Subordinate Legislation Committee, 21 Sep 1999
Meeting date: Tuesday, September 21, 1999
Official Report
103KB pdf
Presiding Officer (Letter)
The letter from the Presiding Officer is in response to points raised by Bristow and Fergus and communicated last week.
The Presiding Officer says that he does not think that the bulletin is the appropriate place for statements from the Executive. We might include in our next report the view of this committee that it is an error, or shows a lack of regard for the scrutiny process, to submit legislation that either has been given very little time between being laid and coming into force or, on some occasions, has come into force before the Parliament has had it laid before it. It is a fundamental issue of concern for this committee.
We might also draw the matter to the attention of other MSPs and write again to the Scottish Executive asking it to ensure that, when statutory instruments are brought forward in the future, sufficient time is given, except when there is an extreme and urgent need to do otherwise.
I note the letter from the Presiding Officer, which was supplied quickly, unlike some of the responses from the Executive. The Presiding Officer agreed with the importance that we placed on this issue. The two matters were that several instruments had breached the 21-day rule, and that others had come into force before they were laid before Parliament—the gap was, I believe, about seven days in the case of the statutory instruments on amnesic shellfish poisoning and the Belgian foodstuffs regulations.
That is unacceptable. Before this Parliament came into being, there was a lot of talk about pre-legislative scrutiny. If the 21-day rule has been breached and committees have been denied an opportunity to scrutinise legislation, it makes a mockery of pre-legislative scrutiny.
There are two serious points of principle. I was pleased that the Presiding Officer shared the sense of importance that we felt. The question is what we do now. Certainly, as Bristow has suggested, we should draw this matter to the attention of the Executive again. Because points of principle exist, it is important that all members of the Parliament should be made aware of the arguments, in a simple way. This committee should consider some means of doing that, such as a special report, a statement in the business bulletin, or some similar method.
Secondly, a wider issue is raised of how we make the meaning of subordinate legislation clear to all members of the Parliament. Perhaps a seminar or training session in "Subordinate legislation made simple"—if that is possible—would help all members in their work of examining subordinate legislation in detail in committees.
Are there any other comments?
We were advised that the clerks are considering this, so there is at least some opportunity to flag matters up. Is it fair to say that this committee wishes the clerks to take on board our worry that statutory instruments may not be getting proper consideration in other committees—perhaps through no fault of members—and that we would like that matter to be addressed and brought to the attention of members? That is agreed.
Meeting closed at 11:47.