PR/S2/05/2/A PROCEDURES COMMITTEE AGENDA 2Nd Meeting

PR/S2/05/2/A PROCEDURES COMMITTEE AGENDA 2nd Meeting, 2005 (Session 2) Tuesday 1 February 2005 The Committee will meet at 10.15 am in Committee Room 5. 1. Private Bills: The Committee will take evidence from— Margaret Curran MSP, Minister for Parliamentary Business, Nicol Stephen MSP, Minister for Transport, Colin Miller, Head of Constitution Unit, and Damian Sharp, Head of Public Transport Major Infrastructure Team, Scottish Executive, and will then consider a summary of other evidence received, decide whether to recommend a new model for the consideration of applications for private legislation and consider how to proceed with the remainder of the inquiry. 2. Sewel Convention inquiry – witness expenses: The Committee will decide whether to delegate to the Convener responsibility for arranging for the SPCB to pay, under Rule 12.4.3, any expenses of witnesses in the inquiry. 3. Sewel Convention inquiry: The Committee will further consider whom to invite to give oral evidence in the inquiry. 4. Commissioner for Public Appointments (in private): The Committee will consider a draft report. 5. Final review of oral questions (in private): The Committee will consider a revised draft report and draft standing order changes. Andrew Mylne Clerk to the Committee Room TG.01 Ext 85175 [email protected] The following papers are attached for this meeting: Agenda item 1 Summary of evidence received to date – to PR/S2/05/2/1 follow Note by the Clerk on the remainder of the PR/S2/05/2/2 inquiry Note by the Clerk – initial consideration of 4 PR/S2/05/2/16 issues Note on review of Transport and Works Act PR/S2/05/2/3 1992 Agenda item 3 Note by the Clerk on further oral witnesses PR/S2/05/2/4 Article by Professor Keating and Dr Cairney PR/S2/05/2/5 Articles by Professor Alan Page PR/S2/05/2/6 Report by Chris Harrop PR/S2/05/2/7 Articles by Gerry Hassan PR/S2/05/2/8 Agenda item 4 Note by the Senior Assistant Clerk PR/S2/05/2/9 Draft report (PRIVATE PAPER) PR/S2/05/2/10 Correspondence with the Standards PR/S2/05/2/11 Committee Agenda item 5 Draft report (PRIVATE PAPER) PR/S2/05/2/12 Note on FMQT – allocations of time (PRIVATE PR/S2/05/2/13 PAPER) Draft standing order changes (PRIVATE PR/S2/05/2/14 PAPER) – to follow The following papers are attached for information: Correspondence between the Convener and PR/S2/05/2/15 Alex Neil on Stage 1 debates Minutes of the last meeting PR/S2/05/1/M PR/S2/05/1/M PROCEDURES COMMITTEE MINUTES 1st Meeting, 2005 (Session 2) Tuesday 18 January 2005 Present: Mr Richard Baker Mark Ballard Cathie Craigie Karen Gillon (Deputy Convener) Bruce McFee Jamie McGrigor Iain Smith (Convener) The meeting opened at 10.16 am. 1. Items in private: The Committee agreed to take item 4 in private, and to consider draft reports on the Commissioner for Public Appointments and on Private Bills in private at future meetings. 2. Sewel Convention inquiry: The Committee considered the remit of its inquiry and agreed, with minor changes, a draft press release and call for evidence. The Committee agreed some of the witnesses that it wished to invite to give oral evidence and agreed to consider further such witnesses at its next meeting. The possibility of arranging informal briefings prior to the first oral evidence would also be investigated. 3. Minor Rule-changes: The Committee considered and agreed a draft report and draft standing order changes. 4. Final review of oral questions (in private): The Committee considered a draft report and agreed (including by division) various changes. The Committee agreed to consider a revised draft report and draft standing order changes, in private, at its next meeting. The meeting closed at 12.08 pm. Andrew Mylne Clerk to the Committee PR/S2/05/2/1 Agenda item 1 PROCEDURES COMMITTEE Private Bills inquiry Summary of evidence (broader issues) [Note by the Clerk: This summary covers all oral and written evidence received prior to the meeting on 1 February. It focuses on the broader issues raised in the inquiry – i.e. general concerns about the current system and options for longer- term change. Some points made about more specific aspects of the current system have not been included at this stage.] General comments about current system John Thomson of SNH suggested that the current procedures were “complex to master and understand” and should be “clarified and rationalised” (col 682). Tom Adam was generally happy with the process, particularly the willingness of committees to meet in the locality – this was “democracy on our doorstep” (col 746) But he felt that the timescales for written submissions were “sometimes unrealistic for lay representatives and witnesses who are in employment and whose free time is limited”. National Galleries of Scotland (a former promoter) criticised the length of time taken before the promoter had contact with the committee members, suggesting that earlier contact with the MSPs involved would have expedited the process. Given how short and uncontentious their Bill was, the committee stages seemed unreasonably “protracted” and “the time and costs incurred seemed somewhat excessive”. They hoped that “some abbreviated procedure may become possible for organisations such as the NGS in future”. Alison Bourne felt the system presumed that the promoter is right – “i.e. that the proposal is a sound one and that the promoter has behaved with integrity and has followed properly all procedures”. The Minister accepted that, “in many respects, the current procedure is cumbersome, protracted and inefficient” and had put considerable pressure on the Parliament's resources. In relation to the works Bills currently in progress or forthcoming, “the Parliament's capacity to process such an extensive programme of Bills must be in doubt” (cols 654-5). Alternative models Bill Butler argued for a single approach to the process, saying “There should be one process, as the procedures have to be coherent.” The SAK Bill committee (which he chaired) had taken the view that the Transport and Works Act 1992 provided for “detailed scrutiny of infrastructure projects of all types, varieties and 1 PR/S2/05/2/1 Agenda item 1 sizes” (col 696). “Going down the path of the TWA would give absolute coherence to the process” (col 700). But the Society of Parliamentary Agents was less keen on the TWA model on the grounds that it would apply only to works Bills, and they did “not see anything intrinsically different between a works Bill and a non-works Bill”. Neither SNH nor Historic Scotland could see any good reason why the process for rail schemes should be different to that for road schemes (col 692). But the Executive pointed out that Ministers' roles in relation to trunk roads and the rail networks were different (col 657). The Executive believed that, in the context of non-works Bills, “there may be a case for streamlining existing … procedures”, but the Executive was unlikely to contemplate departing from them altogether (col. 656). The Minister also said that the TWA “had not necessarily speeded up the process” in England and Wales and officials felt that there were opportunities to improve on it (col 657). Historic Scotland said they had only a limited knowledge of the 1992 Act but indicated that, “from our perspective as statutory consultees and environmental bodies, it seems to work”. While they did not have any problems with consultation in relation to the 1936 Act, they felt that the 1992 Act was “perhaps slightly superior in terms of consultation” (col 691). SNH agreed, but added that “much could be done by amending existing procedures without changing the legislation. You could usefully start by building more consultation into the existing procedures” (col 692). Anderson Strathern were not in favour of the TWA model, arguing that it could lead to “a reduction in the transparency, openness, scrutiny and participation that is possible through the use of a parliamentary committee, meeting (for the most part) in public session”. Instead they suggested a system of “reporters” for Private Bills mirroring the use of reporters in planning inquiries. John Dick said he would support a system where an expert reporter was appointed to hold an inquiry and report to a Minister for decision (col 725). Tom Adam similarly felt that “all the evidence both written and verbal should be considered by an independent body or person who should then report back to the executive before a final decision is taken”. The Society of Parliamentary Agents cautioned against comparing works Private Bills to applications for planning permission, which “is usually specific to a single site, is not concerned with granting statutory powers that change the law (as opposed to permission to do something that is already legal), is not concerned with the identity or legal status of the applicant, and does not entail compulsory interference with private and public rights”. The Society also felt that the TWA model did not “allow for the situation where works give rise to policy issues that the Parliament may consider that it, not the Executive, should decide”. This was particularly so in relation to Bills, such as those currently being promoted, which “could be said, in one sense, to be Bills for the Executive in that the projects to be authorised by them are being largely funded by the Executive”. 2 PR/S2/05/2/1 Agenda item 1 Clackmannanshire Council did not support a TWA process on the grounds that it would not “strike a sufficient balance between expediency and the equity, openness and accountability that should be associated with the Scottish Parliament” (col 709).

Load more