Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee

Meeting date: Tuesday, January 20, 2015

Official Report 384KB pdf

Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Bill

Agenda item 10 is consideration of the Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Bill, which is also UK Parliament legislation. It confers powers to make subordinate legislation on the Scottish ministers.

A briefing paper has been provided, which suggests that the committee could seek a written explanation of matters relating to clauses 149 to 151 of the bill and on a proposed new clause. The committee would consider the response at next week’s meeting, with the intention of agreeing a draft report.

Clauses 149 to 151 and a proposed new clause will provide the Treasury and the Scottish ministers with powers to make regulations that would require a public sector employee or office-holder who received an exit payment as a result of leaving work or the relevant office to return the payment or a proportion of it. That would apply when they returned to be an employee or contractor of a public sector authority as prescribed in the regulations, or a holder of a public sector office so prescribed.

Those regulations would have significance. For example, they would prescribe the public sector authorities and office-holders in respect of which they would apply, which exit payments would be within the scope of the repayment requirements and which exemptions from the requirements would be available.

Does the committee agree to ask the Scottish Government why it has been considered appropriate that regulations that are made by the Scottish ministers under clause 149 of the bill should be subject to scrutiny by the Parliament under the negative rather than the affirmative procedure?

I think that this is quite an important issue. The powers in question appear to be quite wide ranging. The sums involved when someone leaves one post and enters another are sometimes quite considerable, and they often attract quite a lot of media attention, so it would be good to get an explanation of why the negative procedure is to be used rather than the affirmative.

Am I right in thinking that the committee is happy that we seek such an explanation?

Members indicated agreement.

Similarly—although the sums of money are probably rather less than those to which John Mason has just referred—we do not appear to have been given an explanation of why parliamentarians who leave office and then return to office will be caught by the proposals, but ministers who leave office and then return to office will not be caught. I think that it would be useful for an explanation to be given of why that distinction is being made.

Thank you for those comments.

That completes agenda item 10, and we now move into private.