Official Report 111KB pdf
Regulation of Scallop Dredges (Scotland) Revocation Order 2006 (SSI 2006/549)
Members will recall that we asked the Executive five questions about the order, which revokes the Regulation of Scallop Dredges (Scotland) Order 2005 (SSI 2005/371). Members might wish to come in at this point, or I could just go through the five points in turn.
I welcome the fact that the Executive has agreed to revoke the 2005 order, but there are some issues that are worth commenting on.
Do you wish to raise any of them?
Not particularly—I am happy for you to do so.
The explanation that has been provided is helpful in giving us an understanding of the process, particularly with respect to the fact that there have not been any prosecutions. Although it has been a considerable time since we wrote to the Executive in 2005, the concern about the fact that there could have been prosecutions in the intervening period has been allayed by the fact that the possibility of prosecution was halted upon the Executive's receipt of our 2005 letter. That was a useful bit of information, which helps our understanding of what was going on and lessens our fear that a mistake might have been made.
That is right. There has been consultation with colleagues in relevant United Kingdom departments, and the Executive explained the technical nature of the issue and why it took so long to resolve. The reassurance was helpful.
There are a number of other points. Do members wish to raise any of them, or shall I just go through them?
You can do so yourself.
Thirdly, we asked the Executive to explain why the revocation order was not accompanied by an Executive note. The Executive takes the view that a note was not required, as the effect of the order is clear from the order itself—we have come across this before—and the reasons for the making of the order were explained to the committee in the Executive's letter dated 21 November. It is a matter of defective drafting, I think, so we should report accordingly. Are we agreed?
Fourthly, we asked the Executive to explain why the explanatory note does not indicate the content of the provisions that have been revoked. The Executive takes the view that the title of the order makes it clear what the content of the revoked provisions is. I suggest that we report that point on the ground of failure to follow proper legislative practice.
Convener, I think that you said that the third point was a drafting error, but it is not a drafting error, is it? It is failure to follow proper—
Did I say that it was a drafting point?
I think that you did.
I am sorry, Stewart. I should have said that it was a failure to follow proper legislative practice. That was my mistake.
Yes.
We welcome Murray Tosh and Adam Ingram to our fold.
National Health Service (Functions of the Common Services Agency) (Scotland) Amendment Order 2006 (SSI 2006/560)
The Executive has acknowledged the committee's points on the amendment order in relation to the enabling powers that are cited. The Executive intends to revoke the order and make a new one before the current one comes into force. I think that we should draw the order to the attention of Parliament on the ground of defective drafting. We should perhaps also refer to the fact that the order is to be replaced.
I thank Margaret Macdonald for that reminder.