Scottish Parliament Subordinate Legislation Committee Tuesday 26 June 2001 (Morning)
[The Convener opened the meeting at 11:16]
Good morning and welcome to the 22nd meeting in 2001 of the Subordinate Legislation Committee. Today's meeting is our last before the recess.
Before we move on to the formal agenda, I want to note that we had a discussion during our legal briefing about the continuing occurrence of minor errors in the legislation that comes before the committee. Gordon Jackson may have some proposals as to what we should do about that.
We are finding lots of errors in legislation. Many of the replies that we receive from the Executive say that we are right and that it has made a mistake and I do not know why that is the case.
Perhaps we should expect a percentage of errors as so many pieces of legislation are drafted. It may be that we are incredibly picky—although that is our job. I have a sneaking feeling that we are finding that more errors occur in the drafting of statutory instruments than might be thought to be appropriate. I am not sure of the answer. Perhaps we could write to the Executive or ask for a meeting. We need to better understand the process and how it works, as that would put our mind at rest.
Perhaps, in the sort of meeting with the Executive that we had before, we could ask Executive staff to talk to us about the procedures that are involved. On the other hand, we could write to the Executive asking what its scrutiny procedures are when drafting legislation and before it comes to us.
The situation is similar to our views on judicial review—we said that it should not be used as the final court of appeal. Similarly, we should not act as the Executive's checking system; it should have one on board.
I suggest that we write to the Executive, on an informal basis, asking about its current methodology for checking draft legislation before it reaches us. Our remit is to look at legislation from the perspective of the Parliament, not to be a checking house for the Executive. If the Executive has problems with resourcing or with its methodology, that can be discussed.
In the first instance, I suggest that we ask the Executive to clarify matters. It needs to iron out the glitches before legislation reaches us. Does that course of action satisfy members?
That would satisfy me. I sound more critical than I want to be. I do not feel well-enough informed to be critical. However, I have a red light in my head alerting me to question why there are so many mistakes—I would like to know the answer.
Let us find out how the Executive proof reads and checks its legislation.