Subordinate Legislation Committee,

Meeting date: Tuesday, May 7, 2002

Official Report 79KB pdf

---

Draft Instruments Subject to Approval

---

Draft Instruments<br />Subject to Approval

---

Marriage (Approval of Places) (Scotland) Regulations 2002 (draft)

The committee appears to want to comment on a lot in the regulations. I would like to begin by commenting on the apparent differences between the draft regulations before us today and those that we had first sight of. There appear to be different definitions of "place". I know that there was much discussion at the lead committee and at this committee about that, so it is a bit of a mystery as to why the definition of a place for a marriage has once again been changed.

There is a question over the vires of regulation 7(4). The parent act is all about giving authority for specific places, but regulation 7(4) talks about the authorisation of a fit and proper person, which does not seem to come under the remit of the parent act. We must question whether it is competent for the regulations to make that provision.

There was a great deal of discussion over the business of whether the authorisation should be of a fit and proper place or a fit and proper person. It is difficult to see why that should suddenly pop up again.

Regulation 9 says that an authority must notify an applicant of its decision within seven days, but the regulation does not say how long the authority has to come to a decision. That would seem to be fairly fundamental, given what authorities can get up to when it comes to responding to questions.

We have noted that point in relation to several instruments previously. We suggested that a time limit should also be imposed on the authority.

Regulation 15(3) gives people a chance to make representations to a local authority before that authority decides to revoke or suspend an approval. However, regulation 15(3) appears both to enable and require an authority to give an opportunity to the approval holder and other persons to make representations. We could not quite understand that part. Why is there a need for a power to enable the authority to invite representations? There is no need for a formal power to do that and the purpose of a provision such as that in regulation 15(3) must be to require an authority to invite representations in appropriate circumstances.

Regulations 15(3)(b) and 15(4) refer to "the hearing", but the regulations make no relevant provision for hearings, such as by whom they are to be heard and under which circumstances. There is doubt as to the intention of those paragraphs and we should seek clarification.

Paragraph 7 of the schedule appears to require as a condition that

"The arrangements made by the approval holder for each civil marriage ceremony must meet with the prior written approval of the district registrar of the registration district in which the approved place is situated."

That seems a little de trop. If a place has already been granted approval, people should not have to ask for permission for every marriage that takes place there. What is the intention? There is also a question as to the vires of the paragraph.

There is also a question about paragraph 6 of the schedule, which says:

"No food or drink may be sold or dispensed or consumed in any approved place"

within an hour of the ceremony taking place. How could that be enforced?

That would be practically impossible to enforce. The provision is also daft and intrusive. I know that it is not our job to comment on the policy, but the intention of the legislation is to make it possible to hold marriages outwith traditional and conventional places of worship. Is it right that we lay down conditions as to whether it should be a dry wedding or the colour of the flowers? We must ask whether that is an unusual or unexpected use of the powers.

I think that it is.

Yes, we think so. We must ask the Executive whether it agrees.

There is a running difficulty with terminology. At some points the regulations refer to local authorities and at others to local registration authorities. Although those are often the same, they could be different. Perhaps that should be looked at.

I do not understand the purpose of the reference in regulation 1(2) to

"land covered with water in so far as within the jurisdiction of the registration district".

We should ask the Executive what that might be.

A big puddle?

A loch?

There are several questions on the regulations that we should put to the Executive.

There is a question whether regulation 13(4) is necessary because the point seems to be covered earlier in the regulations.

We should gather together the points that have been drawn to our attention and put them to the Executive in a letter.

Yes. Is that agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

---

Scotland Act 1998 (Transfer of Functions to the Scottish Ministers etc) Order 2002 (draft)

The first draft order provides for the executive devolution of powers to provide financial assistance for shipping services between the Highlands and Islands of Scotland and Northern Ireland. The order has been made so that a subsidy for a ferry service from Campbeltown to Ballycastle can be tendered.

Good.

May God bless all who sail in her.

---

Scotland Act 1998 (Modifications of Schedule 5) Order 2002 (draft)

The second draft order amends schedule 5 to the Scotland Act 1998 to the effect that the promotion and construction of railways within Scotland is now a devolved matter. That is called pass the parcel.

It is not a parcel that one would turn down.

I look forward to the new Borders railway.

Following the Glasgow airport link, of course.

The order does not say anything about paying for the railways, Ian.