Skip to main content
Loading…
Chamber and committees

Subordinate Legislation Committee, 19 Nov 2002

Meeting date: Tuesday, November 19, 2002


Contents


Draft Instruments Subject to Approval


Draft Instruments Subject <br />to Approval


Scottish Local Government Elections Regulations 2002 (draft)

The Convener:

We may want to put several questions to the Executive about the text of these regulations. Why does regulation 2(1) define the Representation of the People (Scotland) Regulations 2001 when those regulations do not appear to be referred to in the draft regulations? Should regulation 15(7) refer to a "returning officer", rather than a "registration officer"? I have never heard of a registration officer.

I have never heard of one either.

We will ask about the term, as it appears only once in the regulations.

The only sort of registration officer that I know of is a poll tax registration officer.

Oh, the person is mentioned in the Representation of the People Act 1983.

You live and learn.

What a fount of knowledge you are, convener.

The Convener:

Aye, I am. It is a pity that Gordon Jackson is not here, because he knows about this sort of thing.

We should ask whether in regulation 22(7)(c) the words

"and in such cases, shall mark the declarations to indicate which ballot paper is missing"

should apply to both paragraph (i) and (ii), rather than to paragraph (ii) alone.

The layout implies that the wording applies to paragraph (ii) alone, but it should probably apply to both paragraphs.

The Convener:

As it is about missing ballot papers, it should apply to everything, but I take your point.

Another question is why regulation 26(1) makes reference to regulation 24(3) and (4), when regulation 24 does not contain a fourth paragraph and nor does that regulation appear to be particularly relevant. That just looks like a mistake.

Do you think that they missed out the fourth paragraph?

That is probably the case, but we can put the question to the Executive.

There are some typographical or grammatical mistakes, but we will deal with those informally. Is that agreed?

Members indicated agreement.


Genetically Modified Organisms (Deliberate Release) (Scotland) Regulations 2002 (2nd draft)

There are no points to raise.


Cairngorms National Park Designation, Transitional and Consequential Provisions (Scotland) Order 2003 (draft)

This order is probably all right.

Much as I would like to find something wrong with it, I cannot.

And you have been through it with a fine-toothed comb, have you?

Yes.

Then that one is okay.


Cairngorms National Park Elections (Scotland) Order 2003 (draft)

The Convener:

There may be something in this. We have some straight questions for the Executive. What sanction will apply to a breach of article 51 and for making a false statement under article 52? The order does not appear to mention that. Also, is the absence of any provisions in the order in exercise of the powers contained in paragraphs 4(1)(e) and (f) of schedule 1 to the parent act deliberate? There is no provision equivalent to section 65(2), which concerns tampering with nomination or ballot papers, section 66, which relates to secrecy, and the provisions for challenging elections in the Representation of the People Act 1983. Article 48 obviously envisages such proceedings, but neither the order nor the enabling act appears to contain any relevant offence provisions. We will ask for clarification from the Executive. Is that agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

The Convener:

Articles 13(6) and 43 appear to exclude challenge from the courts. Paragraph 1(b) of standing order 10.3, which provides for our committee, says that that right must be enshrined. It says:

"the Subordinate Legislation Committee shall determine whether the attention of the Parliament should be drawn to the instrument on the grounds … that it is made in pursuance of any enactment containing specific provisions excluding it from challenge in the courts, on all or certain grounds, either at all times or after the expiration of a specific period or that it contains such provisions".

We have to ask the Executive about that. There is no way round it. Is that agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

The Convener:

We should also invite the Executive's comments on article 7, because of article 3 of protocol 1 of the European convention on human rights, which refers to infirmity. If infirmity is temporary, should that be an exclusion? We also need an answer about the effect of disqualification. When is someone disqualified and for how long?

Ian Jenkins:

What happens if some of the reasons for disqualification are worked out? How do people who have been elected to the board stand? Do they come back in automatically, or is someone elected in the meantime to take their place? They are left a wee bit in limbo, because it is not clear what happens if the infirmity reason for disqualification ceases to apply. I am a bit uncertain and I think that the position should be clarified.

The Convener:

There is a defect in the draft order, to which we must draw the Executive's attention. At an earlier meeting, we dealt with another order and we might have drawn the same conclusions in relation to the local government election rules, but we did not. We should not feel too bad about that, but we are apologising a bit. That does not mean to say that we should not clear up this draft order if it is wrong.

We have mentioned article 3 of protocol 1 of the ECHR and whether some of the causes for disqualification are proportionate. There is almost a Henry VIII power. Instead of saying, "Off with their heads," the Executive is saying, "Give them a slap over the wrists."

We have mentioned all the points that we will raise with the Executive. The wording of article 6 of the order, which is about the age of a person who can be a candidate and an elected member, is a bit superfluous. We will draw those matters to the attention of the Executive and its responses will be sought.