Skip to main content
Loading…
Chamber and committees

Justice 2 Committee,

Meeting date: Wednesday, May 9, 2001


Contents


Subordinate Legislation

Motion S1M-1910 is a technical item that is intended to limit the debate on an item of subordinate legislation to 45 minutes. Members will know that we normally have 90 minutes.

I move,

That the Committee agrees that its debate at its next meeting on motion S1M-1905 to approve the draft Sex Offenders (Notice Requirements) (Foreign Travel) (Scotland) Regulations 2001 be limited to 45 minutes.

Motion agreed to.

The Convener:

Item 7 concerns the Act of Sederunt (Fees of Shorthand Writers in the Sheriff Court) (Amendment) 2001 (SSI 2001/136). Among their papers, members should have a covering note—paper J2/01/11/4—that sets out the background to the procedure.

Do members wish to make any comments?

The shorthand writers are not getting a very big rise. In paragraph 2(3), the fee goes up from £5.57 to £5.77, which is only 20p.

What happened to such statutory instruments before the Scottish Parliament was created? Did they go through Westminster on the nod in vast batches without being scrutinised?

The Convener:

It depended on the nature of the instrument. Some instruments would just be laid and MPs could raise objections, but I do not think that there was a committee that dealt with every statutory instrument. That is the big difference in the Scottish Parliament.

Tavish Scott:

Following on from Christine Grahame's point, I think that the item is fairly minor. Is there a de minimis level that kicks in for such things? There must be a delegated level of authority about things such as staff wage rises, which are practical matters for management rather than for committees of the Parliament. Is there some consideration given to how such things work?

The Convener:

In this case, some ancient act somewhere must require that the instrument come before the Parliament; otherwise we would not see it. Usually, all the delegated legislation that we see is directly relevant to the work of the committee.

The clerks note that this is the second or third occasion on which we have not had the required 21 days. There is no significant problem with the instrument's content, but we should send a strongly worded letter again, because, on principle, if 21 days is required, we should be given 21 days and the instrument should not come into force before then.

Christine Grahame:

For Tavish Scott's information, I can say that we are considering the instrument because the primary legislation requires such a procedure.

We discussed previously a statutory instrument with which we were not content. At that stage, we could not do anything about it procedurally, but we put our discontent on record, so that if any operational problems occurred, at least our hands were clean. Some instruments have raised concerns, even though the Subordinate Legislation Committee has considered them. Is that correct?

Yes.

Do we agree to note the instrument with the comments that I made?

Members indicated agreement.