Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee

Meeting date: Tuesday, February 25, 2014

Official Report 336KB pdf

---

Public Bodies (Joint Working) (Scotland) Bill: After Stage 2

As members will recall, the committee agreed its report on the Public Bodies (Joint Working) (Scotland) Bill as amended at stage 2 at last week’s meeting. Further to that, the Scottish Government has written to the committee advising it of amendments that it has lodged at stage 3 that relate to delegated powers and explaining the purpose of those amendments.

Members have seen the correspondence from the Scottish Government and we have just had a briefing. I invite them to comment on what is before us.

There is a simple shortcoming in the information that is before the committee in relation to section 46 and the amendment that allows the Scottish ministers to form companies and bodies corporate. Such an amendment being lodged at stage 3 clearly suggests that something has arisen in the ministers’ consideration of the bill that has caused them to introduce the measure, but there is nothing before us that helps me to understand the reason behind that.

It is a power to cover future events as yet unknown, so I can understand the general point, but it would be helpful to the Parliament if we understood the specific reason that the minister had for lodging the amendment. We can see its effect and the process by which the measure would be implemented. I have no concerns about either of those points but, without knowing the reason why the amendment was lodged, there is a shortcoming in our ability to understand it properly.

I agree utterly with what Stewart Stevenson says on this occasion. I am concerned that the measure is being introduced at stage 3 without the normal parliamentary scrutiny that one would expect. I appreciate that there may be policy issues here, but nonetheless the power is far reaching, as I understand it, and we should have had more information than we currently have to enable us to evaluate the intention.

I agree that we should have more information, although I am not sure that the power is as far reaching as members might imagine. I remember having the same discussion when the bill that formed Scottish Water was considered. At that time, I challenged the then Labour and Liberal Executive on whether the use of the term “body corporate” was necessarily about the formation of companies. Allan Wilson, who was then the minister, quite rightly told me that it can be about forming joint ventures with other public bodies and not just outside organisations. The step that the Government is taking is not unusual, although I agree that the committee should have had more information about the intent and purpose.

I appreciate that. I remember that Bruce Crawford and I sat on that bill committee together, and I note that there is a precedent, as he reminded us. However, stage 3 of the Public Bodies (Joint Working) (Scotland) Bill will take place this afternoon. It is simply not good enough that we have not had more of an explanation.

Convener, perhaps you will wish to take part in this afternoon’s debate, to elicit the information from the Government minister. I do not know; it is, of course, a matter for you.

Clearly, it is a matter for the committee, and if the committee is concerned, it is probably appropriate that the convener takes part and expresses the committee’s concerns. However, I would like to hear all members’ views. I am conscious that Mike MacKenzie may want to say something.

I have a general point to make about the timing. The power might be entirely benign or even beneficial—it might be something that we would welcome—but the timeframe does not allow us to explore it. In general terms, we ought to try to devise a means of avoiding this situation.

Yes. Of course, we have mentioned the issue several times in the past few weeks. We still have the convener of the appropriate committee listening in, and I am sure that he will explore that.

I am in the committee’s hands as to what we should do this afternoon. The obvious thought is that I, on your behalf, should raise the issue at the appropriate point, when amendment 86 is called. I would simply ask the Government whether it can say any more about the purpose for which the power is there and note that, if there is a serious policy behind it, we might have expected that the negative procedure would not be used.

Just for clarity, convener, I agree that you should use the phrase “on behalf of the committee”. It is important that we agree that you will be speaking not as an individual but on behalf of the committee.

Yes. That would reflect this morning’s discussion.

That is fine. I just wanted us to be clear about that.

I have every confidence in you, convener.

I do not want to over-egg this, but is there anything else that we need to say, or has everything that is appropriate been said? I think that it has.

We are perhaps the least important part of the process, but I note that the committee that is responsible for the bill, those who gave evidence on it and others who scrutinised it during the consultation are not aware of the power. We are at the end of the chain, but many others who might have wished to comment have not been able to do so.

Right. I think that I know what I have to do. Thank you for that.

10:43 Meeting continued in private until 10:52.