Subordinate Legislation Committee, 27 Jun 2000

Meeting date: Tuesday, June 27, 2000

Official Report 127KB pdf

---

National Parks (Scotland) Bill

We move on to the National Parks (Scotland) Bill, as amended at stage 2. Amendment 121 in my name was lodged at stage 2. Although an Executive amendment dealt with the 12-week consultation period at local level, which we have all welcomed, no amendment was accepted at stage 2 with regard to the super-affirmative procedure. We have debated this matter before and my position remains that the super-affirmative procedure would be appropriate. It is my intention to try once again what was tried at stage 2.

I appreciate—I think that we all do—the Executive taking on board the 12-week consultation period. That consultation deals with people outwith Parliament, but there must be a consultation period within Parliament and an opportunity for Parliament to have input and to amend complicated regulations.

The Executive has moved some way toward addressing the concerns, and it would be churlish not to acknowledge that. The 12-week consultation period obviously is better than six weeks. It is slightly shorter than I would have liked, as I mentioned at a previous meeting, but none the less, I welcome that. Of course, the consultation involves not this Parliament, but local authorities, community councils, persons representative of the interests of those who live, work or carry on business in the area, and such other persons as are thought fit. While that is to be welcomed, all that consultation is extra-parliamentary; it is not intra-parliamentary. The case for acknowledging in the bill the role of Parliament, and in particular the role of committees, is compelling.

Although I acknowledge the progress that has been made and the Executive's welcome concession, this might be an appropriate occasion for this committee to assess whether we believe that the super-affirmative procedure should be pushed. I say candidly that I have a considerable constituency interest in this matter. I hope that any member who has an interest in a matter such as a proposed national park in their constituency would have an acknowledged right to raise issues that emerge from a designation order and take them through the committee procedures with the possibility of amendment. That was one of the main reasons for having a super-affirmative procedure. Without that right we have consultation outwith Parliament, but strangely there is no right for MSPs to initiate that consultation process in Parliament for complete parliamentary involvement.

I am inclined to agree with that principle. Presumably the initial 12-week consultation period would throw up documents that could be analysed by members who could have a further input through the committee system.

From an Executive perspective, it would focus the points in dispute. It would allow the opportunity to describe potential stumbling blocks for MSPs of a certain party or with a specific constituency interest. The Executive could address those or could choose to take an issue head on and say, "No, we are putting it to the vote." At least this way, there is an indication from within Parliament as to what the problems are likely to be, whether they can be addressed and a consensus reached going through committee. If not, the Executive could take its chances in the chamber. That would draw the attention of Parliament to complaints that were raised.

In the response that we received from the Executive, Sarah Boyack's letter indicates that her expectation is that committees of the Parliament would become involved at the consultation stage. I do not think that the Executive's current position rules out the involvement of parliamentarians. I wonder whether that might give Fergus Ewing his opportunity to have constituency input.

I again say that I welcome the broad response of the Executive on these issues. However, although it is welcome that the minister responsible for this piece of legislation recognises that committees should have a role, I think that in the interests of Parliament—and speaking as a member of this committee—it would seem to be more desirable that there is a recognised, explicit role for them in the bill.

I hope that the committee might agree that we could all support and subscribe to the discussions that we had a month or so ago about the helpfulness of the super-affirmative procedure to the parliamentary process and, as the convener has acknowledged, to the Executive. That would give MSPs and Parliament rights and roles that are otherwise less well defined and perhaps uncertain.

The Executive's intention might be to go down that route. My caveat would be that if that is the Executive's intention, it should say so. I am happy if that is where it is going, but that should be put on record; we would be grateful for that declaration. The Executive does not appear to be clear whether that is where we are going. Bringing this in would not deflect from its ability to get through matters by way of subordinate legislation, but it would allow members with a specific interest—from any party or geographical area—to raise points when otherwise they would have to put down notice of opposition.

Are you happy with that, Bristow? If we phrase it in that manner, we will not seek to impugn the Executive. If that is where ministers are coming from, we welcome that, but we would prefer it to be stated. If that is not the case, we would like the matter to be reconsidered.

I am comfortable with any clear statement that committees of the Parliament will have a clear role during the consultation period. Paragraph 16 of Sarah Boyack's letter certainly indicates that. If she says that in her letter, perhaps the Executive will be prepared to include it in the bill.

We can ask the Executive to clarify matters and those who want to lodge amendments can do so.

The other matters that have been addressed—such as marine parks, appointments, on which Mike Rumbles has lodged amendments, and byelaw-making powers, on which the Executive has lodged amendments—are generally welcome. Does anybody want to make any specific points about those issues? If not, we shall move on to the next item.