Subordinate Legislation Committee, 06 Mar 2001

Meeting date: Tuesday, March 6, 2001

Official Report 80KB pdf

---

Less Favoured Area Support Scheme (Scotland) Regulations 2001 (SSI 2001/50)

There are some matters arising on the instrument.

On the stylistic point, there are a number of typographical errors—the word "less", for example, is used rather than "fewer". That is annoying to those of us who are connected with English teaching and have had strict English teachers. I recognise that sometimes use and wont change the way in which the language works; however, the slower the change the better in that case.

A well-educated Martian would notice the difference.

There should be 100 lines for the minister in question.

Exactly. He should stand in the corner.

There are matters in the instrument that relate to the question of vires.

That was an interesting question.

I assume that the committee can ask the Executive for its views on that question and we can return to it.

The committee should also consider the question of advising applicants of the deadline for submission of applications and should consider regulation 22, which allows an applicant to apply to the Scottish ministers for a review of a determination under regulation 21 within 60 days of that determination. If there is no trigger mechanism as to when or how applicants are to be intimated, they might not know that the 60 days has started or elapsed.

I presume, therefore, that the committee should ask the Executive to comment about what rights people will be given as to being advised of deadlines for submission of applications and, if an application is unsuccessful, for the determination of review.

If the committee does not mind, we could put our concerns about grammar at the end of the letter. The other matters are much more important—the grammatical concerns simply came first in the paper.

We could deal with grammar in the letter. Alternatively, we could use a more general and overarching method and refer to those concerns as one example of matters that we think are not appropriately dealt with.

The instruments in question are important. We do not want to appear to be frivolous about them in any way.

The grammar point is important. The committee has dealt with numerous issues concerning grammar over the months. That takes up time and effort. If grammar were right in the first place, such time and effort would not be required. While the matter has to be seen in proportion, it is worth flagging up and identifying as important in the committee's view.

I think that that is right and is in the interests of those drafting and of the general public. If minor matters are not correct, sloppiness can permeate into more important items of legislation. We should ensure that style is addressed, whether in primary legislation of extreme significance or in a minor regulation. If someone is sloppy in drafting, it is very difficult for that person to get out of the habit.

It is called zero tolerance.

In grammar, it is called tautology.