Procedures Committee, 06 Jun 2006

Meeting date: Tuesday, June 6, 2006

Official Report 234KB pdf

---

Regulatory Framework Inquiry

The Subordinate Legislation Committee has produced an interesting report on the regulatory framework in Scotland and is interested in our views. There will be a parliamentary debate on the report on Thursday. Personally, I would have thought that we welcome the Subordinate Legislation Committee's efforts to make the procedures that affect its work much more sensible because, at the moment, they are a bit of a guddle. We should encourage the committee in its efforts.

We wrote to the Subordinate Legislation Committee about the consolidation of bills and it makes an interesting point—which is covered in paragraph 11 of the clerk's paper on the matter—about the difference between pure consolidation and rolling consolidation. That mirrors our view that a consolidation bill should be purely for consolidation and that other things should not be brought in. We could perhaps encourage the Subordinate Legislation Committee to go in that direction.

Does any member have strong views on the matter?

I will not deal with the consolidation issue, but I suggest that technical difficulties might arise with the Subordinate Legislation Committee's proposal for two systems of consolidation—one system for pure consolidation and another for rolling consolidation.

I seek clarification on the proposed procedure for Scottish statutory instruments. On page 2 of the clerk's paper, paragraph 9 outlines the proposed general procedure. Would that general procedure have the effect of making each SSI a negative instrument? If it is proposed that instruments can only be "disapproved", will the system in effect be a negative-instrument-type procedure? That is what it looks like at first glance. I would be concerned if SSIs could only be disapproved and could not be amended.

At the moment, SSIs cannot be amended.

Even under the affirmative procedure, members can only vote against the draft instrument.

I understand that.

The proposal is that, if a committee is worried about provisions in an instrument, the Executive could withdraw it and produce an amended one. However, as the bullet points at the top of page 3 of the clerk's paper explain, the 40-day clock would keep ticking.

First, is the proposed general procedure in effect a negative instrument procedure?

Secondly, the two bullet points at the top of page 3 propose that the 40-day clock would keep ticking while the Executive amended the instrument, but the proposal seems to be that an instrument under the general procedure could be knocked out only on a recommendation of either the Subordinate Legislation Committee or the lead committee. If the Executive amended the terms of an SSI and there was no further meeting of the Subordinate Legislation Committee or lead committee, how the heck would we be able to knock out an instrument that we disagreed with? If the clock is ticking and there are no more meetings of the relevant committee, how will members be notified of the changes to the instrument?

Presumably, the changes would be made in the light of the relevant committee's recommendations.

I assume that that is what would happen, but I seek clarification on how the Parliament could disapprove an amended instrument. For example, if the Executive radically altered the terms of an SSI with only two days to go, how would the Parliament disapprove the SSI?

I am not in a position to reply on behalf of the Subordinate Legislation Committee, but you have obviously made a pitch to be given a speech in Thursday's debate.

I was not angling for that, convener.

I had hoped to speak in the debate, but I may not be able to do so.

Should we raise specific points with the Subordinate Legislation Committee or should we just express polite interest and wish that committee well in its efforts to reform the system?

If the debate is to take place on Thursday, asking my questions in writing will hardly be fruitful.

If the proposal is that the Parliament should be able to vote down an SSI only in the two ways that are proposed, the Executive could change the SSI after the last opportunity to vote it down has passed. That gives me some concern.

We will try to get clarification on that, which we will produce at our next meeting. I am sure that the Subordinate Legislation Committee does not in any way wish to diminish the parliamentary scrutiny of SSIs. I took it that the Subordinate Legislation Committee had been working on what it thought was a more efficient system of scrutiny.

I do not call into question the Subordinate Legislation Committee's intention, but the proposal might have that unintended consequence.

That is a fair point. We will see how the debate goes on Thursday and, in the light of that and of any other points, we can discuss the issue at our next meeting.

I have been asked to remind members that, if they can manage to do so, they should attend a meeting with the House of Commons Procedure Committee on Wednesday 14 June at 11 am. The House of Commons committee is interested in petitions and various other things, so it is meeting the Public Petitions Committee and our committee.

I give my apologies in advance as I will be at the Justice 1 Committee meeting.

I think that a number of other committee members have volunteered to attend.

Meeting closed at 12:15.