Subordinate Legislation Committee, 02 Nov 2004

Meeting date: Tuesday, November 2, 2004

Official Report 113KB pdf

---

Private Bills

Item 6 is on subordinate legislation provisions in private bills. Members have been sent a note that outlines the committee's position with reference to the Scotland Act 1998, and in relation to private bills and how they operate. We also have letters from the Edinburgh Tram (Line One) Bill Committee and the Edinburgh Tram (Line Two) Bill Committee asking us to consider whether the Subordinate Legislation Committee would examine the subordinate legislation provisions within those two private bills.

I am looking for members' comments on the paper from the clerk. The main recommendation is in paragraph 9.

Alasdair Rankin is quite right and we should adopt his recommendation.

In my experience as an MSP, when people are being chosen for private bill committees, a fairly strict line is taken. I think that following the paper's recommendations will allow the Parliament to examine that strict line and decide whether we need to take as strict a line in future as we have done in the past. I was asked to be on the Waverley Railway (Scotland) Bill Committee but there was a very insignificant incident when I was a councillor that prevented me from legally being on a committee for the Borders railway. I thought that that was ridiculous, so if we follow the paper's recommendations, we can examine that situation in some detail, and I would welcome that.

It is suggested that the committee considers the subordinate legislation aspects of private bills. We would be providing additional information that would then go to the Parliament for all members to use.

We asked our legal adviser about the risk of challenge; the feeling was that it would be minimal because we would be acting as witnesses rather than as decision makers. We would just be advising Parliament.

Are there any other comments?

The paper is well argued and it sets out the issues clearly. Although I agree with Mike Pringle that we should accept the paper's recommendation, it is clear that we have identified a bit of a lacuna in parliamentary procedures because it was never anticipated that private bills would need subordinate legislation. However, the tram line bills are private bills—and there will be more like them—that are more in the nature of public bills. They might have to be private bills because of who the promoters are, but they will be serving public priorities and be heavily supported by the Executive. All aspects of such bills ought to be properly scrutinised. I cannot see who would scrutinise the subordinate legislation provisions other than this committee, backed by its clerks and advisers. The recommendation that we should undertake the scrutiny is spot on.

Are we agreed that we will go with the clerk's recommendation that we take up subordinate legislation scrutiny for such bills?

Members indicated agreement.

In that case, I thank members for attending.

Meeting closed at 10:54.