We move on to our subordinate legislation inquiry. As members are aware, the Subordinate Legislation Committee is undertaking an inquiry into how subordinate legislation is currently handled by the Parliament. We have been specifically invited to comment and I have been invited to give oral evidence to that committee. I have provisionally accepted that invitation, but I do not want to do that off my own bat; I would like to do it on the basis of some kind of discussion with the committee about the way in which subordinate legislation is dealt with at the moment.
The fact that subordinate legislation cannot be amended by the committee hits a full whack below the waterline on the process. If we cannot amend it and there is no likelihood of throwing the whole thing out, the procedure is ridiculous.
Do other members feel that it would be useful for the committee to be able to amend subordinate legislation?
Yes.
Okay. What about the timing? I have a big problem with the timing of a lot of subordinate legislation. We are frequently landed with statutory instruments when we have only one day on which to discuss them. That makes the whole procedure slightly farcical. Members who have been on other committees will know that that is pretty standard procedure. Does anyone want to make a comment about timing?
How could it be improved?
The Subordinate Legislation Committee is conducting an inquiry and wants to hear what we consider the problems are. I presume that solutions will emerge from that inquiry.
Statutory instruments cannot be amended, there are far too many of them and we do not get enough notice of them. It is as simple as that.
Those are fairly standard criticisms.
We have dealt with more than 100 pieces of subordinate legislation in the past year. We already have a heavy workload, but sometimes we must discuss and pass a piece of subordinate legislation during a single meeting. That is impractical. Most subordinate legislation does not appear to be urgent, so why are there such tight time constraints for dealing with it?
As a member of the Subordinate Legislation Committee, I can say that it will be useful for the committee not only to hear the comments that have just been made, but to receive examples of subordinate legislation for which the Health Committee believes it should have had more time.
That is a good point. Ken Macintosh has given an example of the kind of subordinate legislation with which we have dealt previously. Statutory instruments arriving post implementation put us in a ridiculous situation. I have come across that previously and not just on this committee. The Executive must understand that if it dumps late or last-minute Scottish statutory instruments on us, it cannot expect us to adhere to other timetables that it may have imposed on us for other aspects of its business. Ultimately, the Executive directs all this work, because the SSIs come from it. Therefore, I believe that the Executive ought to consult us on whether we will be able to handle certain pieces of SSI work. It would be better if the Executive gave us more time in some circumstances.
You might wish to state which SSIs you want consulted on, because you probably do not want to be consulted on—not the trivial—the less important.
Amnesic shellfish number 153, for example.
Exactly.
That is a good example of a less important SSI, but there is a formal process to allow such SSIs to go through without discussion. Clearly, however, some SSIs are much more important and must be addressed more carefully. A number of the mental health tribunal SSIs probably come into that category. The danger is that by proceeding as we must in the timescales that we are given, important aspects of the implementation of legislation do not get much scrutiny. The potential for scrutinising SSIs is limited, which is worrying.
On European legislation, when I first joined the committee we dealt with an affirmative resolution about vitamins. We had to pass it because there would have been penalties if we had not. I wondered why we were trying to scrutinise and discuss that instrument when we had to vote to pass it anyway.
Occasionally, committees have refused to pass SSIs. I recall that happening in the Justice 2 Committee. It said no to an SSI and the Executive had to go away and do something different and bring it back a year later, as I recall. It is possible for a committee to do that, but we cannot exercise that power often. It would be far more sensible if we had the time front-ended.
Meeting continued in private until 16:05.