Official Report 129KB pdf
Climate Change Bill
Again, this is the first time in session 3 that the committee has considered a legislative consent motion. Given that the lead committee will consider the legislative consent motion next Tuesday, we do not have time to raise any issues with the Scottish Government directly. We need to report any issues that we do raise to the lead committee today.
In your opinion, convener, does the first question lead us to stray from our scrutiny role and into the political field? No doubt the Government's response will be political.
Are there any other comments?
That is a reasonable point; I agree with Ian McKee.
Colin Gilchrist might want to say something on that.
I agree that to look at policy reasons in relation to the distinction between Scottish and United Kingdom trading schemes would be to stray into a substantial matter of policy.
Should we err on the side of caution and leave the question out at this stage?
We would have expected the legislative consent memorandum to indicate the justification and reasons for the various regulation-making powers.
Shall we ask that question then?
That is the point that I was going to make.
In a sense, I do not mind. However, reading the background, it seems to me that the relevant national authorities have the power to set up trading schemes, so surely it is within their rights to set up different ones, otherwise we would have a UK-wide trading scheme. It might be regarded as foolish to have a different scheme, but that is a policy matter. We are here to discuss whether something is allowable and, from the background that we have been given, it seems that the different trading schemes are allowable. Whether or not they are a good idea is a policy matter. I see no point in asking the question because the answer seems to be cut and dried. However, if the committee feels that it wants to ask the question, I would not go to the stake over it.
Would you accept that, in writing to the lead committee, we could insert your caveat to cover ourselves? Would that be all right?
If that is the committee's will, yes, but I do not think that it is necessary.
I am open to colleagues' opinions.
Ian McKee's point is quite reasonable, but we are not talking about the policy aspect so much as why the justification is not included in the legislative consent memorandum. It is important to highlight that point, so I would go with the legal adviser's recommendation that we draw it to the lead committee's attention.
Are members content with that?
The recommendations on clause 38 and schedule 2, "Matters that may or must be provided for in regulations", are listed in our summary of recommendations. Rather than read them all out, I ask whether members are content to make the two recommendations?
Are members content that no points have been raised on clause 40, "Procedure for making regulations"?
Are members content that no points have been identified on clause 41 and schedule 3, "Further provisions about regulations"?
Are members content with the recommendation on clause 42 and schedule 4, "Information", listed in our summary?
Are members content that no points have been raised on clause 46, "Power to make consequential provision"?
On clause 33, "Powers to give guidance", are members content to invite the lead committee to consider whether further explanation could be sought on why guidance under clause 36 requires in all cases to be issued jointly by the national authorities, including in relation to functions in Scotland of the proposed United Kingdom committee on climate change that might concern devolved matters?
On clause 34, "Powers to give directions", are members content to invite the lead committee to consider whether an explanation should be sought on why directions under the clause require to be issued jointly by the national authorities, including in relation to functions in Scotland of the committee on climate change that might concern devolved matters?
Are members content that no points have been raised on clause 43, "Powers to give guidance"?
On clause 44, "Powers to give directions", are members content to invite the lead committee to consider whether the Scottish Government should explain the reasons for this power and how it is proposed that it be used?
Previous
Delegated Powers Scrutiny