Subordinate Legislation Committee, 12 Mar 2002

Meeting date: Tuesday, March 12, 2002

Official Report 117KB pdf

---

Executive Responses

I welcome everyone to the 9th meeting in 2002 of the Subordinate Legislation Committee.

We have apologies from the convener, Margo MacDonald, who has business elsewhere today.

---

Bus User Complaints Tribunal Regulations 2002 (draft)

We asked the Executive nine questions and we have had responses. Members will remember that we were worried about regulation 9 and the appeals procedure whereby the convener, who might have been part of the initial tribunal, would be the ultimate referee. We felt that that was a bit incestuous and problematic. We worried whether regulation 9 was compatible with article 6 of the European convention on human rights. The Executive's response suggests that it believes that the arrangement is compatible, but we still have some doubts.

We need to draw the regulations to the attention of the lead committee and the Parliament. That is because we are still concerned about the unusual or unexpected use of the power in regulation 9, which is the point that we made to the Executive. A number of the other regulations contain defective drafting. We should ask the clerks to write to the Parliament and the lead committee to draw those matters to their attention.

As Murdo has suggested, we will refer the point about regulation 9 to the lead committee and the Parliament.

Several of the regulations are drafted defectively and the meaning of regulation 14 could be clearer.

That is right. There are questions about the "total number of complaints", to which regulation 14 refers, and whether the provisions of regulation 14(b) reflect the Executive's intention. We will refer those matters to the Parliament and the lead committee.

There is also defective drafting in regulation 3. There are words in the regulation that do not add anything to its meaning, and that is not good legislative practice. We can also draw that to the attention of the lead committee.

---

Loch Lomond and the Trossachs National Park Designation, Transitional and Consequential Provisions (Scotland) Order 2002 (draft)

We asked the Executive for clarification of one provision in the order. We asked why article 15(2)(d) defined a crofter in terms of the Crofters (Scotland) Act 1955 and the Crofters (Scotland) Act 1961. Both of those acts have been repealed and consolidated in sections 3 and 47(10) of the Crofters (Scotland) Act 1993. The definition in the order therefore refers to legislation that was repealed some time ago.

It might therefore be right for the committee to draw the attention of the lead committee and the Parliament to article 15(2)(d) of the order on the ground that, in referring for definitions to acts that have long since been repealed, the order appears to be drafted defectively.

That seems eminently sensible.

---

Loch Lomond and the Trossachs National Park Elections (Scotland) Order 2002 (draft)

We raised one point with the Executive. We asked why the exclusion of criminals from standing for election applies only to those convicted in the United Kingdom, the Channel Islands, the Isle of Man or the Irish Republic. The Executive indicates that the provision follows established practice in local government legislation. The issue has been questioned before by the Subordinate Legislation Committee's corresponding Westminster committee. However, it is established practice. The committee should draw the attention of the lead committee and the Parliament to the Executive's satisfactory explanation.