Subordinate Legislation Committee, 22 Mar 2000

Meeting date: Wednesday, March 22, 2000

Official Report 121KB pdf

---

Scotland Act 1998 (Cross-Border Public Authorities) (Adaptation of Functions etc) Order 2000 (SSI 2000/Draft)

The next item is Executive responses, and the first matter thereunder is the Scotland Act 1998 (Cross-Border Public Authorities) (Adaptation of Functions etc) Order 2000. It is suggested that we simply note that there has been clarification in the Executive's response.

I noted the response. We have also received from the clerks a useful extract from the meeting of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation, at which the same point was raised by Sir Robert Smith. That must indicate that the point that I raise is of concern not only to me, but to others in different parties. Trish Godman joined me, in general terms, in asking for this matter to be clarified.

The proposed new section 3A(b) refers to someone being

"connected by residence or otherwise".

The phrase "or otherwise" is vague, and does not have a specific meaning. We asked what meaning it might have, and the response was that the phrase "or otherwise" is flexible. Well, it is certainly flexible, but that does not answer our question as to what it means. I was interested to note that no specific response appeared to be given in the extract by the Minister for the Arts, Mr Alan Howarth, to Sir Robert Smith. I have studied the extract, and I hope that my study has been sufficiently complete to be accurate.

The fact remains that there might be concern, especially with regard to this cross-border authority, that there should be a demonstrable connection with Scotland in a clear and manifest way, and that the formula that is used in relation to the two other cross-border authorities should be much more specific and exacting. Given the concern of Sir Robert Smith at Westminster, there are sufficient grounds for the Executive to reconsider whether it has the power—which I believe that it does—to be rather more specific.

Should we draw this matter to the attention of the lead committee, rather than seek a further response from the Executive? If we wanted, we could return to the Executive, but any response would require to be directed to the lead committee. Perhaps we should draw to the attention of that committee the matter that was raised by Fergus Ewing and Trish Godman, together with what was dug out by the clerks regarding that matter at Westminster, and ask it to bring pressure upon the Executive to resolve what is clearly an anomaly.

That is the way in which to proceed.

I am sure that the Liberals on the committee will be particularly zealous in their pursuit of this matter.

As we were at Westminster.