Members' Bills
The next item of business is a debate on motion S2M-1957, in the name of Iain Smith, on behalf of the Procedures Committee, on a new procedure for members' bills.
The motion, which has been lodged on behalf of the Procedures Committee, invites the Parliament to agree a new procedure for dealing with members' bills. The changes to standing orders that we propose are set out in annex A to the report.
The origins of the inquiry date back to the Parliament's first session, when concerns were first expressed about the number of proposals for members' bills that were being lodged and the pressure that that was putting on parliamentary resources, especially on the ability of the non-Executive bills unit to assist members in working up their proposals into fully drafted bills. Pressure was also being put on Parliament, chamber and committee time.
The issue was discussed at length by the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body and the Parliamentary Bureau, which led to a proposal for a system of prioritisation that was put to the previous Procedures Committee towards the end of the first parliamentary session. The committee did not have time to consider the proposal in detail before dissolution so, after the election, the new Procedures Committee, under my convenership, was asked to progress it. However, by then the composition of the Parliament and of the bureau had changed somewhat, and it rapidly became clear that the consensus in favour of prioritisation that had existed in the bureau in session 1 was no longer there.
The new Procedures Committee began its inquiry on members' bills by considering the merits of prioritisation. The main doubt that emerged was about whether it was appropriate to put the bureau, which is an inherently party-political body, in charge of deciding between the legislative ideas of back-bench members. We considered other options, such as getting a committee to make prioritisation decisions, but we could not see how a prioritisation system could be made to work in a way that would secure the confidence of members and of the general public. The alternative procedure that emerged from our discussions, which our motion invites the Parliament to endorse, was an attempt to break the deadlock.
It might be worth bearing in mind the proposals on members' bills that were contained in the consultative steering group's original report, "Shaping Scotland's Parliament". It said:
"Individual Members should be entitled to submit written proposals for legislation to the Presiding Officer. Such proposals should be brought before the Plenary if either they could secure the support of a minimum number of MSPs (perhaps 10% of the total), or by submitting them to the relevant subject Committee which should then have a discretionary competence to initiate an inquiry on the need for such legislation and to report to the Scottish Parliament. We also recommend that individual members should be able to introduce no more than 2 Bills in any Parliamentary session."
It is interesting that that quotation shows that there was no indication in the CSG's original report that members would have an automatic right to introduce a bill to the Parliament, but that they would be able to lodge a bill proposal that the Parliament would subject to scrutiny before it granted permission to introduce a bill.
In looking at alternatives to the system, we needed to take account of that point and of the fact that the Parliament's resources are finite and must be used wisely and that there are limits on parliamentary time. The requirement in the standing orders for only 11 signatures from other MSPs against a one-paragraph proposal—sometimes it is only a one-line proposal—was clearly no longer sufficient. Our aim was to balance the right of members to introduce bills with the need to use the Parliament's resources to best effect. A key aspect of that was the idea that members' bills should be subject to the same requirements for pre-legislative scrutiny and consultation as are other legislative proposals. The full details of our proposed new system are given in our report, but the main point is that the process now has two stages. The first part involves public consultation on a draft proposal, and the second involves getting other members' support for a final proposal before proceeding to the drafting of a bill and going through the normal parliamentary processes.
We recommend that consultation, which is a standard part of the criteria that NEBU uses in deciding whether to support the drafting of a bill, be formalised and be a requirement for all bills, and we recommend a minimum consultation period of 12 weeks. At the end of that period, the member would be required to provide a summary of the responses that were received and to produce his or her final proposal. At that point, MSPs would be asked whether they wish to support the proposal, knowing more than they do under the present system—under which they might have just a line about an idea—because the consultation would provide them with a clear indication of the type of legislation that was envisaged as well as what the public and other bodies thought of the proposal. That gives a much more rigorous approach to the pre-legislative stages for a member's bill. Nothing in our proposals limits a member's right to introduce bills, but the recommendations require members to do a bit more work before they lodge a bill proposal.
For our second stage, we recommend an increase in the threshold of signatures needed once the consultation is complete. Considerable discussion was needed to reach a decision about that. Some members felt that the threshold needed to be increased significantly, while others felt that the present threshold was adequate, and in the end, we reached a compromise—I was going to say consensus, which might be to exaggerate the situation slightly—that we should propose that 18 members should be needed to support a bill proposal at the second stage and that there should be a requirement for cross-party support. That latter requirement is important, because members' bills should be able to display cross-party support. That is not an attempt to prevent any proposal from the smaller parties from getting through the process. Indeed, members of the Executive parties would be the most disadvantaged by the proposal, because members of the two parties could get together and have a majority in the Parliament, but under the proposal would still not be able to introduce a bill unless they could get support from one of the Opposition parties. The major parties in the Parliament would be more disadvantaged under the new system than would the minor parties.
Once the proposal has received the support of 18 members, a bill can be drafted and would get the support of the non-Executive bills unit's drafting resources. We hope that all bills would go through that route to try to ensure consistency in the quality of their drafting, but there is nothing to prevent a member from going outside the non-Executive bills unit should they wish to do so.
The report contains a number of other proposed changes, which I will run through quickly because time is limited. We recommend a formal requirement that a member's bill should be accompanied by explanatory notes and a policy memorandum, as is the case for Executive bills. At present, those accompanying documents are not mandatory but are normally included for members' bills that are introduced with support from the non-Executive bills unit. Secondly, we recommend that members be limited to having two proposals in progress at any one time. Thirdly, we endorse the business managers' view that there should be a cut-off date for introducing members' bills towards the end of a parliamentary session to prevent a huge rush and bills being passed towards the end of a session without adequate scrutiny. We suggest that that cut-off date should be the end of September in the third year of the normal four-year parliamentary session, that is, the September before the statutory date for the elections.
Fourthly, we recommend a new mechanism to allow the Executive to prevent a member's bill from being introduced, either if the Executive is planning to introduce its own similar legislation or if it knows of forthcoming Westminster legislation. That might sound slightly controversial and it might appear to be some sort of Executive veto. In fact, it is not. It is about trying to ensure that the Parliament's resources are used to best effect and that we do not duplicate the efforts of the Parliament unnecessarily if we know that legislation is coming. We have a four-year legislative timetable, and it would not make any sense to allow a member's bill to proceed if there were a proposal to achieve the same aim by means of Executive primary or secondary legislation within that period. There would be a requirement on the Executive to make a commitment in writing to introduce the relevant proposed legislation during the same parliamentary session.
We recommend giving a new option to the lead committee at stage 1. It would not necessarily have to conduct a full inquiry at stage 1 if it found that there was a basic flaw in the bill as introduced that made it impossible to take it to a successful conclusion.
We made a number of recommendations on implementation. Having considered how to phase the system in, we decided that there should be a single implementation date, as is specified in the motion. That presents some disadvantage to those who have already been involved in the process or who have bills in preparation that have not yet been lodged. We felt, however, that that was the only fair way to do it. To those who have done some consultation work—for example, my colleague Mike Pringle who has done a considerable amount of consultation on his bill on a plastic bag levy—I would say that that will not be wasted. It will be possible to use it to satisfy the consultation requirement under the proposed procedure. There is an exemption whereby new consultation might not be required and existing consultation findings may be used.
I recommend the new process to the Parliament. It will form a much more rigorous system for members' bills, and I think that it will improve the quality of those bills. I do not think that it will reduce the number of members' bills that are passed in the Parliament, but it will help ensure that those that are debated in committee and in the chamber have general public and cross-party support.
On behalf of the Procedures Committee, I am pleased to move,
That the Parliament notes the Procedures Committee's 6th Report, 2004 (Session 2), A New Procedure for Members' Bills (SP Paper 193), and agrees that the changes to Standing Orders set out in Annexe A to the report be made with effect from 12 November 2004 but with new Rule 9.14A having effect only for as long as at least one Member's Bill introduced before that date remains in progress.
As a relatively new member of the Procedures Committee, I had a great deal of background information to catch up on in getting to grips with the matters before us. I hope that I have been able to get to grips with the issues at the origin of the committee's inquiry and that I have been able to view the various options with fresh eyes as the inquiry has neared its conclusion.
My understanding is that, relatively early in the first session of the Parliament, it was recognised that the procedural right of a back-bench MSP to introduce a member's bill required to be supported by the necessary parliamentary resources. As a result, the non-Executive bills unit, or NEBU, was formed. It was not long before the pressures on NEBU were flagged up and prioritising criteria introduced. Before long, the issue came back on to the agenda. It was only the close proximity of the 2003 elections that effectively brought an end to the consideration of another series of proposals aimed at resolving the difficulties that were being experienced.
As I have read the documentation on the matter, taking the issue back to its genesis, it has become clear to me that the Procedures Committee has moved away from a position of simply being asked to resolve the thorny question of how to prioritise business and who should do that and has instead adopted a more proactive approach. In other words, a situation of trying to manage pressures on the existing system and trying to alleviate bottlenecks became one of improving the procedures for the introduction of members' bills.
The main recommendations in the committee's report, or at least the ones that have attracted most publicity, are straightforward. The report recommends the raising of the number of supporters required in order for a bill to progress from 11 to 18; it would introduce a requirement for cross-party support to come from half the parties and groups represented on the Parliamentary Bureau; it would limit the number of proposals or bills that a member may have in progress at any one time; and it confirms the need for there to be a cut-off point for the introduction of new members' bills about six months before an election.
However, the report's recommendations would do much more to improve the whole system. The recommendations introduce the principle, with few exceptions, that no member's bill should be introduced without the public having had the opportunity to comment on what is being proposed, and that, during the minimum 12-week consultation period, there should be an opportunity to develop and test the idea. The report proposes providing the promoter with the opportunity to amend the draft proposals that they lodged and on which they went out to consultation, based on the findings of that consultation, and it would allow for a period of one month during which members can consider whether to support the bill, based on the summary of the conclusions and the precise nature of the possibly amended proposals. As Iain Smith said, members could determine support for a member's bill with a far clearer understanding of what the eventual bill would look like. The report suggests requiring the promoter of the bill to provide explanatory notes and a policy memorandum at the time of introduction. There would be no more one-line statements. An onus would also be placed on the promoter of the bill to ensure that the proposal is basically sound before stage 1 scrutiny can commence.
It goes without saying that any changes will attract criticism of some sort, but the proposals are better than the alternatives that are on offer. The other options include the potential collapse of the existing system, bills being determined according to the political persuasion of their promoter, and the lottery of a ballot, with the inevitable loss of well-supported and worthy bills.
I hope that the Parliament endorses the proposals that are set out in the report, so that we can have a sensible and structured approach to members' bills, with the emphasis on quality and not on chance. We should be motivated by a genuine desire to use the procedure for members' bills to improve the lives of ordinary Scots. It should not be a gimmick for obtaining easy publicity.
Before the non-Executive bills unit was created, members and committees had access only to limited support from the legislation team and the Scottish Parliament information centre, or to any outside assistance that interested organisations were prepared to offer. That was considered to be inadequate, and NEBU was created early in session 1. The unit is made up of dedicated and experienced clerking staff and Parliament lawyers, and its role is to assist members and committees through the development process and to train members in the right way to hit the ball through the hoops without being croqueted too often by technical or legal snags. As we know, the process is complicated. A small amendment can easily turn into a long-winded bill as a result of the follow-on of the effects and impacts that it produces.
It is important that opportunities exist for legislation to be created by bodies other than the Scottish Executive. There are already good examples of useful legislation that has been instigated by individuals and passed by the Parliament. That said, it is necessary to manage the process properly, so that the number of bills that come forward does not lead to a traffic jam in the system, or to bills not receiving enough attention and support because the process is too rushed. There must be some sort of sifting and prioritisation, but the Conservatives do not think that the Parliamentary Bureau is the appropriate body to carry that out. However, there is no reason why it should not influence the process by considering the outstanding bills annually and making recommendations to the Parliament as to whether they should be accepted or rejected.
Members who submit bills can receive assistance from experts on the parliamentary staff, and it would greatly help the process if members undertook responsibility for the consultation process. That process will give the member a good indication of support for or opposition to their bill at an early stage and it may allow them to drop their proposals if too great a degree of opposition has been exposed during the consultation process.
There are currently 40 proposals for members' bills, which is already more than there were in the entire first session. Obviously, that will put an enormous strain on NEBU and stretch the limits of its capacity to cope. The head of that unit, David Cullum, has said that NEBU's current capacity is having four bills running and four bills in preparation, although it somehow managed to cope during the final year of the previous session, when it handled seven bills simultaneously.
As a result of the consultation process, many proposals do not result in the drafting or introduction of a member's bill and it would be wrong if a decision of the Parliament made it more difficult for members to introduce a bill. Although it is perfectly acceptable for members to draw support from outside the Parliament's resources, thereby relieving the burden on those resources, such support must be of an expert nature if it is to benefit the process.
Of course, it is not only NEBU that is stretched by too many bills; the parliamentary timescales into which bills have to be fitted are also stretched. It has been suggested that we should establish special committees that would be like the committees that are established to consider private bills. However, such a measure would place extra burdens on members' work schedules.
Members should not be restricted to introducing only one member's bill per session. Very few members will have the time or energy to manage to introduce more than one bill, but the proposal might prevent an excellent idea from coming forward in the shape of a bill.
It is important that weak and pointless proposals should be sifted out at an early stage, before they take up the valuable time of NEBU and the committees of the Parliament. Matters such as the legislative competence or adequacy of drafting of a bill should be sorted out early, so that lead committees need not conduct a stage 1 inquiry for a bill that contains a basic flaw. A bill should contain no such flaws by the time it reaches the lead committee. The rule changes will ensure that that is the case.
The purpose of a member's bill should be to facilitate an improvement in the lives of Scottish people, rather than to act as a public relations stunt to get a member's name into the newspapers.
I have been looking round the chamber and I wonder whether some of my Labour colleagues are after my place on the Procedures Committee. Eighteen Labour members are present and the committee already seems to have support for its proposals.
It is warm in the chamber and I am grateful to Jamie McGrigor for his comments about the heat—I was beginning to think it might be something to do with my age.
Some people think that the Procedures Committee is dull and boring, but we have many laughs, usually when we meet ourselves in the middle of a roundabout that our discussions have gone round many times—in the same direction. Thankfully, when we have the opportunity to talk about our ideas and suggestions, we are able to come up with recommendations that will make the Parliament's work easier and better. As I said, committee members are famous for repeating themselves, but I will not do so. I will concentrate on the consultation process, which is one aspect of the committee's recommendations.
Too often, members submit a one-line idea for a bill—Jamie McGrigor talked about that—and are then quick to put out a press release and do the rounds of the press and the media tower without a thought for what other members know about the proposal and without having consulted widely on the implications of their idea for the people of Scotland. Members think that that is wrong and that we must take a different approach to members' ideas and proposals for bills. That was the main reason for the committee's inquiry, which I remember arose from a request from the Minister for Parliamentary Business. Never mind the traffic jams and hold-ups in the process; uppermost in committee members' minds when we conducted our inquiry was the fact that proposals are sometimes designed to facilitate publicity stunts rather than to change the laws of Scotland.
I experienced the joys, excitement and fun of the Procedures Committee in the first session of the Parliament, so I am familiar with some of the issues and challenges with which the committee has grappled. However, as Cathie Craigie is a member of the current session's Procedures Committee, could she clarify for members who have not studied the Parliament's procedures closely in recent months how the proposed changes in the consultation process will look and feel to the public? How will the changes address concerns about consultation fatigue? I would genuinely appreciate clarification on that point.
The consultation procedure that members adopt will, in a way, be up to them, but the Parliament will set a framework that will ensure that at least the minimum consultation is carried out. I point members to my colleague Karen Whitefield's on-going consultation on her proposed member's bill on Christmas and new year's day trading, which is an example of an inclusive consultation that is easy to access. The Parliament may want to consider the way in which Karen Whitefield has set up the consultation and adopt it as a model.
Members will have to demonstrate that they have consulted fully and sufficiently and that there is support for their proposal. The consultation must be shown to be open and meaningful and members must not be allowed to opt out of the consultation. We also include the proposal that, if members demonstrate that they have fully consulted on a proposed bill, they will not have to do it again when the bill is introduced. The Procedures Committee takes the matter seriously and hopes that other committees will ensure that they scrutinise thoroughly the statements that members produce to avoid having to consult further.
I recommend the proposals to the Parliament and I hope that members accept them tonight. I look forward to continued developments in members' bills and to the law of Scotland being changed from the grass roots by members of the Parliament, with support and encouragement from local organisations and groups that represent local people in our constituencies.
I welcome the opportunity to contribute to this Procedures Committee debate. Obviously, I am not Mark Ballard, who is the Green party member on the Procedures Committee, although I have been told that we have certain similarities. Mark Ballard sends his apologies for not attending.
On behalf of the Greens, I welcome the report and the amendments to standing orders that are attached. I have some experience with members' bills. Although I was not an elected member in the first session of Parliament, I assisted Robin Harper with certain aspects of his member's bill in the first session. Now, in the second session, as an elected member, I have my own member's bill proposal on liability for the release of genetically modified organisms, which I have been working on for about a year.
It is worth distinguishing between the system here and the system at Westminster, where proposals for private members' bills often result in bills that have only a remote chance of becoming legislation, or even of being voted on. Private members' bills are often campaigns, and not really proper bits of proposed legislation—I call them probing bills. They exist to try to get Government action on particular topics and are not designed to become serious bits of legislation. However, that is not true in every case.
Will the member take an intervention?
Go on, then.
I am concerned that the picture that the member paints of private members' bills at Westminster is flippant. Does he agree that the legislation that was enacted following Bill Tynan's private member's bill on the regulation of fireworks has assisted significant numbers of my constituents and many constituents of other MSPs?
Absolutely. That is why I wanted to qualify my statement by saying that some private members' bills have got on to the statute book and changed people's lives for the better. However, the majority of proposals that are put into the ballot for private members' bills are simply for probing or campaigning bills.
We have a slightly different process in the Scottish Parliament because the system for members' bills is politically a bit simpler and fairer, which can lead to a shorter timescale for the development of a bill proposal, right the way through to its introduction. Of course, there is a danger there, because if that policy development phase is skipped, a bill that has not been drafted correctly could get into a committee and clog it up. Members will be aware of examples of that from the first session. On behalf of the Greens, I welcome the proposal to put the emphasis back on the front-end policy development side of things.
It is important that the consultation comes first. That puts an onus on MSPs to engage with civic society, which can deliver a reality check on our proposals. It also chimes well with what the Scottish Constitutional Convention has said, which is that there is a need for civic society to provide some sort of second chamber to the Parliament. If we get meaningful consultation at the outset, it becomes not just consultation but active participation in devising legislation. That is important.
I am pleased that the Procedures Committee rejected political prioritisation. Every member of the Parliament is paid to work for the electorate. We are paid to use the tools that are at our disposal, which include legislation. Those are tools that we have in order to serve the people, and we need to be allowed to work on those tools. But—and it is a big but—there needs to be some form of selection criteria to enable the members' bills system to work efficiently. The amendments that the committee has proposed strike the right balance. For example, the need for proposals to get the support of 18 members from three different parties will force a degree of consensus. It will force all parties, including the Labour Party, to work with others in the chamber.
I agree with the proposal to allow the Executive effectively to block members' legislation if the Executive is introducing its own legislation. That is fine, as long as it happens earlier in the process rather than later, so that we avoid a situation in which an individual member does a massive amount of work on a piece of legislation, only for it to be repeated by the Executive. Stewart Maxwell is a case in point. I am working on a bill proposal to enable strict liability to be imposed on the biotechnology companies regarding economic damage. I would be prepared to withdraw that if the Executive were going to introduce legislation to that effect, but there is a huge difference between the Executive introducing a Scottish statutory instrument on coexistence and liability regimes, and what I propose, which is a change in the law to place strict liability on the biotech companies. In that respect, I hope that proposed new rule 13(a) of standing orders is tight enough, because if it is not, we are effectively closing down legislative options proposed by members that might garner substantial cross-party support at stage 1.
When I worked with Robin Harper in the first session I found that NEBU support is vital. It is crucial that that support is properly resourced, which I do not think is the case at the moment. We are putting the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body in a position in which it is having to make a decision about which members' bills go on to get further support, without any criteria to make that decision. Paragraph 114 in the Procedure Committee's report says:
"NEBU officials cannot make such choices alone"—
I would say that NEBU officials cannot make those choices at all without being put into an exposed position; it is not fair on them—
"so it falls to the SPCB at least to establish clear criteria to be applied."
That is what is missing at the moment; that is what all members need: clear criteria that will be used by the SPCB to judge whether members' bills can get further support.
As a veteran, along with Susan Deacon, of the Procedures Committee in the first session of Parliament, I take an interest in these matters and I congratulate the current Procedures Committee on the fact that, even without the wise advice that we would have given it, it has come up with a reasonable proposition and has tackled this set of problems seriously.
In general, I support the committee's proposals. However, I wish to make a few points. I think that the proposal that a minister will have to write to say
"that the Executive will initiate legislation, within the same session, to give effect to the final proposal"
is acceptable. I have tried to run with two bills. The first was on licensing reform and the Executive headed me off by setting up the Nicholson committee. I think that that was a good thing to do because the committee produced a lot of excellent ideas. Most of them would have been in my bill anyway, but the matter was properly examined and that is fair enough.
The second issue that I pursued was sectarianism. The Executive headed me off by setting up a working party, which to me, never having been in a position of any importance, was extremely illuminating. The Executive's working party and a parliamentary committee were like chalk and cheese; the working party was one of the most useless organisations that I have ever belonged to in my life. It was roughly equivalent to the kirk session that I belonged to.
The fact that the Executive will have to promise that it will deliver legislation is important, but the next part of the paragraph mentions an alternative, in which the Executive would write to indicate that
"Her Majesty's Government has initiated or will initiate legislation".
That is much more questionable. Sewel motions are a controversial part of life here. The provision is not like the Executive saying, "We will produce legislation on the matter because it is in our power to do so." If the Westminster Government is producing legislation that is relevant to a possible member's bill in the Scottish Parliament, that would have to be covered by a Sewel motion and people might legitimately think that that was a bad thing. I would not go to the wall on that point, but I think that it should be re-examined. The fact that Westminster might do something should not be the end of the story as far as a bill is concerned.
I tried to read the report carefully, but I do not see a commitment on the timetabling of bills. I presume that the Parliamentary Bureau would set out a timetable, as it does for Executive bills, but I think that that should be made clear. If some people are not keen on a member's bill, feet dragging could take place in a committee. Rules should be in place to prevent that, so that a bill gets fair treatment and a fair timetable even if some people disapprove of it.
My final point is outwith the committee's proposals. We should examine ways in which groups of members who are keen on particular ideas, such as cross-party groups, can have a matter properly debated in a full time slot—not as a members' business debate—without having to go to the length of producing a bill. People could say, "This is an important issue, which might need a bill or which might need administrative action," and we could have a full debate in parliamentary time to air the issue. At the moment we do not have such a mechanism; only the Executive, the parties or committees can put forward items for the agenda. Individual members can have a debate only in extra time. Members' business debates are valuable and often the most entertaining part of the day, but they are considered to be second-division activity.
The committee has done good work, but I suggest that it should examine the possibility of a mechanism for groups of interested members to have a debate on a subject—perhaps an issue that is a bit contentious and that no party is prepared to raise. Members are here to be brave. I fully appreciate that parties cannot be brave.
I call Margaret Curran to close for the Executive.
This is my first speech in a parliamentary debate in my new role and it is probably the first time in that role that I will not be using the words "Formally moved."
I look forward to working with the Procedures Committee, particularly after Cathie Craigie's glowing description of its work—my anticipation grows. Like Bruce McFee, I am familiarising myself with the work of the committee. The Executive welcomes its efforts and the commitment that it has shown in bringing forward the proposals in its report "A New Procedure for Members' Bills". I acknowledge the committee's detailed consideration of all the issues that we have discussed, which are particularly interesting as the Executive responds and develops its legislative programme.
I am sure that members are well aware that the Executive had the opportunity to contribute to the committee's inquiry. Our views on the arrangements for managing non-Executive bills were well known to committee members through my predecessor's written and oral evidence, which I endorse completely, and through meetings of officials at various levels.
Properly, the Executive recognises that, alongside our bills, non-Executive bills have an important part to play in the parliamentary process. That can be seen clearly from the scope and range of the 14 non-Executive bills that have been passed. Cathie Craigie made some significant points. Non-Executive bills were embedded in the Parliament's creation and the opportunities to introduce them are an important part of the democratic process. It is important that they are properly and expertly delivered, because the principle and the practice are critical.
It is therefore vital that arrangements are in place to manage non-Executive bills. It is important that the process is practical and robust, so that we can make the most effective use of limited resources, especially in NEBU and parliamentary time. In all our efforts—be they in the Executive or non-Executive bill processes—we need to have a system that inspires confidence, so that we pass sound and effective legislation that reflects the real needs of the people of Scotland.
We strongly support members' legitimate aspirations to ensure that sufficient parliamentary time and resources are available to secure the passage of a number of non-Executive bills during a session. I recall from my early days in the Parliament some concern that demand for members' bills could be high and unmanageable. Such demand did not materialise and the level of bill proposals has stayed reasonably manageable for NEBU and parliamentary capabilities. However, we recognise that under the current arrangements NEBU can be subject to potential pressure points at certain times in a session. It is not easy to predict the volume of members' bills that might be proposed and the consequential pressures on staff and parliamentary time.
We accept that demand in future could be such that choices must be made between competing proposals. As members know, at the start of the committee's inquiry the Executive aligned its position with the previous Parliamentary Bureau's proposal to introduce a new step whereby the bureau would recommend to the Parliament which members' bills should be advanced, although the Parliament as a whole would decide on that. However, we note that the committee has not recommended a step to prioritise bills. It has proposed an in-depth preliminary process. If agreed to by the Parliament, that process—along with the committee's other recommendations—will not only make the member's bill process more rigorous, but have the benefit of weeding out bill proposals early that have little or no chance of succeeding, as has been said.
The Executive acknowledges the detailed consideration that the Procedures Committee has given to all the members' bills procedures. The recommendations are helpful and should improve the process for all concerned. I thank the committee's convener, members and staff for all their work, for affording the Executive the opportunity to have its views factored into the committee's considerations and for establishing an atmosphere of joint work and joint commitment. I look forward to continuing that constructive work with the committee in future.
Members who have been paying attention will know that I made a deliberate mistake and called the Minister for Parliamentary Business at the wrong time. I will now revert to the right order and call Robert Brown.
I am a member of the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body, among other things, but I am not speaking for the corporate body. Nevertheless, the corporate body kicked the ball on to the pitch in the first place, so we have a continuing interest in developments.
It is appropriate to make one or two observations from a wider perspective. The debate has been sophisticated and mature. One or two members talked about resources, which are not unlimited. We live in a climate in which the United Kingdom Government and the Scottish Executive are making moves towards cutting and being diligent about the use of official resources. The same practice must apply to a degree to the Parliament's activities.
There is always a balance to be struck. There is no absolute right to have a member's bill before the Parliament, there is no absolute right to a time slot and there is no absolutely right level for resources for NEBU. For what it is worth, my impression is that the current level of resources is probably about right, although the Parliament will no doubt want to revisit that matter from time to time.
Individual members, or a significant number of members, might want extra resources, but those resources still have to be justified before they can be agreed to by the Parliament and the corporate body under its management responsibilities. As Paul Grice said in evidence to the committee, the issue gave the SPCB some difficulty. We were always a bit uncomfortable with the first-come-first-served approach and not too keen on making political judgments in such matters, even though the corporate body is one of the few non-political bodies in the parliamentary set-up.
The issue of members' bills stands at the fulcrum between the rights of members of the Parliament, the rights of the public and the rights of the Executive. It is reasonably clear that the issue is primarily a matter for the Parliament, but we cannot say that the Executive has no interest, because time for legislation and the management of parliamentary resources, which are matters for the Parliamentary Bureau and parliamentary managers, have to be taken into account. My personal preference is to bend over backwards to go against the Executive in favour of back-bench members; that is the approach that the Parliament should take, given the resources that the Executive has to deal with such matters.
To some extent, the new procedures, which I support, kick the ball back to the SPCB. Paragraph 116 of the committee's report says:
"It is for the SPCB to decide which of these (or similar) criteria it would wish NEBU to apply in deciding which proposals to support … We believe the SPCB should feel able to seek the Parliament's general endorsement of such a set of criteria … should it consider that necessary."
Therefore, there is still a residual issue that might have to be considered at some point in future.
It is interesting to consider the nature of some of the bills that have been proposed, because they cast a little light on the way in which the issue should be approached. Some of the bills related to matters that were contained in the partnership agreement. I can think of the proposals on charities and on third-party planning rights of appeal—there was a commitment to consult on the latter, but perhaps the proposal did not go as far as that. In all of that, members can see some of the issues and difficulties that emerge when we try to decide how members' bills should be progressed. The proposals for members' bills have probably had some effect on moving the Executive in one direction or another without those bills having to go all the way; we have seen examples of that, too.
The SPCB will have particular difficulty with bills that are complex or lengthy, because they take up many hours of NEBU time. We will have to revisit that issue.
I do not have time to take an intervention; I am right at the end of my four minutes.
The proposals are reasonable. I suspect that we are not at the end of the line for discussion and that we will come back to the matter in the future. However, at least the proposals give a mechanism for guiding where we go and restrict the need for the SPCB to get involved in the contentious area of prioritising bills. I hope that the recommendations are adopted.
I thank the Deputy Presiding Officer for having the radiators turned down.
The changes in procedures will enable NEBU—a very helpful body—to be even more helpful. Iain Smith pointed out that the bureau would not be the appropriate body to prioritise members' bills. As he said, parliamentary resources and time are finite. I have always felt that we should have evening debates, because that would greatly extend debating time. However, that is an argument for another day.
We Conservatives felt that the status quo of a threshold of 11 supporting members was all right. However, given that other members suggested a threshold of as many as 30 supporting members, we were inclined to accept a compromise of 18.
We hope that bills will go through NEBU. However, if they do not, the draftsmanship will have to be of a sufficiently high standard to equal that of NEBU. Mediocre drafting can cause delays and misunderstanding in valuable committee and parliamentary time. I will take Cathie Craigie's advice and look at the consultation process for Karen Whitefield's proposed Christmas and new year's day trading in Scotland bill, because it is only through experience that a new Parliament can learn.
The First Minister told us to raise our game. One way of doing that would be to change procedures that do not work properly and to produce procedures that are as fair as possible to anyone who takes part and that other Parliaments envy.
We do not want a situation in which an individual does an enormous amount of work only to be trumped by the introduction of a similar bill by the Executive. It would be good to know more details about the Executive's legislative programme further in advance. The Executive should tell a member if it has similar plans. I understand that the Executive has picked up Margaret Mitchell's proposed sexual grooming of children (Scotland) bill, which deals with a serious matter of great importance. I congratulate it on doing that.
Donald Gorrie gave the examples of how he had been headed off on licensing and sectarianism and said that the Executive working party was useless. That is surely a waste of public time and money and an example of bad practice.
I find it difficult to understand Donald Gorrie's proposal for special debates. Who would introduce such debates and what time would be allowed for debating them? Is there a process in Westminster or another Parliament that allows for that kind of debate and, if so, will he give a fuller explanation of his suggestion?
What a joyful experience it was to be on the Procedures Committee, particularly during long and hard negotiations with a member such as Karen Gillon, who started off with a proposal for a threshold of 30 supporters—
It was 25.
Okay, it was not as high as 30. We eventually got closer to what Jamie McGrigor required and ended up with a threshold of 18 members. I thank Karen Gillon for that experience; I have learned from her negotiation procedures.
We should not underestimate the importance of members' bills. If we look back to some of the important legislation that was passed in the first session, that point is all too well highlighted. The Protection of Wild Mammals (Scotland) Bill, the Abolition of Poindings and Warrant Sales Bill and the Leasehold Casualties (Scotland) Bill were all important bills. Eight members' bills were passed in the previous session. Reference has been made to what is happening at Westminster, but I doubt whether, without devolution, eight members' bills effecting such important change for Scotland would have been passed in the same period.
I am sure that it was an accidental oversight that the member did not mention the University of St Andrews (Postgraduate Medical Degrees) Bill.
It was no oversight—Iain Smith never stopped telling us about that bill and we have heard much about it already. However, I congratulate the member on getting the bill passed.
The committee gathered some interesting evidence. Joyce McMillan mentioned
"The need to develop a system which respects the basic principles on which the Parliament is founded—in particular, in this instance, the principle of power-sharing."
She also talked about
"The need for the Parliament to play to its strengths, and to build on its image as an open and innovative parliament"
and
"The need for a system which works effectively in providing substantial scope for the introduction of Non-Executive Bills".
We should remember her important words.
In its evidence, the Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations recommended
"that the Committee bears in mind that non-Executive bills and in particular the Members' Bill process, are seen by voluntary organisations as a key method of engagement, and therefore the need to make any significant changes to the process should be investigated fully, and in the spirit of the CSG Principles".
The committee entered into that spirit and there were hard negotiations around what the final outcomes should be. The discussions around the role of the Parliamentary Bureau were of particular interest. As Iain Smith said, the initial proposal was that the Parliamentary Bureau should be the body to prioritise bills. Clearly, that would have brought political decision making into the system much earlier than was desirable. It is entirely appropriate that, at stage 1, the Executive has the opportunity to say whether it supports a bill. That is the appropriate stage for the political decisions to be made.
Bruce McFee recognised, with his fresh view on the work of the committee—
Fresh eyes.
Fresh eyes? I have heard them called many things, but never fresh eyes.
Bruce McFee recognised the real anxieties over the issue of prioritisation versus thresholds. The committee got that decision dead right. Fourteen per cent of members will be required to sign up to a bill and the proposal will require support from half the parties or groups that are represented on the bureau. That will improve the system and provide a wider body of support, reflecting a desire for real and meaningful change. It should squeeze out the spurious proposals that are more about point scoring and political chicanery than about making real changes on behalf of Scots and it should enhance credibility through improved quality.
I have a few more things to say, but I am over my four minutes.
Greetings from the fun and frolics of the Procedures Committee. It is obviously the most exciting committee of the Scottish Parliament, followed closely by the Subordinate Legislation Committee. When I picked up the papers last Thursday, I was absolutely convinced that we were in for a rip-roaring debate. I am not saying that we have not had a rip-roaring debate, but I expected something more.
I read that the Scottish Socialist Party and the independent members oppose the new procedure and see it as an attack on democracy in the Parliament. Tommy Sheridan said:
"The new rules are designed to undermine the ability of smaller parties and rebel MSPs advancing radical and non-mainstream ideas.
This is a sanitising, control-freak move by the executive, supported by the big parties to try and keep MSPs in line."
I expected at least one of those MSPs to turn up this afternoon to put forward their views for debate. The Parliament is the forum for democracy. We should have those debates in the Parliament, not through the pages of a newspaper. It is when those same members think that members' bills are a device for gaining publicity and not for changing the law that we see their contempt for the Parliament and its processes. The Parliament is the place for debate and I thought that we would have had that debate today.
I welcome the contributions that members have made and I would like to clarify what the position will now be. Members will be required to undertake a full consultation process on their bills before they secure the support of other members. They will now need to secure the support of 18 members and, with the introduction of the independent group to the bureau, a bill will require the support of four parties. By front-loading the consultation process, more pressure will be put on MSPs to sign up to bills. Members will no longer be signing up to a single line in the name of a particular member whom they may or may not like; they will be signing up to something that has been fully consulted on and debated with the public, which means that they will have a much better idea of what the proposed legislation will be. That will put more onus on back-bench MSPs to consider the bills and it will be for the MSPs to prioritise which bills move forward.
I appreciate the point that the member is making, but how will she get members to read the entire consultation?
It is for individual members to determine what, in their view, is or is not important. When a piece of legislation comes before the Parliament, it is up to an individual member's conscience whether they read the accompanying paperwork, sign up to the proposal and listen to the people who come to the surgeries in their constituencies. Quite frankly, if members are too lazy to pick up a document before they sign a piece of paper, they should not be in the Parliament. Perhaps such members need to consider why they are here.
Members have raised a number of points in the debate. Mark Ruskell—whom I would never mistake for Mark Ballard, except on numerous occasions—mentioned the SPCB criteria, which are covered in paragraphs 115 and 116 of the report. The key point is that we have left it to the SPCB to decide those criteria. However, because the corporate body is not always as open, honest and frank in its discussions as some of us might like it to be, we need to consider how that decision-making process can be communicated to members and how members might be able to get involved in it. We have given some pointers to what the criteria might be.
Donald Gorrie raised several points. I do not want to get into the question whether there should be time for members to introduce controversial proposals. After all, part of the purpose of a member's bill is to try to effect legislative change. I have to say that I was not convinced by Mr Gorrie's other arguments.
The report does not refer to the timetable for members' bills, because it deals with the process before such bills are introduced. Certain procedures already allow all bills to be timetabled and will prevent them from being stalled indefinitely. It will be a matter of integrity for the committees involved to find out how best they can consider and take forward any member's bill.
It is important to point out that the new process will allow committees to timetable their work much better and will ensure that they consider members' bills in detail. As a result, when a member's bill is introduced at the last minute, committees will not feel pressured and will be able to scrutinise it effectively.
I was intrigued by paragraph 90, which sets out the lead committee's right to avoid a full stage 1 inquiry. It says that the lead committee could take such a step if a bill
"is unlikely ever to pass the test of legislative competence".
I might have misunderstood that paragraph, but is that not a matter for the Presiding Officer's office? If the bill passes that test, are there any grounds for a committee to be any more concerned about its legislative competence than about more minor drafting deficiencies?
In the past, a bill has been introduced with such significant flaws that it has been impossible to amend at later stages. Instead of going through what is effectively a meaningless process, the committee should be able to push the bill back at that point, allowing the member to introduce a revised bill that would better fit the Parliament's processes and be able to be effectively scrutinised. I am certainly prepared to write to the member in more detail if that would be helpful.
I accept Donald Gorrie's point that the right of the UK Government to block a member's bill raises a more difficult question than that raised by the ability of the Scottish Executive to indicate whether it will introduce legislation similar to a member's bill proposal. I welcome the latter change, as it means that the Executive will have to make its decision within a month. Indeed, I hope soon to secure an Executive decision on whether it will introduce legislation on a proposal for a member's bill that I lodged 18 months ago. Timescales are an important question. If Donald Gorrie reads the report, he will find that we have built in safeguards to make it unlikely that the processes that he mentions would be used very often. That said, the committee is committed to examining the issue of Sewel motions early in the new year. I hope that that gives him the reassurance that he requires.
I welcome the points that members have made and hope that, together, we can move the debate forward. I also hope that the new process will mean that members' bills will progress in a clearer and more rational way that allows the public and the Parliament to scrutinise them fully. Perhaps as a result more members' bills will be enacted. I urge the Parliament to support the motion in the name of my colleague Iain Smith.