Subordinate Legislation Committee, 24 Oct 2000
Meeting date: Tuesday, October 24, 2000
Official Report
111KB pdf
Education and Training (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 2000 (SSI 2000/342)
The fourth item on the agenda is the consideration of negative instruments. Do members have any comments on the instrument?
I want to draw a matter to the attention of the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee. I understand that the purpose of the regulations is to cure a previous error which included in the principal regulations a power to sub-delegate that was incompetent. In curing that error, the Executive seems to have gone much further than its aim as set out by Nicol Stephen at columns 880 to 881 of the Official Report of the stage 2 debate in the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee on what was the Education and Training (Scotland) Bill. In that debate, the minister indicated that the regulations were intended to prevent discrimination against people living in rural Scotland who are unable to participate in and benefit from individual learning accounts because of additional travelling, subsistence or child care costs.
A pilot scheme applies in several areas including Mallaig and the small isles, Kilmallie and Invergarry, Claggan and Glen Spean, Ardnamurchan and Morvern, Caol, Fort William North, Fort William South and Glencoe. In introducing the scheme, at no stage did the minister say that the provisions would be restricted to those who were receiving the benefits specified in proposed paragraph (3A)(a). People who do not receive income support, housing benefit or council tax benefit because they are only slightly above the threshold will still suffer the discrimination of having to pay extra travel costs, subsistence costs or child care expenses. When the minister hinted that the concession was to be made—in response to an amendment that I lodged—he gave no indication that only those on the lowest incomes would qualify.
The regulations allow the pilot scheme to proceed in Lochaber and in the Borders. The basis of the pilot scheme has been drawn into question by the inclusion of proposed paragraph (3A)(a), which was not mentioned previously. That matter should be flagged up to the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee.
I am surprised that the 21-day rule was not breached. Correcting an admitted mistake is of sufficient importance to merit a breach. That would have allowed the regulations to have been brought into force earlier so that the pilot scheme could proceed, even in its diluted form.
The substance of Fergus Ewing's point is outside our remit. However, it is all right to flag it up to the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee as a matter that he wishes to draw to its attention.
We shall leave that matter to the lead committee to do as it sees fit.