- The Deputy Convener:
Helen Eadie has indicated that she would like to comment on the regulations. There are three or four points that we have to agree to, so perhaps we can run through them and find out whether we can agree to them as a committee. If there is a specific point of difference, we can come back to that. Would that be a helpful approach?
- Helen Eadie (Dunfermline East) (Lab):
Yes. Thank you, convener. I am grateful to you for the few words that we had in the informal session prior to the meeting. I am particularly concerned about the regulations, from a number of perspectives.
I have met representatives of the Carrington Dean Group and I am happy to share that information and put it on the public record. Having discussed the matter with the Deputy Convener and our legal advisers, I agree that the matter is a policy issue and that, therefore, it should be referred to the Justice Committee, which could explore some of the more complex issues that have been raised with me.
I highlight for the record that European Union competition law experts from Maclay, Murray and Spens have raised some issues with the regulations. The policy change may well raise significant issues in that regard. I therefore wish to refer the regulations formally to the Justice Committee. The regulations merit closer examination.
I take it that our legal advisers are content that the regulations should be dealt with under negative procedure as opposed to affirmative procedure, given that that is what is suggested in the recommendations. I would like that to be clarified.
- The Deputy Convener:
Can we split your points into two issues? We will come on to your second point shortly.
You mentioned, rightly, that this is a policy matter. First, it is important for the sake of transparency that you have put the matter on the record, because you wished to do so and we made you aware in the pre-meeting that the issue that has been raised is a policy matter.
It would not be appropriate for the committee to refer the regulations to the Justice Committee. We can pass on the information that we have received to the Justice Committee, but to refer the regulations to it would assume that our role includes policy intent scrutiny, which it does not. Otherwise, we would find ourselves lobbied by every single group in relation to SSIs that come to the committee.
- Helen Eadie:
As an MSP, I can write to colleagues on the Justice Committee to flag up my case prior to its meeting. That would perhaps be the appropriate step for me to take.
- The Deputy Convener:
Yes. It is important that you made those comments so that the committee’s work is transparent.
You want to raise a second issue on the SSI.
- Helen Eadie:
Yes. I want clarification that our advisers are content that the regulations should be subject to negative rather than affirmative procedure.
- Judith Morrison (Office of the Solicitor to the Scottish Parliament):
Yes, that is correct.
- The Deputy Convener:
Those comments are now on the record and they will be there for all to see when the Official Report is published.
We must now agree certain recommendations on the regulations. Are we agreed that we wish to report, under the general reporting ground, that regulation 37(4) contains a minor drafting error in that it erroneously refers to form 3 instead of form 4, but that we accept that that is unlikely to affect the operation of the regulations?
Members indicated agreement.
- The Deputy Convener:
Can we also welcome the Scottish Government’s undertaking to correct that error at the first legislative opportunity?
Members indicated agreement.
14:30
- The Deputy Convener:
Can we also agree to report that the form or meaning of regulation 39(2) could be clearer, in that on the face of it the duty contained therein applies only to continuing money advisers, when the Government’s intention is that it will apply also to debtors who do not have a continuing money adviser and that that is not apparent from the wording of regulation 39(2)?
Members will see included in the papers correspondence from Maclay, Murray and Spens on behalf of the Carrington Dean Group, setting out concerns about the regulations. The matters raised in the letter appear to relate to the substance and policy of the regulations. Can we agree, as I think we already have done, to forward the letter to the Justice Committee for its consideration, as it is the lead committee?
Members indicated agreement.