Subordinate Legislation Committee, 02 Mar 2004

Meeting date: Tuesday, March 2, 2004

Official Report 96KB pdf

---

Delegated Powers Scrutiny

---

Tenements (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1

I welcome everyone to this meeting of the Subordinate Legislation Committee.

Item 1 is delegated powers scrutiny of the Tenements (Scotland) Bill at stage 1. We wrote to the Executive about a number of points. The first was on section 4, which is about the depositing of sums of money in excess of a prescribed amount. The Executive proposes to lodge an amendment at stage 2 to remove the specific sums that are set out in rule 3.3 of the tenement management scheme, and which are referred to in section 4(11). The amendment provides for a power for the Scottish ministers to prescribe the sums of money that, if exceeded, would require written notice to be given to each owner and the sums concerned to be deposited in a maintenance account. The power would be subject to the negative procedure.

The legal adviser has presented us with four options in relation to the Executive’s proposal. The first option is:

"the power should remain as drafted but its exercise should be subject to affirmative procedure".

The second option is:

"the power should remain as drafted but subject to a restriction to the effect that any changes in the specified sums be limited to changes in the value of money".

Essentially, that is what we were suggesting when we wrote to the Executive. The third option is:

"the proposed redraft be approved as it stands".

The fourth option is:

"the proposed redraft be approved provided that the making of a relevant instrument be expressed as obligatory rather than discretionary."

I need the committee's view on the matter. I am tempted to say that we should stick to our guns on the second option.

Yes. The Executive's proposal makes matters even worse than they were. At least under the original proposal, only the increase would be subject to the negative procedure; now the initial amount of money is to be subject to the negative procedure as well. I do not think that that is satisfactory at all.

Are we agreed on that?

Yes. It is bizarre: I had wondered about the Executive's original approach, and now it is changing it completely. I think that it should stick with what was there before.

Judging from what we have seen plenty of times before in relation to other pieces of proposed legislation, it seems appropriate that we stick to our suggestion.

Are we going to write back to the Executive, saying that we have considered its response, that we have come up with four options and that it should reconsider the matter and adopt what we have before us as our second option?

Yes.

Section 15 is on the obligation of the owner to insure. Members will recall that the matter concerns a list of the various risks for the reinstatement value of the owner's flat. The Scottish Law Commission suggested that the list should not be included in the primary legislation, because that would be too restrictive. The Executive is saying that there should be a minimal list but, because of the passage of time and because of what the commission is saying about who should be contacted for advice on the matter, it would not be possible to amend the bill to that effect in time for stage 2. The Executive therefore thinks that it would wish to include the list of risks in a statutory instrument. What are the committee's views?

That is fine.

I think that we all agree.

The Executive is stressing the point that consultation would take place. Is that agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

Section 22 is on amendments to the Title Conditions (Scotland) Act 2003. Our points on section 22 are similar to those that we raised on section 4. The same points apply. Is that agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

I take it that we are going to wait until we get a response from the Executive on section 4 before we pass all our comments on to the lead committee. There is time for that.

Members indicated agreement.

---

Fire Sprinklers in Residential Premises (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1

Item 2 relates to a matter with which I think we all have much sympathy: it is on delegated powers scrutiny of the Fire Sprinklers in Residential Premises (Scotland) Bill at stage 1. The bill provides for the mandatory installation of fire sprinkler systems in certain residential properties in Scotland: specifically, certain houses in multiple occupation—HMOs—and sheltered housing.

There are three delegated powers. The first is in section 10(a), and reflects the approach of the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982 (Licensing of Houses in Multiple Occupation) Order 2000 (SSI 2000/177), as amended. Section 10(a) allows for exemptions within the category of houses in multiple occupation concerned. Are we agreed on the suggestions that have been made on section 10(a)?

Members indicated agreement.

There is no cause for concern there. Section 10(b) relates to sheltered housing. It involves the affirmative procedure, and provides for prior consultation. It provides that the requirement to have a fire sprinkler system fitted before a warrant for construction and conversion is granted may be extended to other types of residential property. Are there any problems with that?

No.

Section 11 is on ancillary provision and is to make incidental, transitional and other ancillary provisions for the purposes of the bill or in consequence of any order made under section 10. Any order made under section 11 may modify any enactment, instrument or document. We have come across such terms before. Are there any problems with that?

No.