Parliamentary Bureau Motions
The next item of business is consideration of a Parliamentary Bureau motion. I ask Bruce Crawford to move motion S3M-4180, on the approval of the draft Community Right to Buy (Definition of Excluded Land) (Scotland) Order 2009.
Motion moved,
That the Parliament agrees that the draft Community Right to Buy (Definition of Excluded Land) (Scotland) Order 2009 be approved.—[Bruce Crawford.]
The question on the motion will be put at decision time.
The next item of business is consideration of another Parliamentary Bureau motion. I ask Bruce Crawford to move motion S3M-4181, on the approval of the draft Local Government and Housing Act 1989 Amendment (Scotland) Order 2009.
Motion moved,
That the Parliament agrees that the draft Local Government and Housing Act 1989 Amendment (Scotland) Order 2009 be approved.—[Bruce Crawford.]
Mr McLetchie has indicated that he would like to speak. You have up to three minutes.
My purpose in formally opposing the motion is to highlight the fact that in the 10-year history of this Parliament, rarely have members been asked to participate in such a pointless exercise. The statutory instrument that we are considering requires to be dealt with under affirmative procedure, but it will achieve absolutely nothing.
Members do not have to take my word for it: the Executive note that accompanies the order says quite categorically that
"This change has no effect in law: it simply removes a superfluous reference in the 1989 Act."
I am sure that the statute book is littered with superfluous and redundant references. Accordingly, one wonders why the cabinet secretary has singled out the "superfluous reference" in question for special attention.
Members of the Local Government and Communities Committee were told that the issue had come to light following consideration by the United Kingdom Parliament of the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Bill. That piece of legislation might right a bell with members.
No.
Well, it should ring a bell, because it was the subject of a Sewel motion that Parliament passed on 5 March this year, whereby we agreed that Westminster should legislate for us on devolved matters relating to the Local Government Boundary Commission and construction contracts. One might, in that case, ask why the issue that we are dealing with now was not tidied up at the same time, thereby sparing Parliament further procedure.
Could there possibly have been an oversight on the part of the cabinet secretary's officials? Apparently not, because at the Local Government and Communities Committee, the cabinet secretary solemnly told us that in his judgment, the legislative point in the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 would be dealt with more "efficiently" through the making of the order that is before Parliament today, which I remind members has, by the Government's own admission, no substantive effect in law.
At a time when Scotland's economy is falling deeper into recession, when thousands of our fellow Scots are losing their jobs and when the cabinet secretary has to cope with the budgetary consequences of an apparent £500 million of cuts, while ensuring that the First Minister gets free prescriptions for gout, selective amnesia or any other affliction that may beset him in the future, and free meals for his weans, one must seriously question whether this is a good use of ministerial time.
The cabinet secretary assured us in committee that he has not set officials to the task of scouring the statute book for "superfluous" legislative references that we can then solemnly repeal. I am glad to hear it. In this case, the cabinet secretary's zeal for tidiness is misplaced and his energies would be better focused. We will not vote against the order, but we question why it was introduced in the first place.
Allow me to provide the encore that Mr McLetchie did not have the time to provide. The Local Governance (Scotland) Act 2004 repealed provisions that disqualified local government employees in receipt of an annual salary above £33,423 from being politically active. However, the 2004 act left a loose end. It did not repeal part of section 3 of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989, relating back to section 9. As a result, the reference in the 1989 act is still extant.
As a consequence of superb co-operation between the—[Interruption.] Wait for this. As a consequence of superb co-operation between the Scottish Government and the United Kingdom Government, the problem was identified. This lot—the Conservatives—are demanding more co-operation with the United Kingdom Government every day of the week. We had a choice. We could have left things as they were and tidied up the legislation through a bill that is currently before the UK Parliament or, given that the Scottish Parliament has the necessary powers, we could have legislated in the form of a short order to amend the act. After all, Mr Michael McMahon has regularly been demanding more legislation from this Government.
On balance, I decided that we would introduce an order, with the minimum of fuss, given that the position was not of this Government's making but was the result of the incompetent legislation of the Labour Party and the Liberal Democrats. That is no secret now, though. Mr McLetchie has shone a light into the whole process. Of course, Mr McLetchie is guilty of just a little bit of that word that begins with "H" and ends with "Y".
Henry!
Mr McLetchie has complained about a waste of Parliament's time. He was not concerned about wasting UK parliamentary time in his beloved House of Commons had it resolved the matter. He has wasted 10 minutes of committee time and, dare I say it—notwithstanding the hilarity and the jocularity of this response—he has wasted 10 minutes of parliamentary time.
My real intention is to ensure that the law of Scotland is in a very tidy state of affairs. The reason why is that it will be much easier for Mr McLetchie, when he has to return to the practice of law, to have the law in a decent state of affairs, because that is exactly where Mr McLetchie is heading.