Subordinate Legislation Committee, 11 Sep 2001

Meeting date: Tuesday, September 11, 2001

Official Report 118KB pdf

---

Foot-and-Mouth Disease (Ascertainment of Value) (Scotland) (No 4) Order 2001 (SSI 2001/297)

We had a number of questions on the order and there are further questions for the Executive. The committee notes that the instrument was not accompanied by the customary Executive note and requests an explanation for the omission. The committee would welcome an explanation of the background to the instrument to satisfy itself that no European convention on human rights issues arise under article 14 as read with article 1 of protocol 1 of the convention.

The committee notes that the order was made on 30 August 2001 to come into force on the following day. Although the 21-day rule does not apply to the instrument, the committee would welcome an explanation of the speed with which it came into force and an indication of what steps have been taken to ensure that those affected have been made aware of its import. That is the important aspect.

The committee would also welcome an explanation of the effect of article 2(6) of the order. Neither section 31 nor schedule 3 of the Animal Health Act 1981 appear to contain any provision that requires the slaughtering of animals to be delayed. The reference to schedule 3(1) of the Animal Health Act 1981 is not understood, as there does not appear to be a provision in that act so numbered. In addition, paragraph 1 of schedule 3 of the act relates to the disease of cattle plague, which does not seem to be immediately relevant to the present order.

Although the matter is highly technical, it is probably important. Therefore, further explanation will be sought from the Executive.

That concludes this morning's agenda.

I know that you are in a hurry, convener, but I want to raise an issue.

We talked about taking evidence on the conflicting legal advice affecting the Home Energy Efficiency Scheme Amendment (Scotland) Regulations 2001 (SSI 2001/267). As that evidence session would be difficult to set up, and for another reason, I wonder whether it is necessary to take evidence, or whether those of us who were free could sit down with someone from the Executive and talk to them about it. That would allow us to focus our minds and would allow our legal adviser to take part in the discussion.

It might be necessary to do both, as the issue sits at the interface between reserved and devolved powers.

All I was thinking of at this stage—

I am happy to do it—

We are not in the business of being confrontational—we are in the business of trying to get things right. We do not object to the policy, but want to satisfy ourselves in a rather technical way that the regulations are competent. Forgive me if the suggestion is too commonsense for Parliament, but why should we not sit down with our team and their team—admitting that we are unsure of the answer—to thrash out the issue between us. That way, our legal adviser would get to join in the discussion. That would be in some ways better, as the point is hers. However, if everybody thinks that the matter has to be dealt with in a formal setting, so be it.

There would have to be some formal explanation. It would be necessary to meet formally and informally; or to just do the formal part.

Informal meetings can be set up while the Parliament is on, for example. We cannot meet as a committee while the Parliament is on—that is much harder to set up. Meetings to thrash things out can be set up at any time—you do not need a quorum. Under standing orders you cannot have a committee meeting while the Parliament is meeting. That is just a suggestion.

It is a good suggestion. I would like to do that—it would be my way of proceeding. However, I am not sure, first, whether we could do that and secondly, whether doing it that way would have other implications. The Subordinate Legislation Committee must be absolutely correct.

I was not suggesting doing something incorrect.

I know that. Would I even suspect that of you?

Whatever happens, we must have something on the record to show how we reached our conclusion.

There would have to be a rerun in public.

That is what I was saying—you must do both or take just the formal option.

Perhaps you could take advice, convener, and the committee would accede to that.

Thank you. I was going to ask if that would be okay. There is no disagreement among us. That is the easiest way of cutting through a complex business. I will seek advice.

Meeting closed at 12:12