Subordinate Legislation Committee, 31 Jan 2006

Meeting date: Tuesday, January 31, 2006

Official Report 132KB pdf

---

Executive Correspondence

---

Older Cattle (Disposal) (Scotland) Regulations 2006 (SSI 2006/4)

We wrote to the Executive about two instruments. Do members have any comments on the correspondence that we have received on the regulations? As you will recall, our legal advice stated that, with regard to summarily triable offences, the regulations would impose the statutory maximum penalty instead of the standard scale and suggested that, as a result, the Executive had interpreted things wrongly. The Executive response says:

"After considering the Committee's further helpful comments, the Executive will bring forward an amendment."

That is good news.

We also asked the Executive why it could not have laid the regulations earlier. To be fair, it has explained that because it had only a very short period before Christmas it would have had to rush matters and that, when it came back after Christmas, it still had two weeks to work on the regulations.

I am speaking a little bit from memory, but am I right in saying that the English laid their regulations on 22 December?

Yes.

So is the Executive saying that it knew about and had sight of those regulations and could have laid its own regulations at the time, but decided otherwise?

Yes, because it thought that it would be able to do a better job if it waited until after Christmas.

That is fine. At least we now understand that it made a conscious decision in that respect.

The Executive has provided a fairly full explanation. Are we content with that as far as we can be?

Well, no. Because the English regulations were laid before Christmas, they did not breach the 21-day rule. However, the Executive made a conscious decision to wait until after Christmas and breached the rule when it was not necessary to do so.

From what I can gather, the Executive would have breached the rule anyway. It says in its response:

"It was considered that rushing consideration of the EU legislation and the final stages of the drafting process was not justified."

That is the other major point.

Fair enough. I must have misremembered.

I think that we were wondering why the English had got on to the matter more quickly than the Executive had.

That explains things.

Another case for forgiveness, perhaps.

---

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

As members will recall, we raised concerns that, although a press release was issued with the amendment rules, they were not accompanied by an Executive note and we felt that they required some kind of policy statement.

Do members have any views on the Executive's response? It does not seem to be clear about the fact that the Executive note is a policy statement. Instead, its opinion is

"that the effect of this instrument is fully explained in the Explanatory Note"

and that there is no need for an Executive note.

Perhaps we should simply write back to the Executive, saying that we do not agree with that opinion and that we feel that it is good practice to issue an explanatory note and an Executive note. After all, they have different functions. In fact, I thought that we had agreed that with the Executive.

The Executive is arguing that, in this case, the effect is fully explained in the explanatory note. However, our point is that the explanatory note and the Executive note serve two separate functions. Moreover, someone who accesses the legislation on the website will not find an Executive note. Even though a press release containing the relevant information was issued, it will not necessarily be included with the amendment rules.

So the explanatory note will not be on the website.

No. The explanatory note will be on the website, but the Executive note will not be. I am sorry—did I say the wrong thing?

So the explanatory note will be on the website.

Yes.

I know that the explanatory note and the Executive note serve different purposes, but if the explanatory note will be available on the website and will provide exactly the same information—

Well, that is what the Executive is arguing.

Yes, I know.

However, our advice certainly suggests that, in this particular case, having a policy statement would have been quite helpful. After all, the Executive issued a press release with the rules.

I have just seen the explanatory note. I have not counted the words in it, but there seem to be about 12. It does not look as if it explains very much.

There was certainly a feeling that, in this case, an Executive note would have been useful not only for us but, more important, for members of the public to allow them to read it alongside the rules. After all, it was thought necessary to issue a press release for the rules.

Yes.

Does the committee wish to seek a response from the Executive or does it wish to leave the matter at that?

Having taken us through all that, convener, I think that it would be appropriate to raise the matter properly and seek a response from the Executive.

So, do members agree to ask again about those matters, particularly with regard to the public information that will be available?

Members indicated agreement.

Before we move into private session, I should welcome Adam Ingram to the meeting.

Meeting continued in private until 12:39.