Official Report 296KB pdf
Bankruptcy and Debt Advice (Scotland) Act 2014 (Commencement No 1 and Saving) Order 2014 (SSI 2014/172)
Tribunals (Scotland) Act 2014 (Commencement No 1) Order 2014 (SSI 2014/183)
Act of Sederunt (Rules of the Court of Session and Sheriff Court Rules Amendment) (Miscellaneous) 2014 (SSI 2014/201)
Public Bodies (Joint Working) (Scotland) Act 2014 (Commencement No 1) Order 2014 (SSI 2014/202)
We come to item 4. Although no points have been raised on the instruments, members might wish to note a couple of matters in relation to the timing of two of them. Scottish statutory instrument 2014/183 was laid before the Parliament on 23 June. As recess began on 27 June, the committee was not in a position to consider the instrument before it came into force on 14 July. However, members will note that the Scottish Government wrote to the committee prior to the instrument being laid to explain why it was considered necessary to bring it into force during recess.
That differs from the Government’s approach to SSI 2014/202, which was laid and came into force during summer recess. In that case, the Scottish Government did not provide the committee with an explanation about why the instrument could not have been laid prior to the recess, thereby giving the committee an opportunity to scrutinise it. The committee might consider that to be an unsatisfactory approach to laying instruments, particularly given that the Public Bodies (Joint Working) (Scotland) Act gained royal assent on 1 April 2014.
Do members have any comments?
We might wish to consider improving this situation. The convention seems to have broken down with regard to the commencement order for the Public Bodies (Joint Working) (Scotland) Act 2014, and it would be worth finding some reasonable way for the committee to look at instruments that are not subject to parliamentary procedure during recess.
As I understand it, we are not reporting this, because there has been no breach of the rules. As you have rightly pointed out, this is just convention, but it would seem good practice for instruments, even those that are not subject to parliamentary procedure, to be laid during the parliamentary year to allow us to look at them.
Perhaps we can ask the minister to explain why we received a very full explanation with regard to one instrument but no explanation at all with regard to another. That seems, at best, inconsistent.
Thank you for that suggestion. Are members comfortable with my writing a letter on behalf of the committee to the relevant minister, asking for an explanation as to why this happened?
We need to be clear that there are two issues here: a specific issue about the commencement order for the Public Bodies (Joint Working) (Scotland) Act 2014, for which there might be a perfectly reasonable explanation; and a general issue about instruments falling between the cracks of convention, rules and so on, which might give rise to some concern.
On the basis that it could have gone wrong but, in this case, it did not.
Yes.
Are members therefore agreed—
Convener—
I wonder whether I could complete the sentence, at least for the record. Do members agree that, in this instance, I should write to the minister, seeking an explanation?
Members indicated agreement.
It is important for purposes of clarity to put on record the recognition that no parliamentary rules have been broken, but there appears to be an issue with the convention.
That is fine—thank you very much for the discussion. Is the committee otherwise content with the instruments?
Members indicated agreement.