Plenary, 30 Sep 2004
Meeting date: Thursday, September 30, 2004
Official Report
739KB pdf
Point of Order
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I think that you have already been given intimation of this point of order, which relates specifically to the Education Maintenance Allowances (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 2004 and more generally to how members go about annulling a negative instrument.
Earlier this week, I was advised that these regulations could exclude refugees, asylum seekers and children without parents from being able to claim benefits. Clearly, I will pursue that matter in another forum. The difficulty that I want to highlight arose when I sought to lodge an annulment motion to the regulations. At this point, I should say that I am grateful to the Deputy First Minister for discussing the matter with me and acknowledge the difficulties that he is facing. However, I was advised that, at this particular juncture, I would be required to lodge the motion of annulment by 4 pm, which would have meant that the Enterprise and Culture Committee would have had to convene with a quorum tomorrow to deal with the matter.
Although I understand that we need timescales, I ask you to reflect on the suggestion that, if a member lodges a motion of annulment, the clock should stop ticking. Instead of having to convene a committee outwith the normal timeframe, we could simply place the matter on the committee's agenda to be dealt with at the next appropriate time. I have not lodged a motion of annulment, because the practicalities of convening the committee tomorrow militate against that course of action. However, other members will no doubt face the same problem at some point. As a result, can we seek a review of the procedures for annulling negative instruments?
An inquiry into subordinate legislation is currently in progress and it might be appropriate to raise the matter there.
That said, the procedures are quite clear. When an instrument of this kind is laid, the Parliament has 40 days to annul it, if it so resolves. In this case, the instrument was laid on 24 June to become effective on 2 October. Any member has had the opportunity to make their concerns known to the Enterprise and Culture Committee. After considering the instrument at its meeting on 21 September, the committee agreed unanimously to make no recommendation on it. I am therefore satisfied that due process has been followed and that sufficient opportunities have been made available for concerns to be raised.
Mr Wallace, do you wish to add anything to that?
No. Mr MacAskill has outlined the substance of the matter and you have dealt with the procedural aspects.