Enterprise and Culture Committee, 30 Mar 2004

Meeting date: Tuesday, March 30, 2004

Official Report 252KB pdf

---

Procedures Committee Inquiry

Agenda item 3 relates to an inquiry that the Procedures Committee is holding into the timescales and stages of bills. I received a letter from Iain Smith asking me whether I wished to respond to the inquiry about the speed at which bills progress through the Parliament. Although this committee does not have much involvement with bills, I know that committee members have been involved with bills in various capacities—some of us as ministers, at least one of us as the member in charge of a member's bill and others of us sitting on committees that have considered bills. Does anyone feel that they wish me to respond in a certain way to the Procedures Committee or are members content to leave the matter to other committees that handle more bills? I am open to suggestions.

This is just a personal view, but it may be shared by other committee members. I feel strongly about the timing for stage 3 amendments, especially as we do not have a second chamber. Stage 3 amendments are often lodged at the last minute; members have to consider them, form an opinion on them and vote on them in a short timescale and the bill becomes law almost immediately thereafter. It seems to me that the time limits for consideration of stage 3 amendments could do with being extended to allow greater scrutiny.

I have been lobbied by people in various parts of civic society who would appreciate time to be able to comment on an amendment before it is dealt with by the Parliament. If there is only 24 hours' notice, only an MSP can comment. If there were wider notice, that would be appreciated.

Having had experience in 2000 of dealing with the Housing (Scotland) Bill at stage 2, I feel that a longer period needs to be set aside if there are a large number of amendments. Perhaps the Parliamentary Bureau should give the committee more flexibility to extend the timetable if there are a large number of amendments. During the passage of the Housing (Scotland) Bill, large numbers of amendments were lodged both by the Executive and by members of the Social Justice Committee. In such circumstances, we do not get proper scrutiny at stage 3, although at that stage we tend to see only those amendments that the Executive has flagged up at stage 2.

I take Murdo Fraser's point that the timescale for lodging amendments is worth considering. Given that we are a unicameral Parliament and that we take a pre-legislative consultation approach to scrutiny, we must give more time to the longer and more controversial bills and to those bills that attract both Executive and non-Executive amendments at stage 2.

It is probably indiscreet for me to get involved in discussions on unicameral legislatures versus bicameral ones, but I, too, would like to make a point about stage 3, which is linked to what Murdo Fraser said. My concern is not so much about the timescale for lodging amendments and the extent to which they are open to comment, although I accept that a sufficient period is necessary and I endorse the points made by Murdo Fraser and Chris Ballance; my point is about the stage 3 debate itself.

I have felt on a number of occasions that the amount of time available for dealing with amendments in the chamber on the day is unsatisfactory and I have said so on the record. It seems that if members are lucky enough to have an amendment dealt with early in the day, they may get three or four minutes in which to speak. If their amendment is not dealt with until the end of the process, they may be asked by the Presiding Officer simply to move the amendment formally, yet that amendment could be just as important as the amendment that was moved earlier in the day by another member. I would like a balance to be struck between people deliberately filibustering to stretch things out and finding time to deal properly with stage 3 amendments.

There may be a link to the process that has been referred to of lodging amendments, but my view is that, if we need a second day or a second half day to deal with amendments at stage 3, that time should be found, because that is the end of the process. How we make the distinction between needing more time and people deliberately talking things out—heaven forbid that we should have such a process in this legislature—I do not know, but I would like the Procedures Committee to consider whether there is a way of improving the situation, bearing in mind the time pressures on business in the chamber.

I sympathise with that view. At the report stage in the House of Commons, it does not matter so much that there is a guillotine, because we know that the bill will go to the second chamber. In the Scottish Parliament, however, that is the last chance gone. I do not think that the Scottish people are ready for us to suggest a second chamber just at the moment—

With a second building.

Far less a second building.

We shall take those points on board and include them in a letter to the Procedures Committee.

Meeting closed at 16:35.