Subordinate Legislation Committee, 17 Jun 2008

Meeting date: Tuesday, June 17, 2008

Official Report 122KB pdf

---

Regulatory Framework Inquiry

It is now my chance to let others contribute, and I can rest my voice-box. Agenda item 5 is our inquiry into the regulatory framework. We have received a response from the Scottish Government to our inquiry report. The response is gratifyingly supportive of the changes to the scrutiny process that we recommended in our report and the Government has indicated that it is willing to bring forward a bill to give effect to the proposed improvements. That is good news. Although the Government supports the vast majority of the recommendations that are made in the report, the response paper sets out two recommendations that the Government does not support and two to which it wishes to give further consideration.

Before we take any decisions on the matter, I invite thoughts and comments from members on the Scottish Government's response, thinking in particular about the areas of disagreement—although it is up to your good selves.

Who is first? You should not all bash into each other in the rush.

I am never one to miss an opportunity to speak, convener. I would not wish to second-judge what the previous committee did, and I am conscious that it spent a lot of time on the inquiry and arrived at thoughtful conclusions. There are technical discussions to be had, however, and I wonder whether we could task the clerks with holding those discussions with the Scottish Government over the long summer months, with the starting point being the committee's report, while recognising that we want to get to an end point and move the agenda forward. Rather than going through the technical comments that the Government has made, we might agree that as an appropriate way forward.

The nub of it being on recommendations 12 and 15 in our report, which the Government does not like very much, and recommendations 4 and 9, on which the Government wishes to comment further.

We should record—and this should come from someone other than yourself, convener—how gratifying it is that the Government has supported the majority of our recommendations.

Although our clerks need to discuss the finer details of recommendations 4 and 9, as the Government is still considering them, it is perhaps asking a bit much of them to discuss recommendations 12 and 15 much further, as the Government has firmly stated that it does not support them. Perhaps the committee should discuss those recommendations now, rather than leave it to the clerks.

In reaction to recommendation 12, the Government feels that a 50-day delay with respect to motions to approve or annul instruments would produce a very long interval—too long to be "practicable". I would be interested to hear the view of other committee members who have been in the Parliament longer than I have as to whether that caveat sounds reasonable.

On recommendation 15, although I understand any Government not wanting conditional annulment, it does seem reasonable for the Scottish Government to argue that it

"would cause significant confusion for those affected by the legislation"

if they did not know whether something was going to be annulled or not. That might inhibit people's plans or involve financial expenditure—it could set their plans at nought and cause a great deal of confusion.

I am inclined to accept the Government's not going along with recommendation 15. I would like to hear the views of other committee members about recommendation 12.

I am not entirely happy with that. I do not like to disagree with Ian McKee—we agree from time to time on a range of issues—but witnesses proposed some interesting views on conditional annulment as a tool in our armoury that we might wish to use from time to time. In any situation where we are fighting policy proposals, we always need an ultimate weapon. We might not ever wish to use it, but we might want to have the possibility there. That would be the case with recommendation 15. I would welcome our clerks discussing the matter a little further. The same applies to recommendation 12.

I would like us to revisit the matter when we return after the summer recess, once the technical discussions have taken place. This committee, like others, should have some time for reflection at an away day. I would like to revisit the point in private discussions. There are reasons to consider the matter.

I take that as a suggestion that, as we did last year, we should meet quickly after the recess.

Yes—or towards the end of the recess—whichever you think, convener. The make-up of the committee has changed by 50 per cent since the first intake. There are matters that it would be useful to discuss and reflect on further with committee members.

Could the clerks organise that, if that is the feeling of the committee?

Yes, if members wish to pursue that.

In essence, I support Jackie Baillie's suggestion. Because of the timing, with just one further committee meeting before the summer recess, and given the nature of such exchanges—we ask questions, get responses, ask questions and get responses—I think that, rather than embarking upon such discussions now, it would be useful for the clerks to pursue some issues and for us to revisit them in a concentrated fashion and draw all the strands together fairly quickly over a series of meetings after the recess. That would seem to make sense. I am not casting doubts on anybody's ability to retain information over the two months of the summer, but I suspect that we would find ourselves in a hiatus, halfway through a discussion and not sure where we had left it.

That sounds like wise counsel. Can I take that as the view of the committee?

Members indicated agreement.

We will ask the clerks to discuss the issues over the recess and we will then consider them together. We can decide a suitable date for that by e-mail.

Members indicated agreement.

I think that we have got there. I thank members for their contributions. Before I close this meeting, I should mention that I will not be here next Tuesday. Gil Paterson will kindly convene the meeting. For my part, I thank our officials for their support, which is much appreciated. Have a good break. I also thank my committee colleagues—I am very grateful.

Meeting closed at 14:32.