Rural Affairs Committee, 07 Sep 1999
Meeting date: Tuesday, September 7, 1999
Official Report
282KB pdf
Plant Health (Amendment) (Scotland) Order 1999
We now move on to item 4 on the agenda, which is consultation on a statutory instrument. At our previous meeting, I was asked exactly how we would proceed on statutory instruments. A sheet has been circulated, which outlines the general procedure.
On 1 September 1999, the Parliament agreed to give the lead committee role on the Plant Health (Amendment) (Scotland) Order 1999 to the Rural Affairs Committee and to invite the European Committee to make comments on the order to the lead committee by 1 October. The order came into effect on 21 August. It was laid under the negative procedure, which means that Parliament has power to annul the order by resolution within 40 days. In this case that means by 8 October—timed from the end of the recess.
Any MSP may propose to the lead committee that the order be annulled. Should an annulment be required, the Rural Affairs Committee would have to report to the Parliament with its justification. In practical terms that means having a report for the Parliamentary Bureau by Monday 4 October, taking account of any recommendations made by the European Committee.
Since that is what we have to do, it would be appropriate for the item to be put on the agenda for our meeting of 21 September. Would it be appropriate to have someone come to that meeting to explain the order in some detail, although not at great length, so that before we pass this on we have understood what it says? Members have a copy of the document in front of them. It is very technical—I am a farmer and I did not understand it. Who would be appropriately invited to speak to it?
An official from the rural affairs department could give us a memorandum on it and, if the committee wishes, explain orally what it is all about.
We could ask for a written memorandum, but I think it is often more effective to have someone come along and go over a document. It is quicker and easier to understand. If members are content, we will take that course of action.
We may find that we do not want to do that with every order but, as this is the first, it would be particularly helpful.
As we all know, committees other than this have, in the past, nodded through such articles and lived to regret it. We will ask the rural affairs department to send someone with an understanding of the area to highlight the issues.
Is there a committee member with expertise in this matter?
Does anyone wish to volunteer such expertise? It seems not.
Then your suggestion, convener, is the best course of action.
It will be put on the agenda for the meeting of 21 September.
You will notice that the clerk has carefully stapled together my paperwork this week so that it does not spread across the table and get lost.