Official Report 309KB pdf
Agenda item 3 is on the proposed local government elections bill. I welcome Brian Monteith MSP, who is the bill's sponsor, and Claire Menzies Smith, from the non-Executive bills unit, which is supporting the bill. Mr Monteith is here because he suggests that there be no further consultation on the proposed bill as it progresses to further consideration by Parliament, as it was consulted on reasonably recently by David Mundell, prior to his leaving this Parliament after his election to the Westminster Parliament.
Thank you, convener. I will keep my explanation brief because the committee already has a paper from me.
I appreciate that Mr Monteith has spoken to COSLA, but I have recently spoken to COSLA and to the Society of Local Authority Chief Executives and Senior Managers, which represents returning officers, who have serious concerns. Have you confirmed that their position is still that muddle and confusion will be caused if the proposed bill is not progressed?
The issue is not whether you or respondents to the consultation support the bill proposal; questions should relate to whether the consultation was sufficient.
The question was whether Mr Monteith has had any contact with SOLACE to confirm that it has not changed its view since David Mundell's consultation took place.
I am not sure that that is entirely relevant, but I will allow Brian Monteith to respond if he wishes.
I have not asked all the people who were consulted in the first place whether they have changed their views. One would do that only if the committee decided that the consultation process was not adequate. I approached the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and Unison to ask whether they thought the process should be repeated; I did not ask their views about what their various membership bodies would say.
Has anyone complained about not having been consulted?
No one has complained as far as I am aware. Circulation of the consultation was wide. David Mundell was willing to provide translations, for example, but there were no requests for that. As far as I am aware, there were no complaints from people about their being unable to participate.
Was the consultation, which seemed to me to be thorough, wide-ranging and wholly sufficient, carried out with the help and guidance of Parliament staff as to who should be consulted? Was advice followed in all respects?
Yes it was. Both NEBU and SPICe were consulted and their advice was followed.
I have another question for Claire Menzies Smith. Has NEBU carried out a full analysis of the responses? I appreciate that there was a problem with the amount of time it took to analyse the responses to consultation on the "right to die bill", as its name has been shortened to. If NEBU has not analysed the responses, how long would it take to do so?
The responses have almost been analysed. That work will be ready shortly.
Are members content with the explanations that have been given? I look to colleagues for guidance.
Given what Claire Menzies Smith has told us—which is that the bill has followed the normal process of consultation—and that, to use Fergus Ewing's words, all the advice that staff offered was taken, and given how recent the previous consultation was, I am not sure what value there would be in repeating the exercise, unless someone can bring to bear an argument that any circumstance has changed substantially. I am certainly minded to support Brian Monteith's contention that further consultation is not required; to consult further would mean unnecessary costs and bureaucracy. There might be points of which I am not aware, so if something has changed materially, which would stop the bill proceeding, members should bring that to the table now.
It would be a tribute to the operation and machinery of Parliament if we allowed the bill a fair wind—that would show that we are not willing to erect unnecessary bureaucratic barriers to ideas that have substantial support. I hope that I would say the same about a proposal that I did not support, although perhaps the fact that I support the proposal has coloured my view. However, even if I did not support the proposal, I would still say that, given the evidence that we have heard and the closeness of the first consultation, the bill should be allowed to go forward and that we should have the debate. The debate is worth while and has to be heard.
To come from the converse position, I do not support the bill proposal, but I agree with Tommy Sheridan. The consultation has been perfectly adequate and we can consider the bill on the basis of the evidence that Mr Monteith will present, which is what Parliament is here to do. I will not agree on the bill with Mr Monteith but, as far as I am concerned, he can progress his bill.
Has precedent been set whereby a member has progressed another member's bill proposal?
This is the first time there has been such a short period between consultation and another member promoting a proposed bill.
I agree that the bill should go forward, but perhaps the Procedures Committee should produce guidance. I make the point because people who responded to the original consultation exercise commented on a proposal for a member's bill in David Mundell's name. There may be issues surrounding that. I am not being facetious, but it is important that we clarify the issue with the Procedures Committee following today's decision.
I am not sure that we need to do that because we had a debate in the chamber recently about non-Executive bills and how they are supported and taken forward. I am picking up from members that we are content that sufficient consultation has taken place and that the bill can proceed to the next stage, as proposed by Mr Monteith. Is that agreed?