30pm	- Committee
Wednesday 9.30am-12.30pm	- Committee
Wednesday 12.30pm-2.30pm	- Lunch/time for party political and constituency activities
Wednesday 2.30pm-5.30pm	- Plenary
Thursday 9.30am-12.30pm	- Plenary
Thursday 12.30pm-2.30pm	- Lunch/time for party political and constituency activities
Thursday 2.30pm-5.30pm	- Plenary
Friday am/pm	- Additional Committee/Plenary business and party political activity

Location of Plenary Sessions
15. Section 2 of the Scotland Act provides for the Secretary of State to designate the location of the first meeting of the new Scottish Parliament. We recommend that Standing Orders should provide for the Presiding Officer to determine the Parliament's meeting place thereafter. This is expected to be in Edinburgh, but such a provision would give the Parliament the flexibility to meet elsewhere if required.

Location of Committee Sessions
16. Explicit provision designating the location of Committee meetings would not be appropriate. We propose that Standing Orders should include provision enabling Committees to meet anywhere within Scotland.

Sitting Days/Hours: Provision in Standing Orders
17. Given our proposals for a Business Committee which would be responsible for the detailed planning and timetabling of the Parliament's business, it is proposed that only general provisions relating to the sitting times are included in Standing Orders, for example, Standing Orders might prescribe that:
the Parliament should normally meet between the hours of 9.30am and 5.30pm on Tuesday to Thursday; 2.30pm to 5.30pm on Monday; 9.30am to 12.30pm on Friday; the Parliament should be in Recess for a specified number of weeks per year which would enable it to break for the Scottish school holidays; and Committees should be able to meet at other times when the Plenary itself is not in session.

Voting Times
18. We recommend that where possible voting in the Parliament should take place at a regular appointed time, for example towards the end of the day on the day's business, say from 5pm onwards for Plenary sessions or at the end of a Committee session.

19. It is important to schedule votes for the same day as the associated discussion to ensure that debates are fresh in Members' minds. The scheduling of votes at a set time each day, as proposed above, would ensure the most effective use of Parliamentary and MSPs' time. Such an arrangement would also allow Parliamentary and Members' staff to plan other business around this time.

20. We considered whether scheduling the voting in this way would be appropriate for all types of Parliamentary Business. We concluded that it would be necessary to allow sequential votes on amendments to legislation, as debate on a particular clause could be coloured by a decision to amend a previous clause. An exception should therefore be made for consideration of legislation. Voting on nominations for the Presiding Officer, First Minister etc, should also be held at the appropriate point in the day. We also recommend that Standing Orders should allow the Parliament to be able to vote at any time during a business session, to allow for emergency business.

Sittings of the Parliament on Non-Appointed Days and Weekends
21. Standing Orders should prescribe that all meetings of the Parliament outwith normal prescribed working hours should be called at the discretion of the Presiding Officer.

Provision to Allow Late Sittings of Parliament
22. Whilst we adhere to the principle of a family-friendly Parliament, observing normal business hours, we recognise the need to provide for exceptional circumstances. We propose that the Standing Orders should allow the Parliament to vote on a motion to continue sitting until current business is completed. Such a motion could be moved by a Minister, the Convener of a Committee or an individual MSP if they had moved the business under consideration. The motion should be both debatable and amendable although amendments should be restricted to suggesting more or less time than specified, and a simple majority of those present and voting should be required for the Parliament's approval. In addition, a time limit for debating such a motion should be prescribed by Standing Orders and time limits for individual speeches during a late sitting should be prescribed.

Provision to Allow Early Sittings of the Parliament
23. As proposed in paragraph 21, Standing Orders should provide for early sittings of the Parliament to be called at the Presiding Officer's discretion. We considered whether Standing Orders should also prescribe the circumstances in which an early sitting may be called, how much notice should be required to be given to Members to call an early sitting of the Parliament, and how this information will be notified to the Members or whether this should be left to develop through convention. As it is envisaged that this power might be used only in circumstances of exceptional urgency, we concluded that it might be best not to be too prescriptive in Standing Orders.

Suspension of Sittings
24. There is a fundamental difference between adjourning the Parliament and suspending a sitting. The first is effected by the Parliament itself, with or without debate, according to the Standing Orders. The latter is usually a prerogative of the Chair (Presiding Officer) which may be used in certain (usually unspecified) circumstances.

25. We propose that, in the main, this matter is left to develop by convention but that a general provision is included in the draft Standing Orders which empowers the Presiding Officer to suspend or close the sitting if he or she considers this is desirable in view of the course of the business or in order to maintain order in the Chamber. Such general provision is currently included in the Standing Orders of some of the Scandinavian countries.

Quorum of the Parliament
26. Generally no quorum should be required for the Plenary sessions. However, a quorum should be required for votes on matters of particular importance such as the election of the First Minister and Presiding Officer and for the final stage of legislation when a Bill is passed or rejected. Our proposals for quorums are contained in the relevant sections of the report.

Quorum of Parliamentary Committees
27. Standing Orders should prescribe a quorum which must be reached by Committees both for consideration of business and for voting. Given that we are recommending that the number of Members on each Committee may vary between 5 and 15, it is proposed that a quorum of 3 Members is required. Committees which were not quorate would not be able to meet.

Rules of Debate
Scotland Act
28. Schedule 3 paragraph (1) of the Scotland Act requires the Parliament in its Standing Orders to make provision for preserving order in the proceedings of the Parliament. Provision must be made for (a) preventing conduct which could constitute a criminal offence or contempt of court and (b) a subjudice rule. These provisions may also provide for the exclusion of a Member.

Behaviour
29. It is proposed that the rules governing the behaviour of Members when in Plenary and in Committee should be left to develop through convention. However, we propose that Standing Orders should set out the following 2 general principles which might guide the Parliament:
Members should, at all times, conduct themselves in a courteous and respectful manner; and Members should at all times respect the authority of the Chair.

30. The application of such principles is a matter best left to the discretion of the Presiding Officer or the Convener of the relevant Committee, and Standing Orders should remain flexible enough to allow this. The rules governing Members who disrupt proceedings are dealt with in the paragraphs below.

Powers to be Conferred on the Presiding Officer for Preservation of Order
31. As a minimum the Scottish Parliament's Standing Orders should confer the following powers on the Presiding Officer :
the power to determine the order of speakers whenever necessary; the power to set a time limit for speeches in certain types of debate (see below); the power to order a Member to discontinue his or her speech if it is repetitive, irrelevant or exceeds set time limits; the power to ask a Member to withdraw or to exclude a Member whose conduct is grossly disorderly or could constitute a criminal offence or contempt of court. and - the power to suspend the Parliament in the case of grave disorder.

32. The approval of the Parliament should be required before the Presiding Officer could exclude a Member from proceedings for more than a day's sitting.

33. Standing Orders should also aim to:
33.1 limit the use of "points of order" to avoid the abuse of this facility; and 33.2 limit the number of times an MSP can speak on an item of business (subject to specific exemptions below).

Determining the Order of Speakers
34. The method used to determine the order of speakers differs throughout Parliaments across Europe. In the Norwegian Parliament speakers will be called in the same order as they catch the President's eye. However, party groups may submit to the President, via the Parliament's secretariat, the names of members who wish to take part in the debate. The President may on the basis of this list then establish the order of the speakers. It is normal for one speaker from each party group to head the list of speakers. In other Scandinavian Parliaments, members add their name to a list in advance, and are simply called in that order.

35. We believe that, ultimately, the order of speakers in the Parliament is a matter best left to the discretion of the Presiding Officer, who should be guided by the principle that all debates should reflect the basic balance of the political parties as well as the rules relating to precedence of speakers during debates (see below). We note, however, that the Presiding Officer might find it helpful, perhaps when determining the need for time limits on speeches and/or particular debates, to have an indication of the number of Members wishing to speak on a specific issue. Therefore, a model along the lines of the Norwegian example above, where Members could register their interest to speak prior to the debate, might be appropriate. We recommend that generally each main party should have the opportunity to speak in turn at the beginning of a debate.

Interventions During Speeches
36. Interventions during speeches should be allowed only with the agreement of the current speaker. Use of the intervention procedure should be managed by the Presiding Officer under the basic principle that Members should at all times conduct themselves in a courteous and respectful manner. On this basis, no separate Standing Order on interventions would be required.

Use of Quotations During Speeches
37. The use of quotations during speeches in the Scottish Parliament should be left unregulated, as the powers proposed for the Presiding Officer under paragraph 31, ie, to impose time limits on speeches and to order a Member to discontinue his/her speech if it is repetitive or irrelevant, would prove sufficient to curb unnecessary and extensive use of quotations.

Sub judice
38. The Scotland Act requires (schedule 3, paragraph 1(b)) the Standing Orders to include provision for a sub judice rule. Such provision may provide for excluding a Member of the Parliament from proceedings.

39. Section 41 provides that for the purposes of the law of defamation, (a), any statement made in proceedings of the Parliament, and (b), the publication under the authority of the Parliament of any statement, shall be absolutely privileged. This is intended to ensure that Members are free to debate matters of public interest (and that such debates can be properly reported) without fear of an action for defamation being raised.

40. Section 42 disapplies the rule of strict liability for contempt of court in relation to publications made in, or in reports of, proceedings of the Scottish Parliament in relation to a Bill or subordinate legislation.

41. The proceedings of the Scottish Parliament, unlike those of Westminster, will be subject to the law of contempt of court. Paragraph 1 of Schedule 3 requires Standing Orders to include provision for preventing conduct which would constitute a criminal offence or contempt of court. Section 42 is intended to ensure that the Scottish Parliament is not prevented from legislating on any matter simply because anything said or done in the proceedings for the purposes of considering a Bill or subordinate legislation might be treated as contempt of court under the "strict liability" rule.

42. It is proposed that a workable sub judice rule, provided for in Standing Orders, should:
be defined in general terms; make clear how and by whom it is to be applied; impose an explicit duty on members seeking to raise any matter that might infringe that rule to give reasonable notice to the relevant authority and to abide by their ruling; and provide that the Presiding Officer should be the "relevant authority".

Form of Address
43. We considered the mode of address which should be adopted in the Scottish Parliament. We looked at 2 main options: reference to other Members in the third party, eg by reference to their constituencies; or reference by name.

44. We noted, however, that the election of regional MSPs under the additional member system proposed for the Scottish Parliament would require some form of address other than by reference to constituency to be identified; reliance on constituency alone would be insufficient and potentially confusing.

45. In the circumstances, we propose that Members of the Scottish Parliament should be addressed simply by name. This convention has been adopted both by the European Parliament and also by the Danish Parliament among others. We recommend that Standing Orders should include only a general provision requiring Members to be addressed respectfully, by name and in the form preferred by the Member eg Mr/Ms/Miss/Mrs Smith/Joan Smith/Joe Smith. This would have the advantage that members of the public and others viewing the proceedings should find it easier to follow the debate.

Time limits on speeches
46. We recommend that no general time limit on speeches should be prescribed by Standing Orders and that the need for a time limit on speeches during certain debates should be left to the discretion of the Presiding Officer, although we suggest that this should be standard practice. The powers proposed for the Presiding Officer under paragraph 31 would allow for this. Enabling Members to register to speak prior to a debate as suggested in paragraphs 34-35 would enable the Presiding Officer to determine when a time limit would need to be imposed. When setting such time limits the Presiding Officer may need to allow additional time for the proponent of a motion or proposal to make his/her case. Some differential allocation of time may also be needed for Members of the Scottish Executive presenting or explaining the Executive's policy.

Precedence in Speeches
47. Standing Orders should include provision to give certain Members, for example Members of the Executive, Committee Conveners (and, if appointed, Committee Reporters), precedence to speak in relevant debates. However, all Members, regardless of their status within their party, should be given the opportunity to participate, subject to the proposals made above. This would be a further reason for the Presiding Officer routinely to set limits on speeches to ensure an adequate balance of time is available to ordinary Members.

Personal Statements
48. We recommend that Standing Orders should include provision to allow Members to make personal statements in the debating Chamber. It is proposed that Members wishing to make such a statement should be required to give notice to the Presiding Officer to allow adequate Parliamentary time to be set aside for the statement.

Should MSPs Speak from their Seat or from a Lectern?
49. We propose that Standing Orders should include provision to require Members to stand at their seats when addressing the Parliament. Clearly such a provision would not apply to those Members who were disabled. This would enable not only the other Members but also the public to clearly identify the Member speaking.

Access for Officials and other Parliamentary Staff
50. We propose that Standing Orders should include provision to ensure that Government officials, Parliamentary staff and MSPs' staff, ie all those with legitimate reason, should be given access to designated seats in the debating Chamber. Such access would be dependent on officials and staff possessing a designated security pass, and would also depend on their conducting themselves with discretion while in the Chamber. When in the Chamber they should be allowed to bring necessary messages/papers to Members provided that this is done with discretion.

51. While in the Chamber, non-Members should not be able to sit in those seats allocated to MSPs.

52. Should a non-Member prove to be disruptive while in the Chamber the Presiding Officer should be allowed to order their exclusion.

Language
53. We considered the use of Gaelic, Scots and other non-English languages in the Scottish Parliament, and recognised the strong historical and cultural arguments for facilitating the use of Gaelic and Scots in the Parliament.

54. We agreed that any rules governing the use of language in the Parliament should aim to facilitate MSPs' understanding of, and participation in, the proceedings of the Parliament; and therefore agreed the following recommendations.

55. We recommend that the normal working language of the Parliament should be English.

56. We considered the special position of the Scots language, noting that most MSPs can be expected to understand spoken and written Scots, and that many of us switch between Scots and standard English speech depending on the occasion. We expect that this will be the case within the Parliament.

57. We noted that Ministers have already agreed that there will be provision in the new Parliament building at Holyrood for interpretation and translation facilities; and that these may be used to facilitate the work of MSPs wishing to use Gaelic, as well as on those occasions when a visiting dignitary wishes to address the Parliament in his or her native tongue.

58. We suggest that Members wishing to make a speech to the Parliament in Gaelic, should give prior notice of their intentions to the Presiding Officer, so that arrangements can be made for interpreting facilities. The provision of these facilities should be at the ultimate discretion of the Presiding Officer, but should be withheld only in extraordinary circumstances. If the Member wishes to use only a phrase or a sentence of the language, he or she should repeat the translation him/herself, to facilitate the understanding of Members.

59. We propose that no initial provision should be made for interpretation from English into Gaelic or other non-English languages; but that the Parliament itself should decide, once it is established, whether it wishes to make greater provision for interpretation and translation.

60. We recommend that there should be signage in the Parliament building in both Gaelic and English.

61. We suggest that no interpretation or translation facilities will be necessary for MSPs wishing to use the Scots language; but that the Presiding Officer should be able to ask for clarification of a particular phrase if he/she feels it necessary.

62. We recommend that the Official Report of the proceedings of the Parliament should normally be published only in English, and that speeches made in the Parliament in languages other than English and Gaelic should appear in the Official Report only in their English translations. If Parliament so desired, the Parliament could publish the speech in the original language separately.

63. We recommend that speeches made in the Parliament in Gaelic should be published in the Official Report in the original Gaelic, with an English translation. To assist the Official Report staff, a Member making a speech in Gaelic should submit a copy of the speech in Gaelic and in translation to the Official Report.

64. We recommend that the Parliament's public information centre should produce regular information bulletins in Gaelic specifically targeted at the Gaelic speaking population; and that they should also produce such bulletins from time-to-time in other non-English languages spoken in Scotland.

Parliamentary Papers
Parliamentary Privilege
64. Standing Orders should provide for a non-debatable Motion where the Executive seeks the authority of the Parliament to publish papers which would then, through the provisions of section 41 of the Scotland Act, be absolutely privileged for the purposes of the law of defamation. In all other cases it is considered sufficient that all papers not covered by a separate Standing Order (eg Committee reports) presented to Parliament are recorded as having been presented without there being a need to prescribe in Standing Orders how that presentation should take place. Administrative arrangements can be put in place to ensure that the procedures for presenting papers is well known.

The Official Report of Proceedings of the Parliament
65. Schedule 3 to the Scotland Act requires Standing Orders to include provision for reporting the proceedings of the Parliament.

66. An official report is the officially-sanctioned record of what is said in the Parliament, both in Plenary session and, in some circumstances, in Committees. We considered whether a transcribed Official Report was required at all. We understand that there are plans to record and televise proceedings in the chamber and Committees, although until the Parliament moves to Holyrood, it is likely that only one Committee room will be equipped for television. As technology develops, those records might in due course themselves become the Official Report of the Parliament, without the need for transcription, but this is unlikely to be feasible in the near future.

67. We propose that a transcribed written record of proceedings should be available both on the Internet and in print. Transcribed text can more easily be used for a range of other purposes (eg, constituent-friendly summaries) and it enables indexing and retrieval of specific references. The courts can in certain circumstances refer to Hansard (the Official Report at Westminster) in construing legislation and the Official Report of the Scottish Parliament may be used in a similar way.

The Style of the Official Report
68. There are various options for the style of the Official Report: purely verbatim, with no editing; "substantially verbatim", such as the Hansard used at Westminster, where text is edited to filter out unnecessary wording and to make the report generally more readable; and summary reports. We recommend that the Parliament should produce some sort of summary report, perhaps edited highlights of each week's proceedings, but we do not think that could itself form the Official Report and it would in any case be necessary first to have produced a more substantial report from which the edited highlights would be taken. We recommend that a substantially verbatim Official Report of Plenary sessions should be produced.

69. Most who will require working copies are likely to use electronic means, but we consider that a version should also be available in print for those who do not have access to technology. We suggest that a daily printed version will not be necessary, particularly if, as we propose, the Parliament were to meet in Plenary session on only 2 days each week. In those circumstances, a weekly version would suffice and we recommend that the Parliament should consider options for printing that produce an acceptable permanent record without incurring unjustified costs. This should be in addition to the edited highlights suggested above, since verbatim reports would not be particularly constituent-friendly.

Committee Reports
70. For some of their time, Committees will be sitting relatively informally, discussing work plans, draft reports, etc. No Official Report will be required for those sittings; the Clerk should simply produce a note of points made and decisions taken. On other occasions, Committees will be hearing evidence from members and staff of the Executive and other witnesses. In these cases we believe that a verbatim report of oral evidence will be required, but that it will not have to be available immediately, particularly since witnesses will have to be given the opportunity to agree it.

71. Committees will also be considering legislation. One possibility is that procedures will follow the Westminster model, whereby Committees with the relevant Minister scrutinise Bills line by line and discussion is reported verbatim. An alternative more European model would be for a Committee to scrutinise a Bill and to make its considered report to Parliament together with the amended Bill. Such reports would be drafted by the Committee clerks, with no need for verbatim reporting of proceedings in Committee. We understand, however, that the legal profession finds verbatim reports of Committee consideration helpful in indicating what a particular provision is intended to mean. We assume, therefore, that Official Reports may be required. If such reports did not have to be available the next day, there could be cost savings, since they could be transcribed on non-sitting days. We therefore propose that any Committee reports required should not have to be available the next day, but that they should be available in electronic form in good time for the next meeting of that Committee. They would be printed at a subsequent date.

Summary of recommendations for Standing Orders
The Standing Orders should provide that:

the Business Committee should put a regular programme of business to the Parliament for the Parliament to approve. This might be done on a weekly basis looking at the forthcoming two weeks. The Business motion should be debatable but the debate on it should be time limited. Members should be able to table amendments to the Business Programme, provided a minimum of 10 MSPs subscribe to the amendment. a minimum amount of time of 12 days per year should be allocated for non-Executive business. time should be set aside at the end of each Plenary day for Private Members' business. the Business Committee should allocate time for Private Members' Bills. a minimum amount of Parliamentary time should be set aside for Committee business. Members should have a right to table motions, which should be published. Committees should not sit when the Plenary is in session. the Parliament should normally meet between the hours of 9.30am and 5.30pm on Tuesday to Thursday; 2.30pm to 5.30pm on Monday; and 9.30am to 12.30pm on Friday; the Parliament should be in Recess for a specified number of weeks per year which would enable it to break for party conferences and the Scottish school holidays. Committees should be able to meet at other times when the Plenary itself is not in session. voting should take place each day at 5.00pm, except for votes on legislation and election of officers, and for emergency business. all meetings of the Parliament outwith normal prescribed working hours should be called at the discretion of the Presiding Officer. the Parliament should be able to vote on a motion to continue sitting until current business is completed. Such a motion could be moved by a Minister, the Convener of a Committee or an individual MSP if they had moved the business under consideration. The motion would be both debatable and amendable although amendments would be restricted to suggesting more or less time than specified, and a simple majority of those present and voting would be required for the Parliament's approval. In addition, a time limit for debating such a motion should be prescribed by Standing Orders and time limits for individual speeches during a late sitting should be prescribed. the Presiding Officer should be able to suspend or close any sitting of the Parliament if he or she considers this is desirable in view of the course of business or in order to maintain order in the Chamber. a quorum of 3 members should be required for a Committee to meet. Members should, at all times, conduct themselves in a courteous and respectful manner. Members should at all times respect the authority of the Chair. the Presiding Officer should be given the following powers: the power to determine the order of speakers whenever necessary; the power to set a time limit for speeches in certain types of debate; the power to order a Member to discontinue his or her speech if it is repetitive, irrelevant or exceeds set time limits; the power to ask a Member to withdraw or to exclude a Member whose conduct is grossly disorderly or could constitute a criminal offence or contempt of court; and the power to suspend the Parliament in the case of grave disorder. the approval of the Parliament should be necessary before the Presiding Officer could exclude a member for more than a day's sitting. there should be a role on sub judice which should: be defined in general terms; make clear how and by whom it is to be applied; impose an explicit duty on members seeking to raise any matter that might infringe that rule to give reasonable notice to the relevant authority and to abide by their ruling; and provide that the Presiding Officer should be the "relevant authority". Members should be addressed respectfully and in the form preferred by them. there should be provision to give certain Members, for example Members of the Executive, Committee Conveners (and, if appointed, Committee Reporters), precedence to speak in relevant debates. Members should be able to make personal statements in the chamber, having given prior notice to the Presiding Officer. Members should normally stand at their seats when addressing the Parliament. Government officials, Parliamentary staff and MSPs' staff, ie all those with legitimate reason, should be given access to designated seats in the debating Chamber. Such access would be dependent on officials and staff possessing a designated security pass, and would also depend on their conducting themselves with discretion while in the Chamber. When in the Chamber they should be allowed to bring necessary messages/papers to Members provided that this is done with discretion. while in the Chamber, non-Members should not be able to sit in those seats allocated to MSPs. should a non-Member prove to be disruptive while in the Chamber it is proposed that the Presiding Officer should be allowed to order their exclusion. the proceedings of the Parliament should be published in an Official Report. Standing Orders should also aim to: limit the use of "points of order" to avoid the abuse of this facility; and limit the number of times an MSP may speak on an item of business.