Subordinate Legislation Committee, 04 Jul 2000

Meeting date: Tuesday, July 4, 2000

Official Report 80KB pdf

---

Bail, Judicial Appointments etc (Scotland) Bill

The second item on the agenda is delegated powers scrutiny of the provisions of the Bail, Judicial Appointments etc (Scotland) Bill, as amended at stage 2. The only difficulty is that, although we will make comments on the amended bill today, the stage 3 debate is to take place tomorrow, so there is little that we can do. However, it seems that there are no matters of great significance to discuss, as we appear to be in agreement with the Executive. Are there any comments?

It is important to say that the time scale for the bill is far from satisfactory. Although we have noted what has happened on this occasion, it does not set a good precedent for future operation of the Parliament or its committees.

What would happen if there were any serious problems? It is worth asking about that, as it could happen that the committee might throw up some serious issues.

I understand that we would have to make individual statements during tomorrow's debate, but there is little that we could do. Even processing our report would be virtually impossible in the time allowed. We are here as the eyes and ears of the Parliament. We are not here to consider policy; we are here on a non-partisan basis. People expect us to do our job. If we do not do it, matters could just sail through committees or through the Parliament.

As has often been pointed out, we are a unicameral Parliament, and we have to get things right first time round. If we get it wrong tomorrow, that is it. We will have to live with the consequences of our actions. I therefore suggest that we put on record the fact that, although there is no problem this time, we believe that at least a week should be allowed for us to make a report to other members of Parliament that we are satisfied with the bill.

We appreciate that we are up against the wire in this case, as the recess is fast approaching, but we should draw to the Executive's attention our view that it is not in anybody's interests to work to such a tight time scale. It is not in the interests of the committee, nor is it in the interests of ministers, as we are here to provide a system of checks and balances. If we were not here, ministers would have to pay the price. Neither is it in the interests of Parliament for us to fail to do our job properly.

We shall therefore put on record the fact that we are not satisfied that this is the best way to address legislation. We shall write to the Executive and, as part of our consideration of procedures, we can decide whether the system can be formalised.

I agree with that view.