Plenary, 26 Oct 2005

Meeting date: Wednesday, October 26, 2005

Official Report 431KB pdf

---

Non-Executive Bills Unit (Prioritisation of Workload)

The next item of business is a debate on motion S2M-3411, in the name of Mr Duncan McNeil, on behalf of the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body, on a report on prioritisation of the non-Executive bills unit's workload.

The Scottish Parliament has established an enviable track record in considering legislation promoted by back benchers. In the Parliament's lifetime, 23 members' bills and five committee bills have been introduced. The greatest proportion of those bills make use of non-Executive bills unit resources—to date, 15 bills have received drafting assistance. That is something that we wish to maintain. Not only the number of bills but the quality of their drafting is important.

The Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body's deliberations have led to the report that is before the Parliament today. We seek to maintain and build on the Parliament's record while upholding the rights of back benchers to bring forward their own ideas. NEBU is a unique resource, which we want to utilise for optimum advantage to the Parliament and its members. The report sets out our recommendations on the criteria that apply when NEBU provides drafting assistance for members' bills and committee bills. Those recommendations are the product of considerable deliberation involving the SPCB and others.

I intend to put the recommendations in context by describing how the prioritisation criteria have evolved, the level of work undertaken by the unit and how the SPCB reached its recommendations. Before I move on, I ask members to bear in mind when contributing to the debate the fact that all resources are finite. Once that premise is accepted, the key point is that decisions should be taken in a fair, balanced and transparent manner.

Chris Ballance's amendment states:

"one of these criteria proposes to refuse drafting support based on the potential size, scope and complexity of a Bill."

Will the member confirm to back benchers that, even if the recommendations are agreed to, they will not prevent bills from coming forward under other auspices and that help can be gained outside NEBU?

Indeed. That is entirely correct. There are such opportunities and we would welcome members taking advantage of them to make private drafting arrangements. NEBU's drafting facilities are finite.

Given that smaller parties, such as the Scottish Green Party, do not get policy development grants, which are offered to, for example, Mr Scott's party in Westminster, how exactly does Mr Scott think that I am to finance the bringing forward of a bill on genetic modification liability?

My party—and I think that I speak on behalf of other parties—has no grants to assist us in developing policy. In that regard, we are no different from the Green party.

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. Can you confirm that the Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party is in receipt of policy development grants from Westminster and that the Scottish Green Party is not?

That is not a matter for me; I have no insight into such matters. If anything, it is a matter for the Conservative party.

The core issue for today's debate is the method by which the SPCB prioritises NEBU's resources when demand for support exceeds the available capacity of the unit.

We acknowledge that there will always be proposals that fall on the wrong side of any line that is drawn. However, decision making is an integral part of the SPCB's duty when allocating parliamentary resources. The prioritisation criteria were developed to ensure that the decisions that are taken are, as far as is possible, rooted in evidence rather than being subjective. We want those who wish to be allocated drafting assistance to be aware of the reasons why they might be successful in accordance with set criteria. We aim to be transparent when taking those difficult decisions.

The prioritisation criteria allow proposals for members' bills to be assessed against one another. The Procedures Committee considered alternative approaches, but it did not wish to identify an alternative system of prioritisation. Any system must improve the management of the member's bill process while protecting the rights of back-bench members to initiate legislation and to have their policy proposal considered on its merits.

The Procedures Committee acknowledged that, when choices are to be made on the allocation of resources, it falls to the SPCB to make decisions using clear criteria. In that regard, and in respect of the Scottish Green Party's amendment, it would be interesting to hear what criteria the Greens propose be used, if they are suggesting that a member be assisted with any bill. It will be interesting to hear how they square the fair-access provision that they are talking about with the fact that one major member's bill could use all the available resources, which would prevent any other member from being assisted. If they are proposing that more resources be made available, I look forward to hearing where they suggest that those resources be found.

There is genuine concern that the SPCB's proposals could prevent a member from bringing forward a particularly relevant piece of legislation simply because it is complex; back-bench members are genuinely concerned that the proposals will prevent them from introducing the kind of legislation that they were brought into the Parliament to enact.

That is a reasonable consideration and we are intending to endeavour to be fair and utterly transparent in every situation. We will set out the criteria by which we intend to proceed.

Underpinning those criteria are two fundamental principles. First, priority should be given to committee bills over members' bills. Secondly, all members should continue to be supported by the unit in developing their policy until the final proposal is lodged. The criteria kick in when the member, having issued a consultation on their proposal and having secured the necessary 18 cross-party supporters that are required by the standing orders, seeks to have a bill drafted.

The first two criteria are straightforward. I trust that members will accept that resources should be targeted on proposals that are competent and in relation to which no other opportunity for changing the law exists. We propose that proposals must therefore be broadly within the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament.

Who decides whether a proposal is competent? I ask because I was told initially that my Breastfeeding etc (Scotland) Bill was not competent, but when it was redrafted I was told that it was competent. I would have thought that the decision was the Presiding Officer's. A proposal could come before the Parliament thereafter.

The corporate body will make the decision, as we are the purse holders for NEBU. I will be laying out further criteria and hope that the member will agree that they are reasonable.

Will the member give way?

I really think that I should make some progress.

It is a point of clarification.

Okay.

The rules on members' bills are set out in the standing orders, which were voted on by the Parliament. The first two criteria must be complied with before a member can move anywhere with their bill, so the others are red herrings, if I may say so.

Mr Scott, you have three minutes.

Thank you, Presiding Officer. In that case, I will move on quickly.

We recommend that proposals must be broadly within the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament and that there should be no likelihood of legislative action on a similar subject that would afford an opportunity in the current session of the Scottish Parliament—or at Westminster or in the European Parliament—to amend the same area of law.

Other factors that should be taken into account are the size, scope and complexity of a bill, as well as the breadth of support that a proposal has attracted. NEBU can provide us with an estimate of the potential size of a member's bill by reference to other legislation on comparable issues. Scope is estimated by reference to the extent of the policy being pursued as discussed during consultation. Complexity is assessed by reference to the desired policy, to other legislation and to work in other jurisdictions. In each case, NEBU offers us information following input by its legal advisers. Size is important to the exercise. Regardless of the underlying policy, as bills become larger they become more complex to develop and draft and to take through the parliamentary process—the Mental Health (Scotland) Bill is an example. Similarly, the more strands there are to a policy, the more complex the production of a bill becomes.

Let me turn quickly to NEBU's workload. In this session, NEBU has researched or discussed 66 potential bills and 22 draft proposals have been lodged under the new procedures for members' bills. Eighteen of those proposals are at varying stages of the process: some are out to consultation, while others are ready to proceed to final proposal stage. The unit is already providing assistance to the Standards and Public Appointments Committee on the Interests of Members of the Scottish Parliament Bill and it is also providing assistance on three introduced members' bills. Another member's bill has been instructed and assistance is being provided to the Subordinate Legislation Committee on its proposed bill.

Support for those members' bills is provided on the basis that they meet the prioritisation criteria. In each case, the policy had been sufficiently developed before demand on the unit began to exceed available capacity. Although members have until the end of September 2006 to introduce a bill in this session, it can take 12 months to develop the policy and to work with the draftsmen to produce a bill that is fit for introduction. Decisions that we make now will determine the drafting support that is available to members for the remainder of the session.

That takes me on to how we arrived at our recommendations. We took account only of the eight proposals that had completed consultation—they are the only ones that have advanced far enough for decisions to be made at this time. We recommended that two proposals—one for civic appeals and the other for a commissioner for older people—should receive NEBU's drafting assistance. Both met the criteria on competence and on the fact that there was no legislative action elsewhere and both received the required support. Neither proposal raises concerns about size, scope or complexity.

We also considered the proposal on liability for release of genetically modified organisms. That proposal raised concerns about complexity and legislative action being taken elsewhere. The combination of those factors led us to conclude that the proposed bill would be difficult and time consuming to produce and would take up a disproportionate amount of available resources. We therefore agreed that NEBU should not support that proposal. The other proposed bill to which we did not allocate resources was that on direct elections to health boards. At the time of our deliberations, the bill's proposer was in the process of gathering members' signatures and support. As proposed, the bill would have contained about 70 sections, so its size would have been a problem. If drafting assistance had been recommended for either of those proposals, NEBU would have had no scope to provide assistance for any other bills, including committee bills, for the remainder of the session.

Four members had not lodged a final proposal at the time of our deliberations.

Will the member take an intervention?

No. Mr Scott must finish quickly, Mr Crawford.

Those four members had not secured the necessary support. The local government elections proposal fell because of the member's resignation. A proposal in the same terms has now been lodged by another member, although that was after our deliberations had been completed. In relation to Brian Monteith's amendment to the SPCB motion, I would simply observe that, when the SPCB considered demand on NEBU, no such proposal had been lodged. If the member lodges a successful proposal that meets the agreed criteria, the SPCB will consider it at that time and will examine the resources that are available to assist him.

The remaining three proposals—on the right to die for the terminally ill, the tartan register and greener transport—met the criteria but had not yet secured the necessary support. We considered that it would be sensible to defer decisions on each until a successful proposal had been lodged, although we have indicated that, should those proposals secure members' support, we would be minded to allocate support to each of them, albeit that it might not be possible to complete the process in the time remaining in this session.

A key point for members to note is that NEBU support is not the only route available to back benchers. Subject to paid advocacy rules, members are free to seek external support; indeed, I note that some members have done so. I reiterate that NEBU will continue to support all members with development work on their proposals and consultations, including analysis of responses. On behalf of the SPCB, I ask that the Parliament endorses the prioritisation criteria and agrees the recommendations of the report.

I move,

That the Parliament endorses the prioritisation criteria set out in paragraphs 7 to 9 of the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body's 2nd Report, 2005 (Session 2): Report on the Prioritisation of the Non-Executive Bills Unit's Workload (SP Paper 434) and therefore agrees the recommendations in paragraph 19 of the report.

Some members might think that my amendment is special pleading and that this is Monteith coming along to try to make sure that his bill is put back on the list so that everything will be fine and dandy. The situation is not quite as simple as that; I would not say that what I am suggesting is special pleading at all.

When rules are made to deal with matters of priority and finite resources, it is always possible that some things might fall on the wrong side of the line. The proposal for a local government elections bill was originally made by David Mundell and fell because of his resignation when he went to another place, but I think that the SPCB would have considered it favourably had it still been able to do so. I am not going to argue against the SPCB report. I recognise that the task that was set for the SPCB was necessary and I generally accept the contents of the report. However, I will take this opportunity to raise some small points.

The first is about the criterion on the potential size, scope and complexity of a proposed member's bill. One thing is missing from that list—it is highlighted by the proposal for a local government elections bill—and that is time sensitivity. The SPCB should give due regard to the fact that some bills will be time sensitive. The proposals for local government elections would have been one such bill, but that important consideration was not taken into account.

My proposed bill seeks to make a change that will affect the Scottish Parliament and local council elections in 2007. It cannot wait until well into 2006; to give administrators, chief executives and returning officers sufficient time to complete the task of making their arrangements, consideration of the bill must proceed fairly quickly in the next year. Although the important criterion of time sensitivity is not given consideration in the report that is before us, I ask the SPCB to consider it in future.

In response to what John Scott said, I point out that I was a supporter of David Mundell's original proposal for a local government elections bill and, indeed, worked closely with him on it. In fact, at every opportunity—in the almost certain knowledge that he would be elected to Westminster and would have to resign his seat here—we made it generally known that I would be lodging a proposal for a fresh version of his bill, which would undoubtedly fall on his resignation. Although I accept that my bill proposal did not meet the technicality of having been submitted when the SPCB discussed such matters, I point out that it was known that a further proposal for a local government elections bill would be submitted.

I listened carefully to, and was most interested in, what John Scott said and I will take advice on whether to press the amendment in my name to the vote, because the SPCB has made an attempt to meet me halfway. As I have said, the important issue is the criteria. I feel that my proposal is an example of the fact that the present criteria do not wholly cover every possible case, especially as it was known that I would be submitting my proposal for a bill.

I will close by pointing out three things. The bill for which I have made a proposal would be neither complex nor wide in scope. Under those two criteria, it should easily find favour with the SPCB. It would require only three sections and would take up one member of staff's time for only four months. It has been categorised as being straightforward.

What support does my proposal have? It was signed by 26 members, who belong to different political parties. In the consultation that was carried out on the previous proposal, significant support was obtained from the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, Unison, 12 local authorities, the Association of Electoral Administrators and the Society of Local Authority Lawyers and Administrators in Scotland. That will be explained to the Local Government and Transport Committee so that my proposed bill may receive consent to be introduced. Support for it exists; it is not designed to give preference to a particular party.

I know that there are divisions of views in all parties, including mine, on whether the council and parliamentary elections should be separated. I will not rehearse the opposing arguments, as that is a debate for another time. I simply argue that it is important to consider the time sensitivity of bill proposals when they are submitted, point out that my proposal has a significant degree of support and is lacking in complexity and scope, and ask the SPCB to take those matters into account.

I move amendment S2M-3411.2, to insert at end:

"with the addition, subject to committee approval of the statement of reasons that further consultation is not necessary and once a successful proposal is lodged, of the Local Government Elections (Scotland) Bill, given that it received 26 signatures of support when previously lodged, is time-sensitive and would be a small piece of legislation requiring only three sections and one member of staff to assist with its progress."

The SPCB's proposal severely undermines the right of back benchers to introduce legislation. My objection is to the criteria of "size, scope and complexity". The implication is that, if a proposed bill is short, simple and narrow, it is appropriate for a back bencher to seek to introduce it. In recommendation 19 of the SPCB's report, we are asked to agree that certain named bills are appropriate to receive support and that any other proposals for a bill will be ruled ineligible for Scottish Parliament support, regardless of their importance, the assistance that is required with them or their relevance.

If we vote for the motion, we will be voting to support a bill that will create a register of tartans while denying support to a bill that seeks to democratise the governance of the national health service in Scotland. Which is more important? Which issue would most people in Scotland say was more important? Which issue is of more interest to the Scottish people? Which issue should the Scottish Parliament be discussing? If we vote for the motion, would that be a grown-up decision by a grown-up Parliament?

A dangerous precedent is being set. The report proposes the introduction of a new stage: a vote by the Parliament on whether a proposal receives the support of NEBU. We will be asked to rate one bill against another, as Brian Monteith's amendment does. That is horse trading.

Some back benchers will have sympathy with some of the stuff that Chris Ballance is saying. However, his amendment includes no proposal for how he would deal with the difficult decisions about resources, size and complexity. Should that be done by means of a committee of back benchers, the Procedures Committee, the bureau or the SPCB? Instead of simply coming to the chamber today and complaining, it would have been more useful if Chris Ballance had proposed a solution that members could have signed up to—that would have been constructive.

I will refer to the possible alternatives later. In my amendment, I ask the SPCB to bring alternatives to the chamber. The SPCB has placed before the chamber one take-it-or-leave-it solution; I am asking it to reconsider its recommendations.

Under its scheme, the first consideration for back benchers would not be the question, "Is this my top priority?". Unless a back bencher has independent, private financial backing, their first consideration would be the simple question, "Is my idea small enough for the Scottish Parliament?".

A more fundamental question is involved, however: the level of erosion of the power of back benchers that the Scottish Parliament finds acceptable. Surely the question should be one of the degree of power sharing between the Government and ordinary members. Canon Kenyon Wright, who was chair of the Scottish Constitutional Convention, said of the SPCB's report:

"The parliament's founding principles of sharing power and participation are at stake here."

The Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations has also expressed its concerns; it has asked MSPs to support the amendment in my name.

It is important that back benchers are able to introduce bills. Would the Smoking, Health and Social Care (Scotland) Bill have come before the Parliament if not for Stewart Maxwell's work in the previous session? Back-bench bills flag up issues and raise debates.

The recommendations are unnecessary. In the past, staff have been drafted into NEBU in order to ensure that a committee bill gets through; as happened with the Commissioner for Children and Young People (Scotland) Bill. Has the SPCB considered drafting in staff to deal with the two committee bills that are currently under consideration? We do not know the answer to that question; the report says nothing about the alternatives. Staff numbers in the private bills unit have doubled this year; the resources for that were found without question or reference to the Parliament. Why therefore are resources for back benchers being denied? Only 1.3 per cent of the SPCB's total staffing budget goes to NEBU—that is the extent of the resource that goes to supporting back-bench bills.

There are alternatives. As in other instances, we could increase resources to NEBU. We could set higher hurdles, which is the option that the Procedures Committee selected. We should look further at that option; indeed, we could consider the setting of further hurdles or objective criteria that do not depend on the judgment of parliamentary staff on the size and scope of bills.

The changes are fundamental; they will affect all back benchers. We are being asked to make them by way of a report that offers, as the famous lady did, no alternative. The report is inaccurate: it says that all bills for which consultation was completed by this year's summer solstice were considered, but it forgets—at least to my knowledge—the proposed home energy efficiency targets bill, for which the consultation was completed in early June.

My amendment calls on the SPCB to review its recommendations. That would be the democratic way forward to a proper debate.

I move amendment S2M-3411.1, to leave out from "endorses" to end and insert:

Report on the Prioritisation of the Non-Executive Bills Unit's Workload (SP Paper 434); notes with concern that one of these criteria proposes to refuse drafting support based on ‘the potential size, scope and complexity of a Bill'; further notes with concern the implication that Members' Bills must therefore be small, narrow in scope and simple in order to receive drafting support from the Parliament; believes that this is the wrong approach to the question of resources within the Non-Executive Bills Unit and that it undermines the founding principles of the Scottish Parliament, in particular that of power sharing, and calls on the SPCB to review its recommendations in order to ensure that all Bill proposals receive fair access to drafting support."

I will first set out the Scottish National Party position, which is that we have not taken a position. Given that the debate is about members' bills, we think that members should be able to make their own decisions. The SNP will have a free vote on the motion tonight. Members will hear no consistency in the speeches from the SNP benches on this occasion—some members may say that that is not at all unusual.

We should recognise that there are no easy solutions to the matter, which is one of the reasons why the Procedures Committee could not come up with a recommendation, or perhaps I should say that there is no easy solution that would command cross-party support in the chamber.

Despite my natural inclination, Brian Monteith's amendment finds some favour with me. My concern is that we are dealing with a corporate body report dated 13 October and Brian Monteith's proposal for his draft bill was lodged on 29 September. I know that the bulk of the report was written earlier, but it is rather unfortunate that when the report talks about bills that are currently on the table, it ignores Brian Monteith's bill altogether because the bulk of the work was done before his bill was lodged. There is a case for, at the very least, considering Brian's bill along with the other bills listed in paragraph 19 of the report. I will be interested to hear what other members say about that before I decide how to vote this evening.

There are and always will be limited resources for members' bills. Chris Ballance spoke about the resources that are allocated to the private bills unit. I think that I am right in saying that those resources can be recouped from the promoters of private bills because they are effectively charged for the consideration of their bill. That does not apply to members' bills.

To say that we totally ignore resource implications in preparing any bill flies in the face of reality. Given that there are limited resources, somebody has to make a decision about priorities. There are various possible decisions, but they all have drawbacks.

The interesting issue of the competence of a proposed bill was mentioned. We need more explanation of that than we got from John Scott, because a genuine difficulty arises. The Presiding Officer can rule on the competence of a bill when he has the entire bill in front of him, but the matter is not nearly so clear when we deal simply with a proposal that might run to one or two sentences. It is easy to see why Elaine Smith had a problem with the initial incarnation of the proposal for her bill. Again, it is easy enough to see the problem, but are we saying that we should make no judgment at all? Should we deal with any proposal, even though it is as clear as night from day that a conflicted proposal will be outwith the competence of this Parliament? Clearly not, so we have to come up with a mechanism.

There has been far too much hype about the proposal. Canon Kenyon Wright almost implied that we are facing the end of democracy in this Parliament when he said:

"The parliament's founding principles of sharing power and participation are at stake here."

I think not. The resolution proposed in the motion does not enshrine the priorities set out in the SPCB report for all time; it is simply a method for getting on with it at the moment and the priorities can easily be changed.

Quite apart from the fact that Canon Kenyon Wright has immense stature as the former chair of the Scottish Constitutional Convention, does the member accept that the priorities set a precedent that is entirely new?

I am not aware of any parliamentary rule that one decision by the corporate body sets any kind of precedent—particularly not a binding precedent—on the corporate body or the Parliament, which can take any other contrary decision at any further stage. All we have to do is to come up with a suggestion and then agree to it—that is the precise problem.

In that connection, it is interesting that the Greens do not come up with any answer—they say that there is no alternative, but I urge them to go back and think about it again. The point is that we need to make a decision now.

Chris Ballance said that the SPCB approach severely undermines the right of back benchers to propose legislation. No, it does not. The alternative is that we come up with a position that any back bencher can claim unlimited resources to develop any proposal that takes their fancy regardless of its chances of ever going anywhere, regardless of how relevant it is to the people of Scotland.

I do not believe that we have reached the final position; it is clearly a pro tem position. It gives us a way of getting on with the current proposals. We must come up with a better and more generally acceptable and manageable proposal that the people of Scotland can afford. After all, they will have to pay for our extravagances in this chamber if we decide to indulge ourselves and allow members to introduce any proposal that takes their fancy. I hope that the business managers can agree a way of taking forward the process of finding a better, final method of dealing with these matters.

I felt like shouting out "Rubbish!" when I heard Chris Ballance's first sentence, but I was afraid of being thrown out of the chamber. I must point out that the bill on elected health boards is set against not one, but five other bills—and possibly more, if resources stretch a bit further than expected. Furthermore, on NEBU's finite resources, we must bear it in mind that there is a drafting resource. We cannot simply go down to the job centre and pick up people with experience of drafting bills. There is a bit of a bottleneck in that respect. We should also remember that there are limits on committee and parliamentary time.

This exercise in no way, shape or form seeks to undermine the Parliament's founding principles. The non-Executive bills unit is unique in the range of support that it offers MSPs in drafting legislation. No other Parliament has an equivalent. Moreover, there is no intention of discriminating between MSPs from one party or another; in this game, we are all equal.

However, all resources are finite and, if demand exceeds supply, we should use objective criteria to apportion them. In the Scottish Parliament's first session, the SPCB agreed a set of criteria in readiness for such a scenario and to ensure that decisions were taken in a fair, balanced and transparent manner. Indeed, in that first session, we were able to accommodate every members' bill that was introduced.

Because the volume of MSPs' bills has increased in this session, the thorny issue of prioritisation has had to be reconsidered, not only by the SPCB but by the Procedures Committee, which has reached the inevitable conclusion that at some point someone has make a decision and that the SPCB has to discharge that responsibility.

The number of members' bills has not increased. Up to now, there have been around 30 proposals, which have led to the drafting of five bills. That is very similar to the situation a few years ago.

My reading of the figures is somewhat different, but I will not go into that now. I will check my information and apologise if I am wrong, but my impression is that the volume—and potential volume—of members' bills is increasing greatly.

All members will continue to be given support to develop policy up to the lodging of the final proposal. Thereafter, in principle, committee bills, which come from a cross-party parliamentary body, would be given priority over members' bills. That is only fair. The next two filters centre on whether the matter is competent and intra vires and whether there is no other opportunity to change the existing law. Only at that point will two further criteria for informing decision making come into play. First, the bill's size, complexity and scope will be evaluated by NEBU. We have agreed that such an evaluation will be fair, objective and authoritative.

It would be quite helpful to find out which members' bills would pass the complexity test and which would fail. After all, we are all trying to work out which bills will be very complex and which are quite straightforward. Although we do not want to have massive bills, we also do not want to be forced to introduce one-liners. How do we strike that balance? What criteria will NEBU use to make that decision?

That is partly addressed in the report. Indeed, I think that I am just about to address the point myself.

The second further criterion is the level and breadth of support that the proposed bill commands. I maintain that both criteria are fair and reasonable.

I emphatically deny that, in the words of Chris Ballance's amendment,

"one of these criteria proposes to refuse drafting support based on ‘the potential size, scope and complexity of a Bill'".

We propose that bills that compete for drafting support will be evaluated against each other. It might well be that the merit of a complex bill that commands wide support will be judged greater than the collective merit of a number of smaller bills competing with it.

That is an important point that the Green amendment sidelines. It must be realised that we will evaluate bills against one another. That will be nothing to do with the size, scope and complexity of a bill per se but will concern whether a bill is considered to be more important than other bills that it could displace. That is a balancing act and a grey area, but the fact that we will try to operate under the criteria that have been outlined is helpful.

It should also be remembered that members can seek drafting support from sources other than the non-Executive bills unit. I suggest that other bills could join the queue—if I may phrase it in that way—including Brian Monteith's proposed bill. He made a reasonable point about time sensitivity, but it is unfortunate that he trumped the argument for his bill by telling us that it was foreseen that David Mundell's bill might fall if he were elected to Westminster. That situation could have been avoided. If people were keen to introduce that bill, somebody else could have proposed it in the first place.

I invite the Parliament to recognise the thought and consideration that have informed the recommendations in the SPCB's report, to support the motion and to reject both amendments.

We move to the open debate. I call Rob Gibson, who is to be followed by Karen Gillon.

I beg your pardon, Presiding Officer; I think that I am supposed to close for the SNP.

I do not have that information.

Okay—very good.

The debate ought to be about ambition. The Parliament's problem is that our ambition to include back benchers in debates and to allow them to create law should be increasing, not reducing. As my colleague Alasdair Morgan said, we face the problem of dealing with the situation pro tem. People will lose out in the 18 months until the next election. Some people's bills might well be more complex than others that have been adopted, but they might be more important. The problem of weighing up such matters has not been resolved. The problem for debate is that we need agreement on how to resolve the complexities.

As I am one of the people who have been in the middle of work on the Stirling-Alloa-Kincardine Railway and Linked Improvements Bill and the Edinburgh Tram (Line One) Bill, I know how much of NEBU's resource private bills have taken up. The Government has proposed to change the private bill procedure to that which is followed at Westminster under the Transport and Works Act 1992. I hope and understand that that will free up some NEBU support to back benchers but, at present, NEBU does not have enough people to support all the proposed bills. In addition, we do not have enough time in Parliament to deal with the bills. We do not meet often enough or have enough committees or staff for them.

The last thing that we want is to say that Scotland needs more legislators, more parliamentary staff and more civil servants, but the logic of the debate is that that is true. If we want to catch up and to do the business that the Parliament hopes to conduct to influence the life of Scotland, such issues must be taken on board. Duncan McNeil's proposals show that in a microcosm.

I support Alasdair Morgan's comment that we must agree on how to proceed. I will reflect on a proposal that I lodged a year or so ago for a bill on the succession to land. I had to await publication of the Government's Family Law (Scotland) Bill to find out whether that bill would cover the aspect of family law that my proposed bill dealt with. That meant that if my proposal was to be considered, it would be dealt with late in the parliamentary session. As Brian Monteith said, when issues are time sensitive because they relate to an event that will happen soon—as in his case—or when they cannot be dealt with until later in the session—as in my case—the problem is that the current procedure puts people at a great disadvantage in having those proposals taken seriously. That must be dealt with. Urgent matters come up, but there are also issues on which it is necessary to await what the Government does. In this case the Executive's bill did not deal with the matter that I am concerned about—the succession to land.

I will deal with the issue of size, complexity and scope. It is true that if members were trying to weigh matters up in relation to the number of staff that we have, they might decide that it is more important to have a GM bill than one for tartan registration. It might be much easier to pass the tartan registration bill, but is it needed in a hurry? My question is: can we rely on the SPCB to make decisions for the whole of the Parliament that allow such priorities to be taken on board? Somewhere in the back of my mind I believe that there is fair play; but on the other hand, I sometimes wonder.

Alasdair Morgan spoke about the mechanism for competence. The crux of the debate is whether we can agree on that. Since we are only learning how to go about the business of back-benchers' legislation and so on, I guess that it will take some time to work out. In six years we have tried to create a mechanism that allows many more members than almost any other Parliament to bring legislation forward from the back benches. That is important for the Parliament because it suggests that we are sensitive to the potential for legislation from the back benches. We should welcome that, laud it and be thankful that it has been possible to fit those bills in.

If we cannot find a way to get more staff for NEBU and more time for debates on such legislation it will be almost impossible for more back-bench bills to be brought forward. The Parliament must face up to that. I hope that the debate leads to a decision. The pro tem approach recommended by the SPCB's report is welcome, but it is not the end of the story.

I did not intend to speak in the debate, but several comments have brought me to my feet.

I will refer to a few issues and seek comments from whoever responds on behalf of the SPCB. I set out my stall: at this point I would not vote for anything that is on the table.

I have been a member of the Procedures Committee for the past two and a half years. I have been through this process and I understand how difficult it has been for the committee. The committee brought a report to the Parliament. It specifically said that the SPCB should bring to Parliament a set of criteria on which the Parliament should vote. If that was all that the SPCB was doing today I would be happy to support that, but we are agreeing to a set of criteria and voting for the bills that meet that criteria before we have agreed to the criteria. That is where my slight confusion about the role of the SPCB comes from. It should be for the Parliament to determine the criteria first and then the SPCB could assess the bills that are up for discussion on the basis of the criteria that have been agreed by Parliament.

Karen Gillon and I worked together on this matter on the Procedures Committee. Is there a need for the SPCB to be flexible in applying the rules of size and complexity? Although a bill may be very large there may not be many bills on the stocks, so it may be able to get through the gate and be discussed in Parliament. Considerable flexibility and understanding must be shown by the SPCB if it is to take on this role.

Absolutely. The criteria before us are potentially not sufficiently clear or transparent to ensure that that would happen.

I will examine a couple of issues in the SPCB's report. The first relates to the first bullet point on page 3. The paragraph slightly misleads Parliament because MSPs do not have the right to amend Westminster or European legislation, as it suggests that we do. The report goes further than the rules of this Parliament, which say that the Executive must give its notice within one month of the lodging of a bill proposal. The SPCB's report has no reference to a time limit. I would be grateful if the SPCB could clarify that. Obviously, I believe that the rules of the Parliament take precedence and that the two things should marry.

The second issue is complexity. The difficulty with the suggested process is that there will always be special pleading from members. We have heard that during the debate and I will continue in the same theme, because I have an interest in a proposed bill on corporate culpable homicide. The Executive is considering a report from an expert working group on the bill, which I cannot go into. I guess that it would be a complex process to enact the bill, but I believe that it is a necessary piece of legislation. However, I am concerned that, if the Executive does not believe that the bill should be a priority, the SPCB's proposed rules on complexity and its citing of the bills that would be ruled out would not allow me to present the bill to Parliament.

Nora Radcliffe said that the SPCB would consider all the bills. However, I do not believe that the criteria are sufficiently clear and transparent, which means that the SPCB is left to make a subjective judgment on the bills that are before it. I would prefer a more open and transparent process, because the SPCB is not open to all members.

Karen Gillon said that the SPCB's criteria would prevent her from presenting her proposed bill to Parliament. However, in other places, such as Westminster, no special help is given to back benchers for their bills. Could she not still present her proposal to Parliament?

I could, but I would prefer to present the bill independent of any outside interests and so ensure that no particular aspect of the proposal was influencing me. That is why I think that the Scottish Parliament's procedures are special. They provide drafting expertise to allow those members who do not have the support of lobbying organisations with money to produce a bill that is suitable for the Parliament to enact. I do not think that members should be able to present more than one bill, but the Procedures Committee could not reach consensus on that. Being allowed to present only one bill would significantly cut down the number of bills that NEBU and the Parliament must face.

I seek views and reassurances from the SPCB on the issues of clarity and transparency and I want to know why it did not seek Parliament's approval of the criteria before it sought to prioritise bills.

First, I am speaking purely in a personal capacity and not for the Liberal Democrats. I am not terribly clear whether they have a party line on this issue, but I do not adhere to it. Secondly, I am the recently arrived convener of the Procedures Committee, but I do not speak for it either.

It is not clear to me whether the vital wording in paragraph 8 of the SPCB report on

"the potential size, scope and complexity of a Bill"

applies as a sort of universal declaration now and for ever, or whether it applies only at the moment as we get a little bit towards the next election. To my mind, there is a difference. I fully accept that it is sensible to run Parliament's affairs in such a way that we do not have lots of half-done bills when it comes to the next election. We want to concentrate on getting through whatever bills there are, whether important or trivial. I would accept a statement that said something to the effect that we would try to prioritise at the present time in a certain way.

Paragraph 8 also talks about factors that need to be

"taken into account where demand exceeds capacity".

However, in all human activities everywhere, demand always exceeds capacity. Therefore, with all due respect, I think that that remark is rather pointless. Further, I would not accept what is said about the size, scope and complexity of bills as being a general statement of principle for ever. That is an endeavour to influence the type of bills that members introduce.

The other point that I want to highlight is made higher up on the same page. The report states:

"there should be no likelihood of legislative action on a similar subject matter … within the current session in the Scottish Parliament or at Westminster or Europe in the same area of law."

I tried to pursue two member's bills, both of which were shafted by the Executive. One of them was shafted quite intelligently. The Executive appointed Sheriff Nicholson to run a committee on alcohol, licensing and so on, which has produced a lot of sensible propositions, most of which would have been in my proposed bill.

The response to my other bill was a complete sham. The Executive set up a non-existent committee, allegedly to consider producing legislation on crimes motivated by religious hatred. The whole thing was a total disaster. It was rescued by Jack McConnell, who came out very strongly on the issue. After that, effective action was taken. As a member of one party, I am always amused and interested by the internal mechanisms of other parties, which I do not understand. Certainly, Jack McConnell has a great deal of clout in the Labour Party. My experience in this area is bad, so I do not necessarily accept claims by the Executive that it may do something about an issue in the future.

Does the member agree that the outcomes were not bad and that he got what he wanted, even if by a different route?

The second proposal was rescued purely by chance. My experience provided me with an insight into the complete dishonesty of the Government machine, which was even worse than I had ever imagined it to be—and that is saying quite a lot. I am concerned about the provision that would prevent a bill from being prioritised if the Executive said that it might be able to do something about the issue concerned. I would like the proponents of the report to say whether paragraph 8 will apply only now, when time is short before an election, or whether it will apply in the future for ever. I could not accept the latter.

When the Parliament was established, it was trumpeted that it would be a different Parliament—a people's Parliament. Recently the garden lobby has been full of photographs of the campaigning that preceded the establishment of the Parliament. They show people on the streets, people at a caravan and others taking part in efforts to secure the Parliament. The Parliament was to be different. It was to be more relevant. Westminster was the ivory towers, but we were going to do things differently. We were going to engage more with the Scottish people.

Nora Radcliffe says that the ability of back benchers to introduce legislative proposals with the support of NEBU is a resource that no other Parliament has. That is great. One of our problems is that the ideal with which we started of every back bencher having the right to introduce a bill is being eroded—not just by the proposal that we are debating but by a number of proposals. However, we are members of a Parliament that is only six years old.

Previously, NEBU did not exist. When we were first elected and back benchers were given the right to introduce legislation, it was an evolving process. The Parliament tried to enable back benchers to exercise their right by creating NEBU. As part of the evolving process to which I have referred, NEBU's staff was increased. However, in the six years since the Parliament was established, the corporate body has made it increasingly difficult for back benchers to introduce bills. First, the required number of signatories was increased—now 18 are needed. Secondly, it is no longer possible to lodge a bill proposal unless lengthy consultation has been undertaken. Now the Parliament as a whole is to decide which bills will be prioritised, on the basis of resources. If we agree that back benchers in this new Parliament have the right to introduce legislation, surely we need the political will to work out how that should be accommodated.

In relation to my proposed free school meals bill, I have had support from NEBU and been over all the hurdles. However, because of the rule changes, I now have to get signatories for the proposal for the fourth time.

I do not think for a moment that the corporate body is whiter than white; in fact, seeing some of the members who are on it, I know for a fact that that is not the case. However, it is a bit unfair to criticise the corporate body for something that is not its responsibility. Most of the issues that Frances Curran has talked about emanate from Procedures Committee decisions. If she is going to have a go at somebody, she should have a go at the right target. If she wants a chance to do so, she should come along to a Procedures Committee meeting, as the Scottish Socialist Party has been invited to do, and make a contribution.

I take the point about the Procedures Committee, but the whole Parliament has to vote on the issues and there is a built-in Government majority in the Parliament. Therefore, the issue is about the political will on whether we have the right to introduce bills.

The issue is also about innovation and an aspect of the Parliament that is not Government legislation. Many members' bills are innovative—regardless of the party from which the members come—and are linked to local people and campaigns. The Breastfeeding etc (Scotland) Bill and Stewart Maxwell's Prohibition of Smoking in Regulated Areas (Scotland) Bill ended up as Government legislation. I would be delighted if the Executive said tomorrow that it was going to take over my proposal for a free school meals bill. The system is about pushing for legislation to make changes.

Will the member take an intervention?

I have already taken one and I have hardly any time.

The Protection of Wild Mammals (Scotland) Bill and the Abolition of Poindings and Warrant Sales Bill created debate out there among ordinary people. Many initiatives and proposals, including Karen Gillon's, have come from experience out there and from talking to ordinary people. Therefore, the idea that members have to find backing from trade unions, voluntary organisations, big business or other businesses defeats the purpose. Members need to get support from such organisations to get a bill through, when they should be representing ordinary people who raise issues with them.

Given that there are 108 back benchers and numerous committees that can introduce bills, is it fair that there are only six members of NEBU? I do not see any proposals about what it would cost to double the size of NEBU or to increase it temporarily. The proposals will not fulfil the aims of the Parliament. The issue is about political will. The corporate body should give us the facts and figures. Its only proposal is to cut back on the number of members' bills—it has not produced any other proposal. I agree with Chris Ballance that we need proposals with costings so that we can make an informed decision.

One of the biggest problems that the Parliament has is connecting with ordinary people. During a recent visit to a school in Clydebank with Murray Tosh, Des McNulty and others—we all do such visits on Fridays—I asked the pupils to name me one proposal that the Parliament has put through that has affected their lives. They were struggling. When we began to mention the proposals that had been put through that had affected their lives and which they knew about, the ones that they identified with and were interested in were members' bills such as the Protection of Wild Mammals (Scotland) Bill. The big issue is connection with the people. Most people whom we go out with at the weekend do not have a clue about what the Parliament discusses. When we go to the pub with our pals or family, they have not got a clue. Is it relevant?

Members' bills are a conduit for the Parliament to achieve relevancy to lots of community campaigns, voluntary organisations and ordinary people. We should be increasing resources for that process. The Government parties should accept that and do the Parliament a favour, rather than turn it into a junior version of Westminster.

In the past couple of days, I went from sheer anger to sympathy when I spent a couple of hours researching the Procedures Committee's sixth report of 2004. The issues took me away back to 2000. The complexity of the committee's investigations and findings must be commended to a degree. I do not agree with all the findings—I do not suppose that anyone would—but the committee considered all or most of the relevant issues that were before it. The report is tiring reading, so it must have been tiring work. The report has a number of recommendations.

A year or so ago, I produced a proposal to do away with the selling of people's homes to pay for their residential care. I hope to lodge a bill to that effect. I have no axe to grind with the corporate body and I have nothing but praise for NEBU; David Cullum did a marvellous job in guiding us.

I am glad to be on the Equal Opportunities Committee and not the Procedures Committee because the latter does a mind-boggling amount of work. However, I have to take a step back and ask myself, "What criteria have I missed?" The Greens must think that about 14 acres of rainforest are destroyed to allow for the paperwork that comes through the Parliament. I learned only three weeks ago that my bill had no chance of progressing. I was probably told that in the small print somewhere along the line, but it did not reach me. If the Procedures Committee has the temerity to terminate a bill or to say that it will probably not succeed, the very least that that committee should do is to send a little memo to the member who lodged the bill to clarify the situation.

Which member of the Procedures Committee told Mr Swinburne that his bill had no chance of success?

I have no idea whatever. All I can say is that I found that out three weeks ago. When something went through on the nod in the Parliament, I made an inquiry and was told quite sincerely, "You'll be all right, your bill's in the pipeline." I am standing on my feet here because I want my bill to continue in the pipeline.

Would my bill affect many people? A total of 667,000 pensioners are worrying themselves marginally or deeply about whether their house could be sold to pay for their residential care. No Government has any right to put worry on pensioners, of all people. My bill would take that worry away. Only 4 per cent of pensioners find themselves in that unfortunate position, but the other 96 per cent worry about it to a small or a great extent. What right has this legislative body to impose worry on people who have served their country well all their working lives, and who have bought a house and then found out that the house could be sold from under them to pay for their care? We have been told by the Procedures Committee that for any member's bill to succeed the member must be seen to be putting in some of their time. We have researched the issue and tried to get information for two and a half years. One of the reasons why my bill is not further down the line is that when we tried to get facts and figures from the councils, the reply was, "This information is not held centrally."

It might be helpful—or unhelpful—but the rules of the Parliament say that a member can lodge a draft bill in this session until September 2006. The question that Mr Swinburne may have been confronted with is whether he would get support from NEBU to draft his bill.

I realise that, but I got the impression that not only was my bill kicked into the long grass, it was completely off the radar. There is no mention of my bill in the excellent document that we are discussing today. I have put my bill out for consultation and have been told by NEBU that it cannot consider it for six weeks. It will then take NEBU six weeks to go through the consultation. I appreciate NEBU's problems, but at the point that I lodge my bill as a final proposal I will have to look for support from five members. The goalposts have been moved. I had 13 signatures, including my own, and I had the support of members of five parties. I now need a few more signatures. I hope that I will be able to get another five signatures for this very good bit of legislation. The bill can be tweaked in any way, as long as people stop being put into homes only to have a social worker come to their bedside to help them to sell their house to pay for their care. We should be ashamed of ourselves for allowing that to happen.

One reason why I went out in 1997 and voted against the creation of the Parliament and then stood for election to become a member of it is that I believe in democracy, even when I am on the losing side. When I arrived here and discovered to my horror that the Conservatives were not in a position to form an Administration, I was again disappointed, but I still kept my faith in democracy. The Parliament is about democracy. There are minor parties in it that like to shout about democracy and I thought that I would open my speech by doing so too for a wee while.

We must remember that the way in which we serve democracy in the Parliament should reflect the views of the electorate. I accept that the people have spoken, the bounders—I use that term for the benefit of the more sensitive among us—and that we must cope with what has been delivered to us. We must remember that they expressed their views and elected a chamber with different-sized parties whose representation reflects their level of support on the day of the election. The people have, of course, spoken in another election since the first election in 1999. We must also remember that, in order to serve democracy, the Parliament must do its job and give the largest number of those who have been elected the opportunity to express their views. As a result, much of the time that members spend in here will be devoted to Executive business.

The non-Executive bills unit is a clever innovation that assists those who are not in the Executive with proposed legislation. We must remember that the unit is not a specific attempt to support minor parties or individuals who have an axe to grind. Back benchers around the chamber deserve a share of the responsibility. Therefore, if we accept that the Parliament's primary job is to enable the Executive to carry out its business and to enable those of us in opposition to try to shoot that business down, and that there are back benchers around the chamber who deserve time to deal with non-Executive business, it must be accepted that finite resources are available to deal with that part of our business.

The member is talking about finite resources. Does he not realise that only 1.3 per cent of the SPCB's budget is spent on supporting members' bills? Five members of staff are involved. Can the number of staff not be upped to seven, eight or nine?

That was something of an aside, but I will deal with the member's point. We could choose to make the budget as big as we want to make it, undermine all the other activities that are funded by the SPCB and devote huge resources to the non-Executive bills unit so that members of the Green party can make their sometimes complex and interesting proposals for legislation, but would that be democratic? We must take democracy into account and ensure that resources are allocated to reflect how people have voted in elections.

The situation is difficult to deal with and there are difficult decisions to make. In some Parliaments—at Westminster, for example—there is simply a ballot. If a member's name comes out of the ballot, they can invent a piece of legislation and try to promote it. That system is not as fair as a system that devotes a set of criteria to selecting who should receive access to finite resources.

To sum up what I have said, the proposal that we are discussing is not perfect and difficulties are involved. However, by setting a list of criteria—which may not be ideal but which can be used to judge one proposal against another—we will have the opportunity to ensure that proposed legislation is considered initially and can be furthered through the non-Executive bills unit's resources if that is thought to be appropriate.

Before I stop speaking, it is important to mention Brian Monteith's amendment, which supports his local government elections (Scotland) bill. As the amendment says, the proposals are time sensitive. I agree with him that time sensitivity needs to be taken into account, because there will be proposed bills that are appropriate at a particular time, and that might miss the boat and not achieve the great deal of good that they could achieve if they were given the opportunity to proceed.

Will the member take an intervention?

No, he is just finishing.

I believe that Brian Monteith's proposals under his local government elections (Scotland) bill are very important. It is important that we divide the two elections so that the Scottish Parliament and local elections take place on different days. Because we have two electoral systems, it is essential that we deal with the two elections separately. Given the procedure and the fact that he appears to have missed the boat, it seems that we might not be able to deal with the matter through that bill. For that reason, I remain fully supportive of his amendment. Even if we do not find broader support for it, I hope that we hear some favourable comments in the closing speeches. I will be supporting the motion in the name of Duncan McNeil.

We have heard concerns from around the chamber that the criteria that have been presented in the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body's report are not sufficiently clear or transparent. Nora Radcliffe argued that they do not undermine back benchers' rights to introduce legislation. I wonder whether she might accept a slight amendment to that: the SPCB's proposals severely undermine the right of back benchers to introduce some legislation and blunt a major tool by which back benchers may introduce some ideas to the Parliament. The proposals represent a limitation on some rights of back benchers. The criteria for that limitation include, as Nora Radcliffe said, the level of support that a proposed bill has. How she can argue that a judgment of how much support a proposal for a bill has is not a political decision escapes me.

We have heard from many members about the criteria of size, scope and complexity.

The member must admit that there is a practical problem of finite resources, and that decisions must be taken. His solution is to have more finance, more staff and more everything. What, practically, is he suggesting should replace what the corporate body is proposing? The corporate body is proposing a practical answer to a practical problem.

That is the subject of this closing speech and I will deal with those points as I come to them. The solutions that the corporate body has chosen with respect to support for bill proposals and, in particular, their size, scope and complexity, have raised major concerns from across the chamber.

Mark Ballard and I fundamentally disagree on the issue of support. We must have some criterion that is based on support. Support is an indication of how likely it is that a bill will see its way through the Parliament. Given that support is now asked for after consultation, and that the process is an informed one, surely we will have a much clearer indication of the likely success or failure of a bill at least to make it through stage 1. We should not be putting resources towards something that has no chance of seeing the light of day.

That is what stage 1 is for: to assess the support in the Parliament for the general principles of a bill. We should not introduce what would effectively be a stage 0.

I am sorry. I cannot take any more interventions; the Presiding Officer would scold me severely if I did.

To respond to Andrew Welsh's question on how best to deal with bills, the matter has been extensively discussed, first by the Parliamentary Bureau and then by the Procedures Committee. The first option, which many members mentioned, is to increase the resources for the non-Executive bills unit. When the unit was founded in 2000, it had three members of staff. That went up to eight in 2002 in order to deal with a specific piece of committee legislation. It now has five members of staff. There is an opportunity to increase the staff resources for the non-Executive bills unit.

I recognise, as did all the members of the Procedures Committee, that that is not necessarily enough. We need more ways to maximise the resources that we have. That is why we have set higher hurdles. Consultation has to be done first, more signatures have to obtained and there has to be cross-party support. That has reduced dramatically the number of bill ideas that become proposals on which NEBU needs to spend significant time. Those hurdles are the fair way to ensure that the best bills get support from the Parliament. We have heard proposals for additional hurdles, such as the idea of one member, one bill. That is always going to be a better way of dealing with things than is setting up a committee to consider the comparative merits of different proposals.

The corporate body proposal is to have a body of MSPs making those decisions. Bruce Crawford asked an important question: is the SPCB the right body and are the criteria used the right criteria? We have heard from Karen Gillon some good arguments why the corporate body is a problematic body to make the decision. It has closed meetings with no minutes, it is not directly accountable and three of the seven parties and groups in the Scottish Parliament do not have a representative on it. We need to explore whether another body could make the decision, such as a committee of back benchers. The right place to do it is the Procedures Committee. It should be considering the procedures and drawing up better ones using the mechanisms that we have; the corporate body should not be doing so.

Will the member take an intervention?

No. I do not have enough time.

Finally, the corporate body has come up with the idea of having a vote in the chamber on which bills should receive support from the non-Executive bills unit. Karen Gillon outlined the problems with that proposal. What was predicted in the Procedures Committee will happen. There will be special pleading, such as John Swinburne asking quite rightly, "Where is my bill on the list?" and Brian Monteith lodging an amendment to try to get his bill back on the list. That will be inevitable if we are to have a vote in the Parliament. It will lead to political horse trading to get people's bills in or out. That is not a good way of making decisions.

It has been suggested that the criteria should not be set in stone. I want to hear what the corporate body has to say about that. Sufficient concern has been expressed this afternoon to make the corporate body go back and think again, recognise the importance of members' bills, revise the proposals and come back with a new set of criteria that do not cause such concern.

An awful lot of nonsense has been spoken in this debate about the corporate body's proposals on how to prioritise members' bills. I cannot see anything in the proposals that will restrict the right of members of the Scottish Parliament to introduce bills. That right will remain; it is part of the standing orders and is not part of prioritisation of the resources of the non-Executive bills unit. Some people might have to go to external sources to have bills drafted, as they did at the start of session 1, but the right to introduce bills will remain.

It is also important to bear in mind the Parliament's founding principles, which have been quoted. What has been said in that regard is absolute nonsense—when the consultative steering group considered members' bills, it did not propose that members would be able automatically to introduce bills. 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 … or … to the relevant subject Committee"

for it to consider the competence of the legislation and report to Parliament. The CSG envisaged the bill proposal being decided on by Parliament, not the bill itself.

Does the member accept that one of the founding principles of the Parliament is power sharing? That means that when we are considering Executive bills, members' bills and private bills there should be equality of treatment. I do not hear the Executive saying, "We are not going to introduce complex measures, because the bill would be too complicated."

I will come to that in a minute. The matter is not about complexity; it is about time and resources. The important point to bear in mind is that nothing in the proposals will withdraw power sharing from Parliament. All I am saying is that the CSG did not envisage members being able to go straight to introducing bills; Parliament was originally to be able to decide whether to support a bill proposal before the bill was drafted. That would have restricted severely the number of bills that have proceeded. This Parliament already does more than the CSG and the founding principles suggested.

The Procedures Committee considered the matter long and hard—as Mark Ballard will know, having been on the committee at the time. We considered various ways of prioritising bills, but we realised that no system would be able to avoid political interference, or the appearance of political interference, in prioritisation. That is why the committee rejected options such as having a committee of the Parliament or the Parliamentary Bureau decide, or the creation of a special back-bench committee that would decide. However, we recognised that there would come a time in the session at which prioritisation would be necessary.

I will read out the parts of the Procedures Committee's sixth report in 2004 that deal with the matter—you can take the man out of the Procedures Committee but you cannot take the Procedures Committee out of the man. The report stated:

"We acknowledge that, because the new procedures we recommend are not a direct substitute for the prioritisation system originally proposed, they cannot prevent a situation arising where there are more members who have obtained a right to introduce Members' Bills than NEBU has resources to support".

It went on to say that

"In that event, choices will still have to be made as to how limited resources are allocated",

and it recommended that the SPCB would be the appropriate body to do that and to establish clear criteria.

One of the key points—it relates to whether the tartan register is more important than GM licensing—was that neither the policy content of proposals nor the political affiliation of members promoting them were to be considered as criteria for a bill; it would not be right for the SPCB to say that one bill is more important than another when it is applying criteria. It must consider the resource implications non-politically, which is what the proposals that are before us today will ensure.

It is important to bear it in mind that bills take up time not only in their drafting but in their passage through Parliament. NEBU must spend time dealing with stages 1, 2 and 3 of the bill, along with all the associated amendments. A complex bill will require a number of sessions in committee and will require more resources than a simple bill, which might require only one or two sessions in committee. It is not only the complexity of the proposal but the complexity of the bill that has resource implications in terms of drafting the bill, drafting amendments and consideration in committee.

The other finite resource that has barely been mentioned today is parliamentary time—Alasdair Morgan mentioned it when he spoke. It is important that we bear it in mind that Parliament has a finite amount of time and that we cannot deal with all member's bill proposals. There has to be some prioritisation if Parliament is to be able to go about its business.

I agree with much of what Alex Johnstone said, although not the last couple of minutes of his speech. In particular, I agree with what he said about Parliament having being elected democratically and the Executive parties having a right, because they have the democratic mandate, to implement their programme for government. The purpose of the member's bill procedure is not to allow other parties to promote their manifestos, but unfortunately that is what is often done. The member's bill procedure is abused by parties that wish to promote their manifestos, which did not get the endorsement of the electorate.

The electorate did not endorse the Liberal Democrats either—Iain Smith's party lost the election. He does not have the mandate that he is talking about.

I think that the member will find that the Executive parties are the majority in the Parliament, which means that we can implement our partnership programme.

A final point that was made by the Procedures Committee—and which deals with all the nonsense that Frances Curran talked—is the importance of consultation before a bill is lodged. That was placed at the centre of the member's bill process by the Procedures Committee. It is extremely important and involves engagement with the public.

Mr Aitken, you are entitled to six minutes. However, if you can deliver your speech in less time, that would be appreciated, as we are short of time.

I will do everything possible to comply with your wish.

Everyone who is connected with business management in the Parliament would want to ensure that we are as flexible as possible, but flexibility has to some extent to be governed by what is practical. Right away, I say that I understand the frustrations that have been outlined by Chris Ballance, John Swinburne, Mark Ballard and—somewhat more stridently—Frances Curran. I acknowledge that they feel that bills about which they feel strongly are not going to get the appropriate parliamentary hearing, although I have to say that John Swinburne made sure that his proposed bill got a fair hearing when he spoke earlier, on the basis of his special pleading.

However, let us examine history. In the previous session we put through eight members' bills: two Labour members, two Conservative members, two Liberal members, one SNP member and one SSP member got their bills through. Therefore, there appears to be an element of fairness and success in how back benchers are allowed to promote legislation. Parliament does not have to apologise to anyone for its procedures on this matter.

What is the alternative? Basically, it would be a free-for-all. It is no exaggeration that, on the basis of each member being allocated two bills per parliamentary session, we could have some 200 members' bills being considered in a four-year session. In fact, there would be more if it were not for the bloated Scottish Executive's having so many ministers that there are fewer back benchers to promote bills. How could Parliament be expected to cope with 200 bills? Financial and committee pressures would come into the equation, as Iain Smith said. The committees would not have sufficient time to examine bills, and neither would there be chamber time for that.

Does the member accept that in the real world there are 36 bill proposals at present, not 200? We set hurdles such as a required number of signatures in support of a proposal in order to reduce the number of proposals. That is the way forward, rather than a notion of arbitrary complexity.

Mr Ballance refers to the situation as it is at present. However, as Donald Gorrie said, the way that human activity expands to fill the time available would ensure that if the restrictions were not in place, we would be in serious difficulty.

What is the other alternative? Should we, as Alex Johnstone asked, adopt the Westminster ballot? In fact, every bill that has come before Parliament from back-bench members to date has been well thought out and researched, because members anticipated that they would have the opportunity to make a bill proposal. If we adopted the Westminster ballot system, we would find that a member whose name was drawn in the ballot would ask himself, "What will I legislate on?" Of course, that is not a proper way to introduce legislation.

I point out the merit in Brian Monteith's amendment: the process is time sensitive. Due to parliamentary bureaucracy's not catching up, his member's bill did not go through the system in sufficient time for the corporate body to consider it. I counter Nora Radcliffe's argument that if we had known that David Mundell was going to Westminster we should have lodged the bill in somebody else's name. If I knew who was going to win elections, I would be round the corner to William Hill the bookmakers with a large wad of £10 notes to make a substantial profit.

What we have today is a fairly sensible proposal. I hope that hearing Duncan McNeil will enable us to save some time later on. However, Brian Monteith's amendment is well worth consideration. On that note, Presiding Officer, I will end, having saved you one minute and 20 seconds.

I am very grateful for that. However, we are still five minutes adrift; therefore, in calling Mr McNeil to wind up the debate, I ask him to do so in less than the scheduled 10 minutes, if possible.

I will try to comply. What do we have here today? We certainly do not have a political conspiracy. I do not recognise what we have tried to do today as an attempt to do down back benchers or to limit their powers. What we have tried to do is build on opportunities to influence Executive thinking and to develop policy. We in the Scottish Parliament are experts in failing to recognise that among the Parliaments of the world we are the only one to have a unit that actually helps members—not of the Government, but back benchers—through policy development, drafting and handling support.

What we have here today is not a political conspiracy but a failure to agree. Everyone has had a chance to talk about the issue and, even though I am a thick-skinned politician, I take slight umbrage at the pass-the-parcel game that we have been left with today.

Everyone also seems to have the answers. If there have been answers out there, we have been missing them since 2000, because we have been struggling with this problem since then. We have the problem because we have given members the expectation that they have a right to introduce a member's bill, irrespective of when they lodge it. That ambition clashes with the reality of management of the process and not the politics. It would be entirely wrong for any group of people, particularly the corporate body—which has been elected by and is accountable to Parliament—to make decisions about the merits of one bill as opposed to another. That would take us into a political area, which would be unacceptable.

To put matters in context, the criteria that we have described today will apply only when demand exceeds capacity. As Donald Gorrie said, that will happen, and our experience is that it does happen, which is why we are trying to manage the process. If we know or expect that demand will exceed capacity, we must manage the process. Decisions about what bills are put to the side should not be made in a smoke-filled room or by a civil servant or an employee of the Scottish Parliament. As John Swinburne said, if a member's bill is not going to proceed, the member will want to know why. They will want to know what criteria were used and they will want the system to be open. That is what today's debate is trying to achieve.

Where is our point of reference? Iain Smith mentioned the Procedures Committee. Its report stated:

"we were unable to agree on how a system of prioritisation could be made to work in a way that would achieve its main aim of improving the management of the Member's Bill process while still protecting the rights of backbench members to initiate legislation ideas and have them considered on their merits."

We are here today because the Procedures Committee could not agree.

The report goes on to say that

"A Member's Bill should be an attempt to secure a worthwhile change".

Iain Smith made a very good point about the democratic deficit. The Executive has the opportunity to exercise its democratic mandate as the elected Government.

The Procedures Committee report also stated:

"A Member's Bill should be an attempt to secure a worthwhile change in the law (rather than a device to promote the member or his or her party's platform)."

We are dealing with all those issues.

There has been a great deal of discussion today about complexity and about who decides what that is. Again, the point of reference is the Procedures Committee, which said:

"There is probably no single criterion that can be adopted in advance that will resolve any competition among proposals for resources that might arise. In practice, there will be various factors that could or should be taken into account in making such decisions, without bringing in directly political considerations … Other relevant factors may be the order in which members obtained a right to introduce a Bill; the relative complexity of the proposals and hence the resource implications of developing them into Bills".

That is all in the Procedures Committee's report and it is our point of reference when we address the issue. Of course we considered whether it would be a good idea to put more people into NEBU, but as Rob Gibson pointed out, it is not just about putting more money into the unit. The Procedures Committee rightly acknowledged that some committee members feel that they have been forced to pursue member's bills against the interests of their committee's bills. If we were to respond to that demand and allow more bills, this situation would continue.

In the first session there were four committee bills but, in this session, only one committee bill has been introduced. The member seems to be suggesting that there is a vast demand for committee bills.

Anyone who has dealt with NEBU will know that its role is not to stop people progressing bill proposals, but to actively encourage them to do so. I presume that that will continue to be the case. All that a back bencher needs to do is to prove that he has consulted on his proposal in some way, and then NEBU will develop the policy for him and support him throughout the development process. NEBU gives good advice from an expert point of view. Not many people can give the advice that that group of people can.

I recognise that a few members acknowledged the good work that NEBU does, although it is a shame that more did not do so. It provides members with a unique service and it does so effectively and honestly. It is wrong to pretend that, as a result of our efforts to manage out the problems that we are discussing, that group of people will suddenly become gatekeepers who will prevent us from submitting proposals for bills. The Green party should know that. NEBU works long, hard and effectively with that party's members. In fact, NEBU has dealt with nine bill proposals from members of the Green party this session. If each member had been allowed to make only one bill proposal, the Green party would have needed to drop three of its proposals and this debate could have been held among its members rather than in Parliament.

I will give way to John Swinburne—I have already taken an intervention from the Greens.

I would like clarification. Can the member enlighten me as to whether, if a bill does not make it during this parliamentary session, it will hit the ground running in the next session or have to go through the same procedures again?

It is my understanding that such a bill will not need to get over the same hurdles again and will be capable of being picked up by the member, or by someone else. That is an established procedure.

I emphasise that the criteria that are outlined in the SPCB's report are not the result of political shenanigans; rather, they represent a genuine attempt to build on NEBU's success and on the opportunities that exist for members to introduce bills. They will apply only when there is over-demand and we are simply explaining how we will make decisions when that is the case. That partly answers the question that was asked about whether the SPCB's decision is for all time. I would expect such debates to occur perhaps once every parliamentary session. There will be an opportunity to suck it and see.

On that point, will we in the future debate the criteria rather than the bills that will be affected by them? That would be a fairer way to proceed, because now we are in a Dutch auction.

That is right, but we would have been accused of dishonesty if today we had attempted to discuss just the criteria and not their consequences. I understand the point that Karen Gillon makes.

Other members have taken the opportunity to plead their case. I turn to Brian Monteith, who, even though he told us that he was not pleading his case, did so very well. It was unfortunate that we were not able to discuss his proposal for a bill because it had not been lodged. We look forward to its being lodged. Both Brian Monteith and Alasdair Morgan mentioned the time sensitivity of such bills.

I hope that the Parliament will put aside the politics of the issue and agree that the problem that we face has been hard to resolve and that we must manage it. I ask members to support the motion in my name.