Justice 2 Committee, 31 Jan 2006

Meeting date: Tuesday, January 31, 2006

Official Report 98KB pdf

---

Subordinate Legislation

---

Prisons and Young Offenders Institutions (Scotland) Amendment Rules 2006 <br />(SSI 2006/5)

Item 2 concerns two pieces of subordinate legislation, which have been circulated to members. They are both negative instruments and I will take them in the order in which they appear on the agenda.

We have explanatory information about the Prisons and Young Offenders Institutions (Scotland) Amendment Rules 2006 (SSI 2006/5). Does anyone have any questions on the rules?

Perhaps Mr Maxwell, as a member of the Subordinate Legislation Committee, can add some information. It seems to me, having looked into the background, that there was a difference of opinion between the Subordinate Legislation Committee and the Executive on the Executive not supplying an Executive note with the rules. The Executive says that the explanatory note should suffice.

I note from the extract from the Official Report of the Subordinate Legislation Committee meeting of 24 January that that committee has written again to the Executive seeking further clarification on that point. Although the Executive's response will be of interest to the Subordinate Legislation Committee and this committee, I cannot think what more we can do at the moment other than note the situation and the continuing discussion.

Mr Maxwell, do you want to add anything to that?

I will add an update, as the matter came up at this morning's Subordinate Legislation Committee meeting. The Executive has now written back. To sum up, it stuck to its guns and said that an Executive note was not required because the explanatory note says everything that would have been in an Executive note.

The Subordinate Legislation Committee did not agree with that view for a number of reasons. The main thrust of the problem is that the explanatory note, which committee members can read on the back of the rules, is a single sentence. The rules represent a change in policy because they change the amount of short leave that a prisoner can get. The Subordinate Legislation Committee felt that it was necessary for the Executive to explain that policy. The purpose of an Executive note is to do just that, and therefore there should have been an Executive note, which would have been available on the office of public sector information website for people who wanted to read the rules and the detailed reasons why the policy change has occurred.

The Executive provided a press release explaining the policy. Although it is interesting to have the press release, it is not possible for members of the public or the professions to read the official explanation for the policy change on the OPSI website. The Subordinate Legislation Committee believes that that detail should have been in an Executive note and does not feel that the Executive's response last week and this week—that the explanatory note sufficed because it covered all the detail—answered that point.

Although Bill Butler is right that there is nothing more to be said about the matter, we should note that the Subordinate Legislation Committee disagreed with the Executive about the necessity of an Executive note in this case.

We should also note that the press release covered a number of general matters, one of which happened to be the redevelopment of the young offenders institution at Polmont, and that the rules relate to young offenders.

I believe that the press release is in the name of the Scottish Prison Service. Is that correct?

Yes.

I was going to make a similar point and note that the press release is from the Scottish Prison Service rather than the Executive.

I have no problem with the purpose of the rules, but there is a procedural point, which the Subordinate Legislation Committee will pursue. For the purpose of our debate today, we should just approve the rules.

I apologise if I referred to an Executive press release; it is, of course, a Scottish Prison Service press release. My point was that we were supplied with the press release, which was among our original notes along with the instruments, and it seems rather strange to get that and not an Executive note.

Just to clarify further, did you say that the Subordinate Legislation Committee might take the matter further by undertaking a procedural inquiry, or has the matter now come to an end?

To be honest, I cannot remember the detail of what we eventually agreed on at this morning's meeting—I had to go back and look at my notes because we deal with many instruments at every meeting. As far as these rules are concerned, this is the end of the matter: there is a disagreement between the Subordinate Legislation Committee and the Executive, and there is nothing else to be done.

If the committee agrees, I will write to the convener of the Subordinate Legislation Committee to say that we have a slight concern about the procedural aspect, and if any further clarification is elicited on the general principle of when an explanatory memorandum should be a little more explicit, that explanation could be given to us.

Just for clarity, we are not looking for the explanatory memorandum, which we received; it was the Executive note that was missing. That is the crux of the problem.

It is the why, not the what.

It is both, because the what is very scant—it is just a summary of what the rules are for.

We need to know why that has happened.

What the convener suggests is sensible and will keep us aware of any developments.

Subject to that, is the committee content with the rules?

Members indicated agreement.

---

Intensive Support and Monitoring (Scotland) Regulations 2006 (SSI 2006/15)

Members have information about the regulations. As no member has any questions, is the committee content with the regulations?

Members indicated agreement.