Procedures Committee, 28 Nov 2006

Meeting date: Tuesday, November 28, 2006

Official Report 138KB pdf

---

Transport and Works (Scotland) Bill

Chris Ballance and I spoke in the stage 1 debate on the Transport and Works (Scotland) Bill, setting out the position of the committee. We focused on the procedural side. We thought that the bill was not strong enough on the involvement of Parliament in future decisions about major rail and road projects. As we know, the Local Government and Transport Committee and the Minister for Transport did not accept our arguments.

The question is whether we still feel that we have a good case and that the rules should give Parliament one serious opportunity to discuss and vote on any major transport scheme. We might wish to lodge an amendment on behalf of the committee to that effect.

Chris Ballance and you represented the views of the committee very well in the stage 1 debate. However, the point has been made now and the bill is proceeding. I am quite relaxed about where it is now going. I would have trouble buying into lodging stage 2 amendments. All members can lodge their own amendments if they wish. Perhaps that would be an easier way to progress. I am not particularly perturbed about the direction that the bill is going in at this stage.

I think that the bill has taken a totally different direction from the one that we first envisaged. I do not think that it is the right direction, although I think that it is supported by a majority of members. However, this is an area in which the committee should submit amendments, if nothing else to test the arguments, probe the Executive and gain answers to some questions on the record. That is a worthwhile part of the stage 2 procedure. I think that we will probably not win, but that is secondary to getting on the record some of the arguments and answers that ministers will be required to provide.

It is not really about ensuring that the point is made; it is about ensuring that the eventual legislation is good. The committee undertook a detailed inquiry—albeit before I joined—into private bill legislation, and it came up with the recommendation that there should be some form of parliamentary scrutiny. We looked at the Executive consultation in detail and recommended it. If we think that that is the best way for the legislation to go—we clearly have thought that for some time—lodging committee amendments is the right way forward. I will have no hesitation in lodging my own amendment if the committee does not. I am entirely happy to do that. However, I would prefer the committee to be consistent in its views.

The committee made its points in its stage 1 report on the bill. There is also room to say that we have pressed the Executive on certain issues. All of us as individual members listened to the Executive's response. I personally do not see huge merit in continually pressing the case when it comes to the points that the committee made previously. I think that I said at earlier meetings that I was not as anxious about some matters as other members were.

My own view—obviously, I dissent from the view of some other members—is that if people are concerned about those points, they can lodge their own amendments. I presume that any committee amendment would need the support of all, or at least most, committee members. I think that the committee should lodge amendments only if it has every intention of getting them passed and should not lodge simply probing amendments. My personal preference is that it should be down to individual members to decide what amendments they lodge. It will be easier to gain consensus on that. However, other members obviously take a different view.

I note that the Minister for Transport said that we had raised "a fair point" and that we needed to get some balance into the system. It may be that there is still room for movement.

I understand the point that Richard Baker has made, but the danger of not presenting the argument is that we will not test the case. Chris Ballance is right to point out that the minister accepted the need to strike a balance and that the committee's arguments had some merit. Sometimes when an amendment is lodged, the Executive takes a look at the issue to see whether it can do things better. I do not know whether that will happen if the argument is not put. I accept that the amendment would probably be rejected by the Local Government and Transport Committee, but we should still use the opportunity. If our lodging an amendment results in better legislation, so be it. If ministers have a cast-iron case against our proposal, there will be no movement from them, but we will at least have tested the case. It is our job to test legislation.

Do other members have a view?

The issue was considered before I was a member of the committee, so I do not have a view one way or the other.

Personally, I would need to negotiate with some of my party colleagues on any committee amendment. Consequently, I would be more comfortable if the amendment was lodged in the name of the convener or another member of the committee than if it was lodged as a committee amendment.

I concur with Alex Johnstone. Things have now moved on and other members of my party have taken a different position. The Parliament has also taken a particular position. I would want to consult further on the issue. The committee has made known its view, which has not been accepted. At this stage, I am more inclined to agree that the amendment should be lodged by an individual rather than as a committee amendment.

Clearly, we do not have a sufficient majority among committee members for us to go ahead with lodging a committee amendment. I and others who feel strongly on the issue will need to have some conversations about lodging an amendment. We can seek advice from the clerk on the wording of the amendment.