Official Report 281KB pdf
Last week, while I was unavoidably detained outwith the country—at my own expense, I hasten to add—I understand that the Protection of Wild Mammals (Scotland) Bill was referred back to this committee for stage 2. I am not prepared to enter into the argument about whether that was the right or wrong thing to do; it is a matter of fact and I believe that this committee is mature enough to be able to handle the matter sensibly. I have made that point to the promoter of the bill and others.
I concur with what you have said. There were concerns about the bill coming back to the Rural Development Committee. However, the will of Parliament was clearly expressed during the stage 1 debate and, whatever our own views, we all accept that there was an overwhelming desire for the bill to proceed.
Thank you for those comments. I do not think that we can be ruled absolutely by a timetable, but we will be ruled by responsibility. We will endeavour to keep within the timetable.
My personal view was that it would be better if another committee or an ad hoc committee proceeded with the bill. However, that is the decision of the Parliamentary Bureau. I believe that the committee has a duty to make the bill work. As a result of the evidence that was given to us, I felt that the bill was unworkable. I encourage others to lodge constructive amendments that will make the bill work. The timetable is sensible and the committee will approach the bill in a workmanlike fashion.
Among the papers that I was sent was the publication, "Guidance on Public Bills". It is useful reading and I encourage members to read it if they can find the time.
We have a job to do and, as Mike Rumbles and Elaine Murray have said, we will do that job. There is no problem with that. Our job is to introduce more clarity and precision and to achieve the Parliament's aims. It will have the opportunity to achieve those aims at stage 3.
I understand that, since the bill was published, a unit has been set up in the Parliament to deal with members' bills and to give advice on drafting. Could we ask that unit to assist us? It is very important that any amendments that we lodge are drafted properly and would make good legislation.
I am advised that the bill is not included in the unit's work load. Although Rhoda Grant's suggestion is helpful, what she proposes cannot be done, I am sorry to say.
I welcome the constructive comments that members have made. I, too, would have preferred the bill to be referred to an ad hoc committee. Given that that will not happen, it is right that we should take a constructive approach.
That is not the intention at this stage.
Do we intend to take evidence on the amendments?
That option is open to the committee. I would not rule it in or out. Taking further evidence would inevitably prolong the process but, as has already been said, the most important thing is to avoid producing a bad bill. It must be a sound bill. If it is necessary to take evidence to make the bill sounder and more robust, we should not shirk doing that.
Does that mean that, instead of taking a decision on amendments when they came before the committee, we would take evidence on them? How would the process work?
Can you repeat the question?
Would we call for evidence on an amendment once that amendment was before the committee?
I am advised that we are breaking new ground here. That has never been done before.
I agree entirely with what Fergus Ewing said about the importance of getting the bill right. However, I am also considering the issue from a political point of view. Regardless of where we stand in the argument, it is clear that a number of members did not want the bill to be referred back to this committee for stage 2 consideration. The clerks have provided us with guidance on a suggested way forward. Their view is reasonable, or they would not have produced it for us. I know that two weeks is not a long time, but in my view it is sufficient to get amendments lodged. I am reluctant to appear to delay the process, and I think that we should get on with it.
Do not forget that in two weeks' time we will take evidence only on section 1. There is more time for members to lodge amendments to other sections. The "Guidance on Public Bills" includes a section on admissibility of amendments. I accept that that might be an issue, come the time, and that I will have to make the best ruling that I can. I hope that most amendments will not be referred to me for a decision and that the member lodging the amendment and the clerks will agree on whether it is admissible. Only if there is disagreement are amendments referred to the convener of the lead committee. I have no doubt that, if the committee so wished, we could receive a private briefing from an appropriate person. If that is to be done before 19 October, it will have to happen during the recess. However, I am quite sure that it could be arranged, if members were interested. I should have no difficulty with that—it might be a very valuable exercise.
We should not forget that we also have an opportunity to lodge amendments at stage 3. If someone felt that they had missed the boat at stage 2, they could rectify matters at stage 3. Like Mike Rumbles, I think that it is important that we are not seen to be delaying the process.
Because I think section 1 is so important, I agree with what Fergus Ewing said. Two weeks is not enough time for members to draft amendments and to decide how they want to frame them. Because such amendments are so important if we are to make the bill workable, I support Fergus Ewing's suggestion that a further two weeks be taken.
I do not agree that we need to take a further two weeks. Although the bill has only just passed stage 1, it has been in the public domain for a long time and has been the object of intense scrutiny by people in favour of it and people against it. I imagine that many organisations have already thought about the amendments that they would propose in the event of the bill proceeding beyond stage 1. Therefore, I do not think that there will be much of a problem with people suggesting amendments. In fact, I believe that quite a number of amendments are circulating already.
I will continue from what you said earlier, convener, about "Guidance on Public Bills". You said that most amendments—normal amendments—that are lodged with the clerks would go through normally. You will be asked to rule only in the case of whether an amendment is admissible. And in rule—
No—I am sorry to butt in. As I understand it, I will be asked to rule when agreement cannot be reached between a member and the clerks.
That is my point exactly. Paragraph 4.24 of the guidance states:
I have tried hard not to think about that for the past week, because what you point out is absolutely correct. Difficult decisions will have to be made. The clerks will provide advice. I presume that other sources—the MSP who lodged the amendment, for example—will be spoken to. At the end of the day, my understanding is that whether an amendment is admissible comes down to a reasoned judgment by the convener. I cannot really answer your question until I know about the amendment in question.
In that case, I ask for an assurance on one point. If you take advice from the clerks who have already been involved in such a discussion, will you also make yourself available to any MSP involved in the problem, so that you take a balanced view?
I am happy to give such an undertaking, as long as that would be procedurally correct. I have no problem with that.
I raise the matter because it is a problem of procedure.
In the interests of agreement and co-operation, which have been strikingly apparent in the discussion on the subject so far, I suggest that we delay day one until 30 October—that is, for one week. I do not believe that it could ever be argued that we are trying to delay the bill. If that will allow people a little more comfort in lodging the first batch of amendments, I am happy to do so. I believe that we could still try to finish proceedings by the end of November, as agreed in the work programme. Given the time that it has taken to get to this stage, I would not regard it as a national disaster if that part of the process happened to be delayed until the first week in December.
I do not think that a week will make a huge amount of difference to any of us. In that case, would it be worth organising a briefing on 23 October to examine the way in which we will deal with amendments? The minister is coming anyway.
That is an excellent, constructive suggestion, which I heartily recommend to the committee. That briefing would be held in private at the end of the meeting with the minister.
Members indicated agreement.
We have agreed to a seven-day delay—we will begin proceedings on stage 2 of the Protection of Wild Mammals (Scotland) Bill on 30 October, and on 23 October we will have a private briefing, following our questioning of the minister, to keep us right on amendments.
I would just like to clarify matters on the record for those who will read the Official Report.
That is my reading of the situation. It is correct as far as I am concerned. Similarly, the second day of stage 2 will now be 6 November, and we will go no further than section 3 on that day. We will just shift everything back a week.
Previous
Work ProgrammeNext
Conferences