Subordinate Legislation Committee, 07 Mar 2006

Meeting date: Tuesday, March 7, 2006

Official Report 238KB pdf

---

Legislative Consent Memorandums

---

Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill

The first memorandum is a supplementary one on the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill. Amendments concerning the delegated powers in this bill were considered by the committee on 21 February. The committee indicated that it was generally content with the proposed subordinate legislation-making powers.

Two further amendments inserting two new clauses have since been tabled. They further refine the enabling powers in section 2(2) of the European Communities Act 1972 and deal with the combination of powers. A supplementary legislative consent memorandum has been lodged by the Executive.

It is suggested that the amendments appear to be sensible additions to the amendments that have already been proposed. Are members content with the proposed subordinate legislation-making powers?

Members indicated agreement.

Although I accept what the legal briefing has to say on the narrow points relating to this particular piece of subordinate legislation, I would reiterate the point that I made two weeks ago. This is an awful bill and I hope that Westminster throws it out. The bill undermines democracy. Parliamentary democracy is under attack from the current London Government and the bill should not be supported by anyone in any way.

We will make sure that we get that noted, Stewart.

Just so that you know, I should point out that, since the committee papers were issued, the Executive has accepted that the reference to article 10(2) of the Scotland Act 1998 (Transitory and Transitional Provisions) (Statutory Instruments) Order 1999 (SI 1999/1096) in proposed new paragraph 2C(c) of schedule 2 to the European Communities Act 1972 is incorrect, and the drafter has been instructed accordingly.

---

Police and Justice Bill

The next legislative consent memorandum relates to the Police and Justice Bill. The Justice 2 Committee will consider and report on this matter at its meeting this afternoon. Standing orders say that we may report to that committee. If there are issues that we want to raise, we can send them in writing. The clerk has told me that, even though we are getting to quite a late hour, he is sure that he can turn around a report in time for the Justice 2 Committee's meeting. Do members agree to that?

Members indicated agreement.

A number of delegated powers fall to this committee to consider. The first is in clause 1 and paragraph 46(1) of schedule 1 to the bill, and relates to the functions of the proposed national policing improvement agency. The power involves the abolition of the Police Information Technology Organisation and the establishment in its place of the new agency.

The only issue that arises in this clause is in relation to the wide power that could be used to extend the functions of the proposed NPIA into areas that are presently devolved.

The Executive recognises that provisions are needed to ensure appropriate involvement of the Scottish ministers or the Scottish Parliament and it is proposed that appropriate amendments to that effect will be tabled.

Are members content to recommend that the provisions ought to be approved only on the basis that the proposed amendments are made and to say that we are otherwise content with these provisions?

I agree with your recommendation and think that it is important to establish that point.

At the moment, there are Scottish police representatives on the board of PITO. However, under the new arrangement, the NPIA board will not contain Scottish representatives. However, there will be a new relationship with the Scottish ministers. This might be a policy matter rather than a subordinate legislation matter. I am not sure whether it fits in the bill or is a general policy point. Scottish police representatives are on PITO for obvious reasons to do with the need to ensure that the Scottish position is taken into account in relation to technology that relates to United Kingdom-wide policing matters and it strikes me as odd that there will be no Scottish representation on the new board. At the moment, the Scottish representatives and the ministers represent Scottish interests but, under the new arrangements, only the Scottish ministers will. I do not know whether the legal advisers can tell us whether that can be dealt with through the bill or whether there is some other way of dealing with it.

That is a policy matter, really.

I will raise it this afternoon, then.

You will notice that clause 44 provides for the consent of the Scottish ministers to be obtained prior to the commencement of the provisions.

I am quite happy with that. I am concerned about the fact that there is a fundamental change in relation to representation on the board of the new agency.

Members might remember that there was a more general point that we raised previously in relation to the Health Bill—that there should be a mechanism for informing the Parliament where amendments are made to Scottish primary legislation, even where those amendments are purely consequential on UK legislation in reserved areas. We wrote to the convener of the Procedures Committee in January about the matter and received a response that indicated that there were no provisions for that under the Sewel convention. We could await a response from the Executive and consider any mechanism that this committee might wish to suggest. We have not had anything back so far.

We have had an interim response, which just confirms what the Procedures Committee told us; we await a formal response.

I suggest that we pursue a fuller response from the Executive, as it is still a matter of on-going concern. Is that agreed?

The current circumstances just strengthen the case that we have put to the Executive, and we might usefully fire in a brief supplement to our earlier points, simply to underscore the message and to ask for a definitive response.

Is that agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

Clauses 40, 42, 43 and 44 concern commencement and ancillary powers, and contain the usual commencement and ancillary provisions. As drafted, the power in clause 42(3)(b)(i) appears not to extend to amendment of acts of the Scottish Parliament or subordinate legislation made. That may be deliberate, but it seems slightly strange, particularly in relation to the powers conferred on the Scottish ministers. Do members want to make the lead committee aware of that point, and should we ask the minister to clarify the position at this afternoon's meeting of the Justice 2 Committee?

Members indicated agreement.

Are there any other points that members would like to include in the letter for this afternoon?

No.