We will move on to item 3 on the agenda, which is the Non-Domestic Rating Contributions (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 1999 (SSI 1999/153). A supplementary note was sent to committee members by e-mail. The Local Government Committee is the lead committee, and I am informed that it has not yet set a date to consider the regulations. We are not obliged to comment on these regulations, but we may wish to do so.
Does the supplementary note say simply that the Local Government Committee has not set a date?
Did you not receive a copy?
I am afraid not. I do not have a computer at the moment.
Of course, it was removed from your home.
Yes, it was stolen.
Does everyone else have a copy of the supplementary note?
I have it now.
Given the three dates that are listed at the top of the first page of the statutory instrument, what is the implication of the Local Government Committee not considering this instrument?
I do not think that there is any implication; the committee has simply not set a date to consider the regulations. Presumably it must do so before the Christmas recess, which means by 16 December.
I think that that would be sensible, provided that, in the meantime, the clerks had the opportunity to speak to someone about particular matters that we should be considering.
One of the points on which I have insisted in the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee is that, where we have a regulation on which we are required to comment, a member of the Executive should be present to answer any specific points. It would be unfair to expect the convener or the clerks to be masters of the regulations. It is for the Executive to explain and answer points about which the committee has concerns.
That is interesting, because the Executive does not believe that it is obliged to supply a briefing on instruments that are under the negative procedure. As John Swinney will know, the issue of the resources to provide information on statutory instruments was raised at the conveners group. The Executive has been trying to palm that off on to the Scottish Parliament information centre; the conveners have objected to that. There is a fundamental question about who should provide information—whether it is presented in person or in the form of written guidance.
The guidance note that was circulated in addition to the standard note that is part of the instrument was compiled in consultation with the Executive; most of the information in the note came from the Executive, although it was drafted by the clerks.
Are we bound by standing orders to pass the instrument in a certain time, given that it is to come into force on 31 December?
We could consider it next week.
We must be quite clear about the point of principle that you raised, convener. I hear what Sarah Davidson said about the composition of the guidance note, but it is unreasonable of the Executive to expect parliamentary information staff to—
Or indeed the committee clerking staff.
I was coming to them. It is unreasonable of the Executive to expect the staff who have specific responsibility for the committee—for ensuring that our business is properly transacted—to deal with that. It is the Executive that is bringing forward the instruments and it is only reasonable that it provides the background briefing timeously, so that it is not a burden on our clerks.
Are you talking about a civil servant?
Yes. I am not talking about a minister.
I agree with what Mr Swinney has said. Other committees have had a member of the Executive present when considering statutory instruments. If the Executive provides a good explanatory note, we do not need to question the person who is attending the meeting. If we have a couple of weeks, we could consider the instrument in the first week and decide whether we need a further explanation in the second week. The explanatory note is not completely explanatory if we are still in the dark about what is going on. It would be helpful for someone to come and speak to us about it, to whom we could put specific questions. However, in the interests of not wasting someone's time, we should consider the instrument before deciding whether we need further information.
I agree with both those comments. In principle, if the Executive wants the instruments to go through, it should be prepared to provide proper explanations—before the committee, if necessary. In the case of the statutory instrument that we are considering today, the explanatory note is not full enough and the guidance note is much more helpful. I do not have any objections to that instrument, but the principle of having an extra week and a right to call a member of the Executive—
We seem to be talking about principles, rather than about the specific SSI. I was unaware that the burden fell on the clerks to provide extra information—that should not have happened. The committee seems to agree that, in future, it would expect the Executive either to provide a further explanatory note or, should the committee so decide, to provide someone to explain particular aspects of the instrument. Is that generally agreed?
Yes
There is a meeting of the conveners group this afternoon. Perhaps I can pursue the matter, which was raised at our previous meeting—it seemed to have broad support the last time that it was discussed. In the meantime, we will wave through the Non-Domestic Rating Contributions (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 1999.