Official Report 300KB pdf
Agenda item 5 is consideration of the delegated powers provisions in the Community Empowerment (Scotland) Bill as modified by stage 2 amendments.
Stage 3 consideration of the bill is due to take place tomorrow, so the committee should agree any conclusions today. Stage 3 amendments have been lodged in five areas that might be of particular interest to the committee.
The first group of amendments of relevance to the committee concerns part 1 of the bill on the national outcomes. In its stage 1 report, the committee was concerned that Parliament was to have no role in scrutinising those outcomes. The bill was amended at stage 2 to the effect that the national outcomes were to be prescribed in regulations and subject to parliamentary scrutiny through a super-affirmative procedure. Provision was also made at stage 2 for Parliament to be consulted—in accordance with rule 17.5 of standing orders—on draft national outcomes for a 40-day period.
Amendments 27 and 34 propose to remove the requirement for the national outcomes to be set out in regulations, but the Scottish Government is not proposing to remove the requirement for Parliament to be consulted in advance of the outcomes being determined. That would allow the lead committee and the Parliament as a whole to consider and report on the draft national outcomes.
Do members have any comments on the amendments on the national outcomes?
It is very much to be welcomed that the Government has responded to the committee’s concerns about the bill as laid. I think that we are likely to feel that the proposals that are before Parliament for it to agree to or reject tomorrow should be agreed to. I wish the amendments that will be considered tomorrow bon voyage and I welcome the fact that they reflect our previous consideration.
I welcome the national outcomes amendments, as they provide what was sought. They mean that Parliament will have the ability to have an input, which is to be welcomed.
Amendments 42 and 43 seek to replace section 24A of the bill, which was inserted at stage 2, and to provide a power to make provision in regulations for reviews and appeals in relation to decision notices and participation requests under part 3. The power would, among other things, allow the Scottish ministers to determine to whom appeals may be made, as well as the time limits that would apply in relation to such appeals. The power is subject to the negative procedure.
I see that members have no comments to make on that.
Amendment 4 provides for a regulation-making power to specify smaller areas or localities that community planning areas must be divided into for the purposes of outcome comparison. The power is subject to the negative procedure. Do members have any comments on that?
I very much welcome the fact that such flexibility is to be built in. Many councils that cover large territorial areas—Highland Council and Aberdeenshire Council are obvious examples—have area-based management in their internal operations; they have a whole series of area committees. That reflects the fact that localities are often rather smaller than the council area. It is good that such flexibility is to be provided, and we should welcome that. It looks as if the drafting of amendment 4 meets the appropriate needs.
Amendments 174 to 176 empower the Scottish ministers to make regulations facilitating supporter involvement in the decisions of football clubs and supported ownership of football clubs, while subsequent amendments remove the current part 5B regarding the right of supporters trusts to buy Scottish Professional Football League clubs. The new power is subject to the affirmative procedure, and various parties must be consulted before regulations are made.
Do members have any comments?
This is probably a step in the right direction, because there was a danger of a rush to legislation. Ministers will have quite wide powers—after all, we are now talking about all football clubs, not just the 42 SPFL clubs—but I accept that a lot of consultation will need to be gone through before anything actually happens. That seems positive, and the fact that the power is subject to the affirmative procedure is positive, too.
Members will wish to note that, following last week’s meeting, I have lodged amendments on the committee’s behalf to deal with its specific concern about the construction of a number of the delegated powers in part 5B as inserted at stage 2. The removal of part 5B would address many of the committee’s concerns about the delegated powers in this part, including its concerns about the construction of those powers.
Finally, amendment 103 removes the regulation-making power in section 69A regarding the size of allotments. Last week, the committee called on the Scottish Government to clarify how this power was to interact with the requirements on allotment size set out in section 68. Do members have any comments?
It is certainly positive that we have more clarity, as that was our main concern. The area is reasonably controversial, because people were nervous that local authorities would forcibly reduce the size of allotments, and the fact that we now have more clarity and that it appears that this will happen only if people ask for a smaller allotment is a move in a positive direction.
I welcome the fact that the convener lodged five amendments in the committee’s name, even though it is a slightly unusual approach to take. I am equally pleased that the Government has responded to and addressed the points that would otherwise have been covered by amendments and, in particular, that the detail on how it would introduce the secondary legislation to address the issues that we were looking at is spelt out at substantial length. Indeed, that might be a useful model for dealing with such matters in future.
If members have no more comments on the Community Empowerment (Scotland) Bill, which will obviously exercise us at length tomorrow afternoon, we will move on.