SPCB(2009)Paper September 2009 NON-EXECUTIVE BILLS UNIT CURRENT WORKLOAD AND PRIORITISATION ISSUES. Executive Summary

Transcription

1 NON-EXECUTIVE BILLS UNIT CURRENT WORKLOAD AND PRIORITISATION ISSUES Executive Summary SPCB(2009)Paper September The Non-Executive Bills Unit (NEBU) provides support to members and committees wishing to introduce their own bills. NEBU staff also support Private and Hybrid Bill Committees. In previous Sessions, SPCB has been required to make prioritisation decisions on those Bills to be supported by the NEBU at such time as demand upon the Unit exceeded supply. Until that point is reached NEBU supports all members whose proposals fall within the previously agreed criteria 1 as agreed by the Parliament on 20 October (see Annexe A). 2. The purpose of this paper is to: update SPCB on the current workload of the NEBU seek SPCB agreement that NEBU provide support for those proposals detailed in Annexe B at part 1; and seek an indication from SPCB as to the action to be take in respect of further requests for NEBU support to draft bills for this session. Issues and Options Background and Current Workload of NEBU Members Bills 3. The Standing Orders in respect of the cut-off date by which Members Bills require to be introduced was changed on 22 April 2009 when Parliament agreed to new rule which states: Standing Orders, Rule The right to introduce a Bill to give effect to a final proposal may only be exercised until the first sitting day in June (or, exceptionally, with the consent of the Parliamentary Bureau until the last sitting day in September) in the calendar year preceding that in which the next ordinary Scottish Parliament general election is due to be held. In effect, the cut-off date which applies this session is Friday 1 June SPCB 2 nd Report on the prioritisation of the Non-Executive Bills Unit (NEBU) Workload (SP Paper 434) 1

2 4. The Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee noted in its report 2 that they heard evidence to the effect that the process for taking a Members Bill to introduction can take in excess of 12 months including time for consultation, development of final policy and drafting all necessary documents. 5. Annexe B provides detail of the members who are being supported, the current position on their proposal together with a brief commentary and consideration of the agreed criteria. Private Bills 6. Two small Private Bills to dissolve trusts established under Acts of the UK Parliament are expected to be introduced before the end of the current session. Neither is anticipated to be controversial and current indications are that neither will attract any objections. On that basis these bills should utilise minimal committee and Parliamentary time. Hybrid Bills 7. The unit is undertaking preliminary work in preparation for supporting a committee to be established to consider the Forth Crossing Bill, expected for introduction later this year. Solicitor s office will also be supporting the Committee and NEBU in this process from within existing resources. Discussion 8. It is the later stage of a Bill s preparation from final proposal to introduction that requires the majority of NEBU and solicitor office resources. Experience shows that for a small, single issue Bill this stage will take a minimum of 6 months. That period includes the time required to finalise policy, instruct a bill and prepare the other documents. 9. To complete all the bills for which a member or committee has obtained the right to introduce (see annexe B) will utilise all the available resources of NEBU and the office of the Solicitor to the Scottish Parliament, with whom the clerks work closely. SPCB agreement that NEBU provide support for those proposals detailed in Annexe B at part 1 is sought. 10. Additional requests for assistance from members to have bills drafted cannot be accommodated without NEBU ceasing to support measures which have currently obtained the right to introduce. SPCB is requested to indicate what action it wishes to take in respect of further requests for NEBU support to draft bills for this session. 2 SPPA Committee, 1 st Report 2009 (Session 3), Members Bills cut-off for introduction (SP Paper 205) 2

3 Governance Issues 11. There are no health and safety or environmental issues which arise relative to the decisions being discussed. The services provided are demand led. As everybody currently seeking NEBU assistance have complied with Standing Orders and secured the necessary support no immediate equalities issue arises. On that basis there is no impact to assess. Publication Scheme 12. There are no specific timing issues arising in relation to publication and given that support is recommended for all those who have complied with Standing Orders and seek support there is no reason to delay publication. Decision 13. The SPCB is invited to: 13.1 note the current workload of the NEBU; 13.2 agree that those proposals detailed in Annexe B at part 1 should be further supported by the NEBU; and 13.3 indicate what action it wishes to take in respect of requests for NEBU support to draft bills for other proposals this session. Non-Executive Bills Unit Chamber Office September

4

5 Annexe A CRITERIA PREVIOUSLY AGREED FOR NEBU DRAFTING SUPPORT 1. The Parliament agreed a prioritisation system which recognises that Committee Bills should be given (limited) priority over Members Bills; provides that all Members should continue to be supported up until the lodging of the proposal; and that in relation to the further development and drafting work on proposals the following criteria should be met for assistance continuing to be available; only proposals appearing to be broadly within the competence of the Scottish Parliament should have drafting assistance provided 3 ; there should be no likelihood of legislative action on a similar subject matter (which would afford the member/party an opportunity to lodge/propose an amendment) within the current session in the Scottish Parliament or at Westminster or in Europe in the same area of law The Parliament also agreed that other factors which need to be taken into account where demand exceeds capacity are: the potential size, scope and complexity of a Bill;* and the breadth of support that a proposal has attracted. *size can be estimated by reference to other legislation on comparable issues scope can be estimated by reference to the extent of policy being pursued as discussed with the clerks during consultation development. complexity is assessed by reference to the desired policy, other legislation and work in other jurisdictions. In each case assessment is made by the NEBU staff with input from their legal advisers, this is always discussed with members 3 SO applies once a Bill has been introduced. 4 SO applies when the Executive/UK parliament intends to give effect to the proposal during the current session

6

7 Annexe B CURRENT MEMBERS AND COMMITTEE PROPOSALS 1. Right to introduce obtained Control of Dogs: Christine Grahame Bill introduced 22 June 2009, member to be supported through Parliamentary Stages. RSSB Committee Bill Committee Bill proposal agreed by Parliament on 18 June. Medium to large sized bill unlikely to be controversial given cross party agreement to report. No significant competence issues but with a great deal of technical provision extensively amending earlier legislation. Being developed for introduction by end of year. End of Life Choices: Margo MacDonald Member obtained right to introduce Bill on 27 May 2009 and policy largely agreed. Single issue but complex measure creating a small to medium sized bill of around 20 to 30 sections. While current advice is that subject matter is competent, it is in a sensitive area where a full assessment of all potential competence issues and workability of the proposed arrangements require to be given through the drafting process. Target introduction by end Right to Palliative Care for all: Gil Paterson Member obtained sufficient support on 3 September and policy agreed. Small measure c.15 sections. No known competence issues. Expands upon Government initiatives set out in the Living and Dying Well Strategy. Target introduction late Easter 2010 Victims Commissioner: David Stewart Member obtained sufficient support on 8 September and policy agreed. Small c.20 sections. No known competence issues. Target introduction May Consultation completed no final proposal lodged Modern Apprenticeships: John Park Consultation completed 17 June Policy not finalised, much of policy consulted upon appears outwith competence. If proceed on competent areas will be a small measure no more than c.20 sections. Regulation Bus Services: Charlie Gordon Consultation completed 27 February Policy not finalised, consultation sought views on 21 separate issues. Some competence issues around original policy. Some refining taking place but final policy and size of Bill unknown although potentially large and complex.

8 3. Consultations ongoing Banning of Trans Fats: Richard Simpson Consultation finishes September Small technical Bill with significant unresolved competence issues. Workers Aggravated Offences: Hugh Henry Consultation finishes October Small Bill that can be based on the Emergency Workers Scotland Act. Wind Farms in Country Parks: Kenneth Gibson Consultation finished end August Small Bill with some competence issues. 4. Others being assisted where no Bill from NEBU required Hospital Car Parking: Paul Martin Consultation completed and assistance with analysis provided. Final proposal lodged 2 September. To be drafted externally. Factor Regulation: Patricia Ferguson Consultation completed and assistance with analysis being provided. To be drafted externally. Damages: Bill Butler Assistance provided with consultation. Member has draft Bill. 5. Other members being assisted In addition to the above, all of which have draft proposals lodged, NEBU is assisting a number of other members to develop policy areas and/or produce consultation drafts. In each case consultation cannot be completed before the end of 2009.