Subordinate Legislation Committee, 13 Mar 2001

Meeting date: Tuesday, March 13, 2001

Official Report 89KB pdf

---

Less Favoured Area Support Scheme (Scotland) Regulations 2001 (SSI 2001/50)

Welcome to the ninth meeting of the Subordinate Legislation Committee in 2001.

The committee raised various points about the regulations with the Executive, some of which have been answered. First we asked what steps would be taken to inform applicants of the deadline for applications for payments under the regulations. The committee is satisfied that the deadline is publicised in the trade and national press.

Questions remain about the vires of regulation 15 and paragraphs 1 to 4 of schedule 6. The committee is also asked to consider whether it is satisfied with the fact that the regulations contain a requirement for the Hill Farming Advisory Committee for Scotland to notify the Scottish ministers of its determination on a review of a decision by the Scottish ministers on the eligibility of a holding, but do not contain a requirement to notify the applicant.

That seems to be just an omission. To include a requirement to notify the applicant would not affect the legislation in any way, so why do we not ask the Executive again to include such a requirement?

We do not have time to go back to the Executive. All we can do is draw the problem to the attention of the lead committee.

The omission is surely an oversight. That is what it appears to be.

It certainly seems that way to me. If there is a check to notify the Scottish ministers, there should be a check to advise the applicant. That is not difficult.

Even to send the applicant a copy of the notification to the Scottish ministers and say, "Thought you might be interested" would do.

There are also questions about vires which remain in debate. Given my political perspective, I do not like to push such matters too far—unless they are going beyond human rights legislation. However, the matter has been drawn to our attention, and if it creates the potential for litigation, we should at least pay attention to that. The Executive appears to be satisfied that the regulations are intra vires, but there are conflicting views.

Do we agree to draw the Rural Development Committee's attention to the inadequacy of the provisions for intimation following an unsuccessful application and also to the debate about whether some matters are ultra vires?

Members indicated agreement.

Can we say to the Executive—I am not sure whether we can—that, although we have discussed the regulations and think that the arrangements are a generally sensible example of good governance, we should point out that that was perhaps not the intention of the legislation. The Executive's action does not fall short, but perhaps the legislation might, in the fullness of time, be reconsidered once we have a few more experiences of its being used in that way.

Certainly. That is helpful.