As members will recall, last week the committee wrote to the Cabinet Secretary for Justice to ask for more details on why the Scottish Government brought the instrument into force only three days after it was laid, which represents a significant breach of the 28-day rule.
Members will have seen Mr Yousaf’s response, which gives the committee a better understanding of why the new equipment to monitor individuals who are subject to a restriction of liberty order was required over the Christmas period. I am sure that the committee will wish to welcome the cabinet secretary’s commitment to consider how any similar risks might be mitigated in future so that laying requirements can be met and appropriate parliamentary scrutiny maintained.
In saying that, it is still unclear when the Government was made aware of the potential shortage of monitoring equipment. Mr Yousaf said that that became apparent only
“a few weeks before Parliamentary recess”.
Although it might still have been necessary to breach the 28-day rule, could more than three days’ notice have been provided?
With that in mind, does the committee wish to highlight the cabinet secretary’s response to the lead committee while making clear the importance that this committee attaches to parliamentary scrutiny and the Scottish Government’s statutory obligations? Although breaching the 28-day rule might at times be unavoidable, it should be done only when no alternatives exist. The explanation that the Government provides to Parliament should clearly state the reason for the breach and provide details of when the Government was made aware of the issue, as well as of what other options were explored.
Is the committee content to report in that way?
Members indicated agreement.