Item 6 is a draft response to the Executive's consultation on its proposed transport and works bill. We discussed the matter at a previous meeting and the committee was fairly stroppy—I do not know whether that is a parliamentary expression. We felt that the committee—before I was involved in it—had worked hard on the subject and produced a good way to go forward but that the Executive's proposal had abandoned some of the committee's proposals and reduced the democratic input into the subject. The committee clerk tried to reflect all that in the draft response. I am interested in members' views on that.
You are right. The subject was gone through backwards, forwards and sideways. There was a great deal of discussion on the issue over a number of months. I, for one, would not have signed up to the report if I had thought for a moment that this bill would be the outcome. The bill would remove the parliamentary element of parliamentary scrutiny. That is dangerous. I know that there were reasons why, particularly for the interim model, members wanted to go ahead on a particular basis, but I think that the bill guts an important part of the committee's recommendations. The draft response largely reflects that view.
I am happy enough with the letter and the points that are made in it and with the committee's overall concern that there should be sufficient parliamentary scrutiny. However, I would still support the proposed model over the current one. There could not be a worse system than the current one. If the Executive's proposals are not amended, they will still get my support.
It is unusual to capitulate before the first shot is fired, but not to worry.
I am not capitulating.
I would not suggest that you become a defence minister.
What I am saying is that, not for the first time, I disagree with you and the point that you made.
Yes, but you do not need to run up a white flag as you do it.
Not at all—I am just making points about the overall system. I am happy with the points in the letter and if we can secure what we seek, that will be fine.
Send the letter.
Send the letter before Bruce and I start arguing more.
The ministers and their advisers will note from the letter that we are not happy—that message must be put across strongly.
I am happy with the letter, although I probably do not agree with the first bullet point, which is about initial parliamentary consideration. I think that we could improve the current procedure on that. It is difficult to give consent to something when we do not have full details on it. We sometimes vote for things at the initial consideration stage that become substantially different after amendments are made, but we get so far down the process that we are bounced into proceeding. I will be interested to see what alternative the Executive produces in its bill. I will not die in a ditch over that point, but there are key parliamentary approvals in the latter part of the legislative process that we must stick by and seek to achieve.
We will write to the relevant official.
Previous
Annual Reports