On section 30, “Safeguarders Panels”, does the committee agree to ask the Scottish Government why negative procedure is considered to be appropriate in relation to section 30(2)(g), which is concerned with conferring functions on safeguarders, and which might be viewed as raising different considerations to those administrative, operational or procedural issues with which sections 30(2)(a) to (f) are concerned?
I welcome Dr Ian McKee. I submitted your apologies, but you are with us now.
Do we agree to ask the Scottish Government whether the power in section 146(1), “Secure accommodation: placement in other circumstances”, could be used to deal with matters that go beyond those of an administrative, technical or procedural nature and that relate more directly to the circumstances in which a child can be placed in secure accommodation, so that affirmative procedure might be appropriate? Is it not the case that some matters for which provision might be made under section 146(2), such as the giving of reasons for decisions and the review of decisions, could be of greater consequence than others, so that the use of negative procedure in all instances might not necessarily be appropriate?
The committee might want to probe the breadth of the power proposed in section 147, “Secure accommodation: placement in other circumstances”. In particular, shall we ask whether, given its general nature and the potential for it to be used in relation to a significant range of issues around children in secure accommodation, the exercise of the power should be subject to affirmative procedure?
We are almost there, colleagues.
Shall we seek clarification as to why the Scottish Government’s view is that the direction-making powers in sections 13 and 22 should not be subject to some form of parliamentary scrutiny, given that each power of direction could be used to make significant provision about the carrying out of the functions of children’s hearings Scotland or the Scottish Children’s Reporter Administration? Do we agree to ask whether those provisions should be recast in the form of a power in favour of the Scottish ministers to make provision on the carrying out of functions?
Section 128(5) is on the right of a child or relevant person to require a review. Do we agree to ask the Scottish Government why it is not considered to be possible to specify in the bill a different review period for a compulsory supervision order containing a secure accommodation authorisation? If, as the DPM indicates, the intention is for such a period to be shortened in the case of a compulsory supervision order containing a secure accommodation authorisation, shall we ask the Scottish Government why section 128(5) does not refer to a shorter period, even if the particular period is not specified?
Does the committee wish to ask the Scottish Government why regulations made under section 170, “Children’s hearings: procedural rules”, should be subject to negative procedure in all cases? Are there matters that could be dealt with under the power proposed in section 170 that could warrant being subject to affirmative procedure, having regard to the nature, range and importance of some of the issues that regulations made under section 170 might cover? For example, are issues that might be dealt with under sections 170(2)(d) to (f) and (h) and (k), to the extent that they might deal with substantive rights, likely to be of particular interest to the Parliament? Does the committee agree to raise those points?
Section 189 contains the power to make such supplementary, incidental or consequential provision as is considered appropriate for the purposes of, in consequence of or for giving full effect to any provision of the bill. Do we agree to ask the Scottish Government whether, given the high level of political interest in the subject matter of the bill, the use of affirmative procedure under the section should be extended to cover the full range of matters to which subsection (1) refers? Given that some matters that are dealt with by way of supplementary, incidental or consequential provision could be of considerable significance, would not affirmative procedure provide a more appropriate level of scrutiny? Do we agree to ask that?
This is our first look at the bill. Today, as usual, we will consider those powers on which our advisers have raised questions; on 20 April we will consider a draft report on all the powers.
Section 55, “Sections 53 and 54: regulations”, is on making further provision in respect of a child who has been removed to or kept in a place of safety. Do we agree to ask the Scottish Government to justify such a broadly stated power as that in section 55(1)? Although the delegated powers memorandum comments on the detailed provision that might be made under the power with reference to notification procedures and so on, could the power be used for wider purposes? If it is intended to use the power for the more narrow purposes that are indicated in the DPM, could the provision not have been drafted in more restricted terms? Do we agree to raise those points?
On section 144, “Movement restriction conditions: regulations etc”, we might wish to ask the Scottish Government for its view on the breadth of the power proposed in section 144(1). Could the regulations made under that power be used to set out restrictions that could be imposed as part of a movement restriction condition in terms such that affirmative procedure would be more appropriate than negative procedure? Do we agree to raise those points?
We will consider the responses to those questions and the rest of the delegated powers at our meeting on 20 April, which is after the Easter recess.