Official Report 124KB pdf
Item 2 is another negative instrument concerning animal feedingstuffs from Belgium. There is an explanatory note covering items 1 and 2 but, again, no motion has been lodged. I therefore recommend that the attention of Parliament need not be drawn to the instrument.
If the feed has gone to farms in France and Holland, as well as to 416 Belgian farms, why are we banning only food from Belgium?
If we want to debate the matter, we need to call people who can answer your question. I cannot give you that answer, and we must therefore call another meeting to debate the issue.
Can I suggest that, when we are to consider Scottish statutory instruments, we tell the Executive that we need to get them at least 10 to 14 days beforehand? Once we are in committee, it is too late to lodge a motion.
I totally agree. I think that it is unacceptable that the committee should have to function in this way. Mary Scanlon has raised a legitimate point. If circumstances were different, we would all want to raise a lot of questions about the instruments. Our feelings will be made known and the matter will be brought up with the Executive and with the Procedures Committee.
I accept that and fully support what you are doing—I appreciate that we are working together and are all on a steep learning curve—but is there a process by which this question can be answered without referring it to further committee meetings?
The only way we can ask questions is to lodge parliamentary questions as individuals. You can lodge a parliamentary question on this or on any other issue in the background notes.
Thank you.
Mary's question on the reason for banning food from Belgium, but not from France or Holland, is valid. If we close the meeting now without reaching a decision on the statutory instrument, and agree to meet again with a more competent agenda and a clearer, more precise timetable, we can study this matter. If we continue this meeting, we cannot raise this question except through parliamentary questions.
We are given time scales for Scottish statutory instruments. We have to report to Parliament on 29 September. To meet that deadline we will have to give information to the bureau by 23 September. Our next meeting is on 22 September, which is too late to allow us to prepare the report for the bureau. So, if this item is not considered at this meeting, we will have to call an additional meeting between now and 22 September. That is why members have had such short notice.
Why is the time scale so inflexible? I agree entirely with Ben. What leeway is there to move the time scale that has been set? It is not a sustainable position for this committee to agree that it needs to consider matters properly with the facts before it, but to turn a blind eye to these particular instruments.
I have a problem with this. We are nodding things through, but we have not had sufficient information to back up any decision. Mary has made a valid point—she has obviously had time to read the documents this morning, but I had to drive here.
I agree entirely with Margaret Jamieson in principle, but that is part of the new process. These statutory instruments were laid before the UK Parliament, as the issue arose before the Scottish Parliament assumed its powers. We are annulling an instrument that the UK Parliament introduced. That will not recur in future. We should pass these regulations, because if we do not, Scotland alone will continue to ban Belgian food for a prolonged period. Scotland will be out of step with the rest of the UK and—for all I know—with the rest of Europe.
It would have been helpful if committee members had been made aware of that fact. I thank Richard for advising me of that.
Statutory instruments are laid before Parliament 40 days before they have to be passed. They should be with us the day they are laid. Forty days before 29 September was in mid-July, which was within our Parliament's competence.
Again, I agree with Ben Wallace in principle. However, if we were to get a negative SSI on the fishing industry, for example, because laboratory tests showed that amnesic shellfish poisoning toxins had gone, it would be unacceptable to the fishermen if we had to wait 40 days to lift the instrument, because that is what the committee has decided.
We are—or should be—a flexible organisation. If there is yet another of these quasi-emergencies about food, we should be prepared to meet in the break and, within reason, to make ourselves available at very short notice, rather than cluttering up the committee. Last week, we did not really need to take up 1 hour 40 minutes of the most senior minister's time to talk about the shellfish ban when we all wanted to question her about the sick children's hospitals.
We had to look at that motion at the minister's request.
I want to pick up on the points made by Richard and Ben. It may be rather alarming to realise this, but the Executive has the power over statutory instruments. The orders have already been implemented. We do not need to approve them before that can be done. We, therefore, can use the whole 40 days. I back Ben's suggestion that all statutory instruments of relevance to this committee should be sent to us immediately they are laid. People on the committee will then be in a position to raise points and move motions against them.
We will ask the Executive that. Jennifer will clarify the matter for us.
The difficulty with the 40-day period is that until we are designated the lead committee we do not know where the statutory instruments will be sent. Instruments have to be laid before Parliament before a decision can be taken on who is to consider them and—if more than one committee is to do that—which will be the lead committee. Part of the 40-day period is used up doing that.
The whole process seems incredibly cumbersome. It is certainly not satisfactory.
All that needs to happen is for someone to pray against the instruments within 40 days. It does not matter if they go to three or four committees.
Dorothy raised the issue of special meetings of the committee. She talked about a break—I assume that she meant the October recess.
I was referring to the lunch break.
We all have things to do during that time. I have yet to have a full lunch break.
The same is true of me.
We need to be very careful—this is not the only committee of which I am a member and this is certainly not the only subject in which I am interested. We also need to be mindful of the staff, as they have other committees to serve.
I appreciate what a frantic time the lunch break can be. I meant that we should be available to meet then if the matter was urgent. We would rather know than be brushed aside or wait until our next meeting.
I understand the spirit in which Dorothy was suggesting that we give up our lunch hour, but we need this matter resolved, not only for our committee but for every committee of the Parliament. This is not the first time—nor will it be the last—that we have found that the working practices of the Parliament are cumbersome and do not serve this committee's best interests.
What exactly are we doing here? The clerk said that it is not in this committee's power to pass this legislation and that, therefore, it will come into effect.
The committee's task is to decide whether to agree that the attention of the Parliament need not be drawn to the instrument.
That involves our assessing whether the matter under consideration is sufficiently important to come before the Parliament.
The only other step that the committee can take is to consider a motion recommending that nothing further be done under the instrument.
These regulations derive from a law that has already been passed. At issue is whether we want to question whether the regulations are fit and appropriate to that law, which Parliament has made. Sometimes the Executive has overlooked regulations or not thought them through properly. It is then that a motion should be lodged with the Parliament. The problem is that only an individual, not the committee, can do that. That means that, if we do not like the regulations, we must nominate an individual to lodge a motion at the chamber office so that it can be put before Parliament. Is that correct?
Someone would have to lodge a motion recommending that nothing further be done under the instrument.
It is all fun on this committee.