Official Report 86KB pdf
We must consider a lot of instruments, on which there are lengthy points, and which we will want to report to the Parliament. Therefore, where appropriate, I will refer to the summary of recommendations rather than read out the full reporting grounds for the Official Report. Are members happy for me to do that? It will save us time and trouble.
Instruments Subject <br />to Annulment
We must consider a lot of instruments, on which there are lengthy points, and which we will want to report to the Parliament. Therefore, where appropriate, I will refer to the summary of recommendations rather than read out the full reporting grounds for the Official Report. Are members happy for me to do that? It will save us time and trouble.
Transmissible Spongiform Encephalopathies (Scotland) Amendment (No 2) Regulations 2008 (SSI 2008/417)
Are members content to report the regulations to the lead committee and the Parliament on the grounds that are set out in the summary of recommendations?
Are members content with the Government's explanation for its non-compliance with article 10(2) of the Scotland Act 1998 (Transitory and Transitional Provisions) (Statutory Instruments) Order 1999 (SI 1999/1096)—the dreaded 21-day rule? If so, are you content that we report to the lead committee and the Parliament accordingly?
Beef and Veal Labelling (Scotland) Regulations 2008 (SSI 2008/418)
Are members content to report the regulations to the lead committee and the Parliament on the ground that, given that regulation 7 creates a criminal offence—that is serious—the connection between the person to be found guilty of the offence and condition B should be more clearly expressed and should not be left to implication?
That is a drafting matter, which needs to be addressed.
Freshwater Fish Conservation (Prohibition on Fishing for Eels) (Scotland) Regulations 2008 (SSI 2008/419)
I read the regulations with great interest. We may not catch an eel for the foreseeable future unless we have a licence.
We can catch eels in seawater.
I expect that you have read what it says in the legal brief about the 12 nautical mile limit. First, are members content to report the regulations to the lead committee on the ground that in regulation 2 the meaning could have been clearer?
Zoonoses and Animal By-Products (Fees) (Scotland) Amendment (No 2) Regulations 2008 (SSI 2008/423)
An old sin is committed in the regulations. Are members content to report the regulations to the lead committee and the Parliament on the ground that there appears to be a doubt as to whether they are intra vires? We have been here before and the issue is persistent.
I was struck by the undisguised impatience of the Government's response to our queries. How should we react? As you said, we have been here before—we might ask why, after asking the question, we are here again. The Government's response was a little acidic.
I am prepared to be corrected by colleagues on this, but my view is that our duty is to the Parliament and that, notwithstanding the tone of a response from the Scottish Government, we should not be deflected from our duty.
I entirely agree. Should we express that view to the Government? The Government was quite dismissive about our raising the matter after it thought that the issue had been dealt with. The tone of the response was unhelpful and there was no acknowledgment that it is our duty to point out that the issue that we raised last year is still germane.
I expect the issue to be included in our annual report, on which we decided at our away day that we would invite comment and a response from the Scottish Government. We could sweep up the issue in the report or we could respond to the Government in the short term, to say that it must understand our locus in the matter.
I take Jackson Carlaw's point. However, we cannot expect the Scottish Government to give an answer that is different from the answer that it has given in the past. We cannot expect the Government to agree with us when it did not agree with us before—I suppose that that is why a slight degree of impatience might come across in the response.
I support the view that we include the matter in our annual report. We need to highlight the matter and other issues. If we do so, we will have a hook on which to hang discussions with the Minister for Parliamentary Business and Scottish Government representatives when they give evidence to the committee. The Government must understand that we are raising legitimate concerns.
The fact that our discussion will be published in the Official Report is important. We can make it clear to the Government that although we note its position we must carry on reviewing each case on its merits. Not to do so would be entirely wrong. The matter is on the record. Are members content to include the issue in our annual report and take it from there, along the lines that Helen Eadie suggested?
That was a useful discussion.
Town and Country Planning (Development Planning) (Scotland) Regulations 2008 <br />(SSI 2008/426)
Are members content to report the regulations to the lead committee and the Parliament on the grounds, first, that in relation to regulations 3(2) and 10(2) the regulations appear to raise a devolution issue in respect of the failure to transpose amendments made by directive 2003/105/EC to directive 96/82/EC into the requirements for the preparation of development plans, which are set out in the regulations, and, secondly, that the meaning or effect of the first three lines of regulation 24 is not clear? The Scottish Government has acknowledged and undertaken to correct the lack of clarity, which is not thought to affect the validity or operation of the regulations.
The failure to transpose amendments made by directive 2003/105/EC into the requirements for the preparation of development plans is of serious concern. Can we write to the Scottish Government to ask whether the European Commission is considering infraction proceedings? From time to time I get the impression that the Government does not take its devolved responsibilities in respect of European issues as seriously as it might do and that ministerial involvement at European level is poor.
What you suggest is possible, although we are beyond our reporting deadline. We could write to the lead committee and strongly suggest that it consider the matter. Would that be acceptable to you?
Yes, but we should also ask the Scottish Government whether there are infraction proceedings.
The matter is on the record. You flagged it up appropriately.
However, it is our duty only to flag up the matter; it is for the lead committee to decide what further action to take.
All right, we will discharge our duty in that way.
Planning etc (Scotland) Act 2006 (Development Planning) (Saving, Transitional and Consequential Provisions) Order 2008 (SSI 2008/427)
Is the committee content to report the order to the lead committee and the Parliament on the ground that, in article 1(2), there is a drafting error? It is a cracker, as, instead of referring to the Conservation (Natural Habitats &c) Regulations 1994, it refers to "the Conservation (Natural Habitats &c) Regulation 1994". Do you see? There should be an s in there.
I think that, in fact, the real problem is that the order says "National" instead of "Natural".
I am sorry, you are quite right; I read it wrongly. The order says "National Habitats", but it should say "Natural Habitats".
Act of Sederunt (Fees of Sheriff Officers) 2008 (SSI 2008/430)
Are we are content to report the act of sederunt to the lead committee and the Parliament on the basis that—here we go again—it combines negative procedure and no procedure and that, while the Lord President's private office has provided an explanation for that approach, the committee considers such an unusual exercise of the enabling powers inappropriate, as it could give rise to technical difficulties in the event of a successful motion to annul the act of sederunt?
As I said, we have been here before. This issue is something that just might feature in the annual report.
Town and Country Planning (Schemes of Delegation and Local Review Procedure) (Scotland) Regulations 2008 (SSI 2008/433)
Is the committee content to report the regulations to the lead committee and the Parliament on the grounds that in relation to regulations 7(1), 8(1) and 9(2)(b) an explanation has been sought from and provided by the Scottish Government, which we find acceptable; and that in relation to regulation 10(2) there is a drafting error, which the Government has acknowledged and undertaken to correct at a later date, but which is not considered to affect the validity or operation of the regulations?
Town and Country Planning (Appeals) (Scotland) Regulations 2008 (SSI 2008/434)
Is the committee content to report the regulations to the lead committee and the Parliament on the grounds that are set out in the summary of recommendations?
Non-Domestic Rate (Scotland) Order 2009 (SSI 2009/3)
The committee agreed that no points arose on the instrument.
Previous
Draft Instrument Subject to Approval