Skip to main content
Loading…
Chamber and committees

Subordinate Legislation Committee, 19 Apr 2005

Meeting date: Tuesday, April 19, 2005


Contents


Delegated Powers Scrutiny


Further and Higher Education (Scotland) Bill: as amended at Stage 2

The Convener:

Agenda item 2 is delegated powers scrutiny. The first bill is the Further and Higher Education (Scotland) Bill, as amended at stage 2. The committee will remember that we made several points regarding the bill. I think that members will be quite pleased with the responses that we have received.

Our first point related to section 5(7), on fundable and higher education. We expressed concern about the width of the power, and we wanted it to be considered that the affirmative procedure would be appropriate. The Executive has recognised that concern and lodged an amendment to section 32(4) to provide that orders made under section 5(7) will be subject to the affirmative procedure. That is a welcome amendment. Is that agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

The Convener:

Our second point related to section 7(1), on fundable bodies and further provision. Again, we expressed concern about the width of the power and said that we thought that orders made under it should be subject to the affirmative procedure. Again, the Executive has lodged an amendment to section 32(4) to ensure that orders made under section 7(1) will be subject to the affirmative procedure. That is also welcome. Is that agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

The Convener:

Sections 8(6) and 8(7) relate to the funding of the council and deal with more contentious issues. We were concerned about the possibility of the powers in those sections being used to introduce top-up fees and to set the level of fees. Members will recall that the minister gave an assurance that there was no such intention; however, the committee noted the width of the power that section 8(6) grants to ministers and, accordingly, recommended that any orders made under that section should be subject to the affirmative procedure. We also raised with the Executive the possibility of using the super-affirmative procedure for orders made under section 8(7).

The Executive lodged an amendment to ensure that orders made under section 8(6) will be subject to the affirmative procedure. In addition, it lodged an amendment to insert a new subsection (12A) in section 8, which will oblige ministers who make an order under section 8(6) to consult a number of bodies. Are we satisfied with the Executive's responses to those points on sections 8(6) and 8(7)?

It is clearly an improvement.

It is an improvement.

Mr Maxwell:

I do not want to seem churlish, as I think that things have come some way, but I am not convinced that the Executive has gone as far as would have been appropriate. We said that we wanted something explicit in the bill about the use of the power in section 8(6), but the Executive has not gone that far. The power is still wide and I think that we should report to the lead committee that that is still our view.

That we think that the Executive could go further?

Yes.

Stage 3 of the bill is tomorrow, so we would have to report to Parliament.

So it is. I am sorry. Yes.

Murray Tosh:

The fact that stage 3 is tomorrow constrains our ability to take the matter further. The Executive's response is positive and is to be welcomed. All that would be left to those of us who might feel that it is not sufficient would be to support any amendment at stage 3 that would allow the Parliament to take the matter further. It will not be possible for a further amendment to be lodged at this stage, and I do not know whether an amendment has been lodged that would suit that purpose.

Given the attendance at today's meeting, it would probably be unwise to invoke the practice of asking the convener to speak for the committee in relation to an amendment tomorrow. It is up to individual members who wish to support any possible amendments to do so and to reflect, in any speech that they might make, the discussions that we have had and the consideration that we have given to the issue.

Given the almost unique balance of the committee today, this is perhaps a perfect opportunity to do that—sorry; I joke.

Mr Ingram:

Murray Tosh has summed up the situation rather well. I was reassured by the promise of consultation and the fact that the legal situation has been clarified. When consultation appears in legislation, it is automatically assumed that consultees' views will be properly considered. I did not know that before, and it is useful to have teased that out. The Executive has moved, and I believe that Murray Tosh's proposal is the correct thing to do in this situation.

The Convener:

What Murray Tosh has suggested would work well, as an amendment has been lodged that reflects the concern and the wish to move towards the use of the super-affirmative procedure. Is it agreed that we go with that line? I will have no hesitation in representing the committee's views and the concerns that were expressed when we put our questions on the issue to the Executive.

That is reasonable. I apologise, convener. I forgot that the stage 3 debate is being held tomorrow.

Is that agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

The Convener:

We move to section 22(4)(j), on the subject of consultation and collaboration. We were concerned that the provision allowed only for additions to the list and not for amendments to it. Members may remember that our legal adviser, Margaret Macdonald, raised the point.

The Executive lodged an amendment to remove section 22(4)(j) and to insert in its place new section 22(5A), which confers upon ministers the power to modify the list. As the amendment accords with our suggestions, members will welcome the new provision. Is that agreed?

Members indicated agreement.


Gaelic Language (Scotland) Bill: as amended at Stage 2

The Convener:

The second item under our delegated powers scrutiny is the Gaelic Language (Scotland) Bill, as amended at stage 2. We raised a couple of points on the bill.

Section 2 concerns the national Gaelic language plan. In response to the committee's letter at stage 1, the Executive undertook to amend the bill at stage 2. The national Gaelic language plan will now be laid before the Parliament when it is approved by Scottish ministers; members will find the revised provision in new section 2(6)(b). Members will also see that new section 2(2)(za) allows Bòrd na Gàidhlig to consult the Parliament.

I think that it was the subject committee that suggested that more use should be made of the affirmative procedure in respect of the national plan. I guess that the amendment was the Executive's response to that request.

It was made in response to our recommendation and that of the subject committee. Both committees made the same recommendation to the Executive.

The stage 3 debate on the bill is also being held this week. It will be interesting to see what is said on the issue.

Does any member have a point to raise on either section 2(6)(b) or section 2(2)(za)?

Members:

No.

In that case, are we agreed that the new sections address our concerns?

Members indicated agreement.

The Convener:

Section 3(7) concerns regulations to make

"further provision in relation to the content of Gaelic language plans."

The Executive amended section 3(7) so that ministers can make the regulations that provide for the content of the language plans only after it has consulted Bòrd na Gàidhlig. I assume that the amendment reflects the Executive's policy wish to give the board a greater input into the content of the regulations. Are we agreed that the amendment addresses our concerns?

Members indicated agreement.