Standing Orders (Changes)
The next item of business is a debate on motion S2M-3794, in the name of Donald Gorrie, on behalf of the Procedures Committee, on private bill committee assessors.
I draw members' attention to the standing orders that we are proposing to change, as that is the substance of what they will be voting on. The changes to standing orders would enable a private bill committee—dealing with a railway bill, for example—to appoint an assessor, if it so wished, to take over some of the duties that private bill committees currently perform.
We are doing this because the Executive approached the Procedures Committee to see whether we would agree to change standing orders in that way. The Parliament has discussed the issue before and the Procedures Committee has gone into the matter in great detail. The Executive has agreed to introduce a bill in future to make permanent the changes that we are discussing now. However, that will take effect only after the next election, and in the meantime there are three railway bills going through the Parliament and three more on the stocks that the Executive is keen to get through before the next election.
The Procedures Committee considered the issues carefully and agreed that the changes are desirable. The Executive was interested in its timetable, naturally enough. It is fair to say that committee members were slightly sceptical about how much good the changes would do to the timetable, but they felt that they would do a lot of good for the conduct of the railway bills. Everyone in the Parliament has felt for some time that for MSPs from distant areas—because nobody from anywhere near the proposed railway is allowed to have anything to do with it—to be conscripted and made to conduct a sort of court on the planning issues related to a railway is not a sensible way of dealing with such a bill. It does not give the objectors as fair a deal as they should get and it is increasingly difficult to find MSPs who are eligible to do the work, because the location of the three railways—the Glasgow rail link, the Edinburgh rail link and the Airdrie to Bathgate line—rules out almost all the members who represent constituencies across central Scotland.
We think that the public will get a better deal from our proposals. The objectors will get a fairer hearing and MSPs will be able to carry on with their normal duties. If the current arrangements were to continue, there might be a serious problem in getting MSPs to serve on private bill committees. The recess period could be used for the assessor to take evidence, which might speed things up, but that is not, to our minds, a big issue.
What is being proposed is to change the standing orders so that the Parliament appoints a bill committee for a railway bill and the committee then meets and, if it wishes to, agrees that there should be an assessor, who will take evidence from the objectors and promoters on the detailed issues surrounding the bill—not the principles of the bill, which will be dealt with by the committee. The assessor will listen to the objections and will probe the objectors' arguments, and will report to the committee on his or her conclusions. The decisions will be made by the committee—that is a fundamental point—and they will be made on the basis of advice from the assessor. If the committee feels that it should take more evidence, it will do so. If it is satisfied with the evidence given to the assessor, it will proceed on that basis.
When the Procedures Committee was taking evidence on the issue and arriving at that judgment, how many members of the committee had sat on private bill committees, and did they interview other members who had sat on such committees?
If I remember rightly, Richard Baker was the only one who had served on a private bill committee, although I am open to correction on that. We had discussions with members who had experience of private bills—although not in formal evidence sessions—and listened to their views. Most of them felt that the present system was not good and had to be improved.
If a committee decides to use an assessor—and it will be up to the committee—it will then ask the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body to appoint one. The SPCB will have a system of using people from the Scottish Executive inquiry reporters unit—which deals with public inquiries—or other suitable people. A contract will set out the rules so that the choice of assessor is seen to be fair and open. The proceedings will then be similar to those of any major inquiry, with the assessor taking evidence, making notes and reporting to the committee.
The Procedures Committee spent a lot of time considering the legal issues, which were a main concern for us. As often happens on such occasions, we heard conflicting legal opinions. The Faculty of Advocates argued that it was not right to try to make this change by using standing orders, but a lot of other legal advice suggested otherwise. We probed the Faculty of Advocates on the issue and, on balance, we felt that—although one could never be sure that there would not be a challenge—as long as it was clear that decisions would still be made by the committee, and as long as the rules on how fair the assessor had to be were set out clearly, the risk of challenge would be minimal. Therefore, we felt that the proposal should go ahead.
On behalf of the committee, I am happy to recommend the proposal as an interim measure. The Executive is still promising a bill before the next election to set out a permanent position.
Finally, I invite anyone who is interested in subjects of this sort to come to one of the two open-house sessions that the Procedures Committee will hold in the next three weeks. Those who attend will be able to give their views on all our standing orders.
I move,
That the Parliament notes the Procedures Committee's 1st Report, 2006 (Session 2), Private Bill Committee assessors (SP Paper 481), and agrees that the changes to Standing Orders set out in Annexe A to the report be made with effect from 19 January 2006.
I speak as someone who has served on a couple of private bill committees—the National Galleries of Scotland Bill Committee, which was fairly painless, and the Edinburgh Tram (Line Two) Bill Committee, which was the exact opposite.
It is always a pleasure to unpick some of the unintended consequences of the Scotland Bill, which I helped to pass, along with Donald Gorrie and John Home Robertson. The five lines of schedule 8 to the Scotland Bill that repealed the application of the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act 1936—thus quite rightly stopping Scottish bills from going to Westminster—gave us no clue to the amount of work that the change would generate for the Scottish Parliament and its private bill committees.
The explanatory notes for the schedule—which were published when the bill was first published—gave no clue to the impending purgatory that would hang over the heads of members of private bill committees. It all sounded so simple. We were told that the Scottish Parliament would be able to provide an alternative procedure for making private legislation in relation to devolved matters which might or might not be similar to the 1936 act. Everybody was taken in by those words, which were in among many others in a very thick document.
Unless the Westminster search engine is letting me down and giving me duff information, it seems that neither the House of Commons nor the House of Lords—and the latter is normally very good at these things—even debated this particular provision in the Scotland Bill.
Curiously, the explanatory notes point out that, if any provision in a private bill relates to reserved matters, the whole bill can still go down to Westminster where the procedures of the 1936 act would be followed. Perhaps what we should have done was to slip a reference to the Ministry of Defence into the Edinburgh Tram (Line Two) Bill. That would have solved our problems and Westminster could have dealt with the bill. But, of course, my party could not have allowed that to happen.
Change is clearly needed. A new procedure—introduced by primary legislation—that achieves the objectives of the 1936 act is clearly needed and needed pretty quickly.
Whatever the merits of the proposals in the many private bills that are coming forward, they are certainly worthy of efficient and smooth consideration. No one could accuse the current procedure of being either efficient or smooth. The Executive also needs to expedite the new legislation. The troublesome bills are private in the legislative sense, but they are all very public projects that are financed largely by public money. Therefore, the slow progress to date is a public problem.
I hope that the temporary changes that are suggested in the Procedures Committee's report might help us over the temporary logjam that faces us. Three bills will be coming before us—coming not so much out of the stocks, as Donald Gorrie said, but out of the sidings.
I share the Procedures Committee's reservations that the time gains may not be quite as great as the Executive hopes. Only time will tell. Executives always tend to have a rose-tinted view of the speed at which their legislation will make progress.
I also agree with the committee that the Parliament has the power to proceed according to the recommendations in the report. The committee is right when it says in paragraph 51 of its report that
"the Parliament has the power, through its own legislation, to do anything that is not expressly prohibited by the Act".
The act in question is the Scotland Act 1998. I wish that less was prohibited by that act, but I believe that the recommendations in the Procedures Committee's report are not prohibited. We on the Scottish National Party benches will support the committee's proposals.
I have been lucky enough to avoid membership of a private bill committee, although the Procedures Committee has discussed the work of private bill committees at great length in recent months.
Not for long.
The minister suggests from a sedentary position that it will not be long until I experience a private bill committee, but I wonder whether I will ever get the chance. The restrictions on membership of private bill committees are so rigorous that I have not qualified to sit on any of them so far. My whip, who is sitting beside me, may have pencilled me in for one. I look forward with fear to what Alasdair Morgan described as "impending purgatory".
The truth is that the work of private bill committees is essential to the work of the Parliament. Yet, as I have heard from so many colleagues, the demands that those committees make upon them are such that that they question whether they are fully able to discharge their functions in the Parliament. If those who are committed to a private bill committee attend all the meetings that they are required to, there is a danger that that may impact on some of their other parliamentary duties. That is particularly the case when we take into account the difficulties of finding people who fulfil all the requirements.
It is difficult enough to find such people in the Conservative party, but it is even more difficult for the parties that supply Government ministers. Parliament has to be prepared to make the appropriate arrangements to allow those duties to be carried out properly, so it is reasonable that the Executive made the proposal that it did. Some of us in the committee might have been prepared to vote the proposal through at a much earlier stage. However, the committee found itself discussing the legal advice that it had received and whether the proposal might be open to challenge. As Donald Gorrie said, the committee took a great deal of evidence and came to a conclusion that appears to have found support across the Parliament. It believes that the Executive's proposal on private bill committees can be implemented without the risk of legal challenge. It remains to be seen how that will turn out.
The committee supports the proposal, although it fears that it may not deliver the time savings that the Executive suggests. However, it is a reasonable step to take to try to cut the workload of committees that have to deal with private bills.
I agree with Alasdair Morgan and others that it is essential that the Executive takes an early opportunity to deliver legislative solutions to the problems that private bill committees face. It has been indicated to us that such solutions are on the stocks. In the meantime, however, it is essential that the Parliament supports the proposed change so that private bill committees are not left with the burdensome responsibilities that have put so much pressure on parliamentary staff and members. By doing that and by taking the opportunity to allow private bill assessors to take evidence and report back to committees, we should not only reduce that burden but perhaps increase the quality of the work on some of the bills.
We seek to streamline the bill committees' work, not to take any of their powers away. We simply propose that bill committees be empowered to consider evidence—and to reject it if necessary. The proposal is good for the Parliament.
I rise to speak briefly on a point of clarification. I realise that this proposed section of standing orders refers to private bill committee assessors. However, I have proposed a private member's bill on the abolition of the inclusion of a person's home in their financial assessment relative to their residential care. In a debate on the matter in October 2005, Duncan McNeil, speaking on behalf of the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body, assured me that if my bill failed to be completed before the end of this parliamentary session in 2007, it would hit the ground running in the next parliamentary session, which is from 2007 to 2011. The non-Executive bills unit has since contradicted that. Will someone please tell me whether Duncan McNeil or NEBU is correct?
Will the member give way?
I will give way in a minute. Paragraph 2 of annex A to the committee's report sensibly states:
"Paragraph 7 of Rule 9A.5 provides for a new Private Bill Committee to be established where the number of members of the previous Committee falls below 2; and paragraph 9 provides protections for relevant persons in relation to the circumstances in which the new Committee can pick up where its predecessor left off, rather than going back to the beginning of the Stage."
That is what they are doing for private bills, and I am all in favour of it, but I would like to have the same concession granted to my bill if we do not get it completed this parliamentary session.
I am not sure whether the member is seeking assurance, but the provisions for private bills are quite different from those that relate to private members' bills, particularly as regards private concerns and interests. I would like to put on record that I am sure that Duncan McNeil will look at the Official Report and respond to the member in due course with comments on the points that he has made.
I have done all that I wanted, which was to raise the point. I realise that this is a private member's bill as opposed to a private member's public bill. However, I wanted to get my point across.
I am responding to a point of order that has not been made, but which is implicit. There seems to be some confusion: a member's bill is a member's bill. It is an error to call it a private member's bill—that is Westminster terminology creeping in. Members' bills are public bills, not private bills, and this debate is about private bill procedure. I am sure that the clerks will be able to give Mr Swinburne any further guidance that he requires on that.
On behalf of my fellow Procedures Committee members who are in the chamber, I would like to say that we take heart from the confidence that members show in us. They trust us to deal with the Parliament's procedures, which is shown by the fact that they do not need to bother to come to the debate or, in some cases, to read the reports. We are grateful for that support.
If the Parliament accepts the Procedures Committee's recommendations, as set out in its first report of 2006, to change standing orders, the committees that will be responsible for the next few private bills will have the option of appointing an assessor to hear and report on the evidence gathered at consideration stage. Donald Gorrie took members through the process that the Procedures Committee followed to bring the matter to the chamber this afternoon.
The recommendation is for the assessor to investigate all the factual issues and any objections to a proposal, after which he or she would report to the private bill committee. The assessor would not be expected to form a view on the policy or on whether the bill was good or bad. It would remain for the private bill committee to decide on those matters, taking account of the assessor's report, but not being bound by it.
Members of the Procedures Committee were easily convinced that the present private bill procedures cannot be sustained. We heard from bill promoters, professionals, objectors and members who had experience of serving on private bill committees. When they were at committee, those members were polite and factual in their evidence giving, but some of the statements that they made to me and other committee members outwith committee can neither be published nor said in the chamber today.
The message that the members who served on private bill committees gave the Procedures Committee was that the system is at breaking point. They said that it had let them down and, probably more important, they also said that present procedures were not serving promoters, objectors or the public well and that they were not pleased by them. Indeed, as Alex Johnstone pointed out, the present system also gives business managers the problem of trying to provide members who do not have an interest in the subject matter of the private bill to serve on a committee.
The Parliament must act to ensure the smooth running of the important bills that will come before us in the next few months. I hope that members from all parties and from none will support the motion. As Donald Gorrie said, I look forward to the Scottish Executive bringing forward legislation that will put procedures in place to take the Parliament forward on the matter.
It may not be, as Alasdair Morgan implied, that a Westminster equivalent of Torquemada worked out the system for dealing with private bills that is set out in the Scotland Act 1998, but from time to time it has felt like that.
It is important to stress a number of things in this debate, which is on a purely administrative matter. The first is that we are not in the situation of MSPs seeking in any way to shirk their responsibilities. As a scarred and gnarled veteran of the Edinburgh Tram (Line Two) Bill Committee, I can say that how the members of that committee conducted themselves at meetings and how they carefully considered the evidence speaks volumes for their personal commitment, for which I was very grateful.
However, we must recognise that parliamentary time is finite. Basically, only two slots can be used for private bill committee meetings—namely, the Tuesday and Wednesday morning slots—both of which clash with meetings of other committees. As such, it was virtually impossible for the Edinburgh Tram (Line Two) Bill Committee to undertake its duties without impinging on its members' obvious wish to attend other committee meetings, which are both interesting and—perhaps more important—of great political significance to the people of Scotland.
Neither the promoters nor the members of the public who give evidence to private bill committees are best served when, for reasons of pressure of time and so forth, which are perfectly understandable and compelling as far as the committee is concerned, meetings have to be adjourned with evidence not taken. In our case, in a couple of instances, considerable costs were incurred for objectors and the promoter. However, the adjournments were unavoidable.
The Procedures Committee is not suggesting that its recommendation will make it compulsory for all private bill committees to have an assessor; it is simply making available an option that committees can use. Each private bill committee can accept or reject the proposal. Having heard the assessor's report, a committee can also decide that it prefers to hear the evidence.
It cannot be gainsaid that the existing system is cumbrous and could well become unworkable. The ludicrous levels of interest that disqualify members from involvement in some private bill committees—sometimes they are the most obscure of interests—are not acceptable and are making it exceptionally difficult to staff those committees.
Although I regret the lessening of an important weapon in a chief whip's armoury—the appointment of a member to a private bill committee—I think that the Procedures Committee's proposals are sensible provisions and I urge that the Parliament approve the report when decision time comes.
Perhaps I have a slightly different perspective on the issue. As a member of the Edinburgh Tram (Line One) Bill Committee, I have to say that Alasdair Morgan and Bill Aitken are only part-timers when it comes to assessing the proposals. As Helen Eadie will acknowledge, the Edinburgh Tram (Line One) Bill Committee has regularly sat from 9.30 in the morning to 7 o'clock at night over the past 12 months to consider the bill. To be honest, it was a hard and grinding task, but I have found it one of the most interesting experiences of my time as an elected representative and I have enjoyed every minute of those meetings. The idea of those meetings might not be for MSPs to enjoy themselves, but it was a learning experience as well as one of enjoyment.
Does Phil Gallie agree that that is a good argument for a fantastic piece of European legislation: the working time directive?
One of my big arguments with the Edinburgh Tram (Line One) Bill Committee was that it repeatedly met on Tuesday afternoons, which meant that I could not attend meetings of the European and External Relations Committee. That was a matter of contention and deep regret for me. However, duty is duty and, at times, one has to put one's personal interests behind oneself and accept the responsibilities of being an MSP.
Private bills are serious parliamentary work. We say that Westminster offloaded its responsibilities for private bills, and I wonder how Westminster achieved what it must have achieved to clear private bills in the past.
Consideration stage meetings of the Edinburgh Tram (Line One) Bill Committee were enlightening to say the least. Members could take on board issues that objectors raised and that were extremely important to those objectors. Given the volumes of paperwork that we received at every stage, I found it much more achievable to learn and understand from hearing the direct input of the objectors and promoter.
However, I acknowledge the Procedures Committee's work and recognise that we must have confidence in that committee, as Cathie Craigie said. The committee has undoubtedly listened to other sides of the argument, particularly the Executive's view, and considered the queuing up of bills. However, the queuing up of bills is another issue, and I would not like it to be ended at the expense of quality and objector interest if we accept the recommendation for assessors. The saving grace of the proposal is that each private bill committee will make its own decision on whether to appoint an assessor. On that basis, I can accept the proposals that the Procedures Committee makes, but if my whip puts me on to a private bill committee in future, I would agree to an assessor's involvement only with the greatest reluctance. However, that matter would also be for other members of the committee to decide.
I will discuss one final element to the proposal: the cost of appointing assessors. We already meet the costs of MSPs. If we were to involve reporters, which I understand is the suggestion, I wonder how much added cost would be incurred. I recognise that reporters are already highly used, and that there is often a shortage of them. Their experience is undoubted. To a degree, the reporters' involvement leaves the professionals to scrutinise professionals. Perhaps the minister could enlighten me about cost. I would be grateful. I will accept the Procedures Committee's proposals principally because they leave the options open.
I understand why Phil Gallie enjoys his private bill committee meetings. To anyone who follows Ayr United and who regularly has to attend matches at Somerset Park, I am sure that such committee meetings offer light relief. I have never been a member of a private bill committee. As Lyndon B Johnson said, "I do not seek and, if asked, I would not want to accept, nomination."
I reiterate what I think everybody has been saying about the Procedures Committee's proposals: they are eminently sensible, pending the introduction of primary legislation to deal with private bills. As well as attempting to make more efficient the process that is used for considering private bills, we are trying to find ways to improve the quality of legislation. In some of the non-private bills that the Parliament has passed, it has been clear that we perhaps did not get the quality right. The Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 may well be a very good example.
The introduction of assessors by committees on a voluntary basis will, I hope, lead to an improvement in the quality of legislation, particularly when we are dealing with very technical matters. Phil Gallie was quite right to suggest that we should keep an eye on cost. However, I do not think that the issue is primarily one of cost; rather, it is one of value for money. If, as a result of using assessors, we improve the quality of the legislation, particularly in relation to very technical matters, value for money will be improved, provided that the cost is not sky-high. One of the main benefits of the system, if it is used, is that it will free up members so that they can do many of their other duties. It cannot be efficient to tie up so many members for such a long period on very technical matters that would be better delegated to a technical professor.
From my experience, it is not always technical decisions that are of concern to private bill committees. Many of the objections to private bills are based on how the issues relate to people. MSPs are there to help to look after individuals' personal interests.
That is why, essentially, the assessors will be advisers, not decision makers. The MSPs will still be there. The advantage of the assessor's report is that the MSPs will be able quickly to zero in and focus on the controversial issues that, rightly, should be decided on by elected politicians. If the politicians receive the aid of a highly qualified assessor's technical advisory report, the quality of their decisions should be improved. Using assessors is to be a voluntary measure. It will not be compulsory for private bill committees to use the procedure if they do not think that it is necessary or desirable to do so.
If we consider the motion in Donald Gorrie's name carefully, we see that it contains two parts. The first, on which we have concentrated in the debate, relates to the introduction of assessors. However, the motion also mentions the consequential changes to standing orders that are outlined in annex A to the committee's report. Through the detail of some of those changes, we are incidentally improving the definition of a private bill and the criteria for the selection of members to sit on a private bill committee, for example. All in all, the Procedures Committee's proposals are very sensible and should be welcomed by members throughout the chamber. I hope that when we come to vote—perhaps before 5 o'clock—we will endorse them unanimously.
I call Margaret Curran to close for the Executive. Minister, you could take 12 minutes.
I am sure that you are waiting with bated breath for me to fill the whole 12 minutes talking about the private bill procedure, Presiding Officer. I do not know that I will take quite that long, but let me have a bash.
I thank Donald Gorrie, Karen Gillon and all the members of the Procedures Committee for the detailed work that they undertook in discharging their duties to Parliament. I also thank all the witnesses who came forward to help us to work our way through the process. I appreciate the constructive relationship that we established in coming up with a resolution.
The Executive welcomes and endorses the suggested changes to standing orders. I am grateful for Alasdair Morgan's insight into the passage of the Scotland Act 1998, Bill Aitken's insight into how he whips his group and Phil Gallie's enthusiasm for the whole procedure, which was a delight to witness—I am not experiencing such enthusiasm. Uniquely, I concur completely with Alex Neil—perhaps we will disagree another time.
I have had to come to terms with the issue of private bills in carrying out my ministerial responsibilities. As Alasdair Morgan said, slow progress produces a serious public problem. We have had considerable discussions on transport, which is at the heart of solving some of the problems that we face. I know that the Executive has other responsibilities in relation to future legislation, which I will go on to say a bit about.
The Executive is committed to a major programme of projects that will improve significantly Scotland's transport infrastructure. At present, a number of the projects in that programme can be delivered only by means of a private bill. There is general agreement—perhaps with the exception of Phil Gallie—that the situation is not ideal; most of us acknowledge that there is room for considerable improvement.
Most members would agree that the current procedures are not efficient or user friendly and are time consuming. As members have said, the management of MSPs' time is not the pre-eminent consideration. I pay tribute to the dedicated work that members have done. When they have been given the task of considering a private bill, they have certainly focused on it and produced good work. Nonetheless, we do not think that the current procedures are the most efficient way to manage time, given the other pressures on MSPs' time. Alex Neil said that when MSPs hear oral evidence, they need assistance to interpret it and ensure that they have the technical facts right. It is right that we consider opportunities to support them in that work.
The Procedures Committee has considered the private bills procedure previously. Its fourth report of 2005 recommended a statutory solution to allow such major projects to be delivered by order made by the Executive and then approved by the Parliament, with which we agree. As I said, the Executive hopes to introduce a bill later this year to provide that long-term solution.
However, we have been clear with the Procedures Committee—it has accepted this—that our bill cannot be in place in time for the three forthcoming transport private bills: the Glasgow airport rail link bill, the Edinburgh airport rail link bill and the Airdrie to Bathgate railway bill. Those bills are of great significance and will deliver important new transport infrastructure projects, as I am sure members will acknowledge. It is therefore crucial that we do as much as we can to help Parliament to deal with them as efficiently as possible.
I take Alasdair Morgan's criticism that my aspirations for speed as we progress with the Executive's legislative programme are a bit rose-tinted. I am perhaps a bit more hopeful about time than other members have been, but the issue is one of quality as well as process. It is vital that we get the projects through, because of what they will achieve for the people of Scotland.
We are proposing an interim solution. We worked with the committee and proposed that standing orders should be amended to allow the option of appointing an assessor. I emphasise that that is an option; it is for the relevant committee to determine whether it deems that proper. None of us would wish quality to be sacrificed when the committee makes that decision. As Alex Neil argued, appointing an assessor could facilitate the making of quality decisions through the provision of analysis based on quality, particularly given that we are talking about appointing experts. As long as those experts are managed properly and are accountable to the committee, I am comfortable with the process that has been recommended.
The report therefore proposes that the private bill committee can appoint an assessor to hear and consider objections at the consideration stage of the private bill. That does not undermine any of the private bill committee's decision-making powers—the power and authority of the committee remain absolute. It simply means that its decision can be informed by a written report of evidence that is heard and considered by an assessor. As I said, that would not undermine the role of Parliament or reduce or weaken the opportunity of promoters or objectors to make their case. That is vital.
In a light-hearted way, Karen Gillon asked me a question about the European working time directive. I have already committed to giving support to the recommendations on the basis that a private bill committee will have the choice whether to use the procedure. However, my mind could be changed if the minister were to suggest that the proposed changes have anything whatsoever to do with limiting MSPs' working time in line with the European working time directive. Will she comment on that?
My colleagues in the Labour group can confirm that I am not one for encouraging them to work less. If anything, they complain that I am always trying to give them more work to do. I can give Phil Gallie all the reassurances that he needs.
It is important that we send a message to promoters and objectors that the new procedures will still support their roles and will not undermine the contribution that they want to make.
At one level, we will reduce the burden on MSPs, who currently have to deal with extremely complex and technical matters. I am not suggesting, of course, that MSPs cannot grasp such matters. However, the issue is one of effective time management and of ensuring that MSPs are properly focused on the issues that they should be focused on and can make clear decisions on the issues that they should be making decisions on. Essentially, we are talking about the efficient and effective management of evidence.
Since we are talking about the labour that members put into private bills, it is important to stress that our labour should produce something. Given that two of the bills that are coming to fruition relate to tramlines in Edinburgh, would the minister care to scotch the rumours that surface in the press from time to time that those projects might be at risk due to a lack of funding? Those of us who have laboured to produce the bills would be mightily displeased if, despite our work, the tramlines did not go ahead because of a lack of money.
I have seen no press reports on the matter. Perhaps I have not been focused on that because of my own responsibilities. As the member knows, the Executive is extremely supportive of the transport infrastructure projects that it has brought forward. If Mr Morgan wants any more detail on that matter, I refer him to the Minister for Transport and Telecommunications.
Phil Gallie talked about the not-insignificant issue of cost. There must be a balance of costs. Alex Johnstone was right to talk about value for money. Sometimes, the inefficiency of the process costs people their time; there are also the costs of the officials who have to support the process, especially if it runs over its time. Ultimately, however, the SPCB can recover costs from the promoter, which means that there might be no cost to the public purse. Further questions on that issue should be directed to the SPCB, but our view and the view of the committee was that that was a legitimate conclusion to reach in addressing issues relating to costs.
The minister correctly notes that the cost related to the assessor could be met by the promoter. The committee also discussed the issue of the necessary support staff. Our report suggests that the costs of an external transcription service to help the assessor could also be recovered from the promoter, which means that the net cost of delivering this better service would not fall on the Parliament.
I thank Donald Gorrie for that. If I am not careful, I will run over my time—I did not envisage that, but I am sure that members would be delighted if that happened.
I will clarify another matter that was raised. It is right for reasons of propriety that the SPCB rather than a committee should be responsible for selecting and appointing an assessor and for defining in the contract of engagement the functions that are to be performed. It is also right that the cost of any administrative support for the assessor, such as transcription services, should be met initially by the corporate body, which should recover it from the promoter.
If agreed to, the rule changes will allow assessors—with committees' agreement—to engage in scrutiny of the proposed Glasgow airport rail link bill, the Edinburgh airport rail link bill and the Airdrie to Bathgate railway bill. Those three bills constitute a challenging programme of work for the rest of the session, but the Executive thinks that it will be achievable if the new procedures are in place.
I understand that the Glasgow airport rail link bill is likely to be introduced later this month, that the Edinburgh airport rail link bill is likely to follow in March and that the Airdrie to Bathgate railway bill will appear before the summer recess. I hope that Labour members will not avoid me in order not to work on a committee for one of those bills.
I fully appreciate that resource constraints mean that only three private bills can be pursued at any time—we have an understanding on that with the Parliament. Therefore, using assessors is an interim measure that will help to maximise the time that is available to allow us to pursue those important projects in the time remaining in this parliamentary session.
As I said, the Executive will introduce a bill later this year to address the issue in the longer term. We accept that assessors are a short-term solution and I thank the Procedures Committee and the Parliament for their co-operation. That bill will allow major transport projects to be promoted by order, rather than by a private bill. Such an order would be made by a Scottish minister under a process that would provide for appropriate scrutiny by the Parliament and involve the wider public, as I said.
In the meantime, the committee's proposal will enable objections to be considered more efficiently, without compromising scrutiny, transparency, fairness or the primacy of the Parliament. I urge members to support the motion and thank members of the Procedures Committee for their constructive and thorough consideration of the issues.
I call Karen Gillon to wind up for the committee. You have 11—sorry, seven minutes.
You nearly gave me a heart attack, Presiding Officer. Seven minutes will be more than adequate.
I am sure that members all want to thank the Procedures Committee for bringing another fun-filled debate to the chamber on a Wednesday afternoon. I ask those who think that a private bill committee is purgatory to join us on the Procedures Committee. I would say that private bills are a bonus.
I thank members for their thoughtful speeches, which were helpful and constructive. I also thank both the clerking team that worked with us and our legal team, which provided us with sage advice at difficult times in the inquiry.
The motion relates to the committee's second inquiry into private legislation. In the best traditions of the committee, why do one report when two would be enough? I blame the Executive, because if it had proposed its great idea six months ago, we would not have had to hold this wonderful debate. The minister will learn from that.
Donald Gorrie set out the context and the conclusions. It was interesting to hear from Alasdair Morgan some background to the discussion—or lack of it—in the House of Commons and the House of Lords about the relevant provision in the Scotland Act 1998. What we are not told is that Westminster shuffled such matters away to the Transport and Works Act 1992 but did not think to give us the same privileges.
When the Executive's proposed bill is introduced, it will be welcome and will be a step in the right direction. However, in the interim, if we are serious about considering all that the committee has heard about from objectors, promoters, others involved, members and the Executive about the complexity of discussions, another step in the right direction—should a committee desire to take that step—will be to have somebody who is independent to consider the objections, listen to the evidence and give the committee the factual information.
Alex Johnstone and Cathie Craigie provided members with additional useful information about what the inquiry entailed and the wide variety of evidence that we received. Some 99.9 per cent of that evidence drove us in the direction of changing the legislation.
I reaffirm what Bill Aitken said about members not trying to absolve themselves of responsibility. I say to him that Phil Gallie made a good case for another private bill. His enthusiasm for the process was unadulterated. When the Conservatives are next selecting somebody to deal with a private bill, Phil Gallie will be first in the queue to take things forward. I am sure that he has learned a lot from the process.
I say to Bill Aitken that if he needs to check what he can have in his armoury as a chief whip, he should speak to Margaret Curran, who has a nice big whip that she keeps at the back of her office. I am sure that she will be prepared to share it with him.
Alex Neil referred to changes that came about as a result of the previous report, such as the definition of private bills and the criteria on who can sit on private bill committees. The changes have been welcome and have moved the process forward, but the changes that are being proposed today go somewhat further.
Chief whips are always looking for members to go on committees, and perhaps Alasdair Morgan was listening to the quotation that Alex Neil used with interest, because the last Alex who used that quote really meant, "Can I get the job anyway?" Alex Neil is perhaps really looking for a wee seat on a private bill committee. I say to Margaret Curran that I am not, and that I will declare an interest in every private bill that is coming up. I advise all Labour members to do likewise in the next few months.
I will be serious, as the issue is important. We are talking about transport links that will potentially bring huge benefits to communities throughout Scotland and to our tourism infrastructure, which will hugely benefit our links with the outside world—this debate, after all, follows our debate on international development. The Glasgow airport rail link bill and the Edinburgh airport rail link bill that are coming to the Parliament will enable us to encourage and promote Scotland better abroad so that new tourists are brought to Scotland, and they will enable Scottish people to make the most of the opportunities in the world that present themselves. It is therefore important that they are considered during this parliamentary session and are given the appropriate parliamentary scrutiny. The new process will enable effective scrutiny, although it will ultimately be for each private bill committee to determine whether it wishes to take up the recommendations in the Procedures Committee's report and whether it thinks that they are useful and will aid the process. It will ultimately be for the private bill committee to decide whether it should conclude with the information that the assessor has presented to it or whether it wants to obtain more information. I say to Phil Gallie that the Parliament will ultimately take nothing away from private bill committees if the proposals are agreed to—I hope that that reassures him. Procedures will be enhanced and the changes will be welcome. In the light of the Executive's commitment to bringing forward an appropriate transport and works bill in this parliamentary session, I urge members to agree to the motion at decision time, which will take place shortly.
I am sure that members who have just joined the debate will be interested in what it is about. As they have just turned up, I will tell them a wee bit about it. A wee parliamentary committee called the Procedures Committee has produced a wee report about private bill assessors. Members can get the report from the Scottish Parliament information centre if they are interested in doing so; if they are not, they will vote on something that they have never even read—on their own heads be it. I hope that their voting without having listened to the debate confirms their trust in the Procedures Committee and in the Parliament's procedures. I know that we are all guilty of voting without having listened to debates in the past. Members will forgive me, but I must keep speaking for the next 20 seconds.
I commend the report, which has provided a thoughtful and eloquent contribution to the debate, and I hope that members will support it. However, I make a plea to the committee to stop giving me this slot at the end of Procedures Committee debates. Nobody is interested in what is being said. I sympathise with Executive ministers: now I understand what it feels like to stand here when members wander in, blethering about what they were discussing as they came up the corridor and not listening to a word that is being said.
I conclude on that note. I support Donald Gorrie's motion.