Subordinate Legislation Committee, 23 Oct 2007

Meeting date: Tuesday, October 23, 2007

Official Report 97KB pdf

---

Scottish Government Responses

---

Protection of Charities Assets (Exemption) (Scotland) Amendment Order 2007 (draft)

As I have pointed out during previous meetings, we have in front of us the summary of recommendations, which saves me reading everything out.

Are members content to report the draft order to the lead committee and Parliament on the grounds listed at paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) in the summary of recommendations?

Members indicated agreement.

---

Natural Mineral Water, Spring Water and Bottled Drinking Water (Scotland) Regulations 2007 (SSI 2007/435)

Are members content to draw the attention of the lead committee and Parliament to the regulations on the ground that the committee sought and received information from the Food Standards Agency Scotland, with which it is satisfied?

Members indicated agreement.

---

Less Favoured Area Support Scheme (Scotland) Regulations 2007 (SSI 2007/439)

Before I ask the committee to consider the recommendations, I want to highlight a couple of points for the record. First, the procedure followed in this case is unusual and is possibly a first for all of us, because the recommendations come before the funding approval, which should be given at the end of 2007. That is rather different from what has happened in the past. However, our legal advisers assure us that it is within the rules and that the regulations are not ultra vires; the procedure, although different, is correct.

Secondly, we asked what would happen if approval for the regulations, which have a £60 million price tag attached to them, was not forthcoming. I am not quite certain that we have received the fullest possible answer. Notwithstanding that, the benevolence of the Government's intent towards our farmers—other members might want to mention that—is there for us to see, and I think that we can understand the reasons for its answer.

Do members want to comment at this stage?

You have summed it up very well, convener. The procedure might be unusual, and although the committee might have concerns, there is a consensus within the Parliament.

Yes. I would have thought that all members of all parties could say amen to what the Scottish Executive has proposed. At the end of the day, this is about livelihoods.

The summary contains recommendations (a), (b), (c) and (d). Recommendation (d) in the legal brief contains a typo; the final clause after the comma should read:

"if it is satisfied with the explanations provided."

I assume that we are content with that.

It has been pointed out to me that we possibly did not get a cast-iron, watertight explanation for the breach of the 21-day rule. However, to be absolutely fair-minded, the Government is slightly in extremis and trying to do its best. Technically and legally speaking, the procedure is not absolutely right, but as members do not wish to comment and seem to be happy to let it go, I take it that we agree recommendations (a), (b), (c) and (d) as contained in the summary of recommendations.

Members indicated agreement.