Subordinate Legislation Committee, 20 Jun 2000

Meeting date: Tuesday, June 20, 2000

Official Report 87KB pdf

---

Transport (Scotland) Bill

The first item on the agenda is the delegated powers scrutiny of the Transport (Scotland) Bill. We have had the benefit of legal advice on this substantive bill. It might be best to run through the bill from the start, as section 1 has been flagged up as an area on which we might comment or seek some response from the Executive.

It might be appropriate to ask the Executive to give some clear examples of areas where they might use the powers under section 1(1) of the bill. Those powers seem fairly broad and we have been advised that the Executive is not completely certain about how it intends to use them.

The other issue that we would want to raise is consultation. Perhaps there is a need to strengthen the requirement for consultation on any joint transport strategy that might be developed through the powers outlined in this section.

I subscribe to those views. I have the benefit of being a member of the Transport and the Environment Committee, and if this legislation is an indication that we are heading towards the establishment of transport authorities—of which I am supportive—I am not sure whether the best way to do that is to use negative procedures. I would prefer some indication of the intention behind section 1 of the bill. If we are simply using existing bodies, that is fine; however, the creation of any new bodies should not happen through negative procedure. Will the Executive consider super-affirmative procedure for the creation of, for example, a Highlands and Islands transport authority? Representatives from all parts of Scotland and from that locality in particular will want a more hands-on approach instead of dealing with matters on a yes or no basis. It would help to have Executive clarification of the two points that Bristow has flagged up.

The committee has raised some concerns about the issue of bus services and matters such as quality partnership and contract schemes. Although I believe that such matters should be left with the local authority, we can flag up to the Executive any members' opinion that those matters should return for the minister's approval. I am open to persuasion on that point.

I think that local authorities should make those decisions.

The committee has had its attention drawn to section 64, which deals with the determination of disputes, appeals and evidence relating to various charging schemes that local authorities might or might not introduce. It has been suggested that we might require to seek clarification to ensure compliance with the European convention on human rights. Perhaps we should simply ask the Executive to confirm what consideration it has given to that matter and whether it is satisfied that no problem exists. There are similar worries about the powers under section 67(2).

We move on to sections 34, 35 and 36 on the powers of Scottish ministers to make grants and the repayments of grants related to fuel duty rebate. The question is whether negative procedure is adequate or whether, as criminal penalties are involved, the exercise of powers should be subject to affirmative procedure.

I am glad that the matter is being addressed, because previously operators might remain unpunished. However, there is an argument that we should be considering an affirmative procedure. We could ask the Executive for its views and for clarification of the circumstances in which the grants would be payable. We could ask the Executive to expand upon the basis on which grants would be paid. The fuel duty rebate scheme will no doubt be addressed in the chamber.

Section 69 relates to bridges and joint boards. The question is whether there should be consultation. I understand that currently, this section relates only to the Forth estuary, although it has been suggested that what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander and that there should be similar provision for the Clyde. However, if we are following that route it might be useful to have a consultation period for all parties involved.

On section 78 we need to inquire whether it was intended that an appointed day order should be subject to negative procedure. That needs to be clarified. Obviously, there will be other matters in the Transport (Scotland) Bill to which we might want to return next week. Are there any other comments?

That seems fair enough. Perhaps we should note that there was some debate between the adviser to the committee and the Executive officials on the question of which sections fell within the remit of the Subordinate Legislation Committee. We should welcome Margaret Macdonald's work in putting the case that the committee should examine certain aspects of the bill. Furthermore, according to a letter that we received last night, the Executive has accepted the majority of the argument that was being put forward.

We can certainly record our thanks.