Official Report 112KB pdf
Instruments Not Laid <br />Before the Parliament
Scottish Milk Marketing Board (Dissolution) Order 2003 (SSI 2003/534)
No points of substance arise, but I gather from the legal advice that an issue arises about the commencement of the commencement. Perhaps we should write a letter to the Executive on that point.
The order involves the commencement of a dissolution. Is the dissolution instantaneous? Does it fall instantly?
Perhaps it comes into force for a nanosecond.
Do members agree to write a letter on the issue?
There is a feel of "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy" about this.
Act of Sederunt <br />(Fees of Messengers-at-Arms) 2003 <br />(SSI 2003/536)
Although no points of substance arise on the act of sederunt, there are a few minor issues about missing footnotes, which we will raise in an informal letter.
Act of Sederunt (Rules of the Court of Session Amendment No 6) (Diligence on the Dependence) 2003 (SSI 2003/537)
Although no points of substance arise, we have a couple of issues.
I do not know about other, more experienced members, but I found the act of sederunt absolutely impenetrable. I read it, the legal brief and the explanatory letter, but I still cannot understand it. If I were served a notice under one of the rules, I would not know what to do unless somebody told me. I am not sure whether it is the committee's habit to provide simple English explanations in such cases, but can somebody explain what the instrument actually does? If I got one of those notices, what would happen to me? New rule 13.8A.(1)(b)(iv) mentions something about "dismantling a ship".
The answer is that you stop dismantling it.
That is not clear.
I had similar problems with the instrument and I did not find the explanatory letter from the Executive terribly helpful. Perhaps we should ask for a clearer explanation, if there is time.
It would be helpful to have an explanation in plain English.
Gordon Jackson, with his legal background, might like to elaborate.
I could, but life is too short.
Are you happy that we ask the Executive for an explanation?
By all means, but the trouble is that the instrument is written in language for lawyers. I do not want to sound elitist, but I cannot imagine that a lay person without a lawyer would be a pursuer in a court action in a case that involved dismantling a ship. Lay people occasionally take small debt summonses to court in their own name, but that legal process does not involve arresting a ship at Leith and taking it to pieces. I appreciate that instruments must be simple and explained to everybody, but the language here is for lawyers.
Surely dismantling a ship happens a lot in Govan.
We try to build ships.
There was one at Methil a while ago.
Christine, do you want further explanation?
I would be happy with an informal private explanation.
The explanation is that, if a court action might take a long time, a lot of things can be done in the meantime to hold the money that is sought. It is common to arrest people's wages, but apparently it is also possible to dismantle a ship. I have never come across that, although I am sure that it happens. Huge actions between ship brokers and other commercial interests may involve dismantling a ship.
Does that rule go back a long way?
If an action is going on, one can hold people's money or put an inhibition on their property to stop them disposing of or selling it—that is what "inhibition on the dependence" means. To be honest, I have never come across the action of dismantling a ship.
It is certainly a bit drastic.
I now know what we are talking about—although I do not know about other members.
We are talking about the actions that one can take to preserve property while a court action is pending.
Fair enough. Are committee members happy that we understand the gist of this?
Might I suggest that we go back to the original recommendation, which was that no points of substance arose?
Indeed, Stewart. There are also some minor typos that we will point out in an informal letter.
Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Act 2003 (Commencement No 3, Transitional and Savings Provisions) Order 2003 <br />(SSI 2003/548)
We now come to the third commencement order on the Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Act 2003. Most of us will have followed the passage of the act through Parliament and will be pleased that it is coming to fruition. Following this order, the provisions in the act relating to a tenant's right to buy land will be the only ones not yet in force. We might therefore ask when those provisions will come into force; in other words, we might ask about the completeness of the act.
That would be useful. The crux of the political debate surrounding the act was the tenant's right to buy. When those provisions are brought into force—if that is done in one go—it will be the fourth commencement order for this particular act. Things are getting a little bit complex, although there may be good reasons for that, such as the need for an orderly progression from one stage to the next. For example, it may be that rights under section 2 cannot be exercised unless other provisions have been brought into force beforehand. It would be worth while asking the Executive to explain that and to indicate when progress will be made in implementing section 2.
Yes—and we will ask why the commencement orders have arrived in this particular order. Is that agreed?
I have no objection to that, convener, but I would have thought that such questions would be for the lead committee, rather than for us, to ask. Is it reasonable for us to ask about the pace of implementation?
You could be right—this is on the brink of being a policy issue. However, when different orders come into force at different times, we thought that it would be useful to get a holistic view.
Meeting closed at 11:02.
Previous
Instruments Subject to Annulment