Procedures Committee, 12 Sep 2000

Meeting date: Tuesday, September 12, 2000

Official Report 227KB pdf

---

Non-Executive Bills Unit

That takes us to item 7 on the agenda. Mr David Cullum is present for this item—he is back from France. I invite you to make a brief presentation, Mr Cullum.

I hope that my paper is fairly self-explanatory. The exercise is really about gathering information, about how we will consult in order to set down what the specific role of the unit will be and about how the unit will evolve. We are looking internally and we are looking at how things are done in other jurisdictions. We are gathering information.

Will Mr Cullum elaborate on how he sees queuing issues being worked out? At the moment, Parliament is still getting up speed, so there is not a great deal of activity in this area. In a few years' time, however, a large number of bills will appear and a lot of people will be competing for the unit's help. If Gil Paterson and I each promote a splendid bill, who would be first in the queue?

That is the $64,000 question. I can think of 10 or 15 ways of answering it, but there would need to be some consensus among the Parliamentary Bureau, the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body and members. I do not think that it would be helpful for me to put forward any of my own ideas just now, although they will appear on paper.

All right—the $64,000 question can rest on the table for another day.

It would be helpful if the conveners liaison group could have some input. Some bills might be regarded with less than enormous favour by the Executive, the bureau or the corporate body, but they might still be good ideas. The Parliament should have some say, so that subversive bills get a fair chance.

Whatever system evolves eventually, I would hope that it would not be my decision but that of the Parliament, arrived at in whatever way is the outcome of the discussions that we are initiating.

Donald Gorrie raises the key issue about members' bills, which is how to decide the way in which Parliament's time should be allocated. That is done currently on the basis that enough people have signed the proposal for a bill, which then goes through a gamut of processes until the stage 1 debate, during which Parliament can decide not to accept the bill if it does not like it or—if it likes it—to progress it. The big issue is the way in which that procedure takes place. It would be theoretically possible for more than 200 bills to be introduced over four years, which could become a major problem.

The question is how the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body arrives at a judgment on whether resources should be allocated to a bill. For example, resources have been allocated to Alex Neil's bill on public appointments, despite the fact that the Executive has completed public consultation on the issue of public appointments and will, I presume, in due course propose to the Parliament changes in the public appointments system. The questions are, therefore, whether we need that bill and whether Parliament's resources should to be allocated to it, if changes will be proposed in any case. I am not saying that resources should not be allocated to that bill; I am saying merely that those questions must be asked. I am not sure how such judgments are made, but the issue is important and requires more detailed discussion.

Will not that judgment be a matter for the non-Executive bills unit to some extent? The members' bills that will be introduced are likely to be those that have been worked on and which are already presentable. To some degree, that might reflect the simplicity of the bill, but it might also reflect the volume of resources that staff allocate to working a bill up into a presentable form. To that extent, unless the Executive is to be directed in the way in which it allocates resources, you could well be the key man to work out at least which bills are ready to go before the Parliament first.

That is correct. At the moment, we are trying to give any member who approaches us with a bill proposal some assistance with policy formulation. We do not necessarily regard the lodging of a proposal as the key step—we would prefer the process to be front-loaded, so that by the time we get to the proposal, that can be fairly accurately reflected in the final bill.

There have been at least two examples of proposals that have not been reflected in the bill: the Protection of Wild Mammals (Scotland) Bill is probably a perfect example of that; Tommy Sheridan's original proposal for the Abolition of Poindings and Warrant Sales Bill failed and he had to lodge another one.

At the moment, there is no barrier to the number of proposals that members can lodge, although only two bills can be introduced per member. Until now, in our short existence, we have assisted members in considering the intentions of bills and how they will operate in practice. We have teased out the issues, which has helped to inform the proposals. We will continue to help all members at that stage for as long as we can. There have been a couple of inquiries which, after we have carried out some work, have resulted in a member not proceeding with a bill because of matters that have been raised.

The purpose of the paper that is before members today and of all the others that we have produced, is to obtain input to the exercise of preparing the final product. If members have any comments or suggestions concerning the way in which we should do that, I will be delighted to receive them.

I think that we are all happy just to note the report. It is useful to have the non-Executive bills unit available. I presume that it reminds members constantly that it exists and that they should draw on its services. As we continue through this process, there will, no doubt, be problems in the process that the unit will want to bring back to the committee. I thank David Cullum for taking the time to come along this morning to present the report.