Enterprise and Culture Committee, 08 Sep 2005

Meeting date: Thursday, September 8, 2005

Official Report 247KB pdf

---

Work Programme

The final agenda item is on our work programme, which of course kicks off tonight with the business in the Parliament conference. I remind members that from 6.30 until 7.15 we will be with Adam Crozier, the chief executive of the Royal Mail, after which there is a reception and a full-day conference tomorrow.

We have circulated a summary programme of our work between now and Christmas. There is a fairly full agenda. Is everybody happy with it?

I have a comment on the St Andrew's Day Bank Holiday (Scotland) Bill. In addition to my earlier comment that we should at least invite the Executive to respond to the bill—given that its view is crucial to deciding whether, with respect to Dennis Canavan, there is a point to passing the bill—it would also be helpful if we got a legal opinion on the legal effect of bank holidays. From the evidence that we have heard, that is unclear.

I have asked the clerks about that, on both counts. We agreed earlier that we would approach the Executive without prejudice to our own timetable, because I am anxious that we clear as much as we possibly can before we go on to the Bankruptcy and Diligence etc (Scotland) Bill. In fact, since the paper was circulated, we have had approaches from other committees about taking on additional work, specifically in relation to the proposed legislation on lawyers and the football aspects of the proposed police, public order and criminal justice bill. No agreement has been reached in the Parliamentary Bureau as to whether we will become a secondary committee, or indeed a lead committee, for any of that work, but even if we do not get those bills, the Bankruptcy and Diligence etc (Scotland) Bill will be a highly technical and substantial piece of legislation.

We are already being lobbied on it.

Absolutely. That is why I want to clear as much of our workload as I possibly can. I do not want to prejudice the timescale for the St Andrew's Day Bank Holiday (Scotland) Bill.

I have a couple of points that follow from your comments, convener, and from Murdo Fraser's comments. First, I agree with Murdo—those words stick in my throat—about clarifying, in some shape or form, not so much the Executive's position but certainly issues to do with the powers of the Executive. There is a wider question at issue and, as Murdo suggested, it boils down to getting some legal guidance on bank holidays. Niall Stuart also raised a point about proposed Westminster legislation. As I indicated in my line of questioning, I think that there could be areas of agreement on what people want to achieve, so what we need to understand are the mechanisms that are available.

Secondly, you mentioned that other committees want to give us parts of bills. Just for the record, I found the way that that worked for the Transport (Scotland) Bill wholly unsatisfactory, not least because we were unable to have any kind of strategic context within which to consider a couple of detailed aspects of the bill. I am happy to defer to others in the Parliament who examine such things in more depth to decide how else those matters can be handled, but if that is typical of the way that the process works I would have serious reservations about the committee playing such a role again.

What you have said includes a number of the points that we have made to the Parliamentary Bureau, which is considering the matter. At the end of the day, the decision is not for the committee but for the bureau, which decides the lead committee and the secondary committees. The other point that I have made is that, if the Executive's timetable for the Bankruptcy and Diligence etc (Scotland) Bill is as tight as I think it may be, there is no way that we could take on that additional work on top of what we are already scheduled to do. My guess is that the likelihood is that we will not end up with either of those pieces of legislation, but things can change. I can assure you that we are making all those points very strongly, because handling the Transport (Scotland) Bill was not a happy experience.

We are all agreed that we should contact the Executive and ask it for its position on the St Andrew's Day Bank Holiday (Scotland) Bill. I have already asked the clerks to obtain the necessary legal advice on a number of the points that were raised in evidence today. Is that agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

I think that Murdo Fraser had another point.

I have another point, but it is nothing to do with what we have been discussing. You might remember that at the last, or perhaps the second-last, meeting before the recess we considered a statutory instrument about increasing the level of planning fees payable for small-scale hydroelectric power schemes. At that time, we questioned Executive witnesses and expressed our concerns about those increases, and they gave an undertaking that they would come back to us after the recess, having reviewed the position to see what impact the increase in fees might have on the industry.

During the recess, a letter came in from the Deputy Minister for Enterprise and Lifelong Learning, Allan Wilson, saying—I précis from memory—that notwithstanding the commitments given by officials, the timescale that had been proposed was unrealistic and he would require much longer to respond. As I recall, he said that it would be much later in the year before he could come back and respond to our concerns.

Since then, I have had representations from hydroelectricity developers who are in the process of preparing planning applications. We are talking about substantial hikes of more than £10,000 in the planning fees, which might jeopardise some of those schemes. My view is that we should invite the minister to respond much earlier, in line with the original undertaking from his officials.

I suggest that we ask the clerks to establish, through the minister's office, what timescale he is currently working to. We can feed that back to the committee and decide within the next couple of weeks whether it is an issue that we want to take up. Is that agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

We were all anxious about the timescale for that.

With that, I thank all members of the committee, and I look forward to seeing you again on Tuesday.

Meeting closed at 15:55.