Subordinate Legislation Committee, 18 Mar 2003

Meeting date: Tuesday, March 18, 2003

Official Report 142KB pdf

---

Legacy Paper

Before members run away, I want to say something about the legacy paper. Members should contact the clerk by Thursday with any comments that they want to make on the paper, so that we can sign it off next week. Is there anything else on the agenda?

No. We are looking forward to the final meeting.

Having dealt with such a long agenda, I want to say that it is not fair on our legal advisers that there should be such a traffic jam at the end of the session. The processing of a large number of instruments that have been brought forward at the last minute has greatly added to the burden on the legal advisers, the Parliament and parliamentary staff and has not assisted the scrutiny process.

Today's meeting has been mind-boggling. We have considered questions to the Executive at the pre-meeting and the Executive's responses. We have considered our original legal advice, the Executive's responses and legal advice about those responses. It has been difficult for the committee to go into detail. Indeed, the Official Report will be almost incomprehensible to anybody who is trying to work things out from what we have said. We have juggled a lot at the end of the session to get things through so that committees do not need to have extra meetings and so that we can report to committees in time. We should make it clear, strongly, what has happened. I hope that what I have said is made clear in the legacy paper, if nowhere else.

I agree. The way in which we have proceeded is not the way to do business—it is massively unfair on those who service the committee. We have previously drawn the matter to the Executive's attention. I was not being entirely facetious when I said that we are the saftest in the faimily. We have ended up with the agenda that we have today because we have been so understanding. The agenda is the easy part of the process—the preparation behind it is more difficult.

I thank Ian Jenkins for raising the matter. We will let the Executive know that the committee does not approve of overloading people in such a way.

One or two issues have obviously been ducked in the legacy paper. One such issue is, what is the purpose behind a Subordinate Legislation Committee that embraces all the remits of parliamentary committees? Would it be more appropriate for committees that have an oversight of the relevant subject matter to consider subordinate legislation?

Secondly, I do not know how to square the circle on this matter, but I would like some thought to be applied to it. I am tempted to say that we should recognise that there is sometimes an absurdity in respect of the committee. We are ably represented by our legal advisers and clerks, who do an important part of the committee's work, but anybody who reads the Official Report should recognise that a lot goes on in the background. I do not know how to show that a sieve has been used. For example, the legal advisers pick up important typographical points as well as the issues that we discuss. Might it be possible for the committee to build in a way of showing that such points have already been sifted out? I do not know how such a process can be managed and the committee still have democratic scrutiny and oversight, but it strikes me that there is a role in there. We should consider how the committee might function better if an omnibus Subordinate Legislation Committee is wanted.

The matter relates to what the Conveners Group has said about membership of committees. There must be stability in the membership of committees so that expertise can be built up.

I do not think that anybody could pretend to—

We will recommend training. Much earlier, we said that that would be part of our legacy paper. I do not know how to square the circle. I agree with most of what Brian Fitzpatrick has said, but I do not have an answer. I do not know how subject committees could undertake Executive scrutiny.

The Welsh experience was mentioned. I know that the Welsh are different from us, but are they finding what we are finding in respect of the volume and subject matter of work? Is there a briefing paper?

It is the volume of work, as much as anything else, that kills us; that is why we rely so heavily on the legal advisers and clerks who service the committee. That makes our experience rather different from the Welsh experience. However, I thank Brian Fitzpatrick for raising the matter.

Thank you all for your attendance, and I will see you next week.

Meeting closed at 12:35.