Contents
- Attendance
- Decision on Taking Business in Private
- Draft Budget Scrutiny 2017-18
- Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service
- Subordinate Legislation
- Justice Sub-Committee on Policing
Subordinate Legislation
Lyon Court and Office Fees (Variation) (Devolved Functions) Order 2016 (SSI 2016/390)
Agenda item 4 is consideration of a negative instrument. I refer members to paper 5. Do members have any comments?
I think that many people find it strange that we are still talking about these things and that an individual cannot just have a coat of arms if they want. However, I want to comment on paragraph 9 of the policy note, which uses a term that I do not know that I understand and that I do not know is helpful. It says that
“A joint, informal consultation ... took place”.
I think that we want formality if we are dealing with legislation that has expenditure implications.
I ask the clerk for his advice on this, because he has seen that before.
I have little to add to what the member said, except to say that I have seen that wording used before in relation to consultations on instruments.
Mr Finnie, do you want to make a recommendation that it should not be used?
It just seems entirely out of kilter with the subsequent paragraph, which lists a group of people and representatives who have been consulted. I do not know how informal the consultation was. Was it just someone picking up a phone? I presume that there is a list somewhere. We should just keep things formal if we are talking about legislation. That is all I wanted to say.
Right—that is noted.
For information, I note that the income that the Court of the Lord Lyon receives from its efforts amounts to £60,000 a year. In other words, we are not talking about a very large amount of money. I happen to know that the application for a coat of arms costs in the order of £3,000, so we are probably talking about a very small number of people. I am not certain about that, but maybe that is why there was an informal consultation.
For the avoidance of doubt, my comment is about the fact that that term has been used about a piece of legislation—it is not about the actual bit of legislation. We should have formality in relation to legislation.
That is noted, but are members content not to make any recommendations?
Members indicated agreement.