Education Committee, 28 Apr 2004

Meeting date: Wednesday, April 28, 2004

Official Report 257KB pdf

---

Procedures Committee Inquiry

Agenda item 2 is consideration of correspondence from the convener of the Procedures Committee. The Education Committee pre-empted the matter to some extent, because of our experience during the passage of the Education (Additional Support for Learning) (Scotland) Bill. As the committee instructed, I wrote to the convener of the Procedures Committee a little while ago about the gap between the deadline for lodging amendments and stage 2 consideration. Euan Robson raised the same issue, in effect, after the stage 3 debate on the bill in the Parliament.

The Procedures Committee raises a slightly wider issue, however. Do members want to make comments about anything that they think we should take forward?

We can make clear our support for what Euan Robson said at the end of the stage 3 debate, which was that there should be more time between the deadline for lodging amendments and consideration of those amendments in committee, so that clerks, parliamentarians, the Executive and officials might have more time to prepare.

A number of points have been raised by the Education Committee. I am not sure that the committee will come to a position on them all, but we can contribute our views individually. I am sure that we agree unanimously on the second point, on whether there is sufficient time at stage 2 and stage 3. My feeling on the first point is that there is sufficient time at stage 1. We certainly had ample time for our last report.

That is probably right. Is there a consensus on stage 1?

Members indicated agreement.

Stage 1 has not been a problem in our experience so far.

I speak as someone who has sat on the Procedures Committee and the Parliamentary Bureau. We should remember that there is flexibility; committees are at liberty to go to the bureau and say that they need more time. Very few committees do that, because they think that the dates that come down from the bureau are set.

Dare I say it, but this committee did that, albeit that it was not necessary at the end of the day.

Yes, but that point needs to be flagged up.

The papers do not mention engagement with civic Scotland. We must be aware that the Parliament's processes should not just suit the Executive's timetable. We must also take into account the bodies outside this Parliament that have vital interests in particular areas. We need much more time for stage 2, and we should examine ways of improving civic Scotland's access to the process at stage 2. That may not be in the Procedures Committee's remit, but the Executive must examine how it manages bills through Parliament and, in particular, how it engages with civic Scotland. As a matter of course, I would like there to be legislation reference groups that would involve the stakeholders in bills, such as the Education (Additional Support for Learning) (Scotland) Bill, so that the Executive would take people along with it during the passage of bills through Parliament.

I am not sure that I agree. The Education (Additional Support for Learning) (Scotland) Bill was probably an exemplar of extensive consultation with civic Scotland.

I do not believe that that was the case. Compare that bill with the Mental Health (Care and Treatment) (Scotland) Bill, which was passed last session. That was the model that should be followed. The Education (Additional Support for Learning) (Scotland) Bill did not follow that model at all. I would like to return to that issue.

I do not agree that there was inadequate consultation. The Executive went out to consultation on the Education (Additional Support for Learning) (Scotland) Bill two or three times.

The issue about engaging at later stages could be dealt with by examining the amount of time that is available at stage 2. At stage 2, we have long meetings at which we do nothing else but consider amendments; those meetings are held on dates that are close to each other. The process could be more spread out. That would not mean that we would do less business; we could have shorter sessions on stage 2 and then deal with other items. That would give interested parties and stakeholders time to consider our amendments, make suggestions to us and hold discussions with us. Some of Adam Ingram's concerns could be dealt with by lengthening stage 2.

The first issue is whether to take longer over stage 2 by having more but shorter sessions. The other point, which is linked, is whether there should be a longer period between the stage 1 debate in Parliament and the beginning of stage 2. The issue is the same, but what is the best way of tackling it?

The convener made a point in a previous discussion about giving those who are responsible a kick in the pants. The previous Procedures Committee took lots of evidence and was told by civic Scotland what it wanted. Donald Gorrie produced good proposals on spreading out the legislative timescale. For example, there was a proposal to have more of a delay between stage 2 and stage 3; that is included in the previous Procedures Committee's report on the consultative steering group principles, along with other practical proposals. When I was business manager, I discussed with Patricia Ferguson whether any of those proposals could have been introduced in 2002-03. It was acknowledged at that time that, as the Executive was nearing the end of its term and there was a lot of legislation, it was probably not practical to do so.

I am a wee bit concerned that we are almost reinventing the wheel. We have concerns that nothing has happened since 2000 on rural school closures and, in the same way, I am concerned that now that the Executive has the information and the evidence it should be a bit more relaxed about the timescale for legislation. Unless the need for legislation is urgent, which people will recognise, better legislation will be produced if there is a longer period between the lodging of amendments and their consideration. There should be a longer period between stage 2 and stage 3; that is crucial. As I said, Donald Gorrie made practical proposals in the previous Procedures Committee. We should support those proposals, because the general thrust is there. We should not reinvent the wheel and the proposals should be introduced.

When I spoke to the Executive's bill team, I said that I had hoped that the new procedures could have been in place before the Education (Additional Support for Learning) (Scotland) Bill was introduced. Unfortunately, things seem to be moving too slowly. It is important to get on with it.

I may be wrong, but I think that the current Procedures Committee took a slightly different view on some of those issues from the committee in the previous session.

Ken Macintosh wants to comment—I think that I interrupted him earlier.

Not at all.

The crucial problem that we had with the Education (Additional Support for Learning) (Scotland) Bill—the Executive agrees with this—was the time between the lodging of amendments and the debate. That issue emerged in the previous Procedures Committee's report on the CSG principles. The Procedures Committee in the previous session did not strike while the iron was hot and get a bill through at that time; that was our own fault. We are now at the stage at which we should focus on the crucial point.

There is unanimity on the original point about the period between the closing date for amendments and stage 2 consideration, and on the period before the debate in Parliament at stage 3.

It has been suggested that there ought to be more time either between the stage 1 debate and the beginning of stage 2 consideration of amendments, or between the lodging of amendments and when they are debated as we go through the stage 2 process. Perhaps both those suggestions could be adopted.

There is not a big issue about evidence taking at stage 1; Fiona Hyslop's point about that was valid.

Adam Ingram made an additional point about engaging with civic Scotland. There is no disagreement about engaging with civic Scotland, but there is an argument about whether anything in the procedural rules causes difficulty or inhibits such engagement. I think that there is not unanimity on that point, but I may be wrong.

It depends on whether the proposals on the timescale would help to resolve the problem of engaging with civic Scotland. Some of the issues are for the Executive.

A mechanism is needed to assist the process, not prior to the introduction of a bill but during its passage—particularly at the end of stage 1 and during stage 2. That is the gap that we need to address.

Time would help everybody. I suppose that the Executive's consultation before the introduction of the bill, on which a view has been expressed, is not what the Procedures Committee is looking at, so we probably do not have to go into that. Do members have any further points to make?

No.

I will write in suitable terms.