Local Government Committee, 05 Sep 2000
Meeting date: Tuesday, September 5, 2000
Official Report
185KB pdf
Subordinate Legislation
We have before us five negative instruments, which were sent to committee members some time ago. So far, we have received no comments; however, Kenny Gibson has obviously caught up with himself and will comment on something at some point.
All the instruments have been considered by the Subordinate Legislation Committee, whose reports are included in your papers. The Subordinate Legislation Committee considered that the attention of the Parliament need not be drawn to SSI 2000/199, SSI 2000/206, SSI 2000/207 and SSI 2000/208. In the case of SSI 2000/193, the Subordinate Legislation Committee asked the Executive for clarification on two points. The report on the instrument is contained in annexe C, page 10 of the Subordinate Legislation Committee's report of its meeting on 4 July; the Executive's response to the committee's inquiry is reproduced in appendix D of the same report. Members will have noted that the Subordinate Legislation Committee was quite happy with the Executive's response to its questions.
In the cases of all the instruments, no motions to annul have been lodged and no other action can be taken on the instruments at this time. We have to make decisions.
I looked at SSI 2000/193 and SSI 2000/199 a couple of weeks ago. I phoned Craig Harper, but he was not around. I forgot to phone him back subsequently, for which I apologise.
The issues that I want to raise concern the financial effects. For example, the Executive briefing note on SSI 2000/193 says, under the heading "Financial Effects":
"Any additional expenditure for police authorities is not expected to be significant, and should be found from existing resources."
The briefing note on SSI 2000/199 is very similar, and states:
"Any additional expenditure arising from the changes can be found from local authorities' existing resources."
Given what we have heard about the pressing need for additional resources for local government, in cases such as this we should have some details of exactly what the changes will cost local government. What does "not significant" mean? Does it mean £100,000 or £10 million? When we are told that
"Any additional expenditure . . . should be found from existing resources",
we should be given some detail of that expenditure. The committee needs more information, as that does not tell us anything.
You are stuck with that, as the instruments are in force already. However, I am happy to write to ask for clarification and more information. As you forgot to get back to Craig Harper, that is fair enough.
My intention was not to move a motion opposing the instruments; I was just seeking information prior to the committee meeting.
If you want clarification, I have no problem with writing to seek that.
If the instruments have financial effects, it is important that we should know the extent of those effects.
That is a fair comment.
Is the committee agreed that it does not wish to make any recommendation in relation to the Police Pensions (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 2000 (SSI 2000/193)?
Members indicated agreement.
Is the committee agreed that it does not wish to make any recommendation in relation to the Local Government Pension Scheme (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 2000 (SSI 2000/199)?
Members indicated agreement.
Is the committee agreed that it does not wish to make any recommendation in relation to the Local Government (Exemption from Competition) (Scotland) Amendment Order 2000 (SSI 2000/206)?
Members indicated agreement.
Is the committee agreed that it does not wish to make any recommendation in relation to the Local Authorities (Goods and Services) (Public Bodies) (Scotland) Order 2000 (SSI 2000/207)?
Members indicated agreement.
Is the committee agreed that it does not wish to make any recommendation in relation to the Local Government Act 1988 (Competition) (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 2000 (SSI 2000/208)?
Members indicated agreement.
Did the official reporters get all that? Good.