Official Report 123KB pdf
Good morning, colleagues, and welcome to the final Procedures Committee meeting in 2004. We have received apologies from Bruce McFee, for whom Tricia Marwick is present as a substitute. As this is her first meeting of the present committee, I ask her whether she has any interests to declare.
My only relevant interest is that I am the Scottish National Party business manager and chief whip, so I am obviously interested in proceedings. I have no formal interests to declare.
I remind members that agenda item 4 was deferred from our previous meeting, at which we agreed to consider the item in private.
Did we agree to consider it in private?
Yes. We agreed to hold the item in private before we agreed to defer it.
On page 9, under the heading "First stage", paragraph 37 suggests that
The paper sketches out various models in pretty general terms so that members can get a feel for the different ways in which the private legislation system could be reformed. We tried to avoid going into a great deal of specific detail about how each model would work. The issue that you raise would require to be developed and refined at a later stage if that model was favoured. In providing an outline of the model, we did not think it crucial to specify exactly what sort of committee the bill would be referred to. However, it certainly could be an ad hoc committee.
Secondly, I have a question on the second bullet point under the heading "First stage", which states:
To some extent, that would be reflected in the rules that would be put in place for the parliamentary parts of the process if that model was implemented—for example, there would be no reference to a decision on the general principles of the bill. It would also be reflected in the motions that were lodged and so forth. Other than that, the matter would need to be backed up by guidance and by practice.
Thirdly, I was slightly unclear about the final sentence of that second bullet point, which suggests that, if the bill was unopposed, it could be referred promptly back to the committee. How would opposition to the bill be detected? If the first stage involved taking evidence only from the examiner and the promoter, how would we know whether there was public opposition to the proposal? How would we know that without asking for indications of opposition?
There would still be a process whereby people would have the right to object. The point about the decision that is taken at the first stage is simply that the relevant committee would hear directly only from the promoter and the examiner on the issues that had been sketched out. There would be a separate process in which people would lodge objections, if they had them. Those objections would be considered at the second stage, but even at the first stage we would know whether there were any.
Thank you for that clarification.
There are no further questions on the paper. I thank the officials for producing that helpful report, which will assist our deliberations.
I seek some clarification. When we took evidence from the minister at an early stage of the inquiry, we agreed that there would be discussions and liaison work between parliamentary staff and Executive civil servants. Do we intend to invite the minister to appear before us again or to discuss with her the Executive's view on the report that has been prepared for the committee? I presume that a similar report will be made by civil servants to the minister.
It is for the committee to decide whether to invite the minister back at this stage. Another option that is suggested in the paper is for the committee to produce an interim report, to which the Executive could respond formally. We could ask the minister to comment on the officials' report, but the committee may want to give an initial indication of how it believes we should proceed. We could ask the Executive to respond in writing or to give further evidence to the committee on our initial views.
I raise that issue at this stage because we appeared to be seeking a form of joint working. It might be useful for us to have a discussion with the minister before we put anything down on paper.
That is a useful suggestion. The clerk's note suggests that we may want to speak to some of the officials who were involved in drawing up recommendations. That would be very useful. There is another reason for us to speak to the Executive in the form of the minister or officials. Some of the recommendations clearly involve transfers of costs from the Parliament to the Executive. If we recommend something, we must be clear that the Executive will be prepared to foot the bill for it.
As Andrew Mylne said, the officials who compiled the report have done a good job of putting together three different strands or options. However, the committee needs to have more investigation and discussion about how those strands might work in practice to make ourselves clearer about some of the implications that the officials have presented in broad brush strokes. In particular, we need to consider the Westminster Transport and Works Act 1992 model. As was mentioned in a previous paper by the clerks, a consultants' report to the House of Lords looked at how the 1992 act model that is currently used at Westminster might be improved, particularly in relation to an increase in parliamentary scrutiny.
Although I did not take part in the committee's discussions of the matter, I have some knowledge of the area as the convener of the Waverley Railway (Scotland) Bill Committee. I have been listening to what members have said about taking more evidence and involving the Executive, but time is pressing and a number of other private bills are in the pipeline. The system that we operate at the moment is extremely time consuming for staff and members and is not easy to understand for either the members or potential and actual objectors. Although speed is not the most important factor, a decision needs to be taken at some point. If we suggest today that we should take more evidence or invite the Executive to respond, we have a duty to introduce a timescale, as that would be helpful for members and the officials who currently operate in a system that is cumbersome, burdensome and confusing.
What Cathie Craigie and Richard Baker have said does not go against what Tricia Marwick suggests. At the next meeting, we can have a summary of the evidence that we have received to date and invite the minister and the relevant officials to give further evidence. Perhaps that would be the best way forward. Will Mark Ballard clarify whether he is looking for more written information about the TWA, or does he suggest that we take oral evidence?
It would be handy to have a look at the details of the consultants' report to the House of Lords. I wonder whether it would be worth having a discussion before doing that, so that we are more familiar with how the three models might operate in practice. That would help us in our questioning of the minister. Richard Baker spoke about the implications for parliamentary and Executive financial responsibilities. It would be helpful if we were clearer about some of those matters before we meet the minister, so that we have clearer ideas about the models that we are testing.
I am not entirely clear about what additional information we would need. If we had the Executive officials in first to talk about the reports, we could clarify our position before inviting the minister to indicate what the Executive's views are on the suggestions. I am reluctant to draw the process out, because we meet only every other week. If we have the officials one week, wait for the next meeting to see the minister and then consider the options in the following meeting, we would start to drift into Easter before we drew any conclusions. If primary legislation is required, we would be drifting towards the end of next year before it could be enacted. I am keen that we should try to do as much information gathering as possible at our next meeting, so that we can start to draw conclusions.
Mark Ballard mentioned a consultants' report. We are bound to be able to get a copy of that report, which could be circulated to members, provided that it is not a huge piece of work.
We can certainly obtain and circulate an executive summary and allow members to get the main document, if required. I think that the review was instituted by the Department for Transport.