Official Report 123KB pdf
Instruments Subject <br />to Annulment
Public Finance and Accountability (Scotland) Act 2000 (Economy, efficiency and effectiveness examinations) (Specified bodies etc) Order 2004 (SSI 2004/482)<br />Police Pensions Amendment (Scotland) Regulations 2004 (SSI 2004/486)
Are members agreed that no points arise on the instruments?
Plant Health (Phytophthora ramorum) (Scotland) Order 2004 (SSI 2004/488)
Now, I have been asked to read out the title of the next order. It is the Plant Health (Phytophthora ramorum) (Scotland) Order 2004—even with my scientific background, that was difficult.
Well done, convener.
Members will note that a number of issues arise in connection with the order. We are concerned in the main with two issues, the first of which concerns article 5(1) on page 3 of the order. It provides that the material that is covered by the article must meet the requirements of schedule 2. However, the conditions that the schedule imposes are relevant only to material that is covered by article 6. We should ask the Executive to explain the purpose and effect of the provision in article 5(1).
Homeless Persons (Unsuitable Accommodation) (Scotland) Order 2004 (SSI 2004/489)
No substantial points have been identified on the order. However, our attention has been drawn to the fact that some words might be missing from the introduction to article 2(3) on page 2 of the order. Do members wish to raise that in an informal letter?
Tenements (Scotland) Act 2004 (Notice of Potential Liability for Costs) Amendment Order 2004 (SSI 2004/490)
Some important issues arise in respect of the order. Members will note that we are to consider the commencement order under item 8. The problem is that the commencement dates of the two orders are different, with this order commencing five days later than the commencement order. That raises complications for people who move into a property. During the time gap between the two orders, a purchaser will not be in full possession of information about their legal obligations with regard to any changes that might have to be made in future. I am looking for solutions.
I was a member of the Justice 2 Committee, which was the lead committee for the Tenements (Scotland) Bill. One of the issues that concerned us was the rights of purchasers. The gap in time between the commencements of the two instruments must be closed in some way. The Executive must change the commencement date of either this order or the commencement order. The two orders need to commence on the same date, or a purchaser could find himself with a real liability about which he knew nothing. We must solve the problem.
I know that we are talking about only five days of a difference, but it is inevitable that someone will be caught out. It seems bizarre that this has happened. We should suggest to the Executive that it should either move the commencement date of the amendment order or, as Mike Pringle said, move that of the commencement order. The Executive has to move one back or bring one forward so that the two orders come into force at the same time.
I would suggest that if the same person had been doing both orders there probably would not have been a problem. It is likely, however, that the work of two people, albeit in the same department somewhere, has not been relayed together.
It does look a bit that way.
If the Executive agrees to our suggestion, that will cause the 21-day rule to be breached. However, I think that that is the lesser of two evils in this case.
Are we agreed on that line of action?
The legal advisers have also indicated a minor point concerning the word "Schedule" in article 2(2), which we might raise in an informal letter.