Chamber and committees

I am going to move on to questions from Rhoda Grant on retirement—but not her retirement.

Alasdair Allan has some questions to wind up.

The question is, that amendment 19 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

Cabinet secretary, you must understand the committee’s concerns. You keep telling us that it is fine for the Government to have these powers. Our concern is that we will pass a bill that will give the Government broad powers but we have no indication of your intention when it comes to capping. We will be giving the Government those powers but we do not know what the limits will be, what criteria will be used or how extensively the powers will be used.

Okay.

It is absolutely worth putting on the record again that, when the DPLR Committee looked at the “Power to provide support”, its recommendation was:

“In light of the absence of detail, and the fact that this power is a Henry VIII power, the Committee recommends that this power should be subject to the affirmative procedure.”

It is important to put it on the record that negative procedures might not be adequate to allow this Parliament to scrutinise future legislation that is yet to be understood, or even yet to be developed.

The question is, that amendment 85B be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

Yes.

Given that the code of practice could potentially—you have not ruled it out—play a big part in cross-compliance, which would ultimately have an impact on basic payments, what scrutiny by Parliament should there be? Should Parliament have an overview or should there be a requirement to consult it on the code? The code could ultimately form the basis for cross-compliance.

The question is, that amendment 173 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.