Delegated Legislation
We move on to delegated legislation—under the Standards in Scotland's Schools etc Bill—which we considered earlier in private and which we will also deal with next week. Do members have any points to raise?
We might want to mention an issue concerning section 4, although it is not delegated to us directly. In section 4, ministers are given the power to set
"national priorities in education"
for Scotland
"after consulting the education authorities".
Education authorities are the only specifically mentioned body. My concern relates to the fact that no provision is made for committees of this Parliament, or any other specified bodies, to be consulted on such priorities. Further, there is no parliamentary procedure by which such priorities would be subject to any scrutiny by Parliament.
While I acknowledge that that concern is not formally within our remit, I think that it would be appropriate for the convener to raise those issues with the Executive. Perhaps he should also draw them to the attention of the Procedures Committee, to ascertain whether our remit should be amended to enable us to consider such issues. It might also be appropriate for the convener to draw our concern to the attention of the Education, Culture and Sport Committee, so that when it considers the bill, it can take a view on whether a wider group of bodies should be defined as necessary consultees for national priorities in education and on whether there should be a defined parliamentary procedure for publishing such priorities.
I agree. We heard from our legal advisers that the House of Lords takes a broader view of the subordinate legislation that comes before it. Perhaps this is just a teething problem for the Scottish Parliament, but it seems that some problems might arise. I agree with the course of action that Bristow has suggested and, if everyone agrees, that is how we will deal with section 4.
Does Fergus have a comment on section 50?
Section 50 confers a power on Scottish ministers to require the General Teaching Council to establish committees. It might be worth while asking the Executive to explain—in a little more detail than is provided in the explanatory notes—the purpose of including that provision. Paragraph 121 of the explanatory notes states that under
"the 1965 Act the GTC are empowered to appoint whatever committees they think are necessary".
Under the bill, the GTC might, for example, have to appoint a disciplinary committee, the majority of whose members were teachers. The bill seems to stipulate, largely, the membership of committees.
The explanatory notes do not make it clear why the Executive thinks it necessary for ministers to have powers, first, to require other committees to be formed and secondly, to specify who should sit on those committees. What will those committees be and what is their purpose? What exactly does the Executive envisage and why has it included those powers? Has the Executive consulted the GTC or other interested bodies? I do not know the answers to those questions, but given that the primary legislation requires the GTC to set up certain committees, such as the disciplinary committee, it seems odd that such wide powers should be applied to other committees, yet the bill includes no reference to, or explanation of, the role and function of those other committees.
I hope that I am not ruffling any feathers—as you know, convener, that would never be my purpose—but we should be told.
Section 56 was also flagged up. Does anyone want to comment on that?
The Executive may well have a rationale for section 56 in its present form, but we should proceed on the basis that such Henry VIII clauses should be avoided unless there is a reasonable justification for them. We should ask the Executive to justify its rationale.
I agree with that.
The explanatory notes give a broad drift of where the Executive is going on this, but while I do not think that section 56 is a sinister plot, it is perfectly reasonable to ask the question.
Okay.
I want to raise one further matter. I am not sure whether we have considered the national parks enabling bill yet, but I believe that a draft bill was published in the consultation paper. It was drawn to my attention at the weekend that interested members of the public in my constituency have been unable to get hold of that consultation paper because it is out of print.
The consultation period might expire while people who want a copy of the paper—some of whom live within the proposed national parks—are being told that they must get the document on the internet. Within Badenoch and Strathspey, it appears that people do not have access to the website in question. I wanted to take this opportunity to express my concern that my constituents are being disfranchised and might not be able to respond within the consultation period. I also wanted to ask the Executive why it has not published sufficient consultation papers; I find the shortage surprising, given that the matter is of great public interest in my constituency and elsewhere.
Thank you. We are assured that the Presiding Officer reads our Official Reports; doubtless he will read today's report and take cognisance of that point.
That brings the meeting to a close.
Meeting closed at 11:27.