ABSTRACT
It will be recalled that the attitude of MSPs to the deliberation of Executive bills reflected a government-opposition divide. A number of SNP and Conservative parliamentarians felt there was too much Executive legislation, that the committees were Executive-driven and that there was insufficient time for committees to pursue an agenda of their own or, indeed, develop an identity of their own. Among the Executive backbenchers, in contrast, there was a tendency to dwell on the thorough nature of the committee deliberation of Executive bills - particularly at stage 1 - and the fact that the committee could make a difference. It was also noted that the legislative workloads of committees varied quite considerably. Above all, the architects of the Scottish Parliament created subject committees so as to facilitate the development of member expertise, the more effectively to consider legislative proposals. How have the Riksdag committees approached the task of considering government bills? Has there been a thorough deliberation of draft legislation in committee or have matters been effectively 'cut and dried' by then? In other words, have the committees been the 'engine room' of the Swedish Parliament or a (Public) Record Office' formalising (and keeping an official record of!) decisions taken elsewhere?
