Subordinate Legislation Committee

Meeting date: Tuesday, March 26, 2013

Official Report 460KB pdf

---

Instruments subject to Negative Procedure

---

Police Pensions (Contributions) Amendment (Scotland) Regulations 2013 (SSI 2013/89)

I welcome members to the Subordinate Legislation Committee’s 11th meeting in 2013. We have received apologies from Hanzala Malik. I ask members to please turn off mobile phones.

Under agenda item 1, the first instrument subject to negative procedure is SSI 2013/89. There has been a failure to lay the instrument at least 28 days before it comes into force, as section 28(2) of the Interpretation and Legislative Reform (Scotland) Act 2010 requires. The committee may wish to recognise that, as a result of the policy that has been adopted, it might be necessary for the instrument to come into force on 1 April 2013 to ensure consistency throughout the United Kingdom, and that its making was dependent on receipt of confirmation from the Home Office of the applicable contribution rates. Accordingly, the committee may consider the failure to be acceptable, having regard to the circumstances in which the Scottish ministers found themselves and the consequences of failing to have the instrument come into force on 1 April.

The committee may also wish to note the statement that the Cabinet Secretary for Finance, Employment and Sustainable Growth made to the Parliament on 28 November 2012 and the reasons that he gave for implementing the increased contribution rates. In his statement, the cabinet secretary set out the consequences that would result, should the instrument not come into force at the same time as the equivalent provisions in the rest of the UK. However, the committee may consider that the Scottish ministers might have provided a more adequate explanation to the Presiding Officer of why it was not possible properly to respect the laying requirements in making the instrument.

Do members have any comments?

I agree with what you have said. There was a financial imperative for the instrument to be laid, but it would have been easier for us to understand that if we were relying on the cabinet secretary’s statement instead of the correspondence from the Government, which does not appear to make that case as strongly as it might have. Therefore, we have got to the right place, but perhaps for the wrong reason.

It appears that, if the 28-day rule had been met, the instrument would have come into force some three weeks later, which, on my recollection of what the cabinet secretary said, might have cost our budget in the broad order of £6 million. Therefore, it is understandable that the 28-day rule has not been met, but it is slightly surprising that the cabinet secretary has not put it in those terms.

Indeed. Does the committee agree to draw the instrument to the Parliament’s attention on reporting ground (j), as there has been a failure to lay the instrument at least 28 days before it comes into force, as section 28(2) of the Interpretation and Legislative Reform (Scotland) Act 2010 requires?

Members indicated agreement.

Does the committee also agree to note the update that the Scottish ministers have provided—which we have spoken about previously—in relation to the consolidation of the Police Pensions Regulations 1987 (SI 1987/257), and does it agree to welcome the news that the Home Office is working on a draft consolidating instrument and the Scottish ministers’ commitment to do everything possible to assist with progressing that project?

Members indicated agreement.

---

National Health Service (Optical Charges and Payments) (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 2013 (SSI 2013/96)

There has been a failure to lay the instrument at least 28 days before it comes into force, as section 28(2) of the 2010 act requires. The committee may wish to note the explanation that is given in the letter to the Presiding Officer that the policy is for there to be uniform optical voucher values and supplements throughout the United Kingdom. It may also wish to note that whether voucher and supplement values are increased in any particular year is optional. In this case, it appears that the UK Government decided to increase values for 2013 in late February, which did not allow the necessary Scottish statutory instrument to be laid 28 days in advance of 1 April 2013. The committee may wish to accept that, once that decision was communicated to the Scottish ministers, they did what they could to expedite the Scottish regulations.

Does the committee agree to draw the instrument to the Parliament’s attention on reporting ground (j), as there has been a failure to lay the instrument at least 28 days before it comes into force, as section 28(2) of the 2010 act requires?

Members indicated agreement.

Is the committee content with the explanation that the Scottish Government has provided?

Members indicated agreement.

---

Road Traffic (Permitted Parking Area and Special Parking Area) (Fife Council) Designation Order 2013 (SSI 2013/93)

---

Parking Attendants (Wearing of Uniforms) (Fife Council Parking Area) Regulations 2013 (SSI 2013/94)

---

Road Traffic (Parking Adjudicators) (Fife Council) Regulations 2013 (SSI 2013/95)

---

Scottish Fire and Rescue Service (Framework and Appointed Day for Strategic Plan) Order 2013 (SSI 2013/97)

---

Title Conditions (Scotland) Act 2003 (Rural Housing Bodies) Amendment Order 2013 (SSI 2013/100)

The committee agreed that no points arose on the instruments.