Chamber and committees

Item 7 is consideration of an instrument not subject to parliamentary procedure and on which no points have been raised.

Is the committee content with the explanation provided by the Scottish Government for breach of the requirement in section 28(2) of the 2010 act?

Members indicated agreement.

Item 2 is an evidence session for the committee’s inquiry into use of the made affirmative procedure during the coronavirus pandemic. This is the first of two evidence sessions that are planned for this month, before the committee takes evidence from the Scottish Government in January.

I welcome to the meeting Dr Ruth Fox from the Hansard Society, who is appearing remotely from London, and Morag Ross QC from the Faculty of Advocates, who is joining us in the committee room. We are very grateful that both of you are able to attend the meeting.

I will start the questioning. I would be grateful to get an understanding of your general views on the made affirmative procedure. For example, what are your observations on the frequency of use of the procedure during the coronavirus pandemic compared with its use pre-pandemic?

I call Dr Fox.

I think that there is an issue with the sound.

You touched on the final point that I want to explore, which concerns the consistency of the instruments that are brought forward. With every piece of legislation that comes forward, some individuals will criticise it no matter what it says, while others will look at it from a different perspective.

With regard to the made affirmative instruments that have been brought forward, do you have any thoughts or considerations as to how they have been drafted? Do you have any opinion as to whether any of the instruments has not been drafted well, and whether that has created a situation in which the law may be difficult to understand? Alternatively, do you believe that the majority, if not all, of the instruments are easily read and understood?

The committee’s next meeting will take place on Tuesday 7 December.

Thank you, colleagues.

There are a couple of points. First, on the drafting of the instrument, as has been discussed, it is not considered to be technically deficient—that is the advice that we have received from our legal team. Taking that into account, is the committee content with the instrument?

Members indicated agreement.

Under agenda item 2, we are considering instruments subject to the negative procedure. No points have been raised on the following Scottish statutory instruments.

Also, does the committee wish to welcome the fact that SSI 2021/424 rectifies errors in the Public Procurement (Agreement on Government Procurement) (Thresholds etc) (Amendment) (Scotland) Regulations 2021 that were highlighted by the committee at its meeting on 16 November?

Members indicated agreement.

Under the final agenda item, we are considering an instrument that is not subject to parliamentary procedure and on which no points have been raised.