Official Report 111KB pdf
The committee is invited to consider a paper from the clerk. Members may wish to direct themselves at the following questions. First, should the existing procedures be replaced by the proposed Scottish statutory instrument procedure, under which all Scottish statutory instruments, with certain exceptions, would be laid before Parliament? Should there be parallel consideration of instruments by the Subordinate Legislation Committee and the lead committee? Should the Executive be required to provide Parliament every three months with a forward programme of instruments that it plans to make during that period? Should draft instruments that are laid before Parliament be amendable by the Executive, with the agreement of the Subordinate Legislation Committee, to take account of technical changes, without affecting the original timetable for consideration? Those are four of the questions that are posed in the consultation. It is perfectly proper for members to comment on those questions or any others.
It is probably best to take them one by one and to see whether there is general agreement or anything on which we have reservations.
The consultation questions start at paragraph 9 on page 3. The first question is whether all the existing procedures should be replaced by the proposed Scottish statutory instrument procedure.
The paper is sensible on the whole. That sounds like a more efficient way of doing things. In terms of the general principle, I am happy to agree.
Is everyone agreed?
Members indicated agreement.
Should there be parallel consideration of instruments by the Subordinate Legislation Committee and the lead committee?
Again, that seems sensible.
Is everyone agreed?
Members indicated agreement.
Should instruments that are laid in draft form under the general procedure be subject to being disapproved by Parliament within 40 days? Alternatively, should the period be reduced to 30 days? There is a choice.
Are we talking about working days or calendar days?
It is working days, is it not?
I think the days would be Monday to Friday. I shall check.
With the summer recess, it would be nonsense to use calendar days, given that there has in effect to be parliamentary action to approve affirmative instruments.
Having been, for my sins, on the Subordinate Legislation Committee for a bit, I am almost certain that it is parliamentary days.
On that basis, what comments do members have?
Is it 40 days at the moment?
Yes—it is 40 days for affirmative instruments.
If we have more areas to explore, why has 30 days been mentioned? Could Sylvia Jackson speak to us about the Subordinate Legislation Committee's thinking? I am inclined to go with the status quo.
I draw your attention to the next consultation question, which may give insight into the Subordinate Legislation Committee's thinking. It asks:
The proposed arrangements say that, if everyone agreed, a motion could be agreed to earlier than 40 days, so the 10 days seems to be an additional complication. If a motion could be agreed to earlier than after 40 days, why put in the 10-day proviso?
Margaret Mitchell suggested that Sylvia Jackson come to talk to us. I draw her attention to the fact that the deadline for responses to the consultation is Friday next week: if we were to hear from her, we would have to do so next week.
Surely we could receive a written response from Sylvia Jackson. If every committee asked her to visit, she would be busy.
We will ask the question in writing, because it is straightforward.
I would like more details of the thinking behind the 30-day proposal.
We understand that. We are not taking a view on the question at the moment.
We can reach a view on that when we have the answer to question 3.
Okay—I am content with that. I suspect that we support the proposal in question 5, which asks whether the Executive should be required to provide a forward programme every three months.
Will the Executive be able to do that?
That is for the Executive to concern itself with.
The idea is good.
Question 6 asks:
My initial reaction is that that is unduly restrictive, so I would like comments on the measure.
When I was a member of the Subordinate Legislation Committee, we often asked whether instruments were legal and we had to obtain legal opinions. I am happy if we want to ask about the proposal, but perhaps that is where it comes from.
The proposal would restrict the Subordinate Legislation Committee to recommending annulment or disapproval only when an instrument was legally flawed. I would be uncomfortable with that.
So would I.
Absolutely.
I was going to make the point that the question uses the word "only". Does Mike Pringle have insight into other grounds on which the committee could make a recommendation? What other issues have arisen that we would remove from operation by agreeing to the proposal?
All sorts of issues arose, such as wording, drafting, inference from what was said and lack of clarity about whether an instrument said what it should say. The legality question arose often, but I would be uncomfortable with adopting the proposal in question 6.
Therefore, if an instrument is legally valid but totally incomprehensible, the Subordinate Legislation Committee should be able to recommend rejection.
That is correct. Another reason could be issues of drafting.
We are fairly clear about that.
That is sensible.
I see nodding heads around the table.
That sounds okay in principle, but I would like a little more information about the situation that is envisaged.
That is a reasonable question to ask. The second part of question 8, which concerns how emergency instruments would be defined, is the key.
The distinction needs to be made clear.
I did not know what the distinction meant.
A little more clarification would help.
The question comes back to what emergency instruments are. If that definition covers urgent instruments, the complication is unnecessary.
That sounds fairly vague. I would like clarification of the thinking behind the proposal.
Has Mary Mulligan never been a member of the Subordinate Legislation Committee? Consolidation is a huge issue.
I had to move or not move motions.
That is true—so you did.
The remaining few questions are, essentially, technical. Is it fair simply to ask the Subordinate Legislation Committee to show us more of its thinking on those subjects, which are more for it to consider than for us?
Members indicated agreement.
I am happy with that.
Any conclusions that we reach that lead to our inputting a response will have to be dealt with at our meeting on Wednesday next week.
The deadline is noon this Friday.
Meeting closed at 10:11.
Previous
Subordinate Legislation