Procedures Committee, 16 Dec 2003

Meeting date: Tuesday, December 16, 2003

Official Report 89KB pdf

---

Non-Executive Bills

Good morning. All members are present, so there are no apologies.

I am keen to crack on with business. Agenda item 1 is consideration of future witnesses for meetings on our non-Executive bills inquiry. A note on possible witnesses has been provided by the assistant clerk. We had hoped to have representatives from the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body and business managers at the meeting, but the notice that they were given was too short. We hope that they will attend a future meeting.

We agreed to consider suggestions for members and organisations that had previously been involved with non-Executive bills to come forward as witnesses. The note shows the non-Executive bills that were introduced in session 1. Do members have any comments about whom it would be appropriate to invite to give evidence to the committee?

It would be useful to hear from Mike Watson in particular, given the complexity of his bill and the number of amendments that were lodged at stages 2 and 3. He could give us a slightly different perspective on non-Executive bills.

I would certainly like to hear from a member whose bill has been passed with support from the non-Executive bills unit. I think that Keith Harding is the only member who has had a bill drafted by NEBU that has been passed. I would also like to hear from a member whose bill did not get through the process, although I am not particularly bothered who that member is.

I got a bill that NEBU drafted through the process, but I do not think that I will call myself as a witness.

I agree with Karen Gillon that Mike Watson should be invited to give evidence—I, too, had highlighted him as a witness. It would be good to speak to Keith Harding as well, as he managed to have a bill passed with support from NEBU.

Perhaps we should consider hearing from those members who have been critical of the process. Tommy Sheridan has been one of the sternest critics. I withhold judgment as to whether such criticisms are valid, but inviting Tommy Sheridan might be useful so that he can tell us why he thinks that there have been problems. We need to understand exactly what has been at the root of those problems and whether the difficulties have been real or imagined.

In the first session of Parliament, my erstwhile colleague Mike Russell was for a long time heavily involved with a bill that eventually fell. It would be useful to speak to him. Those are the four members whom I would choose to invite from the list of witnesses.

On witnesses from the business managers, it is extremely unlikely that there will be a single view from the Parliamentary Bureau, as committee members will have seen from the note, which states:

"The Bureau has submitted a response which sets out the current position of the Bureau, which does not exhibit consensus across all Business Managers."

That is a wee bit unfair, as there was consensus among the business managers around the core principles of what needed to be achieved, the need for a prioritisation process and when there should be such a process. The disagreement was about the mechanics of how those things should be achieved. Therefore, it is inevitable that we should invite business managers from the various parties to enable them to express their views. That probably means that Mark Ballard and I would have to attend as witnesses, unless other members substitute for us.

It would be useful to start with the Minister for Parliamentary Business, as that would provide a link back to the previous business managers' paper. I do not necessarily share the views that were expressed in the paper, but Patricia Ferguson, who is the Government's business manager, could usefully start the process. Perhaps she could come with a representative from the Liberal Democrats, although I am not sure what the Liberal Democrats would think about that. Each party will certainly have different views and there will be different nuances in respect of procedures and mechanics. However, if we start from the position from which the Government parties are coming, members can at least reflect on those views and throw in their considerations.

My colleague Robin Harper spent a long time pushing the Organic Farming Targets (Scotland) Bill through NEBU and has much experience of working with NEBU right from the start. He, or possibly Alex Neil—who has also had a bill drafted by NEBU—could be invited, although I am not familiar with the progress of Alex Neil's bill. As we are considering NEBU, it would be useful to invite people with experience of NEBU and I know that Robin Harper has spent a lot of time working through and with the unit.

I presume that a case can be made for inviting any member who has put a bill through the process. Obviously, a case can be made for inviting Tommy Sheridan and perhaps Robin Harper to the committee to give their parties' positions on the issues in question along with or instead of business managers. It might be easier for Robin Harper and Tommy Sheridan to give evidence on behalf of their parties rather than ask other members. That would avoid duplication.

That is a worthwhile suggestion.

I suggest that we invite Mike Watson to give evidence. As was suggested at the previous meeting, it might be useful if he had someone with him from an outside body that has been involved with bills. He might want to bring along someone from the Scottish Campaign Against Hunting with Dogs to give their perception of how the system has worked. I suggest that we invite Keith Harding, too. That would enable us to hear evidence on a bill that was passed without NEBU support and on a bill that was passed with NEBU support. We could also hear from Tommy Sheridan and Mark Ballard for political balance. Are members happy with those suggestions?

What about Mike Russell?

Shall we invite Mike Russell as well?

I would be very happy to hear from Mike Russell.

In that case, we shall invite Mike Russell. We will try to arrange to hear from the members concerned at our next two meetings, depending on availability. Because SPCB meetings take place on the same day of the week as ours, we may have to start slightly earlier when we take evidence from a representative of the corporate body. I suggest that when we do that we start at 10.15 am, rather than at 10.30 am, to ensure that the SPCB representative can get finished in time for their meeting. Because of members' transport arrangements, I do not want to start earlier than 10.15 am. Are members happy with that?

Members indicated agreement.

I have read the note and it occurs to me that many bills have been drafted by outside organisations. I would be interested to know how that impacts on the Parliament. What quality check is done on those who draft bills? How is quality maintained? Is there a list of people who are qualified draftspeople or can any lawyer do it? Do we set a standard? If a bill is poorly drafted, that has an impact on the legislation team and on committees during the scrutiny process. I would be interested in obtaining more information on that over the next few weeks.

The clerk may be able to provide some background information on the issue that Karen Gillon raises.

I am happy to help. Before I came to this job, I was the head of the legislation team, which is responsible for overseeing the introduction of all bills. That includes bills drafted by the Executive and by NEBU and bills that come from other sources. The team will provide support to a member who has not gone through NEBU or does not have a professional draftsman on board. It will provide assistance in tidying up and improving their initial draft of a bill. Some drafts are in reasonably good condition and some are very rudimentary. The same skills are brought to bear on those drafts as are used when assisting members to draft non-Executive amendments throughout the bill process. The clerks in the legislation team have relevant experience, although it is an amateur service and not a substitute for the professional service that NEBU provides. However, it allows bills to be tidied up sufficiently to be fit for introduction.

In the inquiry, we may want to consider how that impacts on the rest of the process.

After we have taken oral evidence, we can review whether we need to take additional evidence before producing a draft report. It would be sensible for us to do that at that stage. Are members happy with what we have discussed as the way forward in the non-Executive bills inquiry?

Members indicated agreement.