Official Report 112KB pdf
The second item on the agenda was to be discussion of the letter that I received from Iain Smith, which covers three issues. However, as item 3 on the agenda deals with the remit of the Subordinate Legislation Committee as well, I propose to ask Iain Smith to speak briefly to the first paragraph of his letter and then to allow the clerk to the Subordinate Legislation Committee, Alasdair Rankin, who is here to discuss its remit, to speak so that we can allow him to leave. We will then deal with the other two issues covered in the letter, which might take a bit longer.
We want to clarify the issues that the Subordinate Legislation Committee can consider. The change that we suggested to rule 6.11.1(a)(ii) is to use the technical term "Scottish statutory instruments not laid", which makes it clearer which subordinate legislation is being referred to.
The papers provided for the agenda item on the remit of the Subordinate Legislation Committee include an explanatory note from the clerk to the Subordinate Legislation Committee, the draft amendment—which is now subject to an additional proposal, as outlined in Iain Smith's letter—and a copy of a letter from Tom McCabe to Kenny MacAskill, convener of the Subordinate Legislation Committee, for our information, which I should have received in time for our previous meeting, but did not.
The Subordinate Legislation Committee wants to be able to consider what are called general instruments not laid, which are a class of statutory instrument that usually would not be laid before Parliament, but which the equivalent committee at Westminster—the Joint Committee on Subordinate Legislation—gets to see. There is nothing particularly controversial about that, but members might want me to explain what the provisions are. Does the committee have any questions about the note that I passed to the committee, which members might have received?
Everyone should have received that note from the Subordinate Legislation Committee. Are there any questions?
Is my interpretation right that, if we do not agree to the change, the effect will be either that some items will fall into a black hole, or that the Executive will make a decision rather than the Parliament? Legislation enacted at Westminster could in effect have no purpose within the Parliament, except that the Executive would make its mind up on it for us.
The intention is not to affect the position of the Subordinate Legislation Committee in relation to Westminster statutory instruments. The change reflects only the committee's desire to consider Scottish statutory instruments not laid. The first category of SSIs is those that are laid before Parliament, and which are subject to affirmative and negative procedure. However, there is another category of instrument that usually is not laid before Parliament under standing orders. Under the proposed amendment, the committee could consider such instruments, although they would remain unlaid and would not be subject to further parliamentary procedure. The committee would consider only the technical competence of such instruments, not the policy aspects. From the Parliament's point of view, the matter is much more to do with scrutiny than with assuring technical competence, but it has no impact on the policy content of the instruments.
Gil Paterson is right that if the change is not added, such instruments cannot be checked by the committee for technical competence. Therefore, the amendment covers something that otherwise would not be covered by the committee.
Yes.
Thank you.
What is the difference, if any, between the Subordinate Legislation Committee's proposal and the Executive's proposal?
The difference is in the use of the term "Scottish statutory instrument", which is more specific than "subordinate legislation", which is the most general term used to describe such legislation. I understand that there was concern at the previous meeting of the Procedures Committee that the use of the term "subordinate legislation" could leave open the possibility of the committee considering Westminster instruments, which is not the intention at all. The Executive amendment clarifies that point and to that extent, my understanding is that the Subordinate Legislation Committee welcomes the change.
Does the Executive's use of the wording "Scottish statutory instruments not laid" mean that the various legal and other matters that were mentioned in your paper cannot be discussed? Does it unduly restrict the committee?
No, it does not. It can also be taken to cover general instruments not laid.
So the Subordinate Legislation Committee would not be against the revised wording suggested by the Executive in Iain Smith's letter?
No. I spoke to the convener of the Subordinate Legislation Committee yesterday. He is content with the Executive's change.
If the convener, the committee, the clerk and the Executive are content, it is only us who need to be content to produce a virtuous circle of delight, so we should all be content with the change.
I believe that that is the position that we have reached. The difficulty last week was that we did not grasp what was involved. Now that the matter has been clarified, it seems perfectly acceptable to me. I also, therefore, am content. We therefore agree to the addition to standing orders of the change suggested by Mr Smith, which meets with the satisfaction of the Subordinate Legislation Committee.
Previous
Standing OrdersNext
Priority Issues