Official Report 118KB pdf
Transport and Works (Scotland) Bill: as amended at Stage 2
We commented on the bill at stage 1 and the Executive has responded to our concerns and amended the delegated powers. There are no new powers in the Bill. I will go through what has been altered.
At stage 1, we felt that there should be an obligation to publish any guidance that was prepared under section 7, "Model provisions", and that a power to revoke or amend such guidance was also required. Those issues have now been addressed. Are members happy with that?
The rule-making power in section 8, "Objections", has been extended so that it now includes the power to make rules regarding representations that do not amount to an objection in front of ministers. The legal briefing makes a minor point about the need to amend the section's heading, which we could make in a letter. Are members content with that?
An amendment has been made to subsection (14) of section 12, "Publicity for making or refusal of order", to reflect a drafting comment that we made at stage 1. The problem that we identified in relation to a duplication of procedure has been corrected. Are we happy with that amendment?
The drafting of the amendments in section 23, "Amendment of Roads (Scotland) Act 1984", has been refined at stage 2 and some of the drafting points that we made at stage 1 have been taken on board. Are members happy with that?
As with section 23, the amendments to section 24, "Amendment of Harbours Act 1964", in part reflect our comments at stage 1. Are we content with them?
Subsection (3) of section 27, "Further provision as regards rules, regulations and orders", has been amended to provide that when specified instruments under the bill amend the text of an act, they are to be subject to the affirmative procedure. That change reflects our comments at stage 1, so I take it that we are happy with it.
A second change is that, as drafted, the amendment to section 27(6)(aa) would allow the delegation of legislative as well as other functions. The question arises whether it is appropriate to confer powers to make subordinate legislation on persons other than the Scottish ministers. Do we want to ask about that?
I looked at the delegated powers memorandum, but I do not have the bill with me. On what kind of persons is it envisaged that such powers could be conferred?
It does not say, so we could ask.
It would be helpful to get some examples, because the proposal is slightly concerning. I am sure that it is not the case that anyone could be such a person, but we should seek clarification.
Is that agreed?
Do you have another point, Ken?
No. Stewart Maxwell said that he was worried about persons other than the Scottish ministers having powers to make subordinate legislation, but I imagine that that happens in other circumstances.
Very rarely.
I have never come across such an example.
I cannot think of one.
The Registrar General for Scotland has those powers.
One could understand the registrar general having powers to make subordinate legislation—that is fair enough.
Behind the principle of devolution lies the idea that power should be devolved to the most appropriate person. That is not a bad idea; it is only an issue when we are talking about legislative power.
Let us ask for examples of the people who will be given legislative power.
That would be helpful. Our legal briefing says that opinion on the matter is pretty evenly divided, so it would be useful to get the Executive's opinion on the record.
Members may recall that we made a drafting comment on subsection (2) of section 29, "Short title and commencement", and the date of commencement. Although, strictly speaking, it was not within the committee's remit to do that, our point has been taken on board by the Executive—that was a success. Are members happy with that?
Next
Executive Response