Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee

Meeting date: Wednesday, February 1, 2017

Official Report 603KB pdf

---

Digital Economy Bill

Under item 4, the committee is invited to consider a legislative consent memorandum, lodged by the Cabinet Secretary for the Rural Economy and Connectivity, which is outlined in paper 5. The LCM relates to the UK Digital Economy Bill.

The Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee considered the LCM on Tuesday 31 January and made a number of recommendations to this committee. As you will be aware, it raised serious concerns regarding the breadth of data-sharing powers that the LCM provides to the Scottish ministers. Those comments echo the concerns that were raised in the equivalent House of Lords committee.

Members will note that the timetable that we have been given for the LCM is extremely tight. I think that we all agree that the situation is not ideal. Members will also note that the DPLR Committee is content with the aspect of the LCM that refers to masts and the communication code, which relates to our remit. Its concerns relate to the data-sharing aspect of the LCM. Because that provision is so broad ranging, a significant number of committees should be engaged under their remits but, due to the tight timescale, none of them has had the opportunity to scrutinise the LCM. As the lead committee, we are required to reflect on the memorandum and consider whether we are content with it. We will then report our findings to the Parliament.

Does any committee member have any comments on the LCM?

I have been a member of the DPLR Committee on a couple of occasions and have spent quite a lot of time in the trenches on the subject. I am not sure that I would give the weight that the DPLR Committee has chosen to give to the power that is being given to ministers—in essence, it is a power to change the list of bodies that are affected, which is a pretty standard thing that ministers do—because, in the Scottish Parliament, secondary legislation that is under discussion by the DPLR Committee is a matter for the Parliament. Yes, ministers lay the instrument, but that does not deprive the Parliament of the opportunity to intervene to stop a negative instrument and, in the case of an affirmative instrument, it requires that the Parliament take a decision on the matter.

I am not 100 per cent clear about the processes that take place at Westminster, but I understand that the way that similar things are dealt with in that Parliament is less clear. Therefore, what I say does not invalidate what the House of Lords committee says about the bill. I am neutral about what we do, but I am not overly concerned by some of the observations that the DPLR Committee has chosen to make to us.

I am concerned by the DPLR Committee’s observations. I will read one, to put it on the record. It quotes the House of Lords committee as saying:

“We are … deeply concerned about the power to prescribe as a ‘specified person’ a person ‘providing services to a public authority’ … We recommend that”

that clause

“should be removed from the Bill”.

The DPLR Committee says:

“The Committee”

agrees

“with those recommendations of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee”.

It goes on. I will not quote the other comments, but I certainly do not support the LCM. The issue is so important that I will raise it at the Parliamentary Bureau on Tuesday because I would like there to be a debate in the chamber about it. A way forward for the committee is not to have a debate here and now, but to note the LCM and let members in the chamber have a wider debate about it so that we can make some sort of decision.

12:15  

Okay. I will bring in John Mason shortly, but I remind the committee that we have three options with the LCM: to approve it, to disapprove it or to note it. If we noted it, we would send it back to the Government and it would be for it to decide whether it wanted further debate on the LCM.

The buck stops with us as a committee on a range of issues, which means that, if we do not do something about them, nobody else will. However, in the case of this LCM, the buck stops with the House of Lords committee that has raised certain concerns. I broadly agree with that committee about those concerns, but the reassuring point for our committee is that they are being dealt with where the bill is being debated—that is, at Westminster. I am therefore quite relaxed about our reaction to the LCM and whether we support it, note it or whatever, because the House of Lords is dealing with the points that we are concerned about.

I agree with Mike Rumbles’s summation and think that he is absolutely right. The data protection issue is wide ranging. The timescale is very short, as has been said, and I feel that we should just note the LCM. I believe that it should be debated in the chamber.

We could hear other members’ opinions, but the general opinion so far seems to be that we should just note the LCM. I therefore recommend that we note the LCM and pass it back to the Government. Is that approved?

Members indicated agreement.

We will produce a small report that will reflect the committee’s decision.

Can you clarify, convener, whether our noting of the LCM means that it will be debated in the chamber? Could our report suggest that it be debated in the chamber?

I think that it is up to the Government to bring forward a motion. It will be up to the Parliamentary Bureau and the Government to decide on that. Mike Rumbles has indicated that the matter will be raised at the Parliamentary Bureau.

Can I please have the committee’s approval again to say that we are noting the LCM?

Members indicated agreement.

12:17 Meeting continued in private until 12:31.