Subordinate Legislation
Glasgow School of Art (Scotland) Amendment Order of Council 2005<br />(SSI 2005/525)
Item 3 is three statutory instruments, which have been circulated along with comments from the Subordinate Legislation Committee.
The first instrument is the Glasgow School of Art (Scotland) Amendment Order of Council 2005. Members will see in the paper that the Subordinate Legislation Committee noted that the transitional provision in article 1 refers to elected governors, whereas the principal order provides for the appointment of governors, only some of whom are elected. Further clarification was sought on that. Paragraph 5 of our paper EC/S2/05/24/2 states that clarification was also sought on
"whether the exception in this article is a personal exception or an exception which applies only for the duration of the present period of office of a Governor."
Although we do not have it in writing, my understanding through the clerks is that the Subordinate Legislation Committee has received a response from the Executive on both points; the committee will publish its report on Thursday, which I understand will indicate that it is satisfied with the explanation. Subject to that proviso, is everyone happy with that?
Members indicated agreement.
Education (Graduate Endowment, Student Fees and Support) (Scotland) Amendment (No 2) Regulations 2005 (SSI 2005/545)
Issues were raised about the Education (Graduate Endowment, Student Fees and Support) (Scotland) Amendment (No 2) Regulations 2005. Paragraph 9 of our paper states:
"The SLC has sought clarification from the Executive in respect of what plans there are for consolidation of the regulations amended by this instrument."
As with the Glasgow School of Art (Scotland) Amendment Order of Council 2005, clarification has been provided by the Executive. The Subordinate Legislation Committee is apparently satisfied and will publish its report on Thursday. Subject to that proviso, is everybody happy?
Members indicated agreement.
That addresses the points that I was going to raise.
Electricity from Non-Fossil Fuel Sources (Scotland) Saving Arrangements<br />Order 2005 (SSI 2005/549)
The third instrument—I am saying all this for the record, not because I particularly enjoy the sound of my own voice, although I do—is the Electricity from Non-Fossil Fuel Sources (Scotland) Saving Arrangements Order 2005, which I am sure everybody will have read in detail. Paragraph 12 of the paper by the clerk states that the Subordinate Legislation Committee
"asked the Executive for clarification of whether the amendment applies to payments accrued prior to the original date of coming onto force of subsection 10, 1 October 2001, or prior to the date of coming into force of the new amendment."
It also requested
"explanation of the use of the words ‘came into effect' instead of the more usual reference to coming ‘into force'."
The Executive replied and the Subordinate Legislation Committee is satisfied. It published its report on Thursday.
Shiona Baird has a point on the order.
I do indeed. I refer to paragraph 19, on the small firms impact test.
I do not have a paragraph 19. Which paper are you referring to?
It is the regulatory impact assessment in the order.
Sorry, I was referring to the note by the clerk.
Paragraph 19 states:
"small generating companies do exist in the renewables sector and it is likely the proposals will impact on their business."
However, it does not state whether the impact will be positive or negative. As far as I can gather, the order is about bringing the Scottish renewables obligation into line with the arrangements in England and Wales and implications arise from the way in which that is being done. I do not know how we can investigate which questions to ask, but—
Paragraph 20 addresses paragraph 19.
But that raises the question of how the Executive will judge that generators are in substantially the same economic position. Will there be a requirement for the industry bodies that represent SRO holders to sign off the work and assess it as neutral? I want to ensure that the order will not have a negative impact.
I suggest that, in our report to the Parliament, we flag up that point for further explanation. The order is subject to the negative procedure, so unless someone moves a motion to annul it, it will go through. I take it that the committee is not minded to suggest that but that we are minded to seek further clarification. The matter can then be pursued.
Yes. We want to flag up that we are considering the matter.
I have another concern, but I suppose that it may not be relevant, given what you have said. It relates to an inference that the Department of Trade and Industry made in relation to Mark Lazarowicz's Climate Change and Sustainable Energy Bill. The DTI said that alterations would be made to ensure that microgeneration does not suffer a negative impact. As far as I can gather, the DTI is considering simplifying the procedures—
At Westminster?
Yes. I am not certain where the order fits in.
You would need to pursue that as an individual. The committee's job this afternoon is simply to consider the order and report to the Parliament.
So the order will not necessarily impact on what has been agreed even though that had not been agreed when the order was made.
You would need to ask the minister to confirm that. I cannot give you that assurance. The bill that you refer to is a Westminster bill, so you will need to pursue the matter through Westminster.
It gets complicated.
I know. It would be a lot easier if we had only one Parliament, but there we go.
The question is which Parliament you mean.
You will notice that I showed no party-political bias in that comment.