Communities Committee, 21 Apr 2004

Meeting date: Wednesday, April 21, 2004

Official Report 287KB pdf

---

Procedures Committee Inquiry

For agenda item 3, members are invited to consider previously circulated correspondence from the convener of the Procedures Committee, which is conducting an inquiry on timescales and stages of bills. We need to comment on the correspondence and decide whether we wish to make a submission to the inquiry. We will have a brief discussion and then pull something together that will be circulated and agreed at a later meeting, if that is acceptable.

Alasdair Morrison and I have been asked to give the Procedures Committee oral evidence on the subject next week, because we were on two of the committees that were involved in considering the Land Reform (Scotland) Bill. That was a major piece of legislation that the Procedures Committee thinks will illustrate some of the issues that are associated with the way Parliament deals with bills. I am preparing written evidence for the Procedures Committee, which I will be happy to copy to this committee for information. The committee might come to views that are entirely different to those that I choose to express to the Procedures Committee, because each member has their own experience.

Although I appreciate that the Procedures Committee is examining the legislative process—stages 1, 2 and 3 of bills—I do not want us to lose sight of post-legislative scrutiny and post-implementation scrutiny. We enact in good faith bills such as the Community Care and Health (Scotland) Bill, which introduced free personal care for the elderly, and the Mental Health (Care and Treatment) (Scotland) Bill, both of which I was involved in considering, but it might be helpful if there was a process through which to determine whether what we agreed to was being implemented as we assumed it would be implemented. I wanted to flag up the point that we should consider that as well as the passing of legislation, although I realise that the Procedures Committee is not asking for evidence on that.

One of the important things to consider is whether we have created legislation that can be implemented. We could, on a road that is paved with good intentions, pass legislation but then discover that it does not work. I hope that the learning process could be fed back into the legislative system so that some of the debates on bills could be about something other than what is going to happen later.

I agree. We have only to consider our experience at the earliest stages of the Antisocial Behaviour etc (Scotland) Bill. We have found that actions can be taken, but that authorities seem to be reluctant, for whatever reason, to do so. I am thinking of antisocial behaviour orders in particular, although I realise that they were not introduced by this Parliament. If we consider only the procedure for the progress of bills through the Parliament, we will miss a wonderful opportunity, which I would like to be flagged up.

I will go through the points in the Procedures Committee's paper. First, we never have enough time for anything, but I feel that evidence taking at stage 1 is done quite well and that we consult properly about most bills before they go through Parliament. The next bullet point in the paper is about the timetable for stages 2 and 3, which I think are far too rushed. We could get through as much legislation as we get through at the moment, but in a more ordered fashion.

For example, because I spent last week in bed I was a bit behind the pace, but I could still have lodged amendments to the Antisocial Behaviour etc (Scotland) Bill for debate today until 2 pm on Monday. That is ridiculous; such late lodging does not allow for consultation of outside groups and it allows only hurried consultation with colleagues in other parties and ministers. There should be a more leisurely timetable. We should have to lodge amendments a week before the stage 2 meeting. We could still timetable meetings in such a way that we got the bill through in the same time. There is an issue about the grind of weekly amendment sessions, which committees might be able to intersperse with other investigative sessions.

The minimum intervals between stages are certainly not appropriate. There should be more time for people to gather their thoughts about amendments before stage 2 starts and again before stage 3. The most important suggestion that I make is that there should be a stage 2A, or whatever one would call it, after stage 2. The various participants including—as is suggested in the Procedures Committee press release—the other committees that are involved, could examine where we have reached with all our amendments so that we can assess which have passed and which have not and try to get organised before the bill goes to full stage 3 debate in Parliament.

Finally, the timetabling of stage 3 is ridiculous. At stage 3 of a recent bill, I was given one minute to explain a complicated issue and the minister was given no time to respond. The point is that I needed a response from the minister, but he was not allowed to respond. It is absolutely fatuous to conduct our affairs on such a basis. The timetable must be much more flexible than it is at the moment and I suggest strongly that we put together a paper. Those are the points that I would like to put in it.

I agree with Donald Gorrie about amendments, although I cannot speak on behalf of other committee members. I do not know whether one can generalise about bills because their size varies. I am thinking back to the passage of the Housing (Scotland) Bill, which was a huge bill, although others are smaller. Can some leeway be given? We cannot treat every bill prescriptively because there are more amendments to some bills than to others.

We need to look at the timescale between each amendment stage and we also have to look at ministers' responses at stage 3, as Donald Gorrie said. As the convener knows, members sometimes withdraw amendments on the basis of ministerial replies that satisfy them.

I would also like to flag up members' bills, which are mentioned in the Procedures Committee press release. I will take advice from the clerks and the convener on whether such bills can be taken up in committee or left to the member. I know that members' bills are currently being considered. We are all concerned about what happens when a members' bill is considered and Executive consultations are undertaken. I agree with Donald Gorrie entirely, but we cannot be prescriptive about bills and members' bills and we must consider them individually.

I suggest that we ask the clerks to draw together a paper and that we agree a committee response. It might be that we are so divided in our responses that members will have to make individual contributions, which would be entirely reasonable. People have experience of other committees and will have different perspectives of members' bills because they have or have not promoted them. It will be helpful if we can decide on the matters about which we agree as well as recognise where there are divisions.

It is important to consider timetabling for amendments. The speed at which amendments must be lodged puts phenomenal pressure on the clerking system. There is also an issue about giving members the space to consider thoroughly whether they want to lodge amendments, otherwise we could end up in circumstances whereby organisations that are geared up to produce amendments have more sway at the amendment stage than we might want, simply because it is easier to take an amendment off the shelf than to produce one oneself. It would be helpful if that could be explored. Do members agree to return to the matter at a future meeting at which we will agree the response that we will submit to the Procedures Committee?

Members indicated agreement.