Official Report 131KB pdf
Various points have been raised, such as the breach of the 21-day rule.
We should seek clarification from the Executive that it is clear on the devolved competence of the order, because a number of pieces of UK legislation, such as the Telecommunications Act 1984, grant powers to providers of services on a UK basis. Of course, the provision of those services is a reserved matter. I presume that that work has been done, but in order that we can be satisfied, we should receive clarification.
Is the committee's remit such that we can ask only for an explanation, or can we ask for alternatives?
We can flag up a potential problem and ask the Executive for an explanation. If we are not satisfied, we can put our views, along with the Executive's response, to the relevant lead committee or to the Parliament. That allows the lead committee or the Parliament to judge which view they are minded to accept—our view or that of the Executive. If and when Parliament approves the order, it would be for others, if they had doubts, to test the instrument in the court by way of litigation.
Although the order comes under planning legislation, there are health implications and, as that is a devolved issue, clarification is required.
The issue is one on which the Transport and the Environment Committee produced an extensive report. The question of devolved competence was considered. Given that the Transport and the Environment Committee flagged up the issue, the order will have been drafted carefully to take devolved competence into account. At this stage, however, we can fairly ask the Executive for information on that question.
We will see what is the Executive's response. We should also ask the Executive about its plans for consolidation of the principal instrument, as this is its fifth amendment.