COMMISSION ON THE POWERS AND ELECTORAL ARRANGEMENTS OF THE NATIONAL ASSEMBLY FOR WALES

MINUTES OF PROCEEDINGS

of the

EVIDENCE OF:

COMMITTEE CONVENORS OF THE SCOTTISH PARLIAMENT

BRISTOW MULDOON, MSP

ALEX FERGUSSON, MSP

TRISH GODMAN, MSP

KAREN GILLON, MSP

held at

The Scottish Parliament

on

Thursday, 13th February 2003
LORD RICHARD: Can I thank you for coming to see us this afternoon and for giving up your time. I’ll just say what we are here to try and do. So far as this Commission is concerned, it was set up by the National Assembly for Wales to look at the way in which Assembly is defined and whether it should have additional powers. Oviously there is a huge difference between the way in which your Parliament operates and the way the Assembly operates and therefore we felt it would be very useful for us to come up and have a fairly intensive couple of days looking at Parliament and the way in which it works. One of the interesting things we perceived is your Committee system which we think looks extremely interesting. Perhaps you can introduce yourself and your Committee and tell us what it is you have been doing and should have been doing who does what, why and when. Can you give us a run down on the sort of work that you do and then if we may can we ask questions?
MR MULDOON: Good afternoon and welcome to the Scottish Parliament and I think on behalf of my colleagues we’re certainly very happy to give evidence to the Commission you are working on to give evidence, I think it is very important work that you are engaging on and I know that certainly Assembly Members have a desire to increase their powers… Sorry was I going too fast?
MR FERGUSSON: We’ve been trying to slow him down for years.
MR MULDOON: I have spoken to some Assembly members and am aware that Assembly members have a desire to increase the powers and influence of the assembly. I will set out the workings of the Scottish Parliament from my own perspective in the Transport and Environment Committee.
I represent Livingston Constituency, a new town about 15 miles away from Edinburgh and I have been the convenor of the Transport and Environment Committee since December 2001, and I was a member of the Committee for about a year before that so I have been there for most of the term of the Scottish Parliament. In terms of the sort of issues we have been looking at in the period of the first term of the Scottish Parliament, we have dealt with a number of major pieces of legislation, we have dealt with the Transport Act which introduced powers to introduce congestion charges for Scottish Local authorities and also transport powers in terms of a form of regulation of the bus services, what we call quality contracts and quality partnerships between Local authorities and bus companies. We also looked at issues as to whether or not we would want to introduce a broader form of road charging, such as traffic on trunk roads, or workplace parking levels, however these were ultimately not in the Bill as it was passed 2 years ago.
Others included: two pieces of legislation concerning the water industry. The first Act established Scottish Water as a public corporation which brought together three water companies which were still our responsibility. So three quangos into one effective corporation and that was essentially earlier in April of last year. We have been passing legislation on the implementation of European environmental features concerning the Water Framework Directive and just completed it in the last few weeks. We have carried out in the process a complete review of building regulations in Scotland as planning issues also come under our remit. So these are the major pieces of legislation we have passed and these pieces of legislation have been Executive inspired.
As a Committee I think in terms of workload some of that comes from Executive inspired legislation, and some of the workload comes from areas of enquiry as a Committee we have decided to carry out investigations into. We have carried out a review of the railway industry and the way in which the powers are split between the Scottish Executive and the UK Government. Effectively, we are responsible for definition of the Passenger Act franchise in Scotland, where the UK Government is responsible for safety issues and infrastructure. We looked at that relationship and published the report on that just recently.
Another issue we looked at the mobile telephone communications masts and following on from recommendations that were made, the Executive brought forward proposals to introduce new forms of planning that apply; to that industry in Scotland.
We have also dealt with a number of issues that have been brought to the Committees often by the communities of Scotland through the public petitions system. I think the Transport and Environment Committee has had the highest number of petitions referred to us, normally by peoples concerns about various types of environmental problems whether it be noise, whether it be smells, whether it be contamination and we have looked at a number of these in detail and produced reports that recommend alternatives to the Executive. On some of those issues, the Executive has got to take action to introduce new regulations.
That I suppose that is probably the range of issues that we have dealt with today.
MS SUGAR: Could you say a bit more about how the Scottish Parliament (petitions system) works and whether people can Actually appear before you?
MR MULDOON: Basically, the way it works is we have got a Public Petitions Committee which officially looks at any petitions that are submitted into the Parliament. There are about 9 MSPs on that Public Petitions Committee. They will take direct evidence from a petitioner; an ordinary member of the public, community group whatever, trade unions. Any type of group can bring forward a petition providing it is within the competence of the Parliament and is something that Parliament has an ability to respond to or deal with. The Petition Committee will look at it and try to ascertain whether they believe there is a substantive issue that the petitioner is bringing forward that Parliament should look at. There is a case you some times get one individual who has got an obsession with an issue so the Petition Committee will try to root this out and not pass that back to the Committees but whether they believe that there is an important and significant issue there should be further work carried out. They will the refer it on to the lead Committee, transport issues, health issues, anywhere. The lead committee will take the decision on whether or not we carry out a substantive piece of work on it and if they do this they will call on appropriate witnesses to give evidence to the Committee prior to coming to some sort of conclusion in terms of recommendation they may or may not wish to make. There have been a number of areas I think where communities within Scotland have felt that it has given them an opportunity to influence Government in a way it never been able to in the past. There have been a number of instances where the actions of the Parliament have actually been seen to be effective in responding to community concerns. Telecommunications was an issue from a Public Petition initially. I think and also issues such as the spreading of organic waste is an issue that has been dealt with in that manner and a whole range I think the Transport and Environment Committee has dealt with in one way or another, about 90 petitions throughout the Scottish Parliament, not all to the same depth, but we are trying to look at the importance of the issue. As a Committee we have not initiated any legislation of our own in terms of a Committee Bill although obviously the Parliament has the power to do that, other Committees have done so. I think Trish, your Committee has done so, and there have been some in the Education Committee and one or two other Committees have, but we haven’t had direct experience of it. People have been asking questions about how that process works but we certainly have been an influence in initiating action by the Executive in response to the reports we have produced and changes in legislation has followed.
LORD RICHARD: How often do you mean?
MR MULDOON: Weekly normally.
LORD RICHARD: How many?
MR MULDOON: There are 9 in our Committee. There is then Committee membership which is made up in proportion to the way all the parties in the Parliament are elected, we have got four Labour members, two SNP members, one Conservative, one Liberal and one Green Member, so no party has an overall majority albeit the coalition parties, if they vote together have a majority although this does not always happen.
MS GODMAN: I am Trish Godman, and I am convenor of the Local Government Committee and there are 7 members on that Committee, I will just briefly say some of the things the Committee have done but perhaps to take you very briefly through the system. What happens is if an Executive Bill is given to us? We look at taking information or evidence from witnesses before we get to draft the Bill and we have an idea of what the Executive are going to produce in terms of the Bill. We look at it, and we have pre-legislative scrutiny of that Bill and in terms of Local Government and I am sure it is the same with all of the Committees by the time it comes to the Bill it might have changed substantially because of the evidence we have taken earlier. I, as a rule do it but you don’t have to do that, so the Executive puts down a Bill and we look at it and by the time we put down the draft Bill it can be changed significantly because of the work the Committee has done. Bristow has mentioned the fact that Committees can bring forward legislation on their own. We have not done that but I think Education and Social Justice have done it and again that is because they have been listening to evidence from witnesses, and that is a bit of a Law, something in mortgage Law that Cathie Craigie did and that was through listening to cross-examination of witnesses so that is one way of a Bill being introduced to a Committee, a Executive Bill and a Committee Bill and Private Members Bill and all of the Committees have experienced Private Members Bill and I just finished one for the proposal, of PR and Local Government in 2003 which we didn’t agree the general principals for lots of reasons( but for lots of reasons) not only political, we have had a huge Local Government Bill which has just gone through the Parliament which in essence has three parts, one being Community planning which there is duty for, if you like, Education and a particular area Health, Local Government, Police and in Strathclyde Passenger Transport Service and Community Scotland which is our housing part of the Executive, needed to sit round a table looking at it and working out a community plan to sign up to….. Sorry, am I speaking too fast for you? The first was community planning, the second was best value and the third is the power of well-being and that is to enable the Local Authorities to make decisions that would be looking at the health and safety of an area in principle, so this Bill went though last month. Before we became a Parliament, Donald Dewar, then the Secretary of State for Scotland, took into the House of Commons a motion that we should review Local Government in Scotland and indeed that was done by McIntosh who at that time was the Chief Executive of Strathclyde Regional Council. It was the first debate we ever had in the Parliament, when we were able to legislate, that was on the 2nd of July 1999 and we looked at the report and one of the things that McIntosh recommended was that we were all to know that there should be a independent legislative review of Local Government finance and that is a very very complex area. The Executive decided they would not do that so the Committee decided that they would, that was the different decision that they would do nothing. Now there is a question about how independent that would be given that we are a Committee of this Parliament, however, it took us 18 months and we produced a report which we took into the Parliament about three months ago, I think and again the Executive picked up some things in that for example, we now have three year funding for Local authorities and it will not drop below a certain amount, and indeed there will be no Section 94 consent and don’t ask me what this is because I can never remember it. If you work in Local Government you have to know about the work and the other thing was borrowing at prudential rules which interested me because I am not an absolute supporter of PPP or PFI and this was allowing the Local Government to look at other ways of borrowing money when they had an important thing they wished to address so the Executive listened to this, they didn’t go in the final analysis, we said we really need a review of Local Government finance, we also looked at the fact of Council Tax was introduced in 1991 and it has never been reviewed and houses have never been re-valued in Scotland since then. We are looking at that, that was a big part of that Report and obviously if you are going to look for the number of bands you have in Council Tax you have to re-value your homes and indeed that has been undertaken, so where we didn’t get everything that we wanted, we got something that was quite important. One other, Public Bodies and Public Appointments Bill which we had just taken through Parliament and it was agreed at Parliament that we dismantled some of the quangos in that, not as many as I would personally like but some of them and we are going to put in place after the election a Commissioner for Public Appointments, Jamie Rennie is the one we deal with at the moment but we will have our own Scottish Commissioner for public appointments and have wide ranging Private Members Bills from dog fouling which if you have been a councillor in the past is Actually is quite an important Act today, and Actually published today and will be discussed in Parliament next week. The Committee today discussed a Private Members Bill by the SNP member as to whether we should have a tolerance zones for prostitutes and the decision of the Committee has been difficult I would have to say we had incredible sympathy for what Margo Macdonald was trying to do in terms of the safety of women who are street prostitutes. We came down on the side if we do that then we are managing prostitution and we were not prepared to do that, so we are going into Parliament the week after next asking Parliament not to accept the general principles of this Bill but leaving a legacy for the Executive that we really need to review the Law on prostitution the Law of soliciting because there is a gender imbalance if we don’t charge men for kerb crawling now. I say that but I have got arguments for and against doing that and one of the most difficult things in this report was that every time we had a witness in front of us who said quite clearly said there should be a tolerance zone for all those reasons then the next witness that came in front of you says I assure you there should not be tolerance zones for all those reasons. The Executive took an interesting position that they didn’t take any decision when we had the Minister in front of us he did not answer one question and I am not saying anything I shouldn’t say but he didn’t answer a question. What he said at the end was the Executive are waiting until the Committee decide, so there is a bit of power for the Committee there. I think you mentioned at the beginning that you were interested in the Committee system and I think that you are right that is one of the strengths of this Parliament in the way that the Committee works, we can introduce legislation, we can look at Private Members Bills and we can look at Executive Bills and we can take reports as I did into Parliament which are not a Bill but a report that is well put together and well researched and the Executive will support some of it, so I think that is basically where our strengths are. I am sorry if I spoke too quickly.
MR FERGUSSON: Welcome to the Scottish Parliament. My name is Alex Fergusson. I was looking around your name tags, and while I don’t know if Mr Tom Jones can sing, I certainly can’t play football or indeed manage it either. But I do welcome you here on this obviously interesting exercise you are undertaking. I am convenor of the Rural Development Committee. I am a Scottish Conservative who are a minority breed in Scotland and in the South of Scotland. Just as membership of Committees is pro rata based so are the convenerships, something I think works well on the whole and am very proud of the role I have in this Committee of 11, which the largest size you can have. I have four Labour members, two Liberal Democrats, three SNPs and two Conservatives. I have to say I find having another Conservative on a Committee which I convene very helpful as I try to remain virtually apolitical as convenor unless I can stand it no longer and I do find it useful to have another member on my Committee to make the political points that need to be made in debates. I merely mention that in passing. Obviously our principal role is to scrutinise Executive Actions. I call that our re-Active role. Our pro-Active role I will come to later but again, equally obviously, our main role is to scrutinise Bills and propose amendments to legislation. We have dealt with up to now, three Members Bills ranging from one of the shortest Bills, a Sea Fisheries Amendment, tabled by a Liberal member from Shetland called Tavish Scott which simply went through the nod, to one of the longest Bills, the Protection of Wild Mammals Bill, known as the Hunting Bill, which is a Private Members Bill by Mike Watson and that took us virtually almost two years of extremely hard work. We are currently just finishing dealing with the Organic Farming Targets Bill, a Private Members Bill tabled by Robin Harper. The Convenor of the procedures Committee, Trish Godman, said they were going to recommend that the Parliament not accept the general principles of a particular Bill, but to me there is an alternative procedure which we took on this particular Bill which is we chose to make no recommendation to the Parliament, and while that may seem to some a bit of diminished responsibility, I don’t believe it is, because there are technical legal reasons why we found it impossible either to recommend it or to recommend against acceptance of the general principles, so we chose in principle to leave it up to the Parliament as a whole to give a decision whether or not that Bill should go to stage two. Parliament chose not to do so almost at the last minute, having listened sympathetically to the Bill, and that Bill has died for the time being although the very Act of bringing it forward has prompted the Executive to come forward with its own Organic Farming Targets and I don’t think that would probably have happened if Robin Harper hadn’t brought forward the Private Members Bill. So the effect of bringing forward a Members Bill on the Executive can be quite marked. So that was our three members Bills. We have had and we have had two very large Executive Bills. The First was the National Parks Bill and the first two National Parks have now been set up. We have had the Salmon Conservation Bill which became more contentious the longer it went on which is probably the wrong way to proceed. Hoxever, that Bill has now been passed. We had the fascinating Fur farming Scotland Bill, and I say fascinating because there is no fur farming here in Scotland, and we are currently rather just having to rush through the Agricultural holdings Scotland Bill which is quite a contentious part of the Executive legislation containing a pre-emptive right to buy back secured tenancies from their landlords when the land is on the market, and create new types of tenancies. We are obviously having to meet a tight timetable to progress this piece of flagship legislation before the election. We are almost at the stage and there has been a huge meeting going on behind the scenes between the Executive and stake holders, with both sides trying to reach a consensus on a lot of these points, but the result of this is we have been having amendments recently which have been almost at the last minute, because these stakeholder meetings were ongoing as we were meeting to discuss the issues involved.… I don’t want to be too condemnatory of them and that has got to be welcomed. That is the most of the legislation. Over the last year we have had 66 negative statutory instruments of subordinate legislation. Last year we had 12 petitions on a wide ranging variety of subjects, National Parks, Scottish Agricultural College, Foot and Mouth disaster. We also have a statutory requirement every year to look at the budget and to present a report on it. A wonderful way of doing that by appointing an advisor who draws up a report which we do look at and usually agree with, but I think it’s probably fair to say our membership is not the most qualified one to look at matters of a financial concern. We also examined the review of the Common fisheries Policy and obviously it is a hugely emotive subject at the moment given the state of the whole fishing industry. The Committee also has to agree an annual report which goes to the Parliament, drawn up by the Clerk teams and possibly another advisor into which we have an input. Now that is what I call the re-Active side but there is a pro-Active side as well, that being the Committees undertake their own enquiries and we have done two, one in the very early days, studying Changing Employment Patterns in rural Scotland. The idea of that was to try to identify what might be happening in the future, so the Executive can use that as a template to measure some of their work against, to see how it would come together. It was a constructive piece of work to better inform Executive decisions, although whether it has or not is a matter for conjecture. The second one really grew out of the total domination overtaking this Committee by the Protection of Wild Mammals Bill for the better part of two years as I said. We were absolutely determined that we did not want to be remembered at the end of the Scotland’s First Parliament as the Hunting Committee and without going into the rights and wrongs of the debate, it had become a demanding feature of our work. So we undertook, as soon as we could, to hold an inquiry into ‘Integrated Rural Development ’, and particularly the barriers which people perceive to stand in the way of delivery of successful rural development. I have to say in hindsight it was an incredible opportunity and a subject which became an enormous piece of work. We managed to complete it however, and in doing so it has been a fascinating exercise. We had several meetings outside Edinburgh as we have done whenever we possibly can and taken an enormous amount of evidence. One of the weaknesses that we found we felt in taking evidence was that unless somebody is officially on the agenda of that meeting you can’t take evidence from them in the official part of the Committee’s work, so we rather pioneered the way on the Committee of allowing the general public, the man in the street, if I can call him or her that, a more direct way of inputting in Committee business where it is suitable to do so. We closed a formal session of evidence taking, usually in the middle of the agenda, and we open it up to members of the public who just want something off their chest. It stemmed from the one in Stirling, on the National Parks Bill, where the hall was absolutely packed with people all of whom had strong things to say, but none of whom could say them because there wasn’t a way to do so. What we have done, although it is open to abuse by individuals or lobby groups if they wish to do so (but it hasn’t been abused so far), is get them to put their names forward to the Clerk and they get 90 seconds or two minutes to get anything they want to say off their chest. It is a bit like a soap box and we don’t ask questions.
MR ROWLANDS: Is there a record taking of that?
MR FERGUSSON: There is a minute kept of their input but it’s not part of the Official Report, Hansard if you like, as are all our official proceedings, but there is a minute taken so we can refer to it if we wish to do so while drawing up the new recommendations. I was going to finish on that noteI I think it’s very effective way of letting people have direct input without having been officially invited to do so. Normally one invites organisations and agencies, all the usual suspects to give official evidence and I think it is quite a good way of doing it. I know one or two other Committees have begun to do that. I will stop at that point.
LORD RICHARD: Thank you very much indeed. What interested me is the Actual process of legislation, I mean you get what, a draft Bill or something like instructions to Counsel?
MS GODMAN: You get a draft Bill. I have always taken evidence on a draft Bill so we have a draft Bill in front of us. These are proposals from the Executive.
LORD RICHARD: Are the proposals of the Executive drafted by Parliamentary counsel in the form of a Bill, something you have first read?
MS GODMAN: Right. We have this draft Bill and between Clerks and myself we decide how many days Committee sessions we’ll set aside to take evidence on this draft Bill and as you start to do that and take evidence as Alex said you take the evidence from the so called experts in the communalities, parts come up either A. it won’t work or B. aren’t really what this Bill is setting out to do because at the end of the day you are sitting in a room making legislation other people have Actually got to work it.. People who are going to be involved right in at the very beginning they are able to say this may or may not work.
LORD RICHARD: I can see that. Can you Actually change the policy?
MS GODMAN: What you can do is you then have a right to respond to the draft report which goes to the Executive in about three or four…
MR MULDOON: Within two months.
MS GODMAN: You take the evidence and write a report and which goes to the Executive, they respond within two months, and very very often, the Executive have not come back and said you are right, we will change it so when the Bill comes you have to look at it properly and thoroughly, it can be significantly changed.
MR ROWLANDS: Is it a redraft or does it include amendment at this stage or not?
MS GODMAN: We will; our report should come to an obvious conclusion when you read it and it will be supported by evidence, the evidence is saying that this part of the Bill will not work for example because of this, this and this or if you proceed with this you will need an amendment because it is contradictory…
MR ROWLANDS: So you are a video camera?
MS GODMAN: So we are identifying amendments and whether it just really would not work and then so when the Bill comes up to us it can be significantly changed, we then look at it again much more in depth and when we do our last report in response to it we can have suggested changes as well which then come into what we call our stage two which goes to Committee for amendment, and that is when it is changed by amendment.
MR ROWLANDS: It comes back to the same Committee?
MS GODMAN: Back to the same Committee for amendment and it goes to the Parliament at stage three to agree and then again that is another area.
LORD RICHARD: When you started off with a draft Bill and you take evidence from experts you are bound to get people who say we don’t agree with what the Bill is trying to do and it would be better if it was this way rather than that way, it all goes in your report, does it?
MS GODMAN: Yes, it would go into a good report, yes, because the pros and cons of how you have come to your decision….
LORD RICHARD: And then goes back to the Executive?
MS GODMAN: And they come back with the Bill as they are presenting it to you. The Bill as published, as its agreed.
LORD RICHARD: What happens if they don’t agree with the report:
MS GODMAN: If they don’t agree, it comes back as published and we still have an opportunity to put amendments in because Committee members can put amendments in.
LORD RICHARD: That is at Committee stage?
MS GODMAN: Yes.
MR FERGUSSON: Again on the Wild Mammals Bill members did not agree with the Bill by majority and we were split on a huge number of issues but nonetheless that Bills comes back and only way to add is at stage two as well during amending stage because after an amendment is put forward that is, indeed it can be in stage one in your report, you can take further evidence at stage two.
LORD RICHARD: Do you…
MR MULDOON: Yes, basically the process does not have to have a draft Bill, most of the major pieces of legislation do, but there have been some different approaches. I think to date there has not been a case where an Executive Bill has been rejected by Parliament at stage one, the Bills that have been rejected at that stage are generally Private Members Bills.
LORD RICHARD: Do you have white papers?
MR MULDOON: Yes.
LORD RICHARD: Would your pre-legislation group get a white paper or wait for a draft Bill?
MS GODMAN: We would probably wait until we had a draft Bill, it depends on how busy the Committee is but we would probably wait for a draft Bill.
MS SUGAR: Mr FERGUSSON you mentioned the annual report that the Committee produced and I would like to congratulate you on that it is a very useful document. I think it showed that the scope of the work, what was easy to read as well, my questions are this, why are you allowed to substitute on the Committees and how does that work in practice? Attendance is slightly optional and there is a bit of fluctuation of members depending on availability and the second is how do you identify the resources that you need to do your work. So you scope the work you need to do, you say we are going to need Lawyers advice, specialist advice, people from university here or whatever and how is that delivered, are you getting enough support to be able to do that?
MS GODMAN: I will answer some of that. The first question was about the annual report and substitutes. I think yes, there has been one substitute member in particular coming to this tolerance zone Bill from the Tory party, since he was at the beginning of it, he has continued to come right through it, we have also a convenors group and we did talk for a long time about substitutes. I would have to say in the Local Government Committee they’re very good attendees and only had one substitute for one specific bit of work, but other Committees not so well attended as mine and I don’t know why that is. The Justice Committee I think only once has not had the full quorum, but I think that it is the only one Committee in the Parliament. The quorum is three for Chair as well, I think a substitute who, obviously that person would not sit as Chair, if I were not there. As far as support is concern we obviously never get enough support but Alex FERGUSSON is right to pick up on the advisors who are available for any piece of work although it’s very helpful for the budget, but we can call advisors in, our Clerks with a team behind, them, we sit down with the Clerks and talk through who you think you need to have in front of you and again we are all bringing different experiences, my background is social work and in doing this particular piece on tolerance zones, was able to point them in the direction of routes out of prostitution we have in Scotland and other areas where I think that they needed to pull in expert advice and I am sure that is the same in other places. But you are not happy with substitutes?
MR FERGUSSON: No, although I think it’s important to have substitutes, we have I think rather well attended Committee and it is important I think particularly when you are coming to division, it is important to have a mechanism whereby if we come to a division the make up of the Parliament is reflected if you like because there is a mechanism whereby that can be actually reflected through the voting public which very often goes against my view. We didn’t have such substitutes originally, we have a dozen now, my reservation for the substitute holding where a substitute came along and before voting on something really said he didn’t understand what part of this was about and then proceeded interestingly as Executive member which I thought was fascinating, so I mean I just have a little difficulty in that unless substitute come all the way through the process I think that is fine but a substitute being put in as voting voter if you like which can happen without any understanding of the scrutiny that has gone through but I think though it is important they are measured, but on the whole I think membership is really good. We always started off with meetings once a fortnight and attendance has really been really good, absolutely excellent, first class from the Clerking point of view, and external advisors and external help and no problems in that regard whatsoever.
SIR MICHAEL WHEELER BOOTH: What do you think of Minority Reports?
MS GODMAN: I don’t think any Committee has ever had one, if it goes to a debate, the debate can be recorded or you can have a particular member dissent on the particular part.
MR MULDOON: Dissent is recorded in the body of the report and how many members have dissented. I agree with Alex about problems of substitutes. I think there are some occasions where people who have not taken part in any consideration of the Bill and who are without the detailed knowledge and, as Alex suggests come voting and I would prefer not to have them. I think the reason we have them is because we have tried to condense all the Committee meetings of the Parliament into Tuesdays and Wednesdays, what that means on occasions, Committee members can be individual member on one Committee which clashes with another. Personally I would like to see us resolve that. On Mondays the reason we don’t attend is a lot of members try to protect Mondays for dealing with constituency work. I would wish us to use Mondays to allow flexibility so we won’t have clashes, and if it doesn’t clash then we don’t need the substitutes.
LORD RICHARD: Who decides how many Committees do you have?
MR MULDOON: Parliament has the vote.
LORD RICHARD: Who decides on the size of the Committees?
MR MULDOON: Again Parliament, there are negotiations between the parties and there is a motion put to it Parliament and I think the size of Committees have generally been agreed across parties but there is a potential to be…
MR FERGUSSON: The size of most Committees was reduced at one stage because there was a problem I think if you take away the Ministers of which there are 16 Labour Ministers you Actually make some sit on three Committees and I am absolutely shattered sitting on one. There was a real difficulty, so in effect membership of the Committee if you like to, that is not a criticism so I think there was a need to down size totally down size and it wasn’t, I mean I totally bitterly opposed the Rural Development Committee being down sized and it wasn’t, it stayed at 11 but it’s an awful lot easier to get through the business if you have only 7 people. If you are a few people short I think there is an argument for that I think in an ideal world you would not have substitutes whatsoever and this is not an ideal world, I would rather not, I would rather have them than not have them.
MS MCALLISTER: Can we go back to the diverse rules of the Committee and all three of you talked about that. I was reading in an academic journal about Scottish Committees, being described as legislative sausage machines and when effectively legislation is bogged down the agendas to such an extent there is very little extent for any kind of strategic role, I was just wondering where you think your own Committee might have been better served on the scrutiny role in particular and another point made in the academic article was that the scrutiny in terms of some of the quangos in particular has been very abysmal rather than looking at the Executive policies for having quangos in the first instance….
MR MULDOON: I think the Transport and Environmental Committee has tried to avoid being a sausage machine, we have Committee meetings that agree our own agenda, in order that we can deal partly with Executive legislation coming through but also scrutiny we want to take forward. I think myself that part of the reasons for, in the first term of the Scottish Parliament there has been that criticism or that observation is that because we have not had a Scottish Parliament for so many hundreds of years there is a whole stack of legislation, and reforms that had pressing demands to be put through and so the Executive had a large programme of work in the first term. I suspect that a number of Acts of Parliament to pass in the second term will be significantly down than the number of Acts passed in the first term and it will regulate itself at a lower level and that will take some of the pressure off all the Committees. I think though some Committees have handled it better than others in terms of trying to get a balance between work they have brought forward and scrutinising public bodies and work they have to do because as Executive piece of legislation being brought forward….
MS GODMAN: I would agree with that though, let’s put our cards on the table, we have what we call a family friendly Parliament. We are not here on Monday and not here on Friday most weeks unless there is special reason for a Committee meeting. We start at 2.30 on a Wednesday and we work till 5 o’clock and we work from half past 9 to 5 o’clock on a Thursday normally. That was a decision taken by the Parliament for all the reasons you will be aware of we don’t have to go into today. So to get the legislation through we have to work very hard on Tuesday and Wednesday mornings in Committees and like Bristow I have lots of legislation to be put through, if it means a long Committee time that means a long Committee time because they have a choice of coming back either on Monday or a Friday. If you put that to your Committee nine times out of ten they don’t want to do that. The other things is there are two Justice Committees and there are two, because the Chair of the first Justice Committee talks so much you couldn’t get stuff through and that is a matter of fact, so there is now two Justice Committees so it is incumbent upon the Chair to run their Committee properly and get through the business but still be a Chair and run it properly. We are now asking them to come together under one umbrella. So there is that side of it and Bristow is right, there are moments when we feel it’s coming fast and furious and we are a very new Parliament as you know and we are keen to get a lot of legislation through but we are keen to do it properly and if we take our time on the Committee and say I started 2 o’clock every Tuesday I can be there sometimes at 6 o’clock, and I tell them they are going to be there until that time, so be prepared, we have a comfort break in the middle of the day and get the work done and if the will is there you will be able to do it in the next session, Bristow is also right, it will be a bit slower again because there’s been a lot of stuff that’s been technical, we have had to do a lot of Sewel motions, we have had to look at in the Parliament and arrange our time in that way but what is meant is every Monday and Friday I can be in the constituency all day knowing that when I come here on Tuesday morning I am working hard at it until I leave on the Thursday evening when I leave.
MR FERGUSSON: There is nothing to a add to that, I would possibly argue perhaps been too much legislation during the first four years and that was almost bound to happen given the fact this was a new institution that was up and running and an isolated point I really don’t want to get into but the only thing I would say wit the benefit of hindsight I would give my life not to have had the Protection of Wild Mammals Act and not because of what it delivered but we won’t get into that at all but simply because of the total dominant role we have had for two years.
MR ROWLANDS: I think the Common might agree with that too.
MR FERGUSSON: We drew up a list of priorities we wanted to concentrate on and I mean hunting was not one of them. We never got to any of those priorities because we were so dominated by this thing and I wish we could have, I am not disappointed but if I could have my time again…
SIR MICHAEL WHEELER BOOTH: On the Hunting Bill you made a point, it seems a bit odd that people who have not heard the evidence of the arguments in the House of Lords very occasionally overridden the Committee, it is not down to us, but very very very occasionally and have put overwhelming reasons because it’s like having a jury trial something like that you have put there?
MR FERGUSSON: I see exactly where you are coming from, I was totally opposed personally to the Wild Mammals Bill but the alternative and you can’t have this is legislation by Committee and you can’t have that and so I think the Parliament has to reserve the right and also this was a Private Members Bill, it was not special, it was an Executive Bill but I don’t see that with the best will in the world over the whole of Scotland, we would have a much more, you can’t, you can’t have them governed by a Committee which is the only alternative.
MR MULDOON: To put it into context as well Alex, the Committee did move against that particular Bill but it was a six, five vote within the Committee and also I am sure you recognise this issue…
SIR MICHAEL WHEELER BOOTH: It doesn’t seem a very good procedure it doesn’t seem very satisfactory I must say?
MS GODMAN: That the Parliament should decide…
SIR MICHAEL WHEELER BOOTH: I am questioning how right it is for people who have not heard detailed evidence and I have not read the report I don’t have any of the details about it, but presumably some of the arguments depends on whether it was feasible and feasible way of doing it. I mean it’s like going on a stag hunt, what they come up with in that it was a bad idea but they said the Bill as drafted would not work and then nobody though of over ruling it and people are bitterly against stag hunting.
MR MULDOON: I think that is the only occasion that Parliament has voted against the committee on whether or not to support the general principles of the Bill and I think really just comes to the fact about polarisation of debate.
MR PRICE: Can I take up the issue of the consensual nature of the Parliament and focus this particularly to Mr FERGUSSON. The extent of which and the reasons why the extent of it looking at it from your perspective somebody from a minority party and from your perspective as a Committee convenor really in your Committee, how much is this 11 members listening to the evidence forming a view of a collective sort of basis as compared with a majority representing the Executive and so on where is the balance in that and the second thing is that we know there is a great extent of consensual approach here, is it because there is as it were a Scottish view a greater commonality of view of here in Scotland or is it institutionally driven that there are factors about the way this institution is comprised for example, PR system etc., which drives it in a consensual direction?
MR FERGUSSON: I hope my colleagues will help me out here, I mean it is an extremely good question, I am not convinced it is consensual. I think in the Committee it would depend on whether we are doing re-Active or pro-Active work, enquiries and reports. I think a Committee does try wherever possible to come to a unanimous point of view at the end of the day particularly maybe the down side of that is the upshot of the report itself would then tend to be, again there will always be areas of like the last point of common dominator whereby you can have an absolute report. It could be argued a report in some instances might not be as punchy as some individuals might like it to be. I believe there is considerable report in a Committee coming to a unanimous decision on that type of issue but certainly on scrutinising the work or re-Active side of the work, we are a very interesting Committee, it is one of the few I do perhaps in which the Liberal Democrats side of the coalition parties aren’t always prepared to back the Executive stage but it makes for interesting debate from time to time. So I mean we have had huge divisions over the agricultural holding legislation and been dealing with just recently. So I am interested in your perception that we are consensual body but I am not absolutely certain that is a reality but might come back in on that.
MS GODMAN: I would agree with that, the Local Government Committee, Bristow was on it said at the beginning four years ago, there was 11 members then and 9 of them were ex councillors so we started off if you like base of people who are committed to the Local Government and the delivery of services at that level so I suppose I started off very much on the plus side . We are now down to 7 and there are 4 ex councillors on it and they have been there right from the very beginning so there is a good base there, but like Alex we have had many a division we have had many a good solid argument during the Committee stages particularly when we are discussing the draft report which is done in private, so that is where there are no reporters in the room at all and it is sleeves rolled up and say what you like and hash it about and until we then produce a report. It can be very controversial…
MR PRICE: Can I just butt in for a second and draw a distinction between the members disagreeing and therefore bringing a consensus for that reason as compared with the confrontational line being draw between the coalition, the supporters of the Executive and the opposition parties, are we talking about the non consensus just because the individuals disagree or the line up of the parties?
MS GODMAN: Certainly my experience in Local Government Committees when we are in private session discussing our report or response to a Bill that I get all kind of different opinion and then I as the Chair pull that together I can ask are you saying such and such and if you disagree then it will go to a vote and like Alex I don’t always have the Liberal Democrats on my side and on many occasions and indeed the Section 28 debate which my Committee took through which was really controversial in terms of how the media handled it, and it was very controversial within the Committee, the PR and Local Government was on my casting vote because the Liberal Democrats voted with the SNP Private Members Bill. If we look at what happened in the Parliament and we got really bad press about how this, about how we can’t speak properly, the debates are boring, it’s really awful. I think we certainly don’t debate the way they do it in the House of Commons and I think part of that is because there are many more women in the Parliament. We are not as confrontational as it would appear to be some times in the House of Commons. As far as the Committee is concerned, in a sense I make a particular decision because as I say I have a majority who are ex councillors, so no matter what we are looking at we are looking at based on a principle of Local Government delivering services at a Local level and how we do that best and everything sort of comes from there.
MR MULDOON: I think there is more consensus in Committees than there is in Chamber and often I think that is a factor, one is everyone in the Committee is hearing the same evidence and if you approach it in a relatively open minded manner, hear all the evidence of the same case, so the case a large percentage of the time in Committees we are dealing with legislation or reports, there are not that many disagreements. Partly I think that is also due to the fact that from my own observation that three quarters of the MSPs in the Scottish Parliament are described as being on the centre left of politics and so this area is quite heavily populated. In social terms the Labour Party, the SNP, and the Liberals are all on similar ground in terms of left right, although there are obvious splits on issues such as to whether or not to remain in the Unions of the United Kingdom, but on a lot of day to day issues there maybe broad agreement between the parties. I think on the Committees you get that consensual work whereas sometimes when issues gets to the chamber there is a bit of posturing takes place but that is just down to party politics some times rather than genuine disagreement.
MR FERGUSSON: I think the answer to your question whether there is individual or party disagreement really depends on what we are discussing because if they are discuss something that is coming from the Executive and is part of the coalition agreement then it will end up if it comes to division of the party alliance or Executive but very often if its Private Members business or enquiry or something that has been set up by the Committee itself I think there is possibly more individual freedom if you like to pursue your own but that is not cast iron but I think it plays a part.
LORD RICHARD: Thank you very much for coming.
MS GILLON: Sorry I'm late, we had a school meeting that ran on for longer than I imagined. On my own Committee, apart from the line by line stage two amendment, we have only ever divided once and that was on the draft report on free school meals. that was split on party lines but even on that division, there was a lot of agreement in that we agreed the Bill was not the right thing but it was support for whether or not it should go forward to Parliament for further debate and that is the only division we have had. Even on the line by line amendments, we have just taken through the Protection of Children's Bill which was passed yesterday and at stage two, we have members of the same party voting against each other which is pretty different but because of the issue then you would have, particularly in my own party and within the SNP, very distinct lines in relation to the right of adults or individuals and the rights of children and the two party groups split down these lines and it was fascinating to watch. it was split down two lines.
LORD RICHARD: That is an Executive Bill?
MS GILLON: Yes.
LORD RICHARD: Thank you very much.
MR ROWLANDS: I was just going to ask about the relationship of Whitehall and Transport issues.
MR MULDOON: We did carry out a enquiry into the railway industry in particular but not transport in general because roads are pretty much fully devolved…
MR ROWLANDS: Could we get a copy of that?
MR MULDOON: Yes. We did publish a report on the rail industry.
MS DAVIES: Could we have a copy?
MR MULDOON: Yes. absolutely
MS DAVIES: What percentage of your Committees time is spent on policy between the Committee what was the percentage of your time …
MR FERGUSSON: Half of the time on legislation and half of my time is spent on scrutiny.
MR MULDOON: I would say half of it on legislation and half of it is on discretionary work.
MR FERGUSSON: I would agree with that.
MS GILLON: It hasn't been as much the education Committee, I think it is more like 40/60, 40 on legislation and 60 on our own stuff but we are also taking through our own Committee Bill so it gives a slightly different perspective. The Bill is now ready to have its final reading and that has been a two-year long process. that has been fairly detailed work for my Committee but in real terms we have had as much legislation as those other Government colleagues have had in the past.
MS DAVIES: If I may ask a final question, in the Welsh assembly the Minister is the member of the Committee, what are the merits or disadvantages of your system?
MS GODMAN: Ministers are called as part of our deliberations and also there is a lot behind the scenes, Ministers are extremely available here and if we have amendments, that comes from the Executive we can sit down and tell them they are going to lose, this unless you change this or say this or do that ,and from that ,you can take the Ministers and Ministers staff and organise things before it proceeds so they do give every piece of legislation and Bill you are looking at, you bring to relevant Ministers and as I said earlier the Minister who was in front of me today on the tolerance zone did not answer one question.
LORD RICHARD: Well I think we will formally close the evidence and you do not formally have to record this, thank you.