Official Report 161KB pdf
SFGS Farmland Premium Scheme 2003 (draft)
The first instrument subject to approval is the draft SFGS Farmland Premium Scheme 2003. I did not shorten the title—one of our queries to the Executive is why the word "Scotland" does not appear somewhere in the title and why there is no explanation of what "SFGS" means. We should also ask the Executive whether the approval of the European Commission has been obtained for the scheme.
I do not want to sound unpatriotic, but with what other forestry grant scheme or farmland premium scheme would we be dealing—a Bosnian one? I just do not understand why we are the only country—
I will tell you why—there are many United Kingdom regulations on this subject and, if an instrument applies only in Scotland, it might be advisable just to stick in the word "Scotland" every now and then.
As long as we get reciprocity, so that the English stick in the word "England"—but they never do.
That is like the Football Association and the Scottish Football Association. Do we need to go back to first principles on the issue, Brian?
We do not need to repatriate the cringe.
We do not have a cringe; it is an assertion.
This is not about the cringe.
If you looked up the adoption act on the internet, you would find the Adoption Act 1976. However, the equivalent Scottish act is the Adoption (Scotland) Act 1978. That is the truth of the matter. If you looked on the web, you could get the wrong act.
Och, Jenkins is good.
Acts and instruments of the Scottish Parliament must be distinguished from their UK equivalents.
Could we get an adoption (Südtirol) act?
If you want to adopt in Südtirol. There is much adoption from Russia, if you are interested.
Okay, I am sorry. I am in a minority of one on the matter.
I agree with you, but it just annoys me when an inference—
I wonder whether I could bring the committee to order. We are not discussing adoptions from Russia.
Apart from the point about indicating that the instrument is Scottish, the acronym SFGS is meaningless as it stands. Never mind the word "Scottish"—the words "forestry grant scheme" should be used.
Brian, it is rude not to explain to a reader what the letters "SFGS" mean when they are first used.
I accept that.
Good.
We have found a via media.
Absolutely. If the instrument said "Scottish Forestry Grant Scheme", it would not need to use the word "Scotland" in its title. I accept that.
The issue is a bugbear of mine.
I agree with you. I hate the FA being the FA and—
Let it be noted that the committee came to an agreement.
On a via media—a middle way.
A line that I always used about devolution is that, in terms of home affairs and justice, it would see the end of the law reform (miscellaneous provisions) (Scotland) acts, but it has not.
Tradition is a good thing.
As your First Minister said, devolution has been a big disappointment—right?
I do not remember that.
You would not.
He said that the Holyrood building had been a big disappointment.
The bill did not go far enough.
I am sure that Margo thinks that the building goes too far.
I think that it is the best thing since—
Right, I am sorry. Perhaps we should get back to the instrument.
I thought that you said "the bill".
Let us get back to this—
This piece of Scottish legislation.
In addition to querying the instrument's title, we must ask the Executive about other matters. Paragraph 5(5) of the scheme provides that Scottish ministers
They are probably equally offensive to an applicant.
We should ask the Executive for an explanation of why there are a couple of approaches to the drafting of what ministers should and should not be able to do.
Are the circumstances that set paragraph 5(6) in train different from the ones that set paragraph 5(5) in train?
I do not know.
If they are the same, it is bizarre that there are different draftings.
I think that the circumstances for paragraph 5(6) are the same as those for paragraph 5(5), so it seems odd that different drafting approaches are used.
To call it bizarre is probably a bit extreme, but I agree that the drafting is rather odd.
Several definitions in the instrument's interpretation paragraph—such as the definition of "agricultural business"—border on being substantive. Perhaps the definitions could be dealt with in substantive paragraphs rather than in the interpretation provision.
That is an important point.
Another relevant example is the definition of "holding".
Yes. Another example is the definition of "severely disadvantaged land". We will ask the Executive to note that we think that the drafting could be improved.
There are also typos, grammatical errors and all the rest of it, but they can be dealt with in an informal letter.
General Commissioners of Income Tax (Expenses) (Scotland) Regulations 2003 (draft)
There are no points on the regulations.
Landfill (Scotland) Regulations 2003 (draft)
The next instrument is the draft Landfill (Scotland)—sorry, Brian—Regulations 2003. An interesting point is that regulation 14(6) imposes a time limit of seven days for an operator to notify the Scottish Environment Protection Agency that waste has not been accepted at a landfill. If an operator does not do that, they can be fined a huge amount of money or be sent to jail for six months. The time limit of seven days for compliance seems a bit short.
Apparently, the equivalent England and Wales regulations have a more generous time scale.
I take it that the regulations are for dealing with operators who are baddies. The point is that we would want to know as soon as possible that waste had not been accepted, in case the operator dumped it into a river or in a lay-by.
Yes.
So there might be a good explanation for the seven-day time limit.
Your explanation is probably right.
We will have to ask the Executive to clarify that.
I think that Brian gave the explanation.
We must ask the Executive for an explanation, because some companies operate on both sides of the border. There are different penalties in England and Wales.
It would make economic sense for the operators to head south.
Perhaps we will not bother asking the Executive for an explanation, in that case.
The regulations could stop operators dumping waste in lay-bys—who knows?
Paragraphs 1(3)(a) and 1(3)(c) of schedule 5 make provision in relation to the situation where an operator has given notice to SEPA that waste will not be accepted for disposal after 16 July 2002. Again, will that provision have retrospective effect? The equivalent provisions south of the border came into effect in June 2002. I think that the regulations are about us catching up.
We should ask the Executive.
Right.
There are also typos.
Road Traffic (Vehicle Emissions) (Fixed Penalty) (Scotland) Regulations 2003 (draft)
We may want to ask for an explanation of the regulations. For example, why does regulation 5 refer to "designated authority" when the term used elsewhere in the regulations is "designated local authority"? That may not be all that big a thing, but the next issue is interesting. Regulation 6(1)(a) refers to a vehicle
If you were on the M8 leaving Hillington in a westward direction, you would pass out of Glasgow and into Renfrewshire and, being in that lane, you would have no option going west other than to continue in that direction or crash.
Or perform an illegal U-turn.
A highly dangerous and very illegal U-turn. There are certain roads on which you are committed.
The M80 spur is another.
Is there a motorway equivalent of railway anoraks?
No, I am not in that category.
All the same, we are very grateful.
The M80 goes from Glasgow into North Lanarkshire into whatever it is.
Aye, but you can get off to go to the pictures.
You can always get off to go to the pictures. You can go to the pictures to get off as well.
We may have spotted what the Executive means, but we will ask about it anyway.
You can stand at the county border and, if a car is coming towards you, you can stop it as soon as it is in. You can fine the driver, test the vehicle's emissions and say, "You are baddies." If they have just come out of the county, surely you can do the same thing. You cannot tell 100 miles away that they are about to—
But it is a strange thing to try to define.
Suppose they stopped. We will just ask.
This takes us back to, "I wasn't driving my car while drunk. I just happened to have six cans of cider in the back and I was having a wee lie down."
Is the committee minded to ask the Executive about those points?
Why in regulation 20(7) are there two references to notices under paragraph (5), when paragraph (5) does not appear to relate to notices?
Perhaps an explanation is required.
Aye, just a wee mistake there.
Previous
Executive Responses