Week 6'1 The Scottish Executive and the Scottish Parliament:

1
Week 6.1 The Scottish Executive and the Scottish
Parliament

• Evidence for the centrality of committees
• NB Arter Wed 4pm

2
Recapping on New Politics

• The CSG report puts committees at the heart of
  New Politics and gives them extensive powers
• Critiques suggest that CSG ignores the necessity
  of Scottish Executive power/ dominance
• The result - confusion surrounds the marriage of
  a new politics role for committees and an old
  politics role for executive-legislative
  relations.
• No simple way to measure strength.
• Better than Westminster rather than different
  from Westminster? So what? Is this like saying
  better than nothing?

3
Lecture Plan

• Brief discussion of the CSG proposals.
• A comparison of the legislative processes of old
  (Westminster ) and new (Scottish Parliament).
• A discussion of inputs or the formal
  structures/ powers of committees
• A discussion of withinputs, or those factors
  such as the role of parties, committee size,
  legislative load, etc. - which qualify committee
  power.
• An initial discussion of outputs (inquiries,
  bills, amendments, etc.), although this is mostly
  dealt with in seminar 6.2.
• Discussion powers in relation to (a) other
  legislatures (b) the executive (for me the most
  crucial point)

4
(1) The CSG Proposals on Parliamentary Business

• The CSG approach as a whole used Westminster as a
  point of departure, but aims for
  executive-legislative relations are not new
• Point 6.1 recognises the need for the Executive
  to govern legislation and use of budget
• No new relationship, just improved role

5
Committee Power

• The difference is improved scrutiny based on a
  strong committee role
• All-purpose committees with combined Standing
  and Select Committee functions
• Ability to call witnesses and oblige ministers
  (and civil servants) to attend
• Ability to hold Inquiries
• Ability to initiate legislation
• Committees as the revising Chamber?
• Pre-legislative monitoring role to avoid
  draft-Act problems (see Richardson and Jordan,
  1979)
• But NB no (power sharing) direct Scottish
  Parliament role in formulation

6
Comparing Legislative Processes

• Westminster (of old? ie NB convergence)
• No formal involvement at pre-legislative stage
• Plenary debate first
• Then standing committees consider amendments
• Committees report to House and more amendments
  made
• Third reading debate
• Passed to House of Lords if amended, passed
  back to Commons

7
Comparing Legislative Processes

• Holyrood
• Hands-off monitoring role at pre-legislative
  stage
• Procedure to introduce bill (PO statement,
  finance, policy explanation)
• Bill referred to committee before House
• Lead committee takes evidence and reports to
  House
• House considers general principles
• Back to committee for stage 2 consideration of
  amendments
• Stage 3 amendments
• (then assessed for competence)

8
Differences

• Scottish Parliament Committees are charged with
  the scrutiny of the initial consultation process.
• They consider the principles of the bill before
  it is presented to the House.
• They take evidence on the nature and effects of
  the bill before considering general principles
  and before making detailed amendments.
• More committee experience given select committee
  role
• Non-Executive Bill process more straightforward
  12 names and the bill goes to stage 1
• (NB Committee role crucial to members bill
  progress)

9
(3) Inputs or the capacity/ powers of
Scottish Parliament committees

• Committees as a success story, especially
  compared with plenary
• Because of extensive powers?
• Relatively powerful compared to functions of
  other West European legislatures

10
The Scottish Parliament has

• (1) Permanent and specialised committees with
  relatively small numbers of members
• (2) A proportional (by party) number of chairs
  selected by a committee
• (3) Committee deliberation both before the
  initial and final plenary stages
• (4) The ability to initiate and redraft bills
  and,
• (5) The ability to invite witnesses and demand
  government documents.
• (6) Unique supervisory role

11
Scottish Parliament power

• indicators of unusually high committee strength
  according to Mattson and Strøms (2004 p100-1)
  criteria
• In capacity terms, the Scottish committee system
  was designed to be extraordinarily deliberative,
  rationalistic, open and consensual (Arter, 2004)

12
Arter 2004

• Deliberative 2 stage consultation process (1
  Scottish Executive obliged, 2 repeated by
  committees) before bill goes to House
• Rationalistic huge information gathering
  exercise during consideration of issues
• Open good contact with groups, well publicised
  operation
• Consensual pragmatic rather than dogmatic
  solutions?

13
(4) Withinputs

• Party influence voting majority most
  committees, convenor and committee appointments,
  informal whip. NB MacMillan anecdote/
  partisanship with amendment work.
• Turnover of members (high)
• Resource constraints (including committee size)
• Legislative overload bills and amendments
• Contingent nature well demonstrated by
  restructuring in 2000

14

15
Effect of input/ withinput discussion

• 2 hypotheses on committees (Arter 2004a)
• EFFECTIVE
• Small size will foster an effective collective
  identity and hence committee autonomy.
• The combined roles of standing and select
  committees will foster policy expertise.
• Committees will foster an agenda-setting role
  though inquiries which are not in the control of
  party managers.
• Working practices will be consensual rather than
  partisan.
• The openness of proceedings will discourage
  adversarialism.
• INEFFECTIVE
• The committees will be too small to make scrutiny
  effective (especially if there are attendance
  problems).
• High turnover undermines a committee ethos and
  the combined roles leads to overload.
• The legislative load means that committees have
  no time for agenda setting through inquiry work.
  
• The open process will lead to party posturing
  (extending to witness examination which is often
  ritualistic).
• Committee specialization will also fragment the
  House

16
(5) Outputs

• Healthy number of Public Petitions
• Inquiries shaping agendas water, mobile phone
  masts, free care for elderly, poindings
• 11 of 61 Bills 1999-2003 were non-executive
• High proportion compared to other West European
  Legislatures
• Amendments (next lecture)

17
(6) Powers in relation to the Scottish Executive

• NB traditional Westminster relationship- the
  government governs.
• Scottish Executive has more resources to consult,
  research, initiate
• If we include SSIs, then most legislation
  receives no scrutiny
• Non-executive bills are restricted in scope and
  can be reversed
• Scottish Executive still the main source of
  legislation
• Committees have traditional scrutiny role

18
Outputs revisited?

• There are many petitions, but their practical
  effect is limited.
• Inquiry work is constrained by legislative load.
  Inquiries are too slow to be produced. The
  examples of influence are exceptions to the rule.
• The emphasis on legislation is misplaced.

19
Non-executive legislation

• Limited scope (e.g. dog fouling, St Andrews,
  national galleries)
• Reliance on committees to consult after bill
  proposed
• Wild Mammals took 2 years
• Poindings replaced before enacted
• Committee Bill on children reliant on SPICE and
  Welsh