Official Report 112KB pdf
Glasgow Commonwealth Games Bill: Stage 1
Welcome to the 14th meeting of the Subordinate Legislation Committee in session 3. We have received apologies from Jackson Carlaw. I ask members to turn off any mobile phones.
We can put both questions to the Government.
We can indeed.
I suggest that that is the answer.
Are we all happy with that?
For speed, I refer members to the summary of recommendations so that I do not have to read out everything.
Section 10 is on advertising regulations. Are members content to ask questions (a), (b) and (c) as listed in the summary of recommendations?
On section 19, "Use of internet etc", do members agree that we should put questions (a), (b), (c) and (d) to the Scottish Government? Before you answer, I would like to hear any thoughts on question (d). Would affirmative procedure be more appropriate in these circumstances?
Are you talking about the further points in paragraph 39 of the legal brief?
I am looking at the summary of recommendations.
On section 21, "Enforcement of Games offences", are members content to ask, about subsection (1), questions (a), (b), (c) and (d) as listed in the summary of recommendations?
The legal brief does not show any problems with the powers in section 22(2), on enforcement officers, or those in section 31, "Compensation and recovery of costs". Are members content with the powers and that they are subject to negative procedure?
On section 38, "Games traffic regulation orders", are members content that the games transport plan in subsection (1)(a) is not to be laid before Parliament? Are there any views on whether the expansion of the existing power of local authorities to make traffic regulations for the purposes of the games is reasonable?
Just to be absolutely certain, are you content that the games transport plan is not to be laid before Parliament?
Again, are you content with the power and that it is subject to the negative procedure? Our legal brief seems to be fairly happy about that.
On section 43, "Orders and regulations", are members content with the provision in subsection (2)?
On section 47, "Ancillary provision", are members content to ask the Scottish Government to consider that the exercise of the power in subsection (1) should be subject to a higher degree of parliamentary scrutiny by means of affirmative procedure where the effect of the exercise of the power is to modify the bill or the primary legislation? That seems to be important.
On section 49, "Commencement", are members content with the provision in subsection (2)?
On section 50(2), are members content to leave it to the Scottish Government to determine when repeal should take effect?
I am slightly uncomfortable with that. I would have thought that a time limit should be imposed. I see no purpose in leaving it for eternity. Can we ask if it is necessary to do that?
We can ask that. Is that all right?
Yes, we could ask that, or we could ask the Government to place some sort of sunset provision in the bill for when the Commonwealth games are complete and the powers are no longer needed.
Would that provision be on the face of the bill?
We could suggest that it should be. That is the alternative.
Does that address your point, Gil?
The powers could run out perhaps five days after the games. There should be something definitive.
It could be the same thing as the provision in the London Olympic Games and Paralympic Games Act 2006.
Yes. It is worth putting on the record at this stage that the legal brief was interesting, instructive and informative about what has been done with the London Olympic Games and Paralympic Games Act 2006.
On section 40, "Power to direct councils to regulate road use for Games purposes", are members content that ministers' powers of action under subsection (1) be the same as those of councils as traffic authorities?
I do not quite understand the sentence.
Yes; it could have been better expressed. The words "as traffic authorities" should be in parenthesis, to show that ministers would be stepping into the shoes of the councils when councils act as traffic authorities.
Yes. I did not understand the sentence as I read it.
My apologies.
On section 42, "Compulsory acquisition of land for Games purposes", is the inclusion of the additional basis of compulsory acquisition of land for games purposes reasonable in light of the requirements of the games?
Are members content with the schedule, which contains additional permissive provisions that may be made in the trading and advertising regulations?
We will consider the responses to our questions at our meeting in two weeks' time.