Official Report 98KB pdf
Instruments Subject <br />to Annulment
Loch Ewe, Isle of Ewe, Wester Ross, Scallops Several Fishery (Variation) Order 2002 (SSI 2002/185)
We have not come across this sort of thing before. We should ask the Executive why there is no reference to article 2(6) of the order in either the explanatory note or the Executive note, given the reservation in paragraph 2(3) of part 1 of schedule 5 to the Scotland Act 1998, which provides the authorisation for article 2(6). There are other small items that we may wish to ask about.
We should proceed as suggested.
No, there is more to this. Since this is about small business—[Interruption.] Brian, honestly, we will get through this quickly, but these scallops are important.
I am just trying to suppress—
Are you trying to work out what it is about?
No, I am just trying to suppress my admiration.
The order is about people who are involved with a small business venture that grows scallops. They have to get permission to do that. The question arises, if they have permission to do that under the order, what happens if they die?
In this case, the person is Mrs Jane Hardman or Grant.
A few weeks ago, we were interested in an instrument that named individuals. This order provides another example of that, but in this case it names an individual who has a license under the order. It occurred to me that if an individual is named in an order, what happens if they die suddenly? I am sure that there is an explanation; I just wonder what it is, because it is unusual for an individual to be named as the sole person with the right to the fishery. I am sure that the matter can be dealt with legally; it just occurred to me that this is an interesting point.
There are one or two matters that we may want to inquire about, although they are obscure. The order removes a reference to the granting of consent by the Crown Estate commissioners, in the Loch Ewe, Isle of Ewe, Wester Ross, Scallops Several Fishery Order 1997 (SI 1997/830)—the 2002 order is an amending order. We should ask why that is the case, because it is important.
Little Loch Broom Scallops Several Fishery Order 2002 (SSI 2002/186)
The order is fine.
It is the same as the previous order—it mentions one guy.
Road Traffic (Permitted Parking Area and Special Parking Area) (City of Glasgow) Designation Amendment Order 2002<br />(SSI 2002/187)<br />Road Traffic (Permitted Parking Area and Special Parking Area) (City of Edinburgh) Designation Amendment Order 2002<br />(SSI 2002/188)
I do not drive, so these do not concern me.
I do, and I park in Edinburgh frequently.
Do you park on the right?
Usually.
It is part of the rules, is it not, that the explanatory note should say what the instrument is about. In this case, we have defective drafting of the explanatory notes.
Yes.
They are vague; they are not explicit.
I did not have a clue what they meant.
They are not as clear as they should be.
We will draw that to the attention of the Executive and the lead committee. We will ask why neither the explanatory notes nor the Executive notes comply with the requirement to be written in understandable English.
Adults with Incapacity (Ethics Committee) (Scotland) Regulations 2002 (SSI 2002/190)
Apart from a small typo, the regulations are fine.
Artificial Insemination of Cattle<br />(Animal Health) (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 2002 (SSI 2002/191)
The regulations are fine.
National Health Service <br />(General Dental Services) (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 2002<br />(SSI 2002/192)
No points arise on the regulations.