Week 4'2 The Scottish Executive and the Scottish Parliament:

1
Week 4.2 The Scottish Executive and the Scottish
Parliament

• Evidence for the centrality of committees

2
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.),.
• Discussion powers in relation to (a) other
  legislatures (b) the executive (for me the most
  crucial point)
• Brief analysis of amendments process.

3
(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

4
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

5
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

6
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)

7
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 was more
  straightforward 12 names and the bill goes to
  stage 1
• Now 19 names, with restrictions on use of NEBU
• (NB Committee role crucial to members bill
  progress)

8
(3) Inputs or the capacity/ powers of
Scottish Parliament committees

• Relatively powerful compared to functions of
  other West European legislatures

9
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

10
(4) Withinputs

• Party influence voting majority most
  committees,, informal whip (meetings before
  meetings)
• Turnover of members (high)
• Resource constraints (including committee size)
• Legislative overload bills and amendments

11
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

12
(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

13
(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

14
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.
  Examples

15
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

16
Conclusion?

• Unusual powers compared to other West European
  legislatures
• But not in comparison with the Scottish Executive
  which has a much larger staff equipped for
  research and consultation
• Limited policy initiation
• Fairly traditional hands-off relationship with
  scrutiny at bill stage

17
Effect of bill scrutiny?

• Analysis of amendments
• Did these change the substance of the bill?
• How much change comes from the Scottish
  Parliament and its committees?
• In other words, is the Scottish Parliament an
  actor involved in legislative change or just an
  arena for policy change?

18
Initial point

• The Scottish Executive appears dominant since it
  proposes the majority of the successful
  amendments and MSPs propose most of the failed
  ones

19
Qualification of Scottish Executive success

• Amendments vary in value, from consequential to
  detail to substantive
• Most successful Scottish Executive amendments are
  consequential
• The detail is devolved from SP to Scottish
  Executive
• Most go through on the nod without voting
• There are very few substantive amendments

20
Qualification of MSP failure

• Most failed amendments are really withdrawn
  (56)
• They are often introduced to stimulate debate or
  ask questions, not to be won
• Many are withdrawn after assurances that the
  Scottish Executive ill address the issue
• As a result, there is considerable Scottish
  Parliament influence over the production of and
  inspiration for the most important amendments.
• Committees are particularly influential.

21
Inspired/ Original Authorship

• Some backbench Labour MSPs are successful with
  substantive amendments
• Others (LD and opposition) tend to rely on
  indirect influence through withdrawal-
  reassurance
• Latter should not be underestimated (little
  difference between 2 styles?)
• Aggregate figures 37.2 of all substantive
  amendments relate to direct and indirect
  non-executive influence
• Of the 62 inspired amendments, two-thirds
  attributed to committees, while there is no
  coalition bias to the remainder

22
See table in next slide

• Over half 59 of all substantive amendments
  presented at stage 3 can be attributed to
  non-executive actors
• The committees are central to this process
• Stage 2 is less significant, but the 16.9
  inspired element is testament to a stage 1
  process envisaged by CSG

23
Stage 3 58.9 non-executive
24
Qualification to committee influence

• The Scottish Executive still produces and amends
  the majority of bills
• Evidence of bill change throughout the process?
  Note the rules on wrecking amendments
• Alternative explanations for figures
• Voting on Scottish Executive amendments few
  object because few understand?
• Withdrawal makes no difference? Amendment would
  be lost anyway?

25
Conclusion

• Evidence of traditional Westminster relationship
• No wholesale changes in relationships
• Scottish Parliament has unusual range of powers
  compared to other legislatures, not the Scottish
  Executive
• Some evidence of influence in inquiries and
  scrutiny