Official Report 113KB pdf
Transport (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1
Good morning and welcome to the 2nd meeting in 2005 of the Subordinate Legislation Committee. We have apologies from Adam Ingram. We are light on the ground, but I take it that that is because there is snow on the ground. However, there are enough of us to crack on.
I agree that it is worth highlighting that. Although the Executive would have an obligation to reconstitute a regional transport partnership, the time lapse between dissolution and reconstitution might cause extreme difficulties for contractual arrangements, staffing and so on. It is worth pointing out that the theoretical threat exists, so that the lead committee is aware of it.
The lead committee could recommend ways of redrafting the provision, so as to remove any doubt.
I agree with Christine May. There is a possibility of a state of limbo being created and of things being left in the lurch. I agree that the fear that you mentioned is extreme, but there is still a question mark here, and we should flag up the matter to the lead committee.
The case for redrafting has been made, and the legal brief mentions the balance between subordinate and primary legislation. I think that the primary legislation should be clearer.
I am sure that, between our report and reading what we say this morning, our reservations will be made clear.
I think that we should stick to our original position: we feel that the guidance is of sufficient significance to be laid before the Parliament.
I have no difficulty with that.
Nor have I.
In what form should that be? Should there simply be a requirement to lay the guidance before the Parliament?
A requirement to lay the guidance would give sufficient notice for a committee to instigate any work that it might feel necessary on the detail of the documents.
Section 6 is the same, yet slightly different: it also concerns transport strategies. I am not sure what other members thought, but I did not have much disagreement with the Executive on the powers in the section, because of the flexibility that would apply across the country.
I would be content on the matter, given that, in order for the transport partnerships to obtain consent to spend, they will need to have the transport strategies agreed, and there will therefore need to be considerable dialogue. I do not think that there is a need for the strategies to be laid before the Parliament.
The legal brief points out that the strategies and the decisions on them might be "essentially local in character". The localities in some areas might involve half or a quarter of Scotland—huge areas of territory, requiring significant amounts of expenditure. The services to be provided there are very important. I think that ministerial approval of the strategies is a significant development. If we accept what the Executive is proposing, it rather cuts the Parliament out.
I agree with Murray Tosh. The issue is the definition of local. If the word is used in the sense in which most of us use it, to mean a very small area or a small community, then the Executive's approach is probably right. However, Murray's point about a quarter or half of Scotland effectively being covered by some of the regional transport partnerships is entirely reasonable.
There are only four of us here, and I am not going to get into a dispute over this. If members think that there should be more scrutiny of something, I will always run with that. We will recommend that in this case—although I was not particularly bothered about it.
On section 10, we asked whether some form of super-affirmative procedure might be more appropriate. The Executive takes the view that the normal affirmative procedure can achieve the same ends. However, it is not quite right to say that. There are certain requirements that the super-affirmative procedure brings in that nothing else does. The question is whether we are content with the level of scrutiny that has been set out by the Executive. Do we wish to recommend that, on this occasion, some form of super-affirmative procedure be used? Again, I am fairly neutral on the matter.
We should stick to our original thoughts on the matter. The provisions grant a wide Henry VIII power and the super-affirmative procedure would be more reasonable. As the legal advisers point out in the brief, that would provide an
Once again, if the committee wants more scrutiny rather than less, I will not disagree.
I agree.
I also agree. If we were in a benevolent frame of mind, then we might conclude that the Executive was taking extra time to consider our wise words. However, with a rather more cynical head on, we might suggest that the Executive was trying to avoid answering the questions at this stage, knowing full well that it is perfect possible for there to be less scrutiny of this stuff at stage 2 than there would be if it had come directly to this committee at stage 1.
On this occasion, unusually, I might be in the naive party and Stewart Maxwell in the cynical party. Either way, it is the same result: the Executive will know that we are still involved.
I am now getting the drift of where the committee is going on these issues.
I am sorry—where are we?
Did you say section 17?
I am just mentioning it.
I beg your pardon.
The convener is referring to paragraph 2 in the legal brief, which outlines those sections on which the Executive has effectively accepted our position.
Indeed. I am dealing with the points in the order in which they appear in the wee fancy briefing that I get, you see. In any event, the Executive has agreed with us on section 17, so we will simply point out its undertaking to the lead committee. I think that the same applies to sections 18 and 19: what we said has been accepted and will be the subject of amendments at stage 2.
A number of points arise on section 29. With regard to new section 132D(1), we have pointed out that no power is conferred on ministers to alter the level of the fine and the Executive is considering that matter further. As we said in relation to section 10, we should let the Executive know that, while it is acceptable for it to consider the matter, it should not think that we have forgotten about it.
When the Enterprise and Culture Committee, on which I sit, considered the political aspects of this matter, it became apparent that this was one of the areas of the bill that was particularly contentious, given the proposal to have an almost limitless obligation on undertakers to carry out repairs and reinstatements of roads. It would therefore be imperative that the regulations be as clear as possible. Should there be a time limit on the obligations on undertakers? It is possible that the bill should be clear about the length of time beyond which an undertaker would not be required to carry out repairs and so on.
Does the committee agree to take the route that involves more scrutiny, rather than consistency?
It is important to point out that it is a poor argument that says that, because some codes of practice in the 1991 act are not subject to scrutiny, nothing comparable ever should be. Apart from the fact that there have been changes in procedures since that act was introduced, there is far more scrutiny now. We should never argue for poor practice on the basis that there is already poor practice somewhere else.
That is what I was going to say.
I think that the clerks will be pretty clear about what we want to do in that regard.
It is a matter of there being a lack of consistency. I agree with your suggestion, convener.
Earlier, we talked about other provisions that relate to different circumstances. We should make the lead committee aware of the Executive's explanation, without putting the case too strongly. Is that agreed?
The draft report on the bill will be circulated by e-mail as soon as possible because the lead committee has to receive it soon.
It has to be with the lead committee by 2 February.
That is a week tomorrow.
It might be courteous to advise the Executive that there is an additional point at the tail-end of section 37 that we intend to raise with the lead committee, but which we accept that we did not raise with the Executive before.
Yes.
Next
Executive Response