Skip to main content
Loading…
Chamber and committees

Subordinate Legislation Committee, 19 Dec 2006

Meeting date: Tuesday, December 19, 2006


Contents


Draft Instruments Subject to Approval


Draft Instruments Subject <br />to Approval


Farm Woodland Premium Schemes and SFGS Farmland Premium Scheme Amendment (Scotland) Scheme 2007 (draft)

No points arise on the draft scheme, but members will note that the Executive withdrew and relaid it because drafting errors were identified. Are there any further points?

Members:

No.


Scottish Local Government Elections Order 2007 (draft)

The Convener:

Members will note that the draft order will revoke the Scottish Local Government Elections Rules 2002 (SSI 2002/457) and the Scottish Local Government Elections Amendment Rules 2002 (SSI 2002/522) and that it will provide for the local government elections to be held in May 2007, and thereafter. No substantive points have arisen on the order, but there is a minor point, and Stewart Maxwell has indicated that he has further points to make.

Mr Maxwell:

Yes, I have a couple of minor points to raise first and then one that is slightly more important, which we should raise formally rather than informally.

There is clearly an apostrophe missing from article 4(2), on page 11 of the order; it should read "candidate's" instead of the plural. That is just an informal point.

In articles 12(3)(b) and 12(3)(c), "name" should be "names" in both cases.

Stewart, can we go back to article 4(2) for a moment? Do you mean that there should be an apostrophe before the s in "candidates"?

I believe so, yes.

Right. Let us move on to your next point.

In articles 12(3)(b) and 12(3)(c), where it says

"give notice of the name of the persons",

I think that it should read "names".

Should that be "names"? The legal adviser is nodding her head. And the same thing applies to article 12(3)(c).

Mr Maxwell:

Yes. My more substantive point is about the second form on page 37 of the order. Part (a) says:

"and my electoral number is … (see note 3)".

Note 3, which is over the page, is about something entirely different; it is nothing to do with people's electoral numbers.

It should say "note 5".

Mr Maxwell:

I think that it should say "note 5", but rather than guessing that that is the case, we should write to the Executive and ask for an explanation. I do not think that that reference should be to "note 3". That is a slightly more serious mistake.

Okay. Is there anything else?

No, that is it.

That is worth a gold star. Well done.

Given how thick this draft order is, there are bound to be more mistakes in it. I know that the legal team received the order only on Thursday, so it is almost inevitable that there will be several typos in it.

On a related issue, convener, I am aware that the draft regulations for councillors' remuneration are in the hands of the local authorities. I assume that there is a copy somewhere in the system and that it will come to us.

We have not seen it yet, but we can check.

I am not sure whether we should say that there are minor typos in the order that need to be altered.

The points on pages 11 and 14 are probably just minor typos that could be mentioned in an informal letter. However, we should write more formally to the Executive about the mistake on the form on page 37.

That is fine. Are we all agreed?

Members indicated agreement.