Official Report 469KB pdf
Under agenda item 9, members are invited to consider the delegated powers provisions in the Lobbying (Scotland) Bill.
The committee is invited to agree the questions it wishes to raise with the Scottish Government on the delegated powers in the bill in written correspondence. The committee will consider the responses at a future meeting to inform a draft report.
Sections 15(1), 20(1) and 41 all relate to powers exercisable by resolution of the Parliament. Section 47 of the bill makes general provision in relation to those powers. The committee might wish to seek explanation in relation to three points.
First, the delegated powers memorandum does not explain the type of procedural detail that could be included in Parliament’s standing orders on making parliamentary resolutions. Secondly, section 47(2)(b) confers wide power to make ancillary provision under such parliamentary resolutions, but the delegated powers memorandum does not explain why that is needed. Lastly, section 47(4) provides that part 1 of the Interpretation and Legislative Reform (Scotland) Act 2010 is to apply to a resolution as if it were a Scottish instrument; again, the purpose of that is not explained in the delegated powers memorandum.
The committee might wish to ask the Scottish Government the following questions. What further procedural provision is envisaged to be required in the Parliament’s standing orders, and why is it considered appropriate that those matters are subject to provision made in the standing orders rather than set out in the bill?
Why is it considered appropriate for the Parliament to make the full range of ancillary provision in a resolution under the bill, a power that is provided for in section 47(2)(b)? Can the Scottish Government give an example of the sort of provision that it is envisaged might be made under the ancillary powers?
Can the Scottish Government explain the purpose of the provision in section 47(4) of the bill that provides that part 1 of the Interpretation and Legislative (Scotland) Act 2010 is to apply to a resolution as if it were a Scottish instrument?
Is the committee content to ask those questions?
Members indicated agreement.
Section 15(2) enables primary legislation in sections 4 to 14 of the bill to be modified by a parliamentary resolution that is made under section 15(1). Does the committee agree to ask the Scottish Government to explain further why it is considered appropriate for the Parliament to have a delegated power to modify provisions of the act as passed, and, regarding the choice of procedure, to say why it is considered appropriate that the power in section 15(1) is exercised by parliamentary resolution notwithstanding that it includes provision to modify primary legislation?
Members indicated agreement.
Part 3 of the bill makes provision for the investigation of complaints and reporting to Parliament by the Commissioner for Ethical Standards in Public Life in Scotland as part of the oversight of the registration regime. Section 31(1) provides that the commissioner, in carrying out those functions, must comply with any direction that is given by the Parliament. Section 24(5)(a) empowers the Parliament to specify in a direction certain classes of case in relation to which the commissioner is required to report to Parliament in specific circumstances.
The committee might wish to ask the Scottish Government the following questions. In relation to the power in section 31, why is it considered appropriate that provision regarding the handling of complaints is dealt with in directions rather than set out in the bill? Further, can the Scottish Government give examples of the sorts of cases under which it is envisaged that the Parliament might direct the commissioner not to carry out an assessment of a complaint or an investigation into a complaint?
In relation to section 24(5)(a), in what sorts of cases where a complaint is inadmissible by virtue of the rules in section 23(3) is it envisaged that the Scottish Parliament would direct the commissioner to report, and why is it considered appropriate to specify those classes of case in directions rather than in the bill?
What further procedural provision for directions under the bill, including as regards publication, is envisaged to be required in the Parliament’s standing orders, and why is it considered appropriate that those matters are subject to provision made in the standing orders rather than set out in the bill?
Do we agree to ask those questions?
Members indicated agreement.
Section 44(1) provides that the Parliament must publish a code of conduct for persons lobbying members of the Parliament. Does the committee agree to ask the Scottish Government for an explanation of why it has been considered appropriate that the section does not include requirements for persons to comply with the code or have regard to the code, and why it has been considered appropriate that the section does not contain any sanction or enforcement provision in relation to a breach of the code?
Members indicated agreement.
That completes the public part of the meeting; we will now move into private.
12:09 Meeting continued in private until 12:50.