Official Report 122KB pdf
Instruments Subject <br />to Annulment
Crofting Community Body Form of Application for Consent to Buy Croft Land etc and Notice of Minister's Decision (Scotland) Regulations 2004 (SSI 2004/224)
These regulations, and the following instruments on the right to buy, were made under the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003. As members can see from the legal brief, the situation is a mess. Although none of the instruments is lengthy, they appear to be so badly drafted and to contain so many errors that the time involved in scrutinising them has been quite disproportionate.
There is a huge number of instruments to discuss and the time that has been available to us to examine them has been limited. I understand that some members of staff worked until midnight to try to make sense of the instruments; that is an unacceptable burden to put on staff. There might be other errors that have not yet been identified. Perhaps the Executive will consider revisiting the instruments with a view to issuing a completely new set as soon as possible.
We can certainly ask that the Executive does that. Do you agree Murray?
I do. Ordinarily we pick up lots of minor points and put them into informal letters to the Executive, and the legal briefing questions whether we should do things formally or informally. However, this is flagship legislation and because so many of our points need to be raised formally, we should raise them all formally on this occasion. We should make the point that legislation that is so important should have come to the committee in a fit-for-purpose state and it should not be subject to bouncing backwards and forwards between the committee and the Executive until we get it right. It is not right that something that is so significant to the Parliament should have emerged in such a half-baked way.
I agree.
In that case, let us work out what we are going to do. Our first general point is that we are going to raise all the points with the Executive in a formal letter and, as Murray Tosh said, because this is flagship legislation, tell the Executive that we want it to revisit the regulations. If the Executive does not do that, it will be worth listing all the points that have been made in the legal brief so that they can be remedied.
We will have to do both because we are obliged to comment on the legislation as it is presented to us, regardless of whether or not the Executive takes on board our request to revisit the legislation. However, as well as those general points, are we going to raise the specific points from each regulation?
Yes.
Thank you.
So, as far as the Crofting Community Body Form of Application for Consent to Buy Croft Land etc and Notice of Minister's Decision (Scotland) Regulations 2004 (SSI 2004/224) is concerned, we will raise with the Executive all the issues that have been raised in the legal brief. Some parts of the regulations are misleading and interpretation and definition have to be addressed.
How do we put our concerns on the record? Normally we would specify them during the course of a meeting and there is an awful lot in the legal brief that would have to be read into the Official Report. How might we do that?
Because our comments will be listed and sent to the Executive, they will appear in the committee's report.
So our comments and the Executive's response becomes part of the public record.
Absolutely.
Crofting Community Right to Buy (Grant Towards Compensation Liability) (Scotland) Regulations 2004 (SSI 2004/225)
Our legal advisers have crystallised all their comments into three main areas. I suggest that we put those to the Executive. Is that agreed?
Crofting Community Right to Buy (Compensation) (Scotland) Order 2004 <br />(SSI 2004/226)
The legal advisers list five questions. Is it agreed to put those questions to the Executive?
Crofting Community Right to Buy (Ballot) (Scotland) Regulations 2004 (SSI 2004/227)
There are slightly more questions for the Executive on these regulations. Are they agreed?
Community Right to Buy (Ballot) (Scotland) Regulations 2004 (SSI 2004/228)
We have the same issues with these regulations as we have with the Crofting Community Right to Buy (Ballot) (Scotland) Regulations 2004 (SSI 2004/227), and will refer those issue to the Executive for comment, if that is agreed.
Community Right to Buy (Compensation) (Scotland) Regulations 2004 (SSI 2004/229)
There are three main matters in the regulations that we will raise with the Executive.
Community Right to Buy (Register of Community Interests in Land Charges) (Scotland) Regulations 2004 (SSI 2004/230)
It is suggested that we consider asking for an explanation of what is comprised in item 4 of the schedule.
A couple of points are flagged up that are suggestions rather than challenges. It might be reasonable to raise those points informally because they are not really criticisms of the regulations. They are detailed in paragraphs 100 and 101 of the legal brief.
We will put those points in an informal letter. Is that agreed?
Community Right to Buy (Specification of Plans) (Scotland) Regulations 2004 <br />(SSI 2004/231)
We will ask the Executive to explain the purposes and vires of regulation 3. There is also a minor point of detail mentioned in paragraph 105 of the legal brief, but that does not appear to be important enough for an informal letter, so we will leave that one.
Community Right to Buy (Forms) (Scotland) Regulations 2004 (SSI 2004/233)
No points of substance have been identified on the regulations, but we might want to consider asking the Executive for its views on the content of the forms and the drafting of, for example, regulation 3, which is
We might also make the stylistic point raised in paragraph 111 of the briefing.
That brings us to the end of the list of right-to-buy instruments. As there are no further points, we will move on.
St Mary's Music School (Aided Places) (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 2004 (SSI 2004/238)
Although there are no points of substance on the regulations, Christine May is bursting to speak.
I note that our brief indicates that although the legal advisers found no points of substance, the Executive might want to consider the removal of spent instruments. I thought that that was particularly appropriate, given the subject of the regulations.
Indeed. However, as clarified in paragraph 114 of the legal brief, the issue is more generally about getting rid of some of the dead wood as we go along.
Like clarinets.
That suggestion might be made by way of an informal letter, as suggested. Is that agreed?
Education (Assisted Places) (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 2004 <br />(SSI 2004/239)
No points have been raised, although paragraph 117 of the legal brief suggests a point that we might want to raise in an informal letter. Is that agreed?
Kava-kava in Food (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 2004 (SSI 2004/244)
No points of substance have been raised but there are some drafting issues that could be raised in an informal letter. Members will have seen them in paragraph 122 of the legal brief. Are there any further points?
I wonder what sort of substance kava-kava is.
I gather that you should not ask too much about it.
I understood that it was a species native to Fife.
We thought it was New Zealand.
Is it not fizzy wine?
Is it agreed that we send the Executive an informal letter about the point made in paragraph 122 of the legal brief?
Horticultural Produce (Community Grading Rules) (Scotland) Revocation Regulations 2004 (SSI 2004/245)
There is a lot of interesting information in the legal brief but there are no points of substance to be made on the regulations.
Victim Statements (Prescribed Offences) (Scotland) Amendment Order 2004 <br />(SSI 2004/246)
The order is a correcting instrument but it is suggested that we might want to ask the Executive to explain the reference in article 2(a) to paragraph 5(d) of the schedule to the Victim Statements (Prescribed Offences) (Scotland) Order 2003 (SSI 2003/441), which paragraph does not appear to exist.
Given that the substance of this correcting order amounts to only half a page, it is especially bad that the Executive has managed to include a mistake in it. There seems to have been very little attention to detail.