Welfare Reform (Consequential Amendments) (Scotland) (No 3) Regulations 2013 (SSI 2013/142)
Members will note that our legal advisers have suggested that the regulations raise a question about whether they relate to matters that are reserved by section F1 of part 2 of schedule 5 to the Scotland Act 1998 and that, as such, the committee may wish to report them as raising a devolution issue. The same issue was raised in relation to the Council Tax Reduction (Scotland) Regulations 2012 (SSI 2012/303), which are the principal regulations that the regulations amend, and which the committee has previously considered. The matter was also raised in connection with the Council Tax Reduction (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 2013 (SSI 2013/48) and the Council Tax Reduction (State Pension Credit) (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 2013 (SSI 2013/49).
We have rehearsed the arguments on previous occasions. Although in the past it has been the majority view of the committee that no devolution issue has been raised, I nonetheless adhere to the view that I have taken previously: that a devolution issue is raised and that we should report the regulations accordingly. It is self-evident that the regulations provide a benefit, and I maintain that position.
I hear what John Scott says, but I am content that no devolution issue is raised. The Scottish Government’s view is quite clear. It must follow that the United Kingdom Government’s view is similar, otherwise it would not have passed the welfare reform legislation. It is clear that the regulations deal with a council tax issue and are not to do with making social security provision. Therefore, I am content for us not to report any matter to the Parliament.
As the deputy convener is aware, we have discussed the matter at some length on a number of occasions. Therefore, I propose that we take a view on the proposition that the committee considers that the regulations are intra vires and that they should not be drawn to the attention of the Parliament.
I will come back to a formal way of dealing with the issue, but that sounds like a possible way of doing so.
I agree that a devolution issue is probably raised. The Scottish Government has had the opportunity to allay some of the fears about that. When the legal people say that there is sufficient doubt about whether the regulations have a proper legal basis, that leads me to believe, like Mr Scott, that a devolution issue is raised.
I am a little disappointed that the Scottish Government takes the view that it does, given that we have suggested that there is an issue that needs to be considered. It has been given the opportunity to respond, but it has come back with the same answer. It is interesting that the decision on the regulations seems to be being taken along party lines, rather than on the basis on which we would normally make decisions.
It is clear that the committee is of more than one view, so we will need to have a vote to allow us to come to a conclusion. I have a draft proposition that roughly follows the one that Mike MacKenzie put to us. The proposition is that the committee considers that the regulations are intra vires and should not be drawn to the attention of the Parliament. Are we agreed?
There will be a division.
The result of the division is: For 4, Against 3, Abstentions 0. Therefore, the proposition is agreed to. I thank members for their assistance with that.
Regulation of Care (Social Service Workers) (Scotland) Amendment Order 2013 (SSI 2013/141)
Building (Miscellaneous Amendments) (Scotland) Regulations 2013 (SSI 2013/143)
Children’s Legal Assistance (Fees) (Miscellaneous Amendments) (Scotland) Regulations 2013 (SSI 2013/144)
Children’s Hearings (Scotland) Act 2011 (Modification of Subordinate Legislation) Order 2013 (SSI 2013/147)
Children’s Hearings (Scotland) Act 2011 (Compulsory Supervision Orders etc: Further Provision) Regulations 2013 (SSI 2013/149)