Subordinate Legislation Committee, 02 Feb 2010

Meeting date: Tuesday, February 2, 2010

Official Report 79KB pdf

---

Crofting Reform (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1

We move to item 3. I declare an interest: my wife and I jointly own a croft.

We are taking our first look at the Crofting Reform (Scotland) Bill at stage 1. The bill contains several delegated powers provisions. I suggest that we deal only with the powers on which our legal advisers have proposed that we might wish to ask the Scottish Government questions. It is proposed that we consider the Government's response to points that are raised today at our meeting on 23 February, when we will also consider our stage 1 report. Are members content to proceed in that way?

Members indicated agreement.

Section 2(2) provides a power to confer functions on, remove functions from or otherwise modify functions of the crofting commission. As section 10(1) of the Public Services Reform (Scotland) Bill contains an almost identical power—albeit one whose application is more comprehensive—we could ask the Scottish Government why the power in section 2(2) of the Crofting Reform (Scotland) Bill is needed. We could also ask what difference in substance, if any, exists between the power in that section and the power in section 10 of the Public Services Reform (Scotland) Bill. Do we agree to ask those questions?

Members indicated agreement.

A number of questions are proposed on section 15(5), which provides a power to prescribe circumstances when there is to be no entitlement to indemnity from the keeper in relation to the crofting register.

As section 12(3) of the Registration (Scotland) Act 1979 provides an extensive and detailed list of circumstances in which there is to be no entitlement to indemnity from the keeper under section 12 of that act, the Scottish Government is asked to explain why the bill cannot list all the possible circumstances in which a person may not be entitled to an indemnity.

Given that section 12(3) of the 1979 act provides an extensive and detailed list of circumstances in which there is to be no entitlement to indemnity, the Scottish Government is asked why subordinate rather than primary legislation is considered necessary for that purpose under the bill.

The exercise of the power in the bill will remove substantive rights for which the bill provides, so on what basis does the Scottish Government consider that the

"power concerns a point of procedure"?

Having regard to the substantive effect of the exercise of the power, does the Scottish Government accept that affirmative procedure would be more appropriate?

Are members content to ask the Scottish Government those questions?

Members indicated agreement.

Section 16(1) contains a power to make rules for the crofting register. We should ask whether the Scottish Government intends that power to be restricted to administrative and procedural—as opposed to substantive—matters and, if so, why it is not expressed in terms that restrict its exercise to that extent. Is that agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

Paragraph 2(2)(d) of schedule 1 relates to the crofting commission's power to charge in respect of its functions. We could ask whether the Scottish Government intends to consult the Crofting Commission, the crofting community and the public at large in advance of making regulations under paragraph 2(2)(d) of schedule 1 and, if so, whether it considers that a requirement to consult could be provided for in the bill. Is that agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

Paragraph 7(1) of schedule 1 contains the power to make provision for the election of members to the commission. With reference to that power, we could ask whether the Scottish Government considered whether key elements of the system for elections, including franchise and any provision for offences, should be specified in primary legislation. Is that agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

We will consider the Government's response to those questions at our meeting on 23 February.