Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee, 22 Nov 2000

Meeting date: Wednesday, November 22, 2000

Official Report 204KB pdf

---

Subordinate Legislation

The next item is subordinate legislation. The committee has to consider the draft Scotland Act 1998 (Modifications of Schedule 5) Order 2000. Simon Watkins will introduce this subject and then we will hear from our guests.

This statutory instrument is a modification to schedule 5 to the Scotland Act 1998, which sets out the areas that are excluded from consideration by the Scottish Parliament. It is the first such order to come before the Parliament. The Transport and the Environment Committee is the lead committee, but we have been asked to comment on those elements that fall within the remit of this committee, which relate largely to the changed status of the Post Office, but also to product standards.

I welcome Colin Miller and Alisdair Meldrum to the committee. Colin is the branch head of constitutional policy in the Executive secretariat and Alisdair is head of business environment and consumer affairs.

If it would be helpful, I will spend two or three minutes explaining the purpose of the entries that are of interest to the committee.

As the clerk said, schedule 5 sets out the matters that are reserved for the purposes of the Scotland Act 1998 and section 30 provides a mechanism that enables schedule 5 to be amended by order in council, subject to the approval of both Parliaments. That allows the boundaries of the Scottish Parliament's legislative competence to be adjusted, either by removing existing reservations in whole or in part, or by adding new ones.

The two aspects of the order that may be of particular interest to the committee are those entries relating to postal services and product standards. Under the Postal Services Act 2000, the Post Office is being abolished as a statutory corporation and its assets and liabilities are being transferred to a public limited company, nominated by the secretary of state and wholly owned by the Government. The act also removes the Post Office's monopoly and establishes a new body, the Postal Services Commission, to act as a regulator. The order accordingly amends the reservation of Post Office and postal services, which can be found at section C11 of part II of schedule 5, to include the subject matter of the Postal Services Act 2000. It also preserves the existing position, which is that the Scottish Parliament could legislate, if it so wished, to provide financial assistance for the provision of non-postal services from public post offices. Therefore, the amendments do not represent any change of policy in relation to the reservation of postal and related services, but merely bring the existing entry up to date to reflect the changes that have been made by the Postal Services Act 2000.

On product standards, the sole body that is recognised by the Government for the accreditation of conformity assessment bodies in the UK is the United Kingdom Accreditation Service. It is particularly important that conformity assessment bodies are accredited by a recognised national accreditation body, so that their work can be recognised by European and other international partners. Accordingly, the order extends the reservation at section C8 of part II of schedule 5, on product standards, safety and liability, to include accreditation in support of trade carried out under European Community law and trade matters that are related to competition. That extension recognises that, for UK businesses to gain the best competitive advantage, accreditation should be carried out by the sole recognised national body, in line with European and international practice.

I hope that that brief explanation will be helpful. We will be happy to answer any questions.

Does Alisdair Meldrum have anything to add?

Not at this stage.

Do members wish to ask any questions or make any comments?

The order is very good.

You are doing a grand job, we feel.

Thank you.

Members know the sort of Post Office that I would like, but I realise that that is not covered by the schedule.

I see that the exception to the reservation will allow the Scottish Parliament to have the devolved competence to deal with financial assistance for the provision of services other than postal services and services relating to postal and money orders. Is it correct to say that the Post Office does not currently have the legal competence to provide those services?

Sorry, are you asking about the Post Office's competence to provide those services?

The question is not meant to be legalistic—I do not know the answer—but is it the case that the Post Office has legal restrictions as to what services other than postal services it can provide, for example financial and banking services? Is not one of the ideas of the Postal Services Act 2000 to liberalise and to widen the range of service on offer?

Indeed, yes. The idea behind the act is to give the Post Office more scope for activity.

It just seems that if it is our duty to provide financial assistance towards the services—

We would not have a duty.

We would have a legal capacity, which may be interpreted by some people as a duty. In any event, there will be financial implications, which will have to be met from the existing budget. Can you describe how the Executive views those financial implications?

The exception in the order simply preserves the existing position, which is that the Scottish Parliament is—and has always been—able to fund non-postal services, within the limits on the Parliament's powers, to provide financial assistance. That is contained in the Scotland Act 1998. The purpose of the exception to the reservation is to preserve the status quo, not to extend the reservation further.

I have a particular reason to ask. Some people say that sub-post offices in rural parts of Scotland might usefully have a future in combining with a garage, for example, to allow the continuance of a sub-post office with a local shop and garage in an area that could otherwise not support such a facility. France has a co-operative system along those lines. If petrol is being provided at the same site, would the Scottish Parliament have the legal capacity to fund such a subsidy scheme? Given that excise duty and VAT are involved, would such matters remain partly devolved and partly reserved?

Our colleagues in the Scottish Executive rural affairs department are assessing carefully the provision of postal services in rural areas.

I am glad to hear it at last.

The delivery of postal services is being considered as part of a study into innovative ways of providing services in rural areas, in line with the sort of ideas that Mr Ewing was mentioning—

With a bit of help from John Home Robertson, my prompter from behind.

Has the Executive earmarked any money for the financial assistance? If so, from which departmental budget?

No moneys have been earmarked for the purpose. As Alisdair Meldrum mentioned, the Parliament has a power, not a duty, to legislate. The Parliament has legislative competence to fund non-postal services. If there were any proposals for legislation to do that, they would require financial provision, but the order itself does not involve any direct financial consequences.

We are dealing mainly with the technical aspects, but the bottom line is that the Scottish Executive should have more powers to subsidise rural post offices. Does the order give it more power to do that?

The order makes no difference to our powers—it maintains the status quo.

Is there a greater flexibility for the Executive to intervene?

The order makes no difference to our powers.

It simply preserves the existing flexibility.

What is the existing flexibility?

To provide financial assistance for non-postal services.

I am truly delighted to hear Mr Meldrum's statement that progress is being made in this area. He will recall that there was a lot of institutional resistance to the Executive rural affairs department—or any other department—getting involved in developing Post Office Counters services. He has indicated that there is progress at last.

I hope so.

So do I—I will keep an eye on it.

My second point is based on some local knowledge—from where I live, rather than from my constituency. You may be aware that the Post Office does not recognise the border between Scotland and England, so there are various postcode areas that straddle the border. That is relevant to postal deliveries, which we are not discussing. However—and I dare say that this applies also to Elaine Murray's constituency—a small number of sub-post offices are administered from south of the border, and probably vice versa. That will have to be tidied up if the Scottish Executive intends to run any initiatives for the benefit of Scotland.

Do you want to comment on that?

No.

This is a question borne out of curiosity, rather than out of any technical interest in the provisions. Pesticides, transport executives and product standards would not have been uppermost in my mind, although perhaps they should have been. What has determined the selection of these topics for inclusion within the modifications of schedule 5 to the Scotland Act 1998? Are there other areas of activity that we ought to be examining, in the context of what amounts to a slight extension of our devolved powers, and coming to a coherent view on?

In effect, the order is a compendium. Miss Goldie is right to say that there is no link between the subjects with which it deals. The order amends schedule 5 and, therefore, the Parliament's legislative competence. Our thinking was that we should not bring ad hoc orders before the Parliament to deal with specific issues. Unless there are cases of greater urgency, we will group a number of things together, so that the Parliament can deal with them as a whole. We hope that section 30 orders will not be a very regular occurrence, because they amend a critical area of the Scotland Act 1998. As a consequence, any section 30 order is likely to deal with a number of disparate matters.

In this order, we have brought together two slightly different aspects of transport policy. The other provisions are bits and pieces that have been waiting for a suitable vehicle to deal with them.

I do not think that I received an answer to the question that I asked earlier. As a consequence of what we are dealing with on post offices, would it not make sense for Post Office Counters—or whatever it is now called—to update its administrative arrangements to take account of the fact that there is a border?

It is clear that the witnesses do not feel able to comment on that.

I can undertake to raise the issue with the Department of Trade and Industry, which has responsibility for the general control of Post Office matters, which are reserved.

The Post Office will no longer exist.

This item is on the agenda to enable us to comment to the lead committee. We could ask the lead committee to raise formally the issue that John Home Robertson has highlighted.

Given that it is 12.03 and that there is still a substantial amount of business on our agenda, I suggest that—unless someone is desperate to add something—we note the order with the comment that we have agreed.

Members indicated agreement.