“Hybrid Bills”
The next important item of business is a debate on motion S3M-4432, in the name of Gil Paterson, on behalf of the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee, on hybrid bills. I ask members who are leaving the chamber to do so—and not to linger in the corridor talking to other members, Mr Russell.
I put on record my thanks to the committee's clerking team and other officials. This is a technical report, and a great deal of hard work was done in the background to assist the committee. I compliment my colleagues on the committee on the way in which they did this piece of work for the Parliament.
At the end of 2008, the Minister for Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change announced that the Scottish Government intended in late 2009 to introduce a bill that would provide for an additional crossing of the River Forth. The bill would be a public bill that would seek to purchase compulsorily certain rights, such as land. As standing orders do not include any procedures for public bills that affect private interests, the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee agreed to undertake an inquiry into what procedure would be necessary. Early on, the committee agreed that it would call such bills hybrid bills and that it would focus its consideration on providing rules for the scrutiny of Scottish Government bills that affect private interests.
In annex A to its seventh report of 2009, the committee sets out the rules that it recommends for hybrid bills. The committee agreed that there was benefit in utilising, where possible, elements of existing public and private bill procedures, given that those had been tested and refined in the light of experience. I thank all those who provided written evidence, which helped the committee to identify which procedures to recommend.
From the start, the committee recognised that it required to ensure that the procedures for scrutinising hybrid bills were robust in the face of any European convention on human rights challenge. The committee has therefore recommended that, in relation to consideration of and decision taking on objections, existing private bill procedures should be adopted for hybrid bills. The recommendation has the added benefit of ensuring that there is consistency of approach for the public in objecting to a private bill or a hybrid bill. The range of accompanying documents that will be required for hybrid bills will be similar to that which is required for private bills, with some minor changes to printing and distribution to reflect the public bill element of hybrid bills.
Where the committee has departed from private bill procedure is in recommending rules that enable secondary committee scrutiny of the general principles and financial memorandum of a hybrid bill. The committee recognises that the interests of any secondary committee members will still need to be considered, as will issues related to evidence taking, but felt that those concerns will be best addressed by secondary committees after the bill is introduced.
The committee recommends that any member should be able to amend a hybrid bill at stages 2 and 3. However, should any amendments affect the private interests of individuals or bodies differently from the bill as introduced, those affected should have a right to have their concerns heard.
Finally, the committee noted that much of the detail of private bill procedures was set out in determinations that were—mostly—agreed by the Presiding Officer. The committee agreed that it, too, would adopt that flexible approach in relation to hybrid bills, and in annex B to its report it has provided draft determinations for the Presiding Officer and the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body to consider.
Time does not permit me to go into much detail about all the rules that we are recommending, but the committee believes that they strike the right balance between enabling those who are adversely affected by a hybrid bill to have their objections considered by a fair and impartial committee, and enabling the Parliament to consider the public policy elements of Scottish Government hybrid bills.
I move,
That the Parliament notes the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee's 7th Report 2009 (Session 3), Hybrid Bills (SP Paper 299), and agrees that changes to Standing Orders set out in Annexe A to the report be made with effect from 26 June 2009.
Like most of my fellow committee members, I am a relatively new member of the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments committee, and I have not, hitherto, been involved in any procedural work, so I pay tribute to those members who worked on the procedure for dealing with hybrid bills. In particular, I pay tribute to the committee's legal and clerking teams, which have put in a power of detailed and painstaking work to bring the proposals for the new procedure to Parliament in a relatively short timescale.
Not being of a procedural or legal frame of mind, I must admit that when I first read the committee report, I felt that it could rival watching grass grow or paint dry—it was very technical. However, it was extremely important to devise a procedure for hybrid bills to deal with any future bills of a public nature that affect private interests. I hope that the procedure that we are discussing today will provide for stable and competent law making in this and future parliamentary sessions.
The fact that the Scottish Parliament's standing orders do not already contain rules for handling bills that include provisions affecting private interests is perhaps a sign of the relative youth of the Parliament as we commemorate our 10th anniversary. The new procedure that we plan to adopt today will therefore bring our devolved legislature into line with Westminster and the hybrid bills procedure that operates there.
Perhaps the most problematic aspect of the administration of the hybrid bills procedure will be the make-up of future hybrid bill committees. In the case of a new Forth road crossing bill, which is likely to be the first hybrid bill presented to the Parliament, the 32 members who represent the Lothians and Mid Scotland and Fife regions will most likely not be eligible for appointment as members of the hybrid bill committee. I wonder whether North East members such as me, who regularly cross the Forth en route to and from Edinburgh, will also be deemed to have an interest and therefore be excluded from the committee's membership. As with private bill committees, members of a hybrid bill committee will be expected to attend every meeting of the committee, which could regularly take up a considerable amount of time. That could present difficulties for the Parliamentary Bureau in future in constituting the membership of committees.
Retrospectively, one wonders how a Scottish Parliament of 129 members would have managed to put together a committee to deal with an M8 motorway construction hybrid bill that covered the Central Scotland, Glasgow, West of Scotland and Lothian regions, effectively excluding 66 members from the committee's membership.
I hope that the hybrid bills procedure will reassure members of the public about their rights in connection with possible objections to future hybrid bills and about the protocols that will allow objections to be fully and fairly considered.
It is essential that we have in place a hybrid bills procedure for any future major construction projects that will be required to secure Scotland's national infrastructure and economic development, such as the proposed Forth crossing. I am happy to support the committee's report and to approve the consequent changes to standing orders, as set out in annex A to the report.
My speech will be short.
I will speak about who will serve on hybrid bill committees. Private bill committee members were drawn from among those members of the Parliament who did not represent the particular area affected by the bill. In the last two sessions, it seemed that members from Fife were disadvantaged because of the number of bills that we had to consider. For example, Nanette Milne's colleague Ted Brocklebank, Christine May and I—all Fife members—served on the Waverley Railway (Scotland) Bill Committee. I am looking forward to ensuring that I am not dragooned on to the Forth crossing bill committee because of my interest in the matter. I am sure that members who have escaped the onerous task of serving on such committees—particularly those from the north-east, such as Nanette Milne—will be delighted to consider an M8 bill, if one comes along, or the Forth crossing bill.
I call Bruce Crawford to wind up on behalf of the Government. I can give him five minutes.
My goodness. I have been waiting all week for these five minutes.
The Government welcomes the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee's report on hybrid bills. We acknowledge the hard work that the convener and members of that committee have undertaken. The committee managed to carry out that work speedily to ensure that the procedures are in place before the summer recess. The Government is grateful for that. We welcomed the opportunity to contribute to its inquiry, and we welcome the chance to endorse the proposed changes to the standing orders.
Tricia Marwick might be in for a bit of a surprise. If I get things right, the Central Fife constituency and the Glenrothes constituency will probably not be associated in any way with the Forth road bridge works. I shall bear that in mind when we come to a decision—
Will the minister take an intervention?
I will happily do so, as long as Tricia Marwick does not give a resignation speech.
Given my long-standing commitment to a new Forth road bridge, it would be wholly inappropriate for me to be dragged on to a committee that will deal with it.
Whether or not Tricia Marwick will be dragged on to that committee, her experience will be valuable, and she might find herself in that situation. I look forward to discussing the matter at some other juncture. I am sure that she will be able to persuade me to do what she wants; she usually can.
As other members have said, the immediate need for changes to the standing orders arose because the Government announced last year its intention to legislate for a new Forth crossing. Obviously, that new crossing will be a hugely important infrastructure project that will safeguard a vital connection in the country's transport network and provide economic security for the east of Scotland. The bill will not only seek authorisation for the construction and operation of the new bridge and linking roads; it will also seek the power of compulsory acquisition. Gil Paterson referred to that. The committee identified that that power will change the nature of the bill; it will become a hybrid bill rather than a public bill. Therefore, a new parliamentary process needs to be in place to ensure a fair outcome for the individuals and local organisations that are directly affected by the bill and wish to object. The hybrid bill process that the committee proposed in its report will provide that any objector will be able to put their case to a committee of the Parliament for proper consideration and a decision on their objection.
I turn to the recommendations. The committee was right to focus its inquiry on adapting the tried-and-tested procedures for public and private bills. The evidence that we submitted to the committee was based on that approach. We therefore support the committee's recommendations on changes to standing orders.
We note the committee's recognition in paragraph 8 of the report of the need to consider the publication of guidance on hybrid bills. Although we appreciate that the production of guidance takes time, we believe that it is imperative that the Parliament produces comprehensive guidance on the making and consideration of objections in advance of the introduction of the Forth crossing bill.
As a member of the Finance Committee, I am interested in colleagues' views on the SPPA committee's report in relation to financial considerations. Does the minister have any thoughts on the eligibility of members of the Finance Committee, given their interest, to consider financial issues around the hybrid bills that are introduced? I do not think that the issues around the Finance Committee's role in scrutinising financial memoranda and so on, which was previously the sole remit of the private committees, have yet been resolved.
I think that Jeremy Purvis is trying to find some poor excuse not to be involved in the process of considering the Forth crossing bill when it is introduced. I am sure that his business manager, Mike Rumbles, who is sitting next to me, will take a keen note of Mr Purvis's need to be involved.
I understand that Mr Purvis has made a serious point, and we will actively consider it.
I will return to where I was in my speech—given the time that I have left, I had better be quick.
I thank the committee for its hard work and pragmatic approach, which has resulted in a set of straightforward and sensible recommendations. I confirm that the Government welcomes and agrees to the proposed changes to standing orders that are outlined in annex A of the committee's report. We also welcome the fact that the Parliament has agreed that the rule change will come into effect on 26 June.
As deputy convener of the SPPA committee, I thank all those who contributed to the committee's work on hybrid bills, not least those who submitted written evidence, which greatly assisted us in formulating the new procedures. I thank the committee's convener, Gil Paterson, for ably taking us through all the processes that were involved, and I thank all those who have contributed to today's debate.
I will highlight three of the committee's recommendations. First, it recommended that objections should be able to be lodged in English or Gaelic. The committee is aware of the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body's Gaelic language plan, which seeks to give effect to the principle that Gaelic and English should be accorded equal respect, and it agreed that allowing objections to be made in that way would reflect that principle. It will, however, be for the Presiding Officer to decide whether to reflect the committee's recommendations in any determination on the proper form of objections.
Secondly, the committee agreed with the Parliament's decision in 2000 that charging an objection fee of £20 would encourage objectors to work together, which will benefit them by enabling the whole group to work together in providing evidence to the committee. The fee also reflects the procedure whereby the committee groups individual objections that are the same or that raise similar issues at stage 2. Again, it will be for the Presiding Officer to decide.
Finally, the committee decided to recommend that the Scottish Government should meet the costs associated with proceedings held before an assessor appointed by a hybrid bill committee. The committee agreed that, as the costs of the assessor hearings are largely driven by the number of objections, we hope that that recommendation will act as an incentive to the Scottish Government proactively to address the concerns of any potential objectors at an early stage, thereby minimising the number of objections that are made. Once more, it is for the Presiding Officer to consider whether to agree to provide for the committee's recommendation in a determination.
The Forth crossing bill is, as members have mentioned, expected to be introduced in the autumn, so the hybrid bill procedures will soon become familiar to us. As a Fife member, I hope that I will have discussions with my chief whip similar to those that Tricia Marwick anticipates.
It is helpful that the committee has taken the approach of amalgamating public and private bill procedures, which are familiar to MSPs and to members of the public. Most important, we hope that the new procedures will serve members of the public by allowing them to make their views heard when necessary, which we believe will result in a fair and measured outcome. I support the motion in the name of the convener of the SPPA committee, and recommend that the Parliament agrees that the changes to standing orders set out in annex A of the committee's 7th report take effect from Friday 26 June 2009.