Subordinate Legislation Committee, 22 Jan 2002

Meeting date: Tuesday, January 22, 2002

Official Report 106KB pdf

---

Delegated Powers Scrutiny

---

Education (Disability Strategies and Pupils' Records) (Scotland) Bill

We raised with the Executive three matters relating to this bill. We are relatively satisfied with the responses to the first two questions but we are not satisfied with the response to the third question. As we have done before, we suggested that consultation would be a good idea and that a duty to consult should be included in the bill. The Executive disagreed with that.

As we can get no further on this matter, I suggest that we draw the response to the attention of the lead committee, which might share our concern that, although our present wonderful Executive is full of warm and lovely people, it is possible that we might get another sort of Executive at some point. Are we agreed to do that?

You do sincerity well, Margo.

I take it that you second that suggestion, in that case?

Yes.

Members indicated agreement.

---

Budget (Scotland) (No 3) Bill

Nothing much arises from this bill. Apart from the fact that standing orders require us to have a debate on the budget, you sometimes have to wonder why we are having this, since you can do it, you know.

I think that "since you can do it, you know" might not be easy for the official report staff to report.

I will try again. Since the relevant provisions in the budget can be amended by subordinate legislation, one sometimes has to wonder why we bother having a budget bill.

If people are unhappy with the subordinate legislation, it can be voted down.

I know that that is the theory, Bristow, but I am not at all sure that that would happen in practice. However, there is nothing that we are likely to do about the situation. I just mentioned it in passing.

---

Land Reform (Scotland) Bill

This bill forms part of the Executive's land reform programme and has two main purposes: to create rights of access to land for recreational purposes and to provide for a community right to buy land in rural areas. Part 1 of the bill is concerned with rights of access, part 2 with the community right to buy and part 3 with the crofting community right to buy land in the crofting counties.

The bill has involved a huge amount of consultation and a great deal of work has been done on it. At this stage, it might be worth while commenting that a lot of the work that is being done might not have been completely sorted out by the time that the relevant subordinate legislation comes before this committee.

The powers in the bill are extensive and some of the powers that will be exercised through subordinate legislation go right to the heart of the bill. The committee has a duty to consider whether it is appropriate that the powers concerned should be left to subordinate legislation, even that which is dealt with by affirmative resolution.

Murdo Fraser, are you indicating that you agree or disagree with me?

I am indicating that I agree with you. Sections 4 and 8 give the Executive sweeping powers to amend parts of the bill. For example, section 4 gives the ministers the power to modify any of the provisions of sections 2 and 3. That makes me wonder why the Executive bothered to introduce the bill in the first place. Section 2 deals with the right of responsible access. If the ministers can amend that by subordinate legislation, what is the point in having a great long debate on the provisions that will make up that section?

I say this with a great deal of hesitation, but perhaps we should take evidence on this matter. This bill is certainly the biggest piece of legislation that the Parliament will deal with in the coming months and I have a funny feeling that it will prove to be the most contentious piece of legislation that we will have dealt with since we got here in 1999.

Most legislation in the Scottish Parliament has turned out to be pretty consensual—although I should point out to Murdo Fraser that I am aware that one or two of our colleagues might not have joined that consensus. Of the two justice committees, the one that I am not on is dealing with the Land Reform (Scotland) Bill, I am delighted to say. If there are provisions that we are unsure of or unhappy about that relate to subordinate legislation, perhaps we should take evidence on the bill.

We have a couple of meetings left before the stage 1 debate, so we could take evidence.

Is the stage 1 debate only a couple of weeks away? I do not think that that is right.

I think that, although the debate is a month away, we would have two opportunities to take evidence.

The Justice 2 Committee is still taking evidence.

That committee still has not written its report, so we have time to take evidence.

I agree that we should take evidence. I am just trying to work out what the timetable would be for us to do so. The clerk has informed me that we have time to take evidence in relation to the bill.

Some provisions in the bill allow the possibility of core intentions of the bill being, if not subverted, circumvented by subordinate legislation. If that is the case, it is our duty to point it out. The Executive may have a reason for taking the approach that it has. It could have amended primary legislation but has chosen not to do so. We should ask why not.

Are we taking evidence on all parts of the bill?

Perhaps we should concentrate on the sections that appear to give the ministers too much power.

If we have Executive witnesses before us, I am sure that we can identify the areas at that point.

It would be fair to let them know whether we will deal with the whole bill or concentrate on certain aspects.

I am sure that the clerk could write a letter informing them of the main points about which we are concerned. That would allow the witnesses to prepare for the meeting.

Are we agreed to follow that course of action?

Members indicated agreement.