Our next item is on consolidation bill procedure. Perhaps we had better go through paper PR/S2/06/9/6. I refer members to paragraph 25, which reflects the Executive's evidence and states:
I agree. Although such bills should generally not require to be debated, we should debate whether a bill—to borrow a phrase from advertising—does what it says on the tin, which is worthy of debate in itself.
That is right. I am sure that the modern draftsmen will try conscientiously to reproduce what the ancient draftsmen produced, but there might be different views on whether they have done so correctly. We should have the opportunity to have a debate.
I am generally reluctant to pass legislation without having had the opportunity to debate it in Parliament.
The clerk has drawn to my attention paragraph 28, in which he states politely that the committee
Unless the Executive can be brought round to our point of view, we will just protract the discussion. Is it likely to come round to our point of view?
Have you any insight into the thought processes of the Executive on this, Andrew?
I do not have a major insight. I tried to suggest in the paper that some of the issues are technical and that it might be more sensible for parliamentary officials to take forward the discussions with Executive officials and others to try to resolve them and ensure that members are happy.
If the proposals do not have to be signed off today, by all means have those informal discussions before the next meeting. I am sure that we will have informal political discussions, too.
Do committee members authorise the clerk to take a robust line on the committee's behalf?
Good.
That is up to the committee.
Have those people not already commented?
The evidence that we have received is outlined in the paper. We have heard from a member of a committee that considered a consolidation bill, from Mr Iain Jamieson and from the Executive. Those are the only parties who have commented.
I presume that we would get an okay from the Law Commission, because I understand that it generates many consolidation proposals. In addition to pursuing discussions at official level, is it acceptable for the clerks to invite written comment on our proposals from the Subordinate Legislation Committee and the Law Commission?
Thank you. Do members have other points on consolidation bills?
I am not convinced that a similar cut-off time is needed. There is merit in having a different cut-off time, but a cut-off time of September is not justified. I suggest a cut-off time of the end of December. If a bill is simple and technical, it should not require masses of debate time.
What point did you just make?
The paper describes the argument for having the same cut-off time for introduction as applies to members' bills.
The issue is how near to the next election the bill procedure can be started.
Yes.
I like a nice early cut-off point—we should deal with consolidation bills early in a session when not a lot else is happening.
That is a good point.
The point applies to a previous discussion. I imagine that we will see a few consolidation bills in the next session. Perhaps a suggestion could be made to draftspeople, if they are already working on bills.
In Andrew Mylne's informal discussions with Executive officials, he can make them aware of the view about a cut-off date of September.
If that is proposed positively, people should be queueing to introduce consolidation bills in the months after the next election. That is a useful point, which I missed. Paragraph 36 of the paper says that the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries (Consolidation) (Scotland) Bill Committee felt that it was under pressure and committees should not be put under such pressure.
Meeting continued in private until 11:27.
Previous
Members' Bills