Subordinate Legislation Committee, 17 Sep 2002

Meeting date: Tuesday, September 17, 2002

Official Report 103KB pdf

---

Delegated Powers Scrutiny

---

Public Appointments and Public Bodies etc (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1

I welcome everyone present to the 25th meeting of the Subordinate Legislation Committee. We have no apologies, so I assume that Gordon Jackson and Brian Fitzpatrick will roll in when the Glasgow train does.

The first item on the agenda is scrutiny of the delegated powers in the Public Appointments and Public Bodies etc (Scotland) Bill. We raised several points with the Executive, one or two of which we may still want to consider. Is the committee happy that the Executive proposes using the negative procedure in section 3(2)(a)? Do we want to suggest that the affirmative procedure would be more appropriate for the abolition of bodies, changes of name of existing bodies or creation of new bodies? Should we say that we are not convinced by the Executive's answer, which justifies the use of the negative procedure by saying that the circumstances are likely to be technical and non-contentious?

We could possibly say that, although we understand where the Executive is coming from, we prefer the use of the affirmative procedure on principle. Without making a big fuss, we could say that we are easy-osy but, on balance, our preference is for the affirmative procedure.

Yes, but I think that our letter should say quite strongly that doing away with public bodies could well be a contentious issue, which the Parliament should perhaps have the opportunity to debate. I am absolutely certain that there will be public bodies that this Executive or some future Executive will think have passed their sell-by date, but that others will think have not.

We could say that, on balance, the proposed abolition of a body should be a matter for the use of the affirmative procedure. The Executive says that on balance it should be the negative procedure; we say that on balance it should be the affirmative procedure. We can leave it at that.

Yes, all right. We will send a nice letter to say that we still think that we are right. Sorry—that comment will go in the committee's report. We have passed the stage of exchanging correspondence.

There is a similar issue in section 3(2)(b), which refers to changes in the functions of the commissioner for public appointments. We asked the Executive to explain how it foresees that working. The Executive's response is that because this is a new situation—there will be a new commissioner, a new act and a new way of doing things—it is not certain how things will shake down. That seems reasonable. Is the committee happy with that?

The Executive is proposing using the affirmative procedure. That is acceptable.

Fine.

There is a similar issue with section 17(1), because it would enable ministers to confer on the national survey such additional functions as ministers consider appropriate. We asked the Executive what those functions might be and it responded with an example of how that might work out. I think that that is reasonable. Is the committee happy with that?

Members indicated agreement.

Section 2 is on the code of practice. Members will remember that we endorsed the commitment to consult on the code of practice. However, the expression used in the section is "consult the Parliament." We wondered to whom that would refer and how the consultation would be done. Therefore, we asked for further explanation. I think—if I might be so bold—that the Executive is just a wee bit defensive on this matter because it has not worked out exactly what would happen. The Executive's response is that it imagines that the Parliament will set up a committee to consider the code. I am sure that the Parliament might do so, but I am not sure that the wording in section 2 represents the best drafting practice.

We can perhaps say in our report that we have total sympathy with the Executive's intentions, but are still not absolutely satisfied that the Executive has thought through how the consultation will be carried out. Is that all right?

Members indicated agreement.