Transport and the Environment Committee,

Meeting date: Wednesday, May 15, 2002

Official Report 244KB pdf

---

Subordinate Legislation

---

Home Zones (Scotland) Regulations 2002 (SSI 2002/177)

The next item of business is the Home Zones (Scotland) Regulations 2002 (SSI 2002/177). The instrument raised some concerns for the Subordinate Legislation Committee as it contained significant and serious drafting errors, with the result that the instrument will be revoked by the Scottish Executive. The Executive has agreed to introduce a revised instrument, which will revoke this one, probably within the next couple of weeks. However, since the instrument has not yet been revoked it continues its parliamentary progress.

We are, therefore, in the unfortunate position of having to consider an instrument that is recognised as flawed. No motion to annul has been put before the committee. In such cases, we would usually report that we have nothing to report and I recommend to the committee that we still do that. However, I suggest that we should flag up in writing to the minister and to the Subordinate Legislation Committee our concerns that an instrument that has serious flaws has come before the Parliament and this committee, although we note that action is under way to correct the flaws. Are members happy that we do that?

I concur with that approach. The situation is symptomatic of a wider disease. The fact that we are getting instruments that contain serious drafting defects is a reflection of the pressure on the drafting capacity of the Parliament. That is a serious issue, which seems to be holding up other legislation. I am concerned about the bill that will arise from "The Nature of Scotland" consultation, which seems to be held up as a result of lack of drafting capacity. I am sure that other legislation is being affected. The Parliament should examine ways to remedy this serious problem.

I agree with that point, which Fiona McLeod raised last week. Too many instruments that come before the committee are acknowledged by the Executive to be defectively drafted. We should do more to avoid that situation. We are not making good legislation.

I signify my total agreement with what Nora Radcliffe and John Scott have said. There must be a review of the drafting capacity; it needs to be increased.

Would it have been correct for the committee to lodge a motion for annulment, so that the report would have been that we do nothing further? As the instrument is being withdrawn, we could have stopped it coming into play.

That would have been possible, but it is probably unnecessary for us to take that course of action. We might have done so if we had not been given the clear indication that another instrument would be introduced. Do members agree on the course of action that I outlined, to which Nora Radcliffe added some suggestions?

Members indicated agreement.