Welcome to the final meeting of the Procedures Committee before the summer recess. We have received apologies from Bruce Crawford. As members may be aware, he has seriously damaged his knee and will be out of action for three months. I am sure that the committee would wish to send its best wishes to him for as speedy a recovery as possible.
Members indicated agreement.
Linda Fabiani is due to attend as a substitute, but she might not appear.
The issue that we should take up as a matter of urgency—and I should say that I am a member of the Stirling-Alloa-Kincardine Railway and Linked Improvements Bill Committee—is private bill procedures. A number of private bills are going through at the moment, so this is an opportune time to consider the procedure.
I apologise for arriving late. I do not know whether Sewel motions were mentioned before I arrived.
We had only just started; Richard Baker was the first to speak.
As paragraph 6 of paper PR/S2/04/11/1 says, it is public knowledge that we will hold an inquiry into Sewel motions. Pressure has built up—perhaps not so much among MSPs as among concerned people outside the Parliament. People may not really understand how the Sewel motion process works, why it is used and how it relates to Westminster and to some of the issues in paragraphs 7 and 8. Members of the public who are watching the Parliament expect us to investigate Sewel motions. We should bear that in mind.
We will investigate Sewel motions; the question is which of the options we start on first and not whether we investigate Sewel motions.
Yes, but the paper says:
It is a long time before the end of the year.
I do not know where that expectation comes from. It is not the most pressing concern that has been brought to my attention—in fact, nobody has raised the issue with me. The issue of private bills has been raised, however. Given the length of time that it takes for a new rail link to be put in place and given the number of major transport infrastructure projects that are being planned, the danger is that the whole system could grind to a halt if we do not sort the procedures out. The present system is not working and it is taking up an awful lot of members' time. We need to get something sorted out so that we can progress effectively the public works proposals that will come before the Parliament in the next six to 12 months. Unless we do that sooner rather than later, we will be unable to undertake those bills, because we will not have a sufficient number of members to carry them forward. I think that an inquiry into private bills procedures should be our priority.
I agree. Even some of the papers that have been distributed to members on the issue—particularly the article that highlights the public's concerns about the process—suggest that the private bills process is a joke. The private bills that have gone or are going through the parliamentary process seem to me to be planning issues that should be dealt with locally, through either a local public inquiry or some other mechanism. We need to get into the nuts and bolts of the private bills process and find a better system, with which the public feel comfortable and in which they can have their full say. Current procedures seem to prevent members of the public from having their say. Our next inquiry should be into private bills procedures.
I agree with what Cathie Craigie has said on the subject.
I welcome Linda Fabiani to the meeting. Although I do not want to drop you into the debate at such short notice, Linda, I wonder whether you have anything to add.
No. It is lovely to be here and I will just listen to the experienced people.
A majority of members seems to be in favour of the private bills procedures being the subject of our next inquiry. We would start it in September when we return after the summer recess. That would not rule out an inquiry into Sewel motions, however, on which, as previously indicated, we can start before the end of the year if we are so minded.
Members indicated agreement.
What about the annex?
I was just about to come to it. Annex A sets out the possible minor inquiries that we could undertake in parallel to our next major inquiry. Does any member have a comment to make on the various issues that are listed in annex A?
I am becoming increasingly concerned about the way in which members are using the public petitions process in an inappropriate way. The point of that process is for members of the public to be able to petition the Parliament. Members have a wide range and variety of ways in which to make their views known—ways that are not open to the public. If an issue is important to a local community, a member of the public, not an MSP, should submit a petition on it. We need to look into the issue and deal with it quickly.
The issue that relates to policy memorandums, which is set out on page 7 of the paper, is important. Consideration of a bill should cover the expected impact of the legislation on economic growth. The issue should be thought through before legislation is introduced.
Personally, I would rather examine the issues in the round, instead of considering just one small aspect of policy memorandums. I would prefer to have a more general inquiry on accompanying documents for bills as we consider various parts of the legislative process over the coming years. The issue of policy memorandums would form part of a major inquiry rather than be the subject of a minor one. We might wish to consider other issues at the same time.
We have to do the commissioner for public appointments stuff. We do not have any choice about that.
I do not think that there is an immediate need to do that. As soon as we establish from the commissioner that we need to do that work, we will ensure that time is found for it.
Members indicated agreement.
There is one more matter under the work programme: whether we wish to have an away day at some point. I do not think that we will have one over the summer recess. Members of the procedures clerking team are heavily involved in a lot of the preparatory work for the move down to Holyrood and it would be unfair to expect them also to organise an away day for us. If members think that there would be benefit in having an away day at some later point in the year, possibly during the October recess, we can consider having one. We might also wish to think about having training on questioning techniques as part of that.
I wonder whether it would be worth doing that as a first meeting after the recess. That could give us the chance to have some time away, to think about what we are doing, to get some focus for the year ahead and then to get on with it, rather than starting with meetings and then stopping and re-evaluating where we are.
Are you suggesting that, instead of having a meeting on 14 September, we have an away day?
Yes.
I have an Enterprise and Culture Committee meeting that afternoon. Will a whole day be involved?
I have a Local Government and Transport Committee meeting. It would be difficult for me, too.
What about just having an away morning?
Yes—an away morning.
An away morning? Well—
The day before—
Perhaps the Monday and the Tuesday.
Would that be Monday 13 September?
Yes, it would be Monday 13 September. Before I commit myself, I had better just check that I am not due to go away somewhere.
How long is the seminar? How much of the day would it take up?
The options are either a half day or a whole day, but I suspect that we could stretch or reduce that, depending on how much time is available.
I think that a half day would be fine.
So we do not want any more than a half day on that.
Absolutely.
Would it be possible to have a forward look to the year ahead, so that we could plan through to the next summer recess?
I agree with Karen Gillon. We need to think about how we will deal with the options for Sewel motions. We will also need to consider the review of the parliamentary week, which will link into what we are doing on question time and First Minister's question time. We need to think about the process, rather than about what we will actually come out with.
I ask members to e-mail any other suggestions to me or to the clerk before the start of the recess. We could send out a draft programme during the recess. Members will be able to have a look at it then and make any further suggestions. Are members content with that?
Members indicated agreement.