Official Report 135KB pdf
Action Programme for Nitrate Vulnerable Zones (Scotland) Regulations 2003<br />(SSI 2003/51)
I welcome to the committee Joyce Carr from the Scottish Executive environment and rural affairs department, who has a stripy jersey on, and Elspeth MacDonald from the office of the solicitor to the Scottish Executive, who is also wearing a jersey, although it is not stripy.
The committee is correct: there is a drafting error. However, the definition should refer to regulation 3 of the Designation of Nitrate Vulnerable Zones (Scotland) Regulations 2002, not article 3(1) of the nitrates directive, as the committee's note suggests. There is no regulation 3(1) in the 2002 regulations.
Good—that was easy.
Farmland may be farmed in a variety of ways. We tried to indicate in the definition that a range of people might use the land at any one time. The main farmer will be treated as the occupier in most cases, but there are times when he may rent out part of his land to another user.
Okay. I think that that makes sense.
It is the occupier, but there might be a range of occupiers, depending on the circumstances of the particular farm.
Does not that point slightly counter what you said a moment ago that the occupier and the person who uses part of the farm are not always the same person? You said that there is only one occupier.
The term "person" in regulations 4 and 5 refers to the occupier.
So it is not some other person who uses part of the farm.
No. The word "person" refers to whoever would be treated as the occupier in the circumstances to which we referred.
In that case, would it not have been better drafting to have put the word "occupier", rather than "person", in regulations 4 and 5?
I think that the answer is probably.
Okay.
I ask the clerk whether, at this point, there is time for such small matters to be fixed.
That would have to be done by an amending instrument.
Yes. We certainly propose to amend the reference to regulation 3(1) of the 2002 regulations as soon as practicable because we do not want any dubiety on that point. We will produce an amending instrument for that purpose.
That is great. This is easier than I thought.
Regulation 4 refers to the requirements set out in the action plan, although that is achieved by a short way of drafting. Regulation 4 was drafted that way because regulation 3 already refers to the occupier being responsible for implementing the requirements in the action plan.
Are members content with that or could the matter be a bit clearer? We might write to you about that.
The reference is not to the cost of modification of the notice, but to the cost of modifications made to comply with the requirements set out in the notice. I understand that members might have found that unclear when reading the regulations, but the phrase refers not to the cost of modification of the notice, but to the cost of the modifying works.
Would it be possible to make the regulation clearer by adding what you have just said?
In plain English.
Especially as you are going to make amendments anyway.
The question suggests that members read the provision as saying that the "cost of modification" relates to the notice, but it actually relates to part of the appellant's grounds of appeal if he wishes the notice to be modified. The grounds of appeal would give details of the modification and
Is that clearer?
I understand exactly—I see that the regulation makes sense.
The provision requires reasonably close reading, but I suspect that changing it might not make it any clearer.
The phrase "that modification" would be better than "the modification", because it would refer to the modification that has just been mentioned.
Thank you, Mr Jenkins.
That is the value of having an English teacher on the committee.
Yes.
Regulation 5(5) relates to the powers of the Scottish Land Court and regulation 5(6) relates to the powers of the chairman of the Scottish Land Court. We make that distinction in the regulations.
That seems straightforward.
When the regulations were being drafted, we asked whether we needed a definition of that term and various others, but we were told that, as people in the agriculture world would understand the meaning of the term, no definition was required. We were told that the term is, in effect, a term of art and we have used it in that manner.
That is all right then. I just wondered whether the term was a load of old rubbish, but it is obviously not.
Whether or not it is enclosed or free standing.
We noticed all sorts of typos and so on, but we will draw them to the attention of the appropriate authorities.
There are colourful definitions of words such as "slurry", but we had better not go into that.
We do not want a definition of slurry—not in this committee and not before lunch. You have such a dirty mind, Mr Jenkins.
He represents a rural area.
That is true.
Animal By-Products (Identification) Amendment (Scotland) Regulations 2003 (SSI 2003/53)
There is a question whether the regulations should be notified to the European Commission under the technical standards directive. As a result, we should ask the Executive whether it has obtained the necessary clearance.
Indeed, because if it has not done so, it cannot enforce the regulations—even though I have absolutely no doubt that our standards are higher in this respect. Anyway, we should ascertain whether the Executive has obtained clearance. Perhaps we should also ask the Executive always to indicate in its explanatory note whether it has done so.
Housing Revenue Account General Fund Contribution Limits (Scotland) Order 2003 (SSI 2003/54)
No points arise on the order.
Sea Fishing (Restriction on Days at Sea) (Scotland) Order 2003 (SSI 2003/56)
The order was obviously drafted by a meat eater. Article 6(4) contains the provision that a transfer of unused fishing days is not permitted unless a logbook has been submitted before 1 February 2003. That would be fair enough, except that the order came into force on that day. Moreover, it was not laid until 4 February. As a result, anyone who wants to transfer some of their fishing days will not be able to. We must ask the Executive whether that was its intention.
It might have something to do with ensuring that people do not circumvent regulations after the date by carrying out some kind of transfer that might benefit them.
That would be a matter for the subject committee to sort out. Anyway, it would be worth while to draw the point to the Executive's attention.
Articles 3(9)(a) and 3(9)(b) might refer incorrectly to paragraphs (3)(2)(a) and (3)(2)(b); the reference instead should perhaps be to paragraphs (2)(a) and (2)(b). We should simply ask the Executive to clarify that.
Community Care and Health (Scotland) Act 2002 (Transitional Provisions) Order 2003 (SSI 2003/63)
We might like to ask the Executive why the italic headnote to the order gives 28 February 2003 as the date on which the order will come into force when article 1 states that it comes into force in May 2003. That seems to be a discrepancy.
There is also some confusion about the terms that have been used in the order. It seems to have been written in a hurry. For example, article 1(2) defines certain terms with reference to the National Health Service (Scotland) Act 1978, but not other terms, such as "medical practitioner" and "medical list". I think that we will have to draw the Executive's attention to the matter and ask whether it intended to do that.
National Health Service (General Medical Services Supplementary Lists) (Scotland) Regulations 2003 (SSI 2003/64)
There are loads of points to highlight in these regulations. However, they might just be the result of rushed or sloppy drafting.
We are having to complain about that far too often.
We acknowledge that there is terrific pressure on staff as we reach the end of the session. That said, we cannot put the regulations through on the nod. We need to ask the Executive for clarification on these points.
Domestic Water and Sewerage Charges (Reduction) (Scotland) Regulations 2003 (SSI 2003/65)
No date of signature appears on the regulation, which is quite rude. Does that not mean that the instrument is illegal? Anyway, there should be a date.
Sea Fishing (Restriction on Days at Sea) (Scotland) Amendment Order 2003<br />(SSI 2003/66)
Although we have no technical points to raise, we wonder whether the amended order will be issued free of charge to people who purchased the order in its earlier form. Although that is what usually happens, the explanatory note does not make that officially clear. As a result, we should ask whether the Executive intends to do so.
Is there a difference between an amended instrument and an instrument that is simply wrong? If there are mistakes in an instrument, the Executive normally issues the corrected version free to anyone who has purchased the earlier version. Does it make a difference if the instrument has been amended? Och, that would be mean and penny-pinching. We should tell the Executive that it should stick to its usual generous practice—and that we love it.