Plenary, 30 Mar 2006
Meeting date: Thursday, March 30, 2006
Official Report
748KB pdf
Parliamentary Bureau Motions
The next item of business is consideration of two Parliamentary Bureau motions. I ask Margaret Curran to move motion S2M-4217, on the establishment of a committee.
Motion moved,
That the Parliament agrees to establish a committee of the Parliament as follows:
Name of Committee: Edinburgh Airport Rail Link Bill Committee;
Remit: To consider and report to the Parliament on the Edinburgh Airport Railway Link Bill;
Duration: Until the Bill has received Royal Assent, falls or is withdrawn;
Convenership: The Convener will be a member of the Labour Party and the Deputy Convener will be a member of the Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party;
Membership: Christine Grahame, Jamie McGrigor, Iain Smith, Scott Barrie, Mr Charlie Gordon.—[Ms Margaret Curran.]
Members may find it odd for me to contest a motion on the membership of a private bill committee. As we heard yesterday during the debate on the Edinburgh Tram (Line One) Bill, the issue is normally whose arm can be twisted to go on such committees. However, at the Parliamentary Bureau on Tuesday, six names were proposed for the five places and the Green nominee was rejected.
It is worth recounting some of the history of the matter. In the past, the Greens have been criticised for not taking up places on private bill committees. As a small party, we face practical difficulties in taking up such places. For the tram bill committees, as most of our members either have residences in Edinburgh or represent the Lothians, we had difficulty in proposing names. Therefore, I made a commitment that, at the next opportunity, the Greens would propose a member to take up a place on a private bill committee. Chris Ballance, my replacement as business manager, proposed a Green member for the Edinburgh Airport Rail Link Bill Committee, which was the next private bill committee that needed members. The Bureau rejected the Green volunteer.
I understand that the suitability of Greens to serve on the committee was questioned because Greens, including me, have raised issues about the proposals for the Edinburgh airport rail link. That is strange because, if Greens are in some way ineligible to serve on the committee because Green members have criticised the proposals, the fact that the rail link is a partnership commitment for the Executive parties surely makes all Executive members equally ineligible. It is important that members recognise the significance of the decision that we will take. I am sure that Margaret Curran agrees that no perception should arise that major and costly transport infrastructure projects do not get full scrutiny at committee or that any member of Parliament cannot put aside their initial thoughts, whether for or against a proposal, in considering it.
I therefore urge Parliament to reject the motion, which would not delay consideration of the scheme, but would allow for properly balanced representation on the committee. The important principle is that we should acknowledge what all members can bring to the process. Members should not be ruled out of participation in private bill committees because of opinions that they have given for or against proposals. I therefore urge members to reject the motion and to send it back to the Parliamentary Bureau.
I am grateful to Mark Ballard for telling me earlier that he was going to object to the motion. I agree with Mark Ballard that all members who have served on private bill committees and, I am sure, those who are about to serve on them, give full scrutiny to those bills. The implication that, because we did not support the Greens, other members may somehow not demonstrate that proper scrutiny role, is insulting to members who have already served on such committees. In the past two weeks, we have agreed to two motions on such bills and Jackie Baillie and others have demonstrated to Parliament their clear scrutiny role.
To be absolutely honest, members of the bureau did raise an eyebrow because the only private bill committee for which the Greens have put forward a member is one with which they disagree, so the bureau was concerned about a lack of fairness. Members of the bureau are entitled to put forward names to serve on private bill committees because we see it as our proper parliamentary role, which we want our members to fulfil. I speak on behalf of all the major parties—all others that are represented on the bureau—in rejecting Mark Ballard's points. All parties agreed that we should go forward on that basis.
I ask Margaret Curran to move motion S2M-4202, on rule 2.7.2.
Motion moved,
That the Parliament agrees under Rule 2.7.2 that the Parliament shall meet in Committee Rooms 2 and 6 of the Parliament at Holyrood as recommended by the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body until 21 April 2006.—[Ms Margaret Curran].
The question on the motions will be put at decision time, to which we now come.