Subordinate Legislation Committee, 20 Jun 2000

Meeting date: Tuesday, June 20, 2000

Official Report 87KB pdf

---

Procedure

The final item on the agenda is subordinate legislation procedure. I asked that this matter be put on the agenda because of the circumstances that had arisen with the progress of the National Parks (Scotland) Bill and with the fact that this committee previously drew attention to the possibility that a super-affirmative procedure be considered. In view of the time scale, I lodged an amendment in my name seeking to introduce a super-affirmative procedure. Unfortunately, it was rejected by the Rural Affairs Committee at stage 2 of the bill. It is my intention to resubmit an amendment for stage 3.

It is not for this committee to make any formal recommendation regarding any amendment to the bill, but I simply wish to say for the record that I am wearing a Subordinate Legislation Committee hat in lodging my amendment, not a party political hat. The purpose is to provide greater scrutiny for individual representatives in this Parliament and a greater mechanism for some control over a matter which will, I think, have an effect on a considerable number of people. It will be for individuals to decide whether to support the amendment or otherwise, but I would prefer it to be quite clear how this came about and where I am coming from. If people wish to make any comments on the matter, I am happy to take them on board.

We are trying to progress super-affirmative procedure. We have raised it with the Procedures Committee. Even today, I have touched on the fact that I may take this view with regard to the Transport (Scotland) Bill. If we were to embark, for example, on transport authority status, at least for the Highlands and Islands, I would think that that would merit super-affirmative procedure rather than a simple affirmative or negative resolution.

Do you know why your amendment was rejected by the Rural Affairs Committee?

I was unable to attend its meeting because the Transport and the Environment Committee was sitting contemporaneously. I think that, basically, the committee got mixed up—representations were made by the Minister for Transport and the Environment regarding Executive amendments to the same section of the bill. It was assumed that its amendments would deal with the matters that we had addressed. In fact, our amendment did not prejudice the purpose of the Executive's amendments; it was trying to increase the period of consultation, something which we had flagged up. I am only surmising, but my guess is that the Rural Affairs Committee members thought that our amendment would strike down those of the Executive, and that they were taking cognisance of that.

I will reiterate our position. I would be surprised if members of the Rural Affairs Committee, if they understood what we were trying to do, would not wish to take a more hands-on approach with regard to what they could or could not do in months to come.

Meeting closed at 11:49.