Standing Orders
We move to the debate on the next motion, S1M-1383, in the name of Mr Murray Tosh, on behalf of the Procedures Committee, on its report on private legislation in the Parliament and its report on changes to standing orders.
In congratulating Fergus Ewing on the impeccable timing of his arrival in the chamber—just when Janis Hughes asked whether certain members were addicted to asking questions—I ought to cover up for my omission in the previous debate; I neglected to thank the clerks of the Procedures Committee and the range of officials who worked hard to produce the report on parliamentary questions. I wish to underscore my thanks in relation to motion S1M-1383, which has involved a collective effort from clerks from a wide range of committees.
The committee's second and third reports of 2000, which motion S1M-1383 recommends that the Parliament note, encompass three important changes to standing orders. The first change, which is contained in the second report, will replace rule 9.17, on private bills, with an entirely new chapter. Private bills are promoted by individuals, local authorities or companies seeking legislative powers or benefits that are in excess of, or in conflict with, the general law. The reason for proposing amendments to standing orders is to ensure that our procedures are clear and comprehensive, and fully up to the task of rigorously scrutinising bills and objections to them. To date, no private bills have been lodged with the Parliament, but we understand that possible promoters are waiting in the wings for the changes to standing orders that relate to private bills.
The report recommends a three-stage process for private bills. At the preliminary stage, the private bill committee will examine such issues as whether the objectives are suitable for a private bill, the relevance of objections and the right to appear before the committee. The consideration stage will involve the consideration of evidence from promoters and objectors, including cross-examination of witnesses, and amendments. The final stage will be the opportunity for the Parliament to consider, debate and vote on the bill.
It may be helpful to members if I discuss briefly the key features of the proposed procedure. First, on the establishment of the private bill committee, I stress that, because of the quasi-judicial nature of the proceedings of private bill committees, there is a need to ensure that such committees are neutral and impartial. Therefore, the report recommends that any member of the Parliament—whether constituency or list—who resides in, or represents any part of, the area that will be affected by the bill should not be a member of the private bill committee. In proposing members, the Parliamentary Bureau should also have regard to the register of members' interests.
We recommend a departure from the inquisitorial approach to gathering evidence that is used at the moment by parliamentary committees. We concluded that the best of way of ensuring that the evidence on the private rights and obligations that are affected by a private bill is rigorously scrutinised is to have a system of cross-examination involving promoters and objectors as well as members of the private bill committee. The promoters and objectors will know the issues that they wish to investigate and explore in the other party's evidence.
We considered two complex issues that are pertinent to the legal representation of promoters and objectors: first, legal representation in the context of human rights legislation; and, secondly, the critical questions of whether an objector should have the right to be represented at a meeting and, if so, who should pay for such representation. The question of legal representation in civil cases is not yet settled in law and article 6 of the European convention on human rights has still to be tested by the courts. In addition, the Executive has signalled its intention to introduce a bill dealing with ECHR compliance, although we do not know what the contents or timing of that bill will be.
We concluded that it would be premature to propose specific procedures to provide a right to legal representation. However, we recommend that the Scottish Executive be invited to consider whether the legal aid scheme should be extended to cover such hearings. The report proposes that, in the meantime, that area should be kept under review.
We recommend that, at the consideration stage, there should be a process to allow committee members to consider amendments that are suggested by promoters or objectors. It is proposed that promoters or objectors should be allowed to submit oral or written evidence to the committee, including support for suggested amendments. However, only committee members will be able to move amendments.
With regard to costs, we recommend that the promoters should be liable for all printing and distribution costs of the bill; for the accompanying documents, which are printed by the Parliament; for the production and printing of the Official Report for each stage; for the broadcasting costs; and, where appropriate, for any accommodation costs. The promoter would also be liable for all the objectors' costs in relation to the foregoing, but not for any legal fees incurred by objectors. We also recommend that the promoter pay a flat fee of £5,000 to offset staff costs in the Parliament, although the report identifies areas where, in certain circumstances, that may be reduced.
Guidance to support the proposed standing orders will be published by the clerks as quickly as possible. Our report proposes a review of those procedures no later than 2004.
Our second report on private legislation sets out a procedure that takes account of the best elements of proven systems in operation elsewhere, but which is designed with the needs of this Parliament and of promoters and objectors in mind.
The Procedures Committee's third report contains the second and third changes to standing orders—an amendment to the remit of the Subordinate Legislation Committee and the extension of the time allowed for members' business. The Subordinate Legislation Committee asked the Procedures Committee to consider a change in its remit, to close what it saw as a loophole in the technical scrutiny of bills.
That committee's current remit is to consider subordinate legislation provisions for bills before Parliament. As members know, those provisions grant ministers the power to make law by statutory instrument, and to state the degree of parliamentary scrutiny to apply. The Subordinate Legislation Committee identified ways in which bills were drafted that simply granted ministers administrative powers to act with no requirement for parliamentary scrutiny. The purpose of our recommended change is to bring all such actions into line with the broad thrust of committee and parliamentary scrutiny.
I will abbreviate much of what I was going to say on that, as I am mindful of the time.
The third change in standing orders relates to the provision of time for members' business. A study by the Parliamentary Bureau has identified a considerable number of disappointed members who have been unable to speak in members' business debates starting after 5 o'clock, simply because of the time limit. We considered that that problem was best addressed by extending the time allowed from 30 minutes to 45 minutes. We hope that that will lead to greater satisfaction and to the inclusion of more members in those debates.
Those are important and, I trust, welcome amendments to the standing orders.
I move,
That the Parliament notes
(a) the terms of the 2nd Report 2000 of the Procedures Committee Private Legislation in the Scottish Parliament (SP Paper 204) and agrees to amend the Parliament's standing orders in terms of the amendments set out in Annex B to the Report;
(b) the terms of the 3rd Report 2000 of the Procedures Committee Changes to Standing Orders of the Scottish Parliament (SP Paper 205) and agrees to amend the Parliament's standing orders in terms of the amendments set out in Annexes A and B to that Report; and
agrees that these amendments come into force on 24 November 2000.
I am grateful to Murray Tosh and to the Procedures Committee for the way in which they have set out their reports. He fairly reflected on the work that the committee's staff have done, and I also pay tribute to that.
The Executive fully supports the work of the Procedures Committee in its consideration of the latest proposed changes to standing orders, which form an essential framework within which the Parliament can function and carry out its day-to-day business.
The committee's report on private legislation is a thorough, sensible piece of work. I am pleased to offer the Executive's support for the approach that the committee proposes. The second report essentially recommends a Parliament-led system, operating through standing orders and guidance. The Executive would therefore not be directly involved in the private bill procedure, although it would be able to give guidance in the same way as would any other interested party. The report also proposes that the new procedures retain the essential elements of the pre-devolution arrangements for dealing with Scottish private legislation, as set out in the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act 1936, while making appropriate modifications to bring those arrangements up to date and to reflect procedures in the Scottish Parliament.
It is agreed among all parties that the approach set out in the Procedures Committee's report is the right way forward, and that it will ensure that a new private bill procedure is up and running as quickly as possible. I congratulate the committee and its officials on the considerable work that clearly went into the report, on a detailed area of policy.
I will pick up a point that Murray Tosh made on the second report, which calls upon the Scottish Executive to consider whether the legal aid scheme should be extended to cover legal representation at private bill committee inquiries. We will consider that, and will write to the committee in due course, when we have reached a decision. I can give no assurance that it will be possible or appropriate to extend the legal aid scheme in the way proposed, but I note Murray Tosh's point that that area must be kept under review.
The Procedures Committee has also considered a proposed change that the Subordinate Legislation Committee wishes to make to its remit. The Subordinate Legislation Committee wants to be able to consider whether proposed delegated powers that do not take the form of order-making powers ought to take that approach. It is at present unable to do so, strictly speaking. The Executive sees the logic in the change that the Subordinate Legislation Committee has suggested, and we are content with the terms of the proposed amendment.
As I said, the Executive commends the work carried out by the Procedures Committee and is happy to support its recommendations. We are particularly pleased with the co-operation over many of the details. I understand that this is only the first tranche of around 30 procedural issues to be considered by the Procedures Committee over the next few months. As always, the Executive is ready to assist the work of the committee. I look forward to working with Murray Tosh and his colleagues.
I recently stopped being a member of the Procedures Committee. I miss the Tuesday morning meetings—the discussion and the brief meetings, which I see are even briefer now that I am no longer a member. The most recent meeting lasted only 18 minutes. I pay tribute to the clerks for a substantial piece of work on an important issue.
It recalls the great days of the 19th-century railway bills—recalled, I am sure, by Tavish Scott, who has an interest—
Railways in Shetland?
Very important public works take place as a result of private bills. Mr John Home Robertson, from a sedentary position, wants to talk about railways.
A light railway for Bressay?
In Bressay—no. This is in danger of getting out of control. I was about to refer to the Lerwick Harbour Order Confirmation Act 1974, but I will desist.
The issue of objectors and their rights, raised by Murray Tosh, should be looked at again by the committee. There are strong reasons, given in the written evidence from the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and the Scottish Consumer Council, among others, why no barrier should be raised to objections. That is an issue of principle for this Parliament that arises out of the founding principles of the Parliament. The Parliament is open and accessible. Individuals who have their rights questioned or affected by private legislation should have the right to come to the Parliament and make sure that they are heard.
There is a financial barrier. The barrier of £20 in the report is neither here nor there in terms of the costs that the Parliament will have to bear. It is a token sum, although it may be a significant sum for some individuals. I am sorry that we did not get a firmer commitment to legal aid for full legal costs. There is also a strong psychological barrier in that the Parliament is not open and accessible in these procedures to any individual who wishes to object. There is a severe danger that the proposal is not ECHR compliant. I hope that the Executive will consider that very seriously.
It is important for the Parliament to be seen to be open, transparent and accessible. A barrier of any sort in any legislative process in the Parliament would not be welcomed by any of us and would go against the founding principles of the Parliament.
That said, the proposals are excellent. Private bills are likely to become of great interest in the Parliament. We should not forget the overall impact of private bills. One example is the Western Isles Council (Berneray Causeway) Order Confirmation Act 1996. It allowed a whole new chain of transportation and communication in the Western Isles. It is a pity that the local authority has to bear the cost of private legislation, but I accept that somebody has to bear that cost—which is circular, in a sense, in that it comes from the grant to the local authority.
Private bills can be extremely important. I ask the committee and the Executive to consider the issue of objection to private bills. We should return to it and consider it speedily, as the first private bills come along.
It is important to emphasise, in case anyone listening thinks that we are talking about private members' bills—members' bills in this Parliament—on warrant sales or hunting or whatever, that we are not. These are bills to improve docks, railways and so on.
Unless I have been conned—which is always possible—it seems to me that the consultation procedure on the proposals was excellent. They are very technical. Other members of the Procedures Committee and I were pretty confused at the outset, but there was good discussion among interested parties, leading to the proposals.
Increasing the time for members' debates by a quarter of an hour is a small but significant step in the right direction, allowing members more time to speak. I suffer—if that is the right word—from two Parliaments. At Westminster, members go on for far too long; here, the speeches are too short. I do not think that four minutes is long enough to make a point—especially if the speaker is interrupted and not allowed injury time. The Parliament has to consider how it can have better debates. I think that that would mean fewer, but longer, debates. Many members do not even request to speak during debates because they know that they will not be called; the record of disappointed speakers is therefore totally fallacious. It would be better if members had more time to develop their arguments and if we reduced the number of debates on piffling points.
When the bill that led to the setting up of this Parliament was going through Westminster, I greatly welcomed the proposal that the Parliament's business should be decided by a committee, rather than by using the arcane Westminster procedures. I had thought that the committee would be a committee for the Parliament and for the back benchers. One of my disappointments is that that is not so: the whole thing is a stitch-up by the Parliamentary Bureau.
I have nothing personal against Tavish Scott; he is one of the MSPs in whom I have the most confidence. However, he is now enmeshed in a very bad system. MSPs must reclaim ownership of their time, which at the moment is entirely dictated by the bureau. From my point of view, the bureau is "them" and not "us". I welcome today's debate as a small step in the right direction towards addressing the question of how the Parliament can do its job better.
Janis Hughes will close the debate for the Procedures Committee.
I thank members for their contributions to the debate. The two reports that we have been discussing represent part of the Procedures Committee's main function—to propose improvements to the way in which parliamentary business operates. As Murray Tosh said, the report on private legislation is the result of several months of consideration of issues relating to the processing of private legislation.
The committee has considered at length many things that are required to provide a rigorous and effective system of private bill scrutiny. The committee is grateful to the organisations whose representatives have contributed to the process—those who submitted written evidence and, in particular, those who took the trouble to appear before the committee at our meeting on 24 October. Those contributions have proved very helpful. I would like to pay particular tribute to the external members of the working group of officials—who drew up the original proposal very quickly indeed—and to the clerks.
The procedures that are set out in our report are designed to be accessible to all parties to private bill procedures. We have endeavoured to ensure that the relevant standing orders are written in straightforward and easily understandable language. The new procedures will require to be tested with the experience of not one but several bills going through the system. As members have heard, a review in 2004 is built into the process. We are, however, confident that the proposed procedures will allow for a full and effective private legislation procedure.
In committee, we discussed the fact that we did not know how many private bills we would receive. It is obviously difficult to predict how many bills will go through the system before 2004.
I raised a point on an issue that was in Murray Tosh's opening speech, and I would ask Janis Hughes to mention it again in her closing speech. Will she give a commitment to discuss it again before 2004? We are talking about the core function of this Parliament in Scotland, and a barrier to access to democracy is a bad thing.
I intended to sum up at the end of my speech. However, as Mike Russell has brought up the issue, I will address it just now. We have said that the review of the new procedures will happen no later than 2004. Tavish Scott has said that the Executive is willing to come back to the committee, having considered the matter. The committee has discussed the issue. I can give the member an assurance from the committee that the review will take place no later than 2004. If problems arise as the bills begin to go through the Parliament, the committee will consider the issue before 2004.
Although the proposed change of the remit of the Subordinate Legislation Committee is small, it seeks to close a gap in the technical scrutiny of legislation by that committee. I trust that as the agreement of the two committees concerned as well as of the Executive has been obtained, the proposal will secure the consent of Parliament.
Members' business has established itself as a valuable mechanism through which members can secure time to raise local issues and matters of wider—frequently cross-party—concern. The Procedures Committee was happy to concur with the recommendation to extend members' business, which seeks to improve the chances of members being included in the more heavily subscribed debates.
Those changes are only the first of many that the committee will bring to the Parliament over the coming year. I commend the reports to the Parliament.