Official Report 202KB pdf
If we thought the previous issue was difficult, we now move to agenda item 3, which is on non-Executive bills. I have put the issue off for a couple of meetings in the hope that the Parliamentary Bureau would reach a conclusion and present us with a proposal to consider. However, as I understand that the bureau is not close to reaching a conclusion, I feel that the committee ought to start the process so that at least there is some prospect of the matter being dealt with, even if the business managers cannot reach agreement. The members of the committee who are business managers might be able to update us on progress on the talks.
I agree that we need a prioritisation process for members' bills—no one doubts that. However, from meetings that Mark Ballard and I attended last week, it seems that the pressure on the non-Executive bills unit's resources is not as great as the earlier examination of the process suggested. We were told clearly that, because NEBU has received additional resources, it can deal with four to six bills a year. The paper from the clerk does not mention those additional resources or their scale.
I was merely suggesting that we use that paper as a working document. We can take evidence on the other options. I am not saying that we will definitely propose what is suggested in the paper, but we need a starting point and that paper is the only starting point that we have, unless the bureau produces an updated version or even an updated draft version.
There is a bureau paper that outlines the options that it considered, which would be an equally good starting point.
We do not have that paper. We must use what the bureau has given us; if there is an alternative paper that we could use as a starting point, I am happy to consider that, but we must start somewhere. My suggestion does not exclude the consideration of alternative options for prioritisation; the bureau's paper is simply a starting point. Without it, we would start with a blank sheet of paper and it might take us 12 months to come up with something. If we start with something on the table, we should be able to reach some conclusions in a reasonable time, even if they do not appear in the paper that we are considering.
I share your concerns and think that we must move forward. I do not think that the bureau has covered itself in glory, given the length of time that it is taking to sort things out. Back benchers are talking about the issue and they want a recommendations paper to be produced so that they can make decisions on it.
The first point is that, when the Procedures Committee first got the papers, they included the previous bureau proposal and the paper that went to the bureau from the clerks. That was the paper to which Bruce Crawford was referring; it was sent to us.
I am sorry. If that was the paper to which Bruce Crawford was referring, I am aware that it was sent to us. When I referred to the bureau paper, I was including the annexes to it.
This committee has received the paper from the clerks to the previous bureau, which contained a range of options.
If you were to go for the committee option, would you accept that the committee should be based on the proportionality of the Parliament?
Yes.
So it would have an Executive majority.
It would not be the business managers who were involved.
Nonetheless, it would still have an Executive majority.
Yes.
If we take that argument to its extreme, should Mark Ballard and Bruce Crawford be taking part in this debate, because they are business managers? Should they be involved in the Procedures Committee?
Everyone has to wear different hats in different circumstances.
Exactly; that proves the point.
The issue here is not about whether a member's bill should get support when it gets to stage 1, because it is evidently the case that when a bill goes before the Parliament at stage 1 the Executive has a majority. The issue is which members' bills get some support to go that far. I am not talking about political support, but about the resources that are available from NEBU to allow such bills to be progressed. That is not about politics; it is about allowing a group of people to come to a decision on whether a particular bill is a possibility, fits all the criteria at a certain level—there will need to be a threshold—and will get NEBU's support to progress to the next stage. At that stage, the bill will not even have reached stage 1. It is right that, at stage 1, the Executive, if it wishes, has the opportunity to use the whip on a bill to kill it.
The issue is about slightly more than just NEBU resources.
It is also about parliamentary time. I realise all that.
It is about parliamentary time and, more specifically, committee time because, at present, there is no way of controlling what goes to committee once a bill has been lodged—it has to go to committee and has to be dealt with at stage 1, even if it has no chance of getting any further than stage 1. That takes up a lot of committee resources and time.
That is where the bureau comes in.
Exactly. The approach gives Parliament some say in which member's bills go through. It controls the Parliament's overall legislative programme in a more manageable way and allows the allocation of resources—
I have already agreed that we should have a prioritisation process.
All that I am suggesting is that the proposal from the previous bureau—that includes the background papers—is a reasonable starting point for an investigation into whether the proposal is reasonable or whether other things need to be considered.
In the paper from the clerk, three options are outlined. The first is the option that was favoured by the previous bureau's paper, the basic idea being that the Parliament would be invited periodically to debate the various member's bill proposals lodged, and then select a limited number of them to receive parliamentary resources. The second option is to make proposals subject to individual chamber approval, whereby a new procedural step is introduced into the member's bill process so that each proposal would have to be brought to the chamber for initial debate or decision, prior to introduction. The third option is to raise the proposal threshold by increasing the number or range of required supporters.
I suggest that, if the committee is to manage the process, we must close down the options a bit and have a more focused inquiry. Otherwise, we might end up with a blank sheet inquiry that would take 12 months. The business managers have not come to a conclusion after three or four months. If the Procedures Committee wants to come to a conclusion, we must have a degree of focus in our inquiry. That does not rule out people coming up with alternative views, but we do not want a blank sheet inquiry.
I have a contrary view. If that is your suggestion, convener, I think that Mark Ballard is dead right. We must take the clerk's paper, add the other option that we suggested—a committee of back benchers—and start an inquiry around that. That is the real nature of the discussion. If we choose only option 1 from the paper, we are making decisions and starting to close down options far too fast.
To be perfectly honest, I do not give a damn who makes the selection: the bureau, a proportional committee of back benchers based on d'Hondt, or the Parliament. I am far more concerned about the selection process and the criteria that must be fulfilled. We are putting the cart before the horse.
That is in option 3.
It is included in option 1.
Option 3 in the clerk's paper is to raise the proposed threshold—that is all about criteria. By taking only option 1, we would be talking about a specific set of criteria laid down by the previous bureau and we would not take account of the thresholds that the committee might think appropriate.
I had hoped that the business managers would have come to some conclusions on the matter by now. I am surprised and disappointed that the business managers seem to be unable to make decisions and recommendations on how the Parliament should operate. The committee does not want to spend 12 months on an open-ended inquiry. I therefore recommend that we concentrate our inquiry on option 1 in the paper at this stage. That does not stop alternatives being proposed as part of the inquiry because that is in the nature of an inquiry. I am making that proposal. Are we agreed?
Can I make an alternative proposal?
Absolutely.
I propose that we do as Karen Gillon suggested and investigate what the criteria should be. Once we have worked that out, we can decide on what the most effective body is to scrutinise bills—
With respect, option 1 includes criteria in paragraphs 38 and 39.
But Karen Gillon was right to say that it is where we start that matters and that will determine our focus. I am therefore proposing that we start with the criteria then decide on the body rather than starting with a proposal that is all about the body, with the criteria as a sub-set of that.
I do not think that those two things are mutually exclusive. Option 1 starts with the frequency of the procedure, who decides and the mechanism for choosing.
Convener, may I suggest one amendment to your proposal, to try to accommodate everyone's concerns? We should include in our inquiry the option that the question be decided by a parliamentary committee, along with the option that the bureau decides, and that the recommendation from whichever of those bodies then goes to the parliament. If we do that, we can deal with the criteria for both those options at once. We would then ask whether the bureau or a committee should decide and consult on the key consideration of where that decision should be made. We have to consult on both those options, if we are honest.
We then go back to the fundamental issues of thresholds and criteria.
Yes, and there is a lot of that in the paper.
It is included in option 1.
You are trying to box us in to a situation.
I am not trying to box you into anything, Bruce. I am trying to get the committee to have a focused inquiry on the issues that we have to consider.
I think that Karen has given us a way out here.
I do not think that there is a problem with that. It is not exclusive to anything I have already said, but it is a starting point for an inquiry.
You have moved your position, and quite rightly too.
Sorry?
You have moved your position, and quite rightly too.
I have not moved my position, Bruce. I said all along that the paper's position is that the options should be explored. That is what Karen Gillon has suggested and I propose that we accept the recommendation that we use option 1 as the basis of our inquiry, but consider the option of a parliamentary committee, as well as the bureau. Are we agreed?
Before we part, I remind members about the civic forum meeting next Tuesday. I am pleased to say that Bruce Crawford and Richard Baker have agreed to represent the committee at that event. I will also try to attend for at least part of the evening.
During the debate, is it intended that the members of the current committee will sit there and listen or it is envisaged that we contribute?
When we discussed this at the away day, the view was that the present committee should listen to the debate. Karen Gillon will open the debate but Kenny Macintosh will make the main introductory speech as a member of the former committee. I will do a brief summing-up speech to pick up on the issues that are raised throughout the debate.
Thank you.
Meeting closed at 12:09.
Previous
Item in Private