Official Report 145KB pdf
The next item concerns the revised "Guidance on Private Bills", which is a substantial document. The new bits in the guidance are highlighted in grey. In light of what Karen Gillon was saying, do we want to go more carefully through the grey bits? The guidance is fairly detailed. Could we agree that members who have concerns about the guidance could submit them to the clerk?
Essentially, the guidance seeks to implement the changes that were outlined in the committee's fourth report of 2005, on private legislation. The main changes appear in parts 2, 3, 4 and 5 of the guidance. The changes are mainly to do with consultation with mandatory consultees—organisations such as the Scottish Environment Protection Agency, Scottish Natural Heritage and Historic Scotland.
I assume that you know much of what is proposed in our next report. How will that affect the guidance?
This version of the guidance was prepared on the back of the committee's fourth report. We understand that, in the light of the committee's next report, on the role of assessors at consideration stage, a further edition of the guidance will need to be prepared to reflect—
Would it not make more sense to issue revised guidance on the back of both reports? It seems a bit premature to issue new guidance on a procedure that we know is about to change.
We considered that point. However, some of the changes that we have incorporated into the new version of the guidance are to do with requirements that promoters of private bills will need to address in advance of the next batch of private bills coming forward. The changes affect consultation with the mandatory consultees and the notification of affected persons. We need to publish the guidance now so that promoters are aware of their requirements and obligations.
Therefore, publishing the guidance is related to the hoped-for timetable for putting the three new bills into effect.
Yes.
When did we publish our previous report on private bills and when was it debated by Parliament? It was some time ago. I am concerned at the time that it has taken to produce the revised guidance. I am also concerned that if the guidance has to be revised again, that will not be done in time for us to produce a report that is to be debated by the Parliament at the start of next year.
I think that the committee's fourth report was debated in May.
Therefore, there was a lag of six months in getting the guidance published.
Not all the changes that this version of the guidance contains were made solely on the back of the Procedures Committee's report. Many of the changes came about through the private bills unit's experience of putting four works bills through. Others were made as a result of the report of the Waverley Railway (Scotland) Bill Committee that came out in July. The Parliament agreed the general principles of the Waverley (Scotland) Bill, including the notification arrangements, at the end of September. A succession of issues has meant that it has taken several months to finalise the guidance.
I would like to pursue Karen Gillon's point. Say, for the sake of argument, that we approve this revised guidance so that it can be sent to the promoters, even though it may have to be revised again in future. Can promoters pursue their bills on the basis of this revised guidance, unaffected by any decision that is taken to have assessors to hear objections?
I think so. I suspect that many of the changes to this version of the guidance will carry forward to a future version. I suspect that most of the changes to do with assessors will be in part 5 of the guidance, but the other parts may stay largely the same.
If we agree this guidance and, in half an hour's time, we agree another set of proposals, will the cumulative effect be to delay the bills by another six months while the private bills unit rewrites the guidance for them?
No.
What would be the timescale for producing revised guidance? I assume that guidance will have to be issued before our report is published and debated by Parliament at the beginning of January.
I have not given much thought to how long publishing the guidance will take. I suspect that it may take another two or three months to prepare guidance on the exact role of assessors. We need to consult fairly widely on the issues that the guidance covers.
Therefore, the guidance is mostly based on the previous report by this committee, but it has been influenced by proposals of the Waverley Railway (Scotland) Bill Committee and by other proposals.
Yes.
I am concerned that if we agree the guidance today, there will be no impetus for the next report to get through the guidance process timeously. I am concerned about the time lag that there was in getting this version of the guidance to us. If there is a similar time lag in producing the next guidance, the work that we have done will have been pointless. I will be looking for some guarantees on timescale to ensure that it can be enforced. If Parliament makes its views known at the beginning of January, guidance should be available in a reasonable timeframe, given the amount of discussion and consultation in which we have been involved.
If we agree the revised guidance now and the proposal to have someone hear the objections goes through Parliament, can the forthcoming railway bills progress before you have written your guidance on the basis of our future decision?
Yes. The preparation of a further version of the guidance to reflect the role of assessors would need to be prioritised in order not to delay any of the bills that we know will be coming forward. We could not have a situation where there was no guidance to expand on the standing orders to inform people exactly how the process was going to operate. If any of the bills was going to be delayed, we in the private bills unit would prioritise the preparation of that guidance and would ensure that it was available well in advance of the bill getting to the relevant stage.
I suppose that my question is for the Scottish Parliament directorate of legal services. If we issue guidance that people use on the introduction of a bill and then we move the goalposts after it has been issued to them, how does that affect the process? If we assume that the Parliament approves the revised guidance, when will people be informed that the guidance has changed?
If the Parliament approves the revised guidance, it can indicate at the time of approval when it wants the changes to the standing orders to come into effect. The changes would come into effect from the date specified. Guidance is a supplementary issue. The changes would take effect, but it would be helpful to everybody concerned if the guidance were available as soon as possible thereafter.
Could the standing orders be applied retrospectively to bills that had just been introduced?
Our report will be debated in January and any changes to the standing orders will be agreed to at that time. The new standing orders will take effect, allowing people to hear the—
If, for example, the Glasgow airport rail link bill is introduced in the first week in January and the debate on the revised guidance takes place in the second week in January, would it be dealt with under the new procedures or would it have to be dealt with under the old procedures?
It could be dealt with under the new procedures if the Parliament made it clear that that is what it wanted. It is not a retrospective—
It would be a matter for the text of the motion that the Procedures Committee lodged.
Yes.
I just wanted to be clear about that. You guys would then get on with the guidance, but that is not legally required.
Do we accept that the guidance reflects reasonably the committee's previous decisions and the advice from the Waverley Railway (Scotland) Bill Committee people and that we should therefore approve it?
We approve the revised guidance on private bills. That ends the public part of the meeting. We are going to deal with two draft reports, which will see the light of day quite soon but which at the moment will be discussed in private.
Meeting continued in private until 12:03.
Previous
Work Programme