Subordinate Legislation Committee, 30 Mar 2004

Meeting date: Tuesday, March 30, 2004

Official Report 91KB pdf

---

Delegated Powers Scrutiny

---

Education (Additional Support for Learning) (Scotland) Bill: as amended at Stage 2

Good morning. I open the Subordinate Legislation Committee's 12th meeting this year. Sylvia Jackson, the committee's convener, is still off sick, and Christine May is not with us because of a family illness. All the other committee members are present.

At stage 2 of the Education (Additional Support for Learning) (Scotland) Bill, the Executive lodged four amendments to delegated powers in the bill. The Education Committee's convener lodged two such amendments that the Executive opposed.

Section 9(9) of the bill provides a power to make further provision about co-ordinated support plans by regulations. I suggest that the provision contains nothing much to concern us.

Members indicated agreement.

Section 14A and related section 27(5) were introduced by amendments from the Education Committee's convener to which that committee agreed. They will give further powers to the Scottish ministers. Perhaps I do not understand the situation entirely, but this seems to be one of the rare occasions on which the Executive has been offered more power and has said that it does not want it, yet others have insisted that it should have that power. What do members make of that?

Section 14A is a Henry VIII power, because it gives the Scottish ministers the power to extend the categories in the bill for making a reference to a tribunal. The committee would not normally wish ministers to have such a power and it is strange that the Education Committee insisted that ministers should have it against their wish.

Although that is our position, the subject is in some ways a policy matter, so all that we can do is draw it to the lead committee's attention. However, the members of the lead committee are the people who agreed to the amendment, so one assumes that they know about it. I am not sure what we can do other than say that we are a little surprised.

The bill will not return to that committee, as stage 3 is dealt with by the whole Parliament. I presume that one of us can make the point forcefully in the stage 3 debate.

We will have to draw lots for that fantastic opportunity. I am sure that one of us will make the point.

I suggest that the deputy convener is the most appropriate person to be given that duty. I have every trust in his ability and judgment to undertake it.

With a bit of luck, I will understand the point by that time.

The situation is unusual. We will point out to the Parliament that we do not normally want such powers to be provided and that we agree with the Executive about how we normally view such powers.

Subsections (1), (2A) to (2E), (3) and (7) of section 23 concern a code of practice. Do we have anything to say about them?

No. The provisions are fine.

Section 25 makes ancillary provision and gives rise to no difficulty. No difficulty arises from subsections (4) and (5) of section 27, which concern laying regulations before Parliament. We might want simply to welcome the amendment of that section.