Official Report 336KB pdf
I will press ahead with the agenda, as some of the items have been carried over from previous meetings.
I repeat my concerns about the sausage-machine mentality that seems to exist in the Scottish Parliament. Yesterday, we considered the Scottish Criminal Record Office inquiry; today we considered amendments at stage 2 to the Scottish Commissioner for Human Rights Bill; and next week we will consider an important bill on the reform of summary justice. Although sections 1 to 5 and the other sections that it is proposed to deal with earlier may not be contentious or complicated, they still deserve adequate consideration and scrutiny. I am not too sure where that leaves us, in the absence of a recommendation from the Minister for Parliamentary Business. However, I hope that, if the committee has difficulty when working through the bill and the discussions take longer than we envisage, we will have leeway to ensure that we get the bill right rather than rush it.
I agree that we are taking a sausage-machine approach. It is all fine and dandy to oppose such an approach at this stage, but we should be raising our feelings with business managers. There is no point in everybody sitting here and saying, "Isn't it terrible that everything is being squeezed into the machine?" If nobody says a word to business managers they will nod through the timetable. That is what happens in committee and the wider Parliament. Even when today's motion was lodged, nobody lodged one against it. I put it on the record that it is time to do something or get off the pot. Concerns about firefighting have to be raised in the first instance with business managers from the various parties. I know what will happen—we will be told to stick to the original timetable. It is no use waiting until it is too late; we have to intervene earlier.
The impact of taking on an inquiry has probably pushed us over the edge. The problem is not the time that we spend sitting here, which is difficult enough; it is that we have dealt with three bills and one inquiry this week alone and we still have to at least sign off the consultation on the Rights of Relatives to Damages (Mesothelioma) (Scotland) Bill.
I share some of the concerns about dealing with so much legislation and the speed at which we are doing so. However, the convener's suggestion about how we consider the Criminal Proceedings etc (Reform) (Scotland) Bill is probably the best. Given my other colleagues' comments, they would not disagree with that. Without weeping and wailing about our position—perhaps Bruce McFee is right that we could pursue other avenues—the convener seeks agreement from us to her recommendation and I think that we should go with it.
I do not oppose the recommendation, but I add the proviso that it should be looked on sympathetically if discussion takes longer than we anticipate and we do not finish dealing with the amendments by the end of a meeting. If we take longer over our consideration, there will be a good reason for it. We need to hammer out that issue. With that proviso, I am happy to agree to the timetable.
I am happy with that proviso—it is pretty much how I would express the situation myself. We must have some flexibility if we come up against a problem that we cannot resolve. One way of resolving it could be to say that we will not agree to a certain amendment at stage 2. We need that flexibility to iron out some of the issues that we raised at stage 1. Part of the difficulty in doing a stage 1 report in which lots of issues are raised is that stage 2 follows so quickly and we do not have time to resolve them. Stage 2 is much more adversarial.
Will we have only one more budget meeting?
We will have one oral evidence-taking session and then we must prepare a report, so I presume that we will have two meetings on the budget. Members who come to the evidence-taking meeting should come to the meeting on the report.
I have a point about what you said earlier. As I can testify, because I am on the Procedures Committee, work on any report by that committee is the graveyard shift. As part of the review of parliamentary time that it is undertaking, that committee has issued a consultation paper. Although the paper is not as wide as I would have liked it to be and does not deal specifically with stage 2 or the space between stage 1 and stage 2, for example, members will have the opportunity to raise such issues in the debate—which will, I think, be held on 5 October—if they feel strongly about them. If I remember correctly, the Procedures Committee has received no evidence on stage 2, although it has had some on the timing and lodging of amendments at stage 3. The consultation paper is quite broad, so if members feel that there is insufficient time between the end of stage 1 and the commencement of stage 2, they can express that concern. I say that because there are usually only about six members in the chamber for Procedures Committee debates.
We have fed into that work in the past and should continue to do so, but in my opinion we are talking about a more fundamental issue than timetabling. At stage 1 of the Criminal Proceedings etc (Reform) (Scotland) Bill, we asked questions about the detail of how liberation on undertaking provisions would be applied. We should have had answers to those questions. The problem lies in the approach that the Executive's bill team is taking. The Criminal Proceedings etc (Reform) (Scotland) Bill is not the first bill in relation to which the Executive has expected us to agree to the creation of a general power without our having examined the detail of how that power would be exercised. Our approach has always been to examine the detail. Although we asked our questions at the beginning of the process, they have not all been answered. The issue is about more than just the timetable.
I certainly agree that it is about the use of parliamentary time rather than just timetabling.
Where does that leave us? We will open up the amendment process on sections 1 to 5 and sections 7 to 13, but with Margaret Mitchell's proviso that if we feel we need more time or additional answers in order to make progress as our consideration of the bill proceeds, we should be able to report back to the Minister for Parliamentary Business on how we are doing.
I will be happy to agree to the motion, on the proviso that if the committee finds that consideration takes longer than expected because discussion of particular provisions goes on, the timetable could be amended. The provisions on liberation on undertaking, which the convener mentioned, are an excellent example. Only today it has been reported that a person in Dumfries was cautioned, charged and released in circumstances similar to those that will be subject to the powers on undertakings that we are being asked to agree to in the bill. Not surprisingly, we want to get the provisions right; if that requires a lengthy discussion that puts the timetable out, so be it. I seek confirmation that the minister would be sympathetic to that—that is my proviso. On that basis, I am happy to support the motion.
Yes, but the motion refers to sections 1 to 5 and sections 7 to 13. [Interruption.] I think that the motion just gives the target for day 1. [Interruption.]
I assume that we will deal with sections 1 to 5 on the first day of stage 2 and sections 7 to 66 on a separate day.
That is my assumption.
If that is not the case, I will oppose the motion.
I ask Callum Thomson to clarify matters.
The motion is the order of consideration for the whole bill. The only feature to point out is that section 6 will be taken out of turn, so it will be dealt with at the end of the main sections of the bill and will probably not be taken until day 4 or thereabouts of stage 2. As far as the target for day 1 is concerned, which is not subject to a motion, we will consider amendments to sections 1 to 5 plus sections 7 through to 13.
In that case, what was said slightly earlier about the final day for lodging amendments for sections 1 to 5 was not wholly accurate. Friday is potentially the final day for lodging amendments for sections 1 to 13.
That is correct, with the exception of section 6.
That is the target.
Friday 29 September is the deadline for lodging amendments to sections 1 to 13, excluding section 6.
To explain further, sections 7 to 13 have been suggested because they appear to be relatively non-controversial parts of the proceedings part of the bill—part 2—whereas, if memory serves me correctly, section 14 deals with trial in absence. Therefore, that section has not been included in day 1 of our consideration of amendments. It was thought that to make progress with the bill we should go as far as section 13, excluding section 6.
I accept the rationale behind the decision, but I want to be clear that the advice that we are being given that amendments should be lodged by Friday 29 September potentially applies up to section 13, excluding section 6.
Amendments to those sections cannot be accepted after that deadline, but amendments to other sections obviously will be. The next time we meet to discuss the subject will be the second week after recess, so the deadline will be the first week back.
The next time we—
The next occasion on which we discuss the Criminal Proceedings etc (Reform) (Scotland) Bill after 4 October will be the second week following the recess.
"Following the recess." I thought that you said "second week of the recess".
No—I mentioned the second week following the recess.
Motion agreed to.