Subordinate Legislation Committee, 23 Nov 2004

Meeting date: Tuesday, November 23, 2004

Official Report 109KB pdf

---

Delegated Powers Scrutiny

---

Edinburgh Tram (Line One) Bill: Preliminary Stage<br />Edinburgh Tram (Line Two) Bill: Preliminary Stage

Item 1 is delegated powers scrutiny of the Edinburgh Tram (Line One) Bill at the preliminary stage. Members will recall that everything applying to that bill also applies to the Edinburgh Tram (Line Two) Bill.

We raised three points and sent our queries to the promoter. The first matter relates to section 39, and concerns the fact that the power to extend the time limit for compulsory acquisition is unlimited. We thought that there should be a time limit to that power, and that the affirmative procedure should apply.

In reply, the promoter states that, although they were following the same principles that applied under the City of Edinburgh (Guided Busways) Order Confirmation Act 1998, they understood what we are saying. The promoter is now suggesting that the period for compulsory acquisition should not be extended beyond 15 years and has also taken on board the idea of using the affirmative procedure. Is that sufficient, in the committee's view?

Yes, I think so.

I think so, too.

The legal brief asked whether we wanted to reconsider the affirmative procedure. However, we do not have any details of what land the promoter proposes to acquire. The power is significant. If it is extended, whoever is charged with seeking that extension should be required to justify it. It is wholly appropriate that the affirmative procedure be used for that.

The second point concerned section 44(3), and related to the amendments that could be made to the level of penalty fares. We did not feel that it was very clear whether it was the fixed amount of £40 or the multiplier of 10 times the maximum fare that could be changed. Having received the answer, the legal advisers are still not clear about what exactly the promoter intends to do. It is suggested that we might write back to the promoter to say that we need the power to be better drafted, but I am happy to hear members' views.

That would be entirely appropriate. I do not think that the promoter has understood the question. Perhaps we should ask it again, because it has not addressed the question and the response is not satisfactory. As our legal advice states, it will be difficult to draft an order in exercise of the power if the promoter intends to raise the multiplier and the amount. It would be much more sensible to have one fixed point and then revolve around it. We have to write back to the promoter.

Okay. The promoter agreed to amend the bill to provide that an order in exercise of the power be subject to the affirmative procedure.

That is fine.

Our final point was that sections 63(2) and 79(2) appeared to overlap. The promoter has taken that on board and has said that it will address it. Given that our points relate to a private bill, a report will go to the Parliament and we will write to the promoter and the Edinburgh Tram (Line One) Bill Committee and the Edinburgh Tram (Line Two) Bill Committee teams. Is that agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

I will clarify our legal advice. We will write to the promoter first and perhaps get more information back before we write to the committees and report to the Parliament.