Chamber
Plenary, 11 Mar 2009
11 Mar 2009 · S3 · Plenary
Item of business
Damages (Asbestos-related Conditions) (Scotland) Bill: <br />Stage 3
I thank Patrick Harvie—the list of people to thank is not as long as it might have been. I will resist the temptation to rebut Robert Brown's comments about chartered accountants, although I note that he is perhaps the only lawyer in the country who is opposed to complex legislation.
The substantive point that Robert Brown raised, which Richard Baker also mentioned, is whether proposed new subsection (9) refers to too broad a group of bodies. I simply point out that amendment 9 uses the same wording as the rule in the Parliament's standing orders that sets out which groups must be considered in relation to financial memoranda. Therefore, to suggest that the approach in amendment 9 would be too broad for post-legislative scrutiny might also be to suggest that it is too broad for pre-legislative scrutiny. As far as I am aware, the approach in standing orders has operated since financial memoranda were first provided. Although Mr Brown's objection appears superficially accurate, closer examination reveals that there is less substance to it.
Patrick Harvie asked why we should scrutinise only financial matters. He made a valid point about the need to extend post-legislative scrutiny to other areas. I am a member of the Finance Committee, so perhaps it is inevitable that I have a bias towards financial aspects of post-legislative scrutiny. The member made a reasonable point.
Robert Brown suggested that the proposed reporting mechanism might be incredibly costly. I point out that, in relation to the Climate Change (Scotland) Bill, the Government estimates that to map all Scotland's carbon emissions and progress against targets in the bill would cost only £60,000. Given the volume of proposed legislation that the Parliament is considering, it would be surprising if significant additional costs were incurred as a result of the Parliament agreeing to amendment 9. Indeed, additional costs might be prevented by the provision of an early warning system that would alert us to costs that were going awry.
I acknowledge the minister's constructive tone and, in particular, his acceptance of the principle of routine post-legislative scrutiny, which is key. I am happy to explore the potential for a non-legislative solution to the problem so, on the basis of what the minister said, I seek leave to withdraw amendment 9.
The substantive point that Robert Brown raised, which Richard Baker also mentioned, is whether proposed new subsection (9) refers to too broad a group of bodies. I simply point out that amendment 9 uses the same wording as the rule in the Parliament's standing orders that sets out which groups must be considered in relation to financial memoranda. Therefore, to suggest that the approach in amendment 9 would be too broad for post-legislative scrutiny might also be to suggest that it is too broad for pre-legislative scrutiny. As far as I am aware, the approach in standing orders has operated since financial memoranda were first provided. Although Mr Brown's objection appears superficially accurate, closer examination reveals that there is less substance to it.
Patrick Harvie asked why we should scrutinise only financial matters. He made a valid point about the need to extend post-legislative scrutiny to other areas. I am a member of the Finance Committee, so perhaps it is inevitable that I have a bias towards financial aspects of post-legislative scrutiny. The member made a reasonable point.
Robert Brown suggested that the proposed reporting mechanism might be incredibly costly. I point out that, in relation to the Climate Change (Scotland) Bill, the Government estimates that to map all Scotland's carbon emissions and progress against targets in the bill would cost only £60,000. Given the volume of proposed legislation that the Parliament is considering, it would be surprising if significant additional costs were incurred as a result of the Parliament agreeing to amendment 9. Indeed, additional costs might be prevented by the provision of an early warning system that would alert us to costs that were going awry.
I acknowledge the minister's constructive tone and, in particular, his acceptance of the principle of routine post-legislative scrutiny, which is key. I am happy to explore the potential for a non-legislative solution to the problem so, on the basis of what the minister said, I seek leave to withdraw amendment 9.
In the same item of business
The Presiding Officer (Alex Fergusson):
NPA
The next item of business is stage 3 proceedings on the Damages (Asbestos-related Conditions) (Scotland) Bill. In dealing with amendments, members should hav...
Section 1—Pleural plaques
The Presiding Officer:
NPA
Amendment 1, in the name of the Minister for Community Safety, is grouped with amendments 2 to 8.
The Minister for Community Safety (Fergus Ewing):
SNP
To set the context for the individual amendments that the Government has lodged, I will briefly recap what I said during the stage 2 proceedings. I made clea...
Bill Butler (Glasgow Anniesland) (Lab):
Lab
Justice Committee members and the minister will recall that I lodged stage 2 amendments that were intended not to change the effect of the bill but to ensure...
Robert Brown (Glasgow) (LD):
LD
I will comment briefly, primarily to thank the minister for his attitude, on which Bill Butler touched. Underlying the amendments and our discussion at stage...
Fergus Ewing:
SNP
I thank Bill Butler, Robert Brown and the other Justice Committee members for the way in which these somewhat technical matters were dealt with. We all wante...
Amendment 1 agreed to.
Amendments 2 and 3 moved—Fergus Ewing—and agreed to.
Section 2—Pleural thickening and asbestosis
Amendments 4 to 7 moved—Fergus Ewing—and agreed to.
Section 3—Limitation of actions
Amendment 8 moved—Fergus Ewing—and agreed to.
After section 3
The Presiding Officer:
NPA
Amendment 9, in the name of Derek Brownlee, is in a group on its own.
Derek Brownlee (South of Scotland) (Con):
Con
The amendment in my name is rather tortuous to read, as things in my name often are, but it is relatively simple at heart. It would ensure that the projected...
Richard Baker (North East Scotland) (Lab):
Lab
The bill has enjoyed unanimous support so far and I hope that that continues to be the case today. However, I am afraid that I cannot support the amendment i...
Robert Brown:
LD
I agree entirely with Richard Baker's remarks, especially his last comment. Scrutiny of the costs of legislation is a matter for the Public Audit Committee a...
Patrick Harvie (Glasgow) (Green):
Green
Derek Brownlee might wish that I were not the person to back him up, but it is about time that someone did. From time to time, parliamentary committees have ...
Fergus Ewing:
SNP
I thank Derek Brownlee for clearly outlining his thinking on the purpose that he sought to achieve by lodging amendment 9. He has raised an important issue a...
Derek Brownlee:
Con
I thank Patrick Harvie—the list of people to thank is not as long as it might have been. I will resist the temptation to rebut Robert Brown's comments about ...
Amendment 9, by agreement, withdrawn.
The Deputy Presiding Officer (Alasdair Morgan):
SNP
That ends consideration of amendments.