Transport and the Environment Committee, 08 Jan 2003

Meeting date: Wednesday, January 8, 2003

Official Report 204KB pdf

---

Subordinate Legislation

---

Smoke Control Areas (Authorised Fuels) (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 2002 (SSI 2002/527)

There are two negative instruments for consideration. No members have raised points about the first instrument and no motion to annul has been lodged.

I appreciate that no one has lodged a motion to annul the instrument. The legislation gives certain companies the authority to produce a product for smoke control areas. It is a good idea, and I understand the Executive's reasoning, but I am concerned by proposed new paragraph 11A, which authorises Tower Colliery Ltd to manufacture Dragonglow briquettes. It also mentions the address of the production area of the briquettes. Given that the legislation states specifically where the company can produce the briquettes, if it were to move, could it no longer produce briquettes for smoke control areas? I am concerned that including the company's address would make it more difficult for it to relocate and that that would require us to pass another statutory instrument that would allow it to produce briquettes at a different location.

I am not sure that it is worth stopping the legislation, but that level of detail is unnecessary. If the wording was "Dragonglow briquettes, manufactured by Tower Colliery Limited", that might have allowed enough flexibility to ensure that such circumstances do not arise.

The clerks advise me that we would have time to write a letter to ask such a question, which we could consider at our next meeting. However, I take it that Bruce Crawford does not oppose the measure and that it therefore might not be necessary for us to delay consideration. We could still write the letter to bring the matter to the Executive's attention and to ask for its response, which the committee would consider. We could take either approach.

I do not want to cause any delay, unless the Executive's response is that what I have to say has some merit and that it wants to produce another negative instrument. However, that would mean restarting the process, and I suspect that the chances of that happening are limited, given the available time. I am happy for us to write to say that we have some drafting concerns and that the Executive should ensure that such problems do not recur, unless somebody wants to take a stronger line.

The end of the explanatory notes says that the place of manufacture of several briquettes is now different. That implies that it is normal to include the place of manufacture. As Bruce Crawford says, there might be a good reason for that, because it looks as though that has been done previously and that designation is now required again. It would be interesting to know about that.

On that basis, do members agree to make no comment that would affect the instrument's progress—we will not oppose it—but to ask the Executive to explain the inclusion of the manufacturer's address? We will ask the Executive to write to the committee to share its views on why that was necessary and whether it creates a problem for the instrument. Is that agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

---

Removal and Disposal of Vehicles Amendment (Scotland) Regulations 2002 (SSI 2002/538)

No members have made points about the regulations or lodged motions to annul. As members have no comments, do they agree that we have nothing to report on the regulations?

Members indicated agreement.

---

Scotland Act 1998 (Transfer of Functions to the Scottish Ministers etc) Order 2003 (draft)

The order is a draft affirmative instrument. We have been designated as secondary committee on it and we will report our comments to the lead committee, which will consider the order on 21 January. If members have substantive questions about the instrument on which they wish to hear evidence from the minister, we could ask the minister to appear before the committee on 15 January. However, if members do not wish to raise substantive issues, we could leave consideration of the order to the lead committee. I seek guidance from members on the approach that they wish the committee to take.

I do not wish to see the minister about the order. The only aspect that pertains to the committee is the provision on the Transport Act 2000, under which the Scottish ministers are being given an important power. I will explain that from personal experience.

In the run-up to achieving the Rosyth to Zeebrugge ferry service, considerable controversy blew up over whether the Department of Trade and Industry would support the project in principle and through funding. I give all credit to Henry McLeish, who at that time pushed hard behind the scenes. To clinch that deal and make the ferry service a reality, the Executive was required to pay £12 million to the DTI, which used that money to support the project at Rosyth through a freight facility grant subsidy.

The DTI did not want to fund the project and the Executive had no power to fund it, so a book mechanism had to be found to ensure that the money was in the right coffers to enable Superfast Ferries to set up shop. That seemed to me to be a ridiculously bureaucratic system. The order will remove that problem, so if ministers in Scotland wish to support a ferry project from Scotland to another country—rather than an internal ferry, such as from Aberdeen to Orkney—they will be fully at liberty to do so.

Given that the power will come to the Scottish ministers, my only question is what will happen to the finances that were previously available to the DTI to support such activity in Scotland. Will that money come to the Scottish budget? I am not sure whether that issue is linked directly to our requirement to consider the order, but it is an obvious question that needs to be asked. I am glad that the new powers will come, because they will remove unnecessary bureaucracy from the system, but will the money follow with them?

The Executive note on the order mentions

"financial assistance for shipping services which start or finish or both outside Scotland".

Is that intended to cover ferry services that call in in passing?

Yes.

The order covers issues that are in the justice committees' remit and issues that are in our remit, which is why we have been designated as a secondary committee on the order. Bruce Crawford pointed out correctly the part of the order that relates to our remit. I note that Bruce welcomes the transfer of the powers, but I cannot answer his question about whether there will be a financial transfer. To answer that question, we could correspond with the minister and ask him to send a response to the lead committee and a copy to us, so that the lead committee has that information available to it when it considers the order. If members are content, we will indicate that we do not wish to take evidence on the order and that, in general, we welcome the transfer of powers, which will simplify the process with regard to ferry or shipping services that the Executive wishes to promote. We will ask the specific question that Bruce Crawford raised and request that the minister send the response to the lead committee and a copy to us prior to the lead committee's consideration of the order. Do members agree to that action?

Members indicated agreement.