Procedures Committee Inquiry
Agenda item 8 is on the Procedures Committee's inquiry on timescales and stages of bills. How appropriate. The Procedures Committee wrote to me and I felt that I should put the letter before members to invite comments because the inquiry is important. As members have found to their cost, this committee will be considering proposed legislation almost permanently. Members have experience of the timescales that are involved.
The deadline for comments to the Procedures Committee is 5 May, but if members have any comments to make now, that would be helpful.
I have two points. The first is about committees having sufficient time to consider bills at stage 1. We must ensure that the system is sufficiently flexible so that when the Parliamentary Bureau has set a deadline for completion of stage 1, if a committee requests extra time to consider the bill further, that request is accepted. At present, committees can request extra time from the bureau, but it would be helpful to have it formalised that they can make such a request.
When ministers come before a committee at the end of stage 1, there is always a danger that they will make reference to specific points that have arisen in evidence and say that they intend to take certain action. The committee will not have been aware of that when it was considering the bill. We need to ensure that if the Executive says at a late stage that it intends to make a significant change on which the committee has not taken evidence, the committee should be able to ask for time to consider the matter. If necessary, the committee should be able to take evidence on the issue.
That brings me to my second point, which is about stage 2. The Executive can lodge substantial amendments that may change the legislation considerably, but which the committee has not considered. The committee is then at a disadvantage because it has to take the Executive's word on the matter. If at stage 2 a substantive amendment is introduced that would lead to significant changes to the bill as considered at stage 1, the committee must have scope to consider that amendment and, if necessary, to take wider views on it and its possible implications. Within the present timescales, committees do not have scope to do that because they are locked into the process and must simply take the Executive at its word.
I strongly support Michael Matheson's comments. At stage 1, it is important that secondary committees have sufficient time to feed into the lead committee's consideration. Secondary committees sometimes flag up different issues because they approach the bill from a slightly different remit. Because of timings, the system does not work as well as it might.
I feel more strongly about stage 2. We may have concerns about timing at stage 1, but we are usually able, within the kind of constraints that we talked about earlier in relation to the Emergency Workers (Scotland) Bill, to spend a number of weeks taking oral and written evidence. People can comment on the proposals.
However, a totally ridiculous situation can then arise, as happened with the Adults with Incapacity (Scotland) Bill, whereby the changes that the Executive made as a result of representations from parents altered the bill substantially, although it could be argued that that was the right thing for the Executive to do. Members spent months considering the original proposals, but had only days to consider the changes. That is ludicrous and calls into question our ability to pass decent legislation.
A mechanism must be introduced that will allow a committee—when an amendment to a bill would substantially alter provisions on which the committee had taken evidence—to take further evidence. The previous Health and Community Care Committee, as a secondary committee for the Adults with Incapacity (Scotland) Bill, took further evidence at stage 2, but that was unusual. That procedure should not be regarded as the norm, but it should be accepted as reasonable for a committee to take evidence at stage 2. Greater time must be spent on stage 2 consideration of bills. Members need more time to formulate amendments so that outside bodies and the public can realise that things have changed since stage 1 and can lobby members and pass on information.
Throughout stage 1 of a complicated bill, such as the Criminal Procedure (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill, committees have the helpful assistance of advisers. However, the Executive might make substantive changes to a bill at stage 2, by which time committees no longer have such advice. As Michael Matheson said, that means that committees must take the Executive's word on whether something is a good or a bad thing or whether it is legally correct. I am not suggesting that the Executive would say that something was okay when it was not, but mistakes can be made. Stage 2 gives me the greatest cause for concern and my views on that get stronger with every passing year.
This is my first experience of dealing with legislation and I was amazed to find that amendments are lodged on a Monday and we debate them and try to get to grips with them on a Wednesday. I believe that we should have a week in which to consider them. It was helpful that we considered only so many sections of the Criminal Procedure (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill. Normally, a committee must consider a whole bill and tackle all the amendments. It seems to me that there is a gap at stage 2 and that there is room for significant improvement, especially when—as Michael Matheson and Margaret Smith outlined—no committee adviser is available to consider the implications of a stage 2 amendment that would fundamentally change a bill. Those are worthy points that should be considered in order to improve the legislative process.
On the Criminal Procedure (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill, we had the stage 1 debate before the Executive released the results of the consultation on the bill. The debate would have been better informed if we had had that information. There does not seem to have been any good reason for not making it available to members at that time.
On the point on the Emergency Workers (Scotland) Bill, there must be flexibility—procedure cannot be set in tablets of stone—to allow us to take all evidence that we deem necessary to reach a balanced view and to produce good legislation that will stand the test of time. We are revisiting bills that Parliament has passed, which indicates that we are not getting things right. I am in favour of sending all our comments to the Procedures Committee and I am delighted that it has asked us about the matter.
The inquiry is welcome and I think that we could use all the information that has been given so far. I would like to add a few comments to what has been said.
I agree whole-heartedly that, for a variety of reasons, stage 2 is the main problem. We have no second chamber—the decision not to have one was rightly made with the Scotland Act 1998. However, having no second chamber is all the more reason to ensure that our scrutiny is right. Once bills are passed into law, hundreds of regulations should not have to be passed to rectify matters if we have not got things right. Of course, some high-profile people argue that there should be a second chamber; if we want to counterbalance their arguments, we must ensure that procedures are right.
When stage 2 has been completed, as it now has been with the Criminal Procedure (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill, there are no notes with the bill. That has always struck me as odd. There is the amended bill and some way of identifying what the amendments have been, but there are no notes. However, there are explanatory notes and a policy memorandum when a bill is introduced. It is the oddest thing in the world that a bill's policy and effect can change at stage 2, but there are no accompanying notes. I think that I have raised that issue with the Scottish Parliament information centre, which confirmed that that is the practice. The practice should change.
As Margaret Smith and Margaret Mitchell said, it is outrageous that the deadline for amendments is a day and a half before we debate them. I am not telling any tales out of school by reinforcing what the deadlines are or in telling members that our clerks often work until 9 or 10 o'clock on the night before a meeting to prepare a convener's brief, so I receive my brief sometimes at about 10 o'clock at night. I am then expected to go through it. Such things can be done periodically, but such a system should not be run permanently. I am worried about such matters because the Justice 1 Committee will deal with legislation.
I agree that there should be a minimum of a week between the deadline for amendments and when the committee deals with them. In the intervening time, those who lodge amendments—particularly the Executive—should give notes on the effect of amendments. We receive co-operation from the Executive if we ask for it and we receive notes if we ask for them; however, as a matter of policy, notes should be issued to explain amendments.
There is an awful lot of work to be done. I realise that the net effect of such proposals would be that the legislative process would be slower, as weeks would be lost here and there, but we should want to be sure that we are doing the best job that we can. There are time limitations. Members often have meetings on nights before committee meetings and have to consider papers—I am sure that I am not the only member who has such meetings. People feel a heavy responsibility. Going through a bill at stage 2 and marking what should be done with all the amendments is a time-consuming job, unless somebody else does that for a member.
On advisers, I pushed hard to have Chris Gane with us and, indeed, he was with us for part of stage 2, but there was a problem with his time and he could not attend all the meetings. However, it should be normal practice that, if we adopt an adviser for stage 1, they should see us through stage 2. It seems odd that they should stop advising us when we probably need them most.
The deadline for amendments for stage 3 of the Criminal Procedure (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill is 4.30 on Friday 23 April. The debate is likely to be on 28 April, so members can see that there is quite a short time between the end of stage 2 and the beginning of stage 3, particularly bearing it in mind that there will be a recess, which certainly makes things a bit tighter.
Does any member want to add to what I have said?
Members indicated disagreement.
To add to the inquiry, we could simply copy the Official Report to the Procedures Committee. I encourage members to take the opportunity of feeding any further thoughts that they have into the Procedures Committee in the course of the inquiry.
I remind members that the next meeting of the Justice 1 Committee will be on 21 April, which is after the Easter recess, when we will consider subordinate legislation. There will also be a joint meeting of the justice committees at which we will take evidence on the draft budget for 2005-06.
The earlier that amendments for stage 3 of the Criminal Procedure (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill are lodged, the better, but I remind members that they should be lodged no later than 4.30 on Friday 23 April and that the stage 3 debate is likely to be on 28 April.
I thank members for their attendance.
Meeting closed at 11:45.