Procedures Committee, 28 Sep 2004

Meeting date: Tuesday, September 28, 2004

Official Report 127KB pdf

---

Private Bills

Agenda item 4 is on our inquiry into private bills. We have a note from the senior assistant clerk on how we should proceed with the inquiry. We received useful background information on the issue at the away day. I thank the clerks from the House of Commons, and our clerks and staff in the Scottish Parliament, for the information.

The note makes suggestions on how we might proceed with the inquiry. We will go through it page by page and, if members have any questions to ask or comments to make, they can let me have them. Are there any comments or questions on the first page? We seem to have become shy in these new premises.

I have a question on paragraph 6, which starts on page 1. Would it be appropriate to invite bill promoters along to the committee at that initial stage as well as statutory bodies and private bill committee conveners? As we have received a submission from the National Galleries of Scotland, which was involved with a non-works act, it might be a good body to invite, along with the promoters of one of the works acts, such as those dealing with the railway lines or the tramlines.

That would be helpful. Perhaps it would be best not to invite one of the current bill promoters, but the promoters of the Stirling-Alloa-Kincardine Railway and Linked Improvements Bill might be useful witnesses, as they have gone through the whole process. It would certainly be useful to have bill promoters along as one of the panels of witnesses at a future meeting.

There is another possibility. I think that there are four law firms in London that handle private bills.

Yes, the parliamentary agents.

We might invite a parliamentary agent.

We have written to the parliamentary agents, but we are still awaiting a response from them. They would be a useful group from which to take evidence.

It might be useful for us to hear from somebody from the private bills unit. We heard from the non-Executive bills unit at the beginning of our review of the procedure for private bills.

The three private bills that have already been enacted were on a relatively small scale compared with the bills that are being dealt with now—perhaps with the exception of the Stirling-Alloa-Kincardine Railway and Linked Improvements Bill, which received a large number of objections and involved a great amount of documentation. I wonder whether any of the conveners of the private bill committees that are currently sitting might have time to give evidence, as there may be issues of scale.

I have no objection to any of the conveners of the current private bill committees putting forward comments. However, they may risk compromising the position of the committees if they raise concerns about the procedure of committees that they are currently convening. That might not be the best way forward.

I take that point. Perhaps those issues could be addressed by a representative of the private bills unit.

Do members have any further points on suggested witnesses?

No, but I have a comment on paragraph 7, on page 2, on the subject of a committee adviser. From the presentations that we were given at our away day, it was clear to me that we have experts within the Scottish Parliament. If we needed any extra advice or assistance, I am sure that we could call on the expertise at Westminster. I do not think that we should appoint an outside adviser. We should use the expertise and knowledge that we have in-house.

Do members agree with that? I think that would be sensible. I am not sure that there would be an adviser out there who could provide us with more information than we are getting in any case.

To some extent, that depends on which way we end up going. I agree that it is premature to appoint an adviser, but there might be a situation further down the line in which we find that we need help with something specific. I would not like to shut the door entirely on the idea of having a committee adviser.

No. That option is always open to the committee. However, I agree that we should not seek to appoint an adviser at this stage.

The final item on pages 2 and 3 is the possibility of undertaking a fact-finding visit. From what I have read in the report, it seems that the Parliament in Dublin has gone down a similar route with private bills in recent times. It may be beneficial to members to visit Dublin to see why the Parliament there has changed to a new procedure, how it has gone about it and what changes have resulted. If members are agreed, we will work up a case and put in a bid to the Conveners Group for that fact-finding visit. Is that agreed?

Members indicated agreement.