Welfare Reform Committee

Meeting date: Tuesday, January 8, 2013

Official Report 361KB pdf

---

Implementation of Scottish Law Commission Bills

We have all seen the letter from the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee regarding the speed of implementation of bills arising from Scottish Law Commission reports. That committee has indicated that it would welcome written comments on the four questions that are set out in paragraph 9.

Do members have comments on the letter? If so, we can formulate those into a letter of response, and if not, we can write to say that we have no comment to make. No member has indicated before this morning that there are any issues, although I think that Annabelle Ewing wants to say something.

I am sorry, convener. I will bear that in mind for future meetings. I have two points to make. First, the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee seeks input on a series of options on how, under the new system, determinations are made on whether a matter should go to the Subordinate Legislation Committee. One option is to have such matters go to the Parliamentary Bureau, as at present. Of the three options that are presented, that one makes the most sense. If such matters were to go to committee to be discussed, quite a bit of time would be lost. The objective is to find a way to implement more quickly the Scottish Law Commission bills that are not controversial, but the committee route would mean losing weeks, if not months. The bureau route seems to be the more speedy option.

Secondly—I am not trying to be difficult—that option would be quite a change to the Subordinate Legislation Committee’s remit, which might beg the question whether the committee’s title would still be pertinent if it assumed jurisdiction for that work.

It is handy having a lawyer on the committee.

Members do not have to inform me of issues in advance; sometimes the clerks are made aware that members have issues to raise, but the meeting is also an opportunity to raise them. Do members agree with the points that Annabelle Ewing has raised?

I agree.

I agree absolutely.

Yes. I ask Annabelle Ewing to correct me if I am completely wrong—I may well be—but given that the Subordinate Legislation Committee is a standing committee under the Scotland Act 1998, would the process be as simple as just to give the committee an extra remit, as she suggested?

I do not have an answer to that.

That could be done by changing standing orders, which would be carried out through the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee.

Is that the case even though the Subordinate Legislation Committee is a statutory committee?

I think that it can be done, but I do not know too much about it either, so I think that we should just agree with Annabelle Ewing.

I just wanted to throw that into the pot.

I am reliably informed that that can be done.

Oh, well.

We can flag up Annabelle Ewing’s comments.

Yes.

If members are content, we will note the comments in our response to the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee.

It will be a worthwhile exercise, because it is hugely frustrating that we cannot deal more expeditiously with Scottish Law Commission bills. The suggestion is innovative and flexible, and makes sense, but—as I said—the title “Subordinate Legislation Committee” would become somewhat questionable.

The Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee would certainly have to consider the matter if we flag it up. It will be up to that committee to decide what to do, but the point is well made and we can note it in our letter.

Agreed.

That ends today’s meeting. I thank everyone for their attendance.

Meeting closed at 10:23.