Chamber
Plenary, 11 Nov 2004
11 Nov 2004 · S2 · Plenary
Item of business
Bills
I welcome the proposals as moving in the right direction because they address a lot of important issues. I hope that the committee will revisit the timescales and stages of bills and will consider more radical proposals in future, but I am not against what it proposes.
The background to the report is that we have no revising chamber and even exalted and usually sensible people such as David Steel have suggested that we need a body similar to the House of Lords. I do not agree with that argument at all, but to counter it, we must produce a more robust system for scrutinising bills than we have at the moment. We must ensure that we get a bill right first time, because we do not get a second kick at the ball.
Naturally, there is pressure from the Executive to get its legislative proposals through. It always wants the rapidest possible timetable and says, "Oh, we must get the bill through by June," or whatever. We must be strong enough to resist that and we must have fair scrutiny of the detail of all bills that are introduced.
As other members have said, the amendment process at stage 2 needs more time. In my experience, the various interested bodies that have knowledge in the area of work under consideration get hold of MSPs and say, "We really need amendments that say A, B and C." A member pursues those points, and the Executive often has some sympathy with them but thinks that there is a bit of special pleading and going over the top on the part of the interested bodies, so it responds with another amendment that, it thinks, satisfies the demand. However, the member has to get back to the pressure groups to ask whether the Executive's proposal satisfies their point and to give them the chance to say that the amendment does not address a particular point. There must be time for such consultation and ping-pong to take place, so we need slightly longer than is suggested in the new proposal for the stage 2 timetable.
One point about stage 2 that the report mentions should be tightened up. Sometimes, a raft of amendments is introduced to make considerable changes to a bill or to add a new aspect to it. They might have been consulted on in general terms in the committee's stage 1 inquiry, but the mechanism that is proposed to address the committee's generally accepted wish might have to be examined in more detail. Committees have sometimes consulted at stage 2, but the rule should be that they must consult if significant new proposals are made or if, even though the proposal is not new, the mechanism for achieving it is new. If it is known that the Executive will support the proposal and so it will get through, it is all the more necessary for it to be scrutinised.
Bruce McFee dealt well with the timetable for stage 3. It is essential to have a more flexible system for the debate at stage 3, and, again, the proposals could go further. We have no history of filibustering here, but there is no fear of filibustering, because the limit on the length of speeches is so tight. I think that the rule should be that any member who wants to speak on an amendment at stage 3 or who wants to make a speech in the stage 3 debate should be able to do so. That might not affect how the voting goes, but it is important that there is a full debate at stage 3. As the committee's report says, out of nine bills, two had amendments moved without debate and four others had very restricted debate, often on the most sensitive parts.
The trouble with timetabling motions is that it is difficult to foretell exactly where the time pressures will be. Usually, there is more pressure in relation to a particular part of a bill. Many bills have one or two aspects that arouse controversy. Sometimes, the timetable for those aspects is too tight, while the timetable for the bill as a whole is not. The Presiding Officer must be given flexibility and, as I understand it, that will happen under the committee's proposals.
Members who have requested to speak can sometimes be restricted, but we should be encouraging more members to speak during debates on stage 3 amendments. At the moment, the debate on whether to pass the bill is usually just a rerun of the debates that were held in committee; very few non-committee members tend to take part. We should be encouraging them to do so. If they knew that they would be given time and that they would be able to speak, they would participate.
I hope that this point will be taken seriously—it is the most important point that I want to make. We need a stage 2A—something between stage 2 and stage 3—when the committee and the Executive can re-examine the shape of a bill as amended at stage 2 and try to negotiate the aspects that are still controversial or work out some good amendments to satisfy, if possible, the various points of view. That might clarify exactly what any dispute is about and appropriate amendments could be lodged in that light.
We need a stage between stages 2 and 3, because we must get over the criticism that we do not examine bills carefully enough in the later stages. Initial consultation is excellent but, towards the end, the process gets like a cycle race around a track. People drool round slowly for several laps, but suddenly they all sprint like hell. That is how we deal with our bills. The last stage is too much of a sprint, and we should space it out more. I hope that the Procedures Committee will consider those suggestions in its next round of consultation.
The background to the report is that we have no revising chamber and even exalted and usually sensible people such as David Steel have suggested that we need a body similar to the House of Lords. I do not agree with that argument at all, but to counter it, we must produce a more robust system for scrutinising bills than we have at the moment. We must ensure that we get a bill right first time, because we do not get a second kick at the ball.
Naturally, there is pressure from the Executive to get its legislative proposals through. It always wants the rapidest possible timetable and says, "Oh, we must get the bill through by June," or whatever. We must be strong enough to resist that and we must have fair scrutiny of the detail of all bills that are introduced.
As other members have said, the amendment process at stage 2 needs more time. In my experience, the various interested bodies that have knowledge in the area of work under consideration get hold of MSPs and say, "We really need amendments that say A, B and C." A member pursues those points, and the Executive often has some sympathy with them but thinks that there is a bit of special pleading and going over the top on the part of the interested bodies, so it responds with another amendment that, it thinks, satisfies the demand. However, the member has to get back to the pressure groups to ask whether the Executive's proposal satisfies their point and to give them the chance to say that the amendment does not address a particular point. There must be time for such consultation and ping-pong to take place, so we need slightly longer than is suggested in the new proposal for the stage 2 timetable.
One point about stage 2 that the report mentions should be tightened up. Sometimes, a raft of amendments is introduced to make considerable changes to a bill or to add a new aspect to it. They might have been consulted on in general terms in the committee's stage 1 inquiry, but the mechanism that is proposed to address the committee's generally accepted wish might have to be examined in more detail. Committees have sometimes consulted at stage 2, but the rule should be that they must consult if significant new proposals are made or if, even though the proposal is not new, the mechanism for achieving it is new. If it is known that the Executive will support the proposal and so it will get through, it is all the more necessary for it to be scrutinised.
Bruce McFee dealt well with the timetable for stage 3. It is essential to have a more flexible system for the debate at stage 3, and, again, the proposals could go further. We have no history of filibustering here, but there is no fear of filibustering, because the limit on the length of speeches is so tight. I think that the rule should be that any member who wants to speak on an amendment at stage 3 or who wants to make a speech in the stage 3 debate should be able to do so. That might not affect how the voting goes, but it is important that there is a full debate at stage 3. As the committee's report says, out of nine bills, two had amendments moved without debate and four others had very restricted debate, often on the most sensitive parts.
The trouble with timetabling motions is that it is difficult to foretell exactly where the time pressures will be. Usually, there is more pressure in relation to a particular part of a bill. Many bills have one or two aspects that arouse controversy. Sometimes, the timetable for those aspects is too tight, while the timetable for the bill as a whole is not. The Presiding Officer must be given flexibility and, as I understand it, that will happen under the committee's proposals.
Members who have requested to speak can sometimes be restricted, but we should be encouraging more members to speak during debates on stage 3 amendments. At the moment, the debate on whether to pass the bill is usually just a rerun of the debates that were held in committee; very few non-committee members tend to take part. We should be encouraging them to do so. If they knew that they would be given time and that they would be able to speak, they would participate.
I hope that this point will be taken seriously—it is the most important point that I want to make. We need a stage 2A—something between stage 2 and stage 3—when the committee and the Executive can re-examine the shape of a bill as amended at stage 2 and try to negotiate the aspects that are still controversial or work out some good amendments to satisfy, if possible, the various points of view. That might clarify exactly what any dispute is about and appropriate amendments could be lodged in that light.
We need a stage between stages 2 and 3, because we must get over the criticism that we do not examine bills carefully enough in the later stages. Initial consultation is excellent but, towards the end, the process gets like a cycle race around a track. People drool round slowly for several laps, but suddenly they all sprint like hell. That is how we deal with our bills. The last stage is too much of a sprint, and we should space it out more. I hope that the Procedures Committee will consider those suggestions in its next round of consultation.
In the same item of business
The Deputy Presiding Officer (Murray Tosh):
Con
The next item of business is a debate on motion S2M-1982, in the name of Iain Smith, on behalf of the Procedures Committee, on the timescales and stages of b...
Karen Gillon (Clydesdale) (Lab):
Lab
For some time, members have expressed concern about the timetable for the process for legislation. Those concerns have been echoed by others inside and outwi...
Mr Bruce McFee (West of Scotland) (SNP):
SNP
I should have been immediately suspicious of the smile on my colleague Bruce Crawford's face when he heard the news that he was off the Procedures Committee ...
Mr Jamie McGrigor (Highlands and Islands) (Con):
Con
In order to improve the opportunities for members and others to participate in the making of sound legislation, it is necessary to allow enough time for the ...
Donald Gorrie (Central Scotland) (LD):
LD
I welcome the proposals as moving in the right direction because they address a lot of important issues. I hope that the committee will revisit the timescale...
Pauline McNeill (Glasgow Kelvin) (Lab):
Lab
I recognise that the Procedures Committee has a key function in the Parliament—and I really mean that. I know that this might have been trailed as a dull deb...
The Deputy Presiding Officer:
Con
Contrary to all expectation and precedent, we are behind the clock. I ask the closing speakers to stick strictly to their time limits.
Mr McGrigor:
Con
Karen Gillon said that members' bills should never be held up by narrow political interest. I agree with her. There is no doubt that time invested early will...
Bruce Crawford (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP):
SNP
Jamie McGrigor received applause from members for being brief—should I sit down now?
Members:
Yes.
Bruce Crawford:
SNP
It will take only a couple of minutes for me to make a few comments that I think are reasonably important. I agree with Karen Gillon that there is no seismic...
The Minister for Parliamentary Business (Ms Margaret Curran):
Lab
If ever there was a time for me to say, "Formally moved," perhaps this is it. However, I will briefly outline the Executive's response because the discussion...
Iain Smith (North East Fife) (LD):
LD
I know what members are thinking—we wait for a whole year for a Procedures Committee debate and then two come along at once. I know that members also think t...
Susan Deacon (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab):
Lab
Can the convener of the Procedures Committee advise whether the committee has any plans to take forward the recommendation of the previous committee to shift...
Iain Smith:
LD
It is important that the Parliament gets involved in post-legislative scrutiny. The Procedures Committee does not need to do anything for that to happen beca...
The Deputy Presiding Officer:
Con
There is not enough time for me to indicate that I would welcome a motion without notice to bring forward decision time to now, because by the time the minis...