Subordinate Legislation Committee, 14 Jun 2005

Meeting date: Tuesday, June 14, 2005

Official Report 141KB pdf

---

Scottish Parliament Subordinate Legislation Committee Tuesday 14 June 2005

[The Deputy Convener opened the meeting at 10:30]

I welcome everyone to the 20th meeting in 2005 of the Subordinate Legislation Committee. I have received apologies from Mike Pringle, and Sylvia Jackson is away at a conference. I expect that the other committee members will arrive—no-one else said that they would not be here.

I have a little note for the record. I do not know what we can do about it, but there is almost an overload of instruments to consider—I think that there are 32 or 33 of them. It is not so much a problem for us, but for the legal staff and others. Perhaps such an overload is inevitable, or perhaps the Executive should think a little about spacing out the instruments, although I do not know how easy that would be.

I wonder whether the approaching end of the parliamentary year is a factor. It seems that the Parliament's agenda tends to get consumed by bills, instruments or whatever when the end of the parliamentary year approaches. Perhaps why that happens and why things cannot be spread more evenly throughout the year should be considered, although I do not know by whom.

I do not know either. I invite the clerk to say what the mechanism would be.

We could write an official letter to the Executive on behalf of the committee on the planning of the programme, if members agree.

I do not disagree with that suggestion. However, there has been a significant improvement in quality from last year, albeit that there is an enormous volume of material to discuss. I think that we will find it necessary to comment on fewer instruments.

That is a fair comment. The other committee members have now arrived.

Here comes the quorum.

The meeting has already started—the committee was quorate. We missed you terribly, but we started.

We were saying that there seems to be an overload of instruments to consider. We are receiving instruments in huge batches—there are more than 30 to consider at this meeting. That may be inevitable. Perhaps the process cannot be controlled and is demand led or, as Adam Ingram said, the overload may be to do with the end-of-term rush. However, we decided that we would write to the Executive to point out that the process must be measured, for the benefit of staff apart from anybody else. Christine May rightly wanted to make the generous point that the quality of instruments has improved and that there are not as many that need to be corrected as there used to be. However, the matter should be discussed, as there is a huge overload of instruments to be considered.

There is not only an overload on this committee. Subject committees will also be overloaded. They will not be able to meet on the final Wednesday before the recess because there is an extra plenary allocation. Some subject committees will find it difficult to slot in a discussion on instruments if there is a reason to have one—for example, if a motion to annul is lodged and so on.

We will make that point. Are members happy with that suggestion?

Members indicated agreement.