Agenda item 6 is consideration of the delegated powers in the Water Resources (Scotland) Bill. In considering the bill, the committee is invited to agree the questions that it wishes to raise with the Scottish Government. It is also suggested that these questions be raised in written correspondence. On the basis of the responses received, the committee would expect to consider a draft report at its meeting on 23 October 2012.
Section 14 gives the Scottish ministers the power to suspend or revoke an approval for large-scale water abstraction and to prescribe other circumstances in which they might suspend or revoke an approval.
Sections 19(4), 31, 34 and 46 all raise the same issue. The impact of water abstraction on the water environment is controlled under the Water Environment (Controlled Activities) (Scotland) Regulations 2011 (SSI 2011/209), which implement the requirements of the European Union water framework directive. As it is expected that the controlled activities regulations regime will need to be amended, replaced or supplemented in the future, provision has been made to allow the Scottish ministers to modify those parts of the bill or provisions inserted by it that refer to controlled activities regulations as may be necessary or expedient to reflect changes made. Any modifications would be subject to the negative procedure. Given that section 20 of the Water Environment and Water Services (Scotland) Act 2003 already exists as a power to modify the bill and given that the power is subject to the affirmative procedure, it is not clear why these powers are required when sufficient powers already appear to exist and are subject to a higher level of scrutiny.
Does the committee also agree to ask the Scottish Government to comment on why it is considered that the negative procedure is sufficient when the existing power is subject to the affirmative procedure?
I think that that is a very important question, convener.
Thank you, John. Are we agreed?
Section 49 allows the Scottish ministers to
Given that by its nature supplementary provision concerns matters that are untested in the Parliament, do members also agree to ask the Scottish Government why a more detailed level of parliamentary scrutiny is not appropriate for provision that does not necessarily amend primary legislation?
Finally, section 51 allows the Scottish ministers to bring the act into force by order except for those general provisions that come into force on the day after royal assent. Such an order is not subject to any procedure but must be laid before the Parliament. An order can include
On a point of clarification, convener, I imagine that there will be a time period before royal assent is given to the legislation. What will happen with regard to the execution of the legislation in that period?
I invite the legal adviser to respond to that question.
Nothing will happen. The bill does not become an act until it receives royal assent.
Surely the whole point of an act is that we have greater accountability and I wonder whether the timetabling can be triggered in a meaningful way. It would not be meaningful if there happened to be a long time period between a bill’s being passed and its being given royal assent; indeed, such a situation could be open to abuse.
First, for centuries now, the established practice in these islands has been that no bill is law until it receives royal assent. I am sure that that situation is not about to change.
Four weeks.
Okay. Finally, most modern legislation contains a commencement provision as a result of which certain bits often do not start until after royal assent is given and once the Government has provided for all the administrative details necessary to ensure that, when they come into force, they actually work. Delay is inherent in everything that we do, but nothing becomes law until royal assent is given.
That is helpful, convener. I am comfortable with the suggestion that royal assent takes four weeks.
I do not think that it has ever happened, but the only thing that can interfere with that is the procedure for a second, revising stage 3. After the Parliament has completed its processes for a piece of legislation, it might determine that it was actually ultra vires. That would have to be fixed in a second stage 3.
Let us hope that we can avoid that.
As far as I recall, it has never happened.
Might the minimum pricing legislation not have set a precedent in that respect?
No, because it has already been given royal assent. It is all about where the legislation has reached in the sequence.
I wonder whether I can direct members to the current agenda.
Finally, does the committee agree to raise in writing all the questions that have been agreed to this morning?
That brings us to the end of the agenda. As there is no other business, I close the meeting.