Subordinate Legislation Committee, 11 Feb 2003

Meeting date: Tuesday, February 11, 2003

Official Report 135KB pdf

---

Late Annulment Motions

The next item is similar, but it relates to a particular restriction. I think that Lloyd Quinan's late annulment motion is the only one that has been considered, although there might have been others—anyway, it is a good example. He did not have the information to allow him to decide whether to lodge a motion until the 38th day of the 40-day period. It was by good luck rather than by guidance that the relevant subject committee, which was the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee, had a meeting scheduled with the Minister for Enterprise, Transport and Lifelong Learning the following day. The minister was there on another matter, so it was just good luck that the committee was able to discuss the motion with him. That is unsatisfactory.

We are testing the system, which in that instance was found to be less than perfect. However, I caution the committee that, having given the matter great thought, I suggest that it might be the case that no system is ever perfect.

We all know that.

The decision to be made is whether, under the standing orders, the subject committee has discharged its duty if it has discussed and disposed of an instrument in advance of the 40-day limit for a motion of annulment to be lodged. In the case of Lloyd Quinan's motion, the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee had disposed of the matter, but Lloyd Quinan lodged his motion and the committee revisited it. There is the question whether that is intra vires.

Can we ask the Procedures Committee?

That is where the matter goes. We must draw the issue to the Procedures Committee's attention and ask it to make up its mind about the correct way of proceeding. There is nothing to worry about. We learn as we go.

Let us suppose that Lloyd Quinan had not been able to lodge the motion or that the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee had not considered it. Would he have been able to ask about the matter after the 40-day period?

The precedent from Westminster is that members can raise the matter in other ways. They can lodge all sorts of motions. I presume that our system would allow for that, too. Members could lodge a motion, but that would not have the same force that lodging a motion under the 40-day procedure would have.

We have talked about this enough. We will let the Procedures Committee decide, because that is what it is in business for. We have flagged up the points that are of interest and importance. We can give guidance if it is sought, but we cannot take a decision on the matter.

I thank members for their attendance and I will see them again next week.

Meeting closed at 12:10.