Subordinate Legislation Committee, 25 Feb 2003

Meeting date: Tuesday, February 25, 2003

Official Report 139KB pdf

---

Instruments Not Laid Before the Parliament

---

Instruments Not Laid <br />Before the Parliament

---

Standards in Scotland's Schools Etc Act 2000 (Commencement No 6) Order 2003 (SSI 2003/84)

There are no points of substance on the order. However, a small point is that sections 32 to 37 of the Standards in Scotland's Schools etc Act 2000 are individually identified, whereas an abbreviated reference is used for sections 56 to 59. It would be preferable to take a more consistent approach.

Once again, we prefer instruments to be elegant.

And consistent.

---

Bluetongue (Scotland) Order 2003 <br />(SSI 2003/91)

The next piece of nonsense is the Bluetongue (Scotland) Order 2003. I know that we are not a subject committee and that we are not supposed to have any views on the order. However, here is one view: why is the committee dealing with the order when no animals have bluetongue in Scotland and nobody reckons that it will appear here in a great hurry? We have an awful lot of work to do, so I wonder why the order has been loaded on to us.

The order is probably pre-emptive.

I have no doubt that it is and I am sure that it represents good planning, but we have already complained that the officers who service the committee are up to their necks in extra work.

Is the source of the order not a European Union directive that we are obliged to implement in Scots law?

Yes.

The directive should have been implemented by 1 January 2002.

That is right.

Its implementation is running late.

That is the point. Why are we bothering now?

We do not want to fall out with the nice Europeans.

You might not want to; you might know some nice Europeans.

That was just a small gripe on my part that the order was an additional piece of work. We have managed to do without implementation of the directive since January 2002, when it was meant to be implemented. We have struggled through a whole year without it.

However, are we not legally out of step?

We are.

Anyway, the order is here and we need to deal with it.

The order has flaws. Article 5 says:

"No animal shall be vaccinated against bluetongue",

but does not say on whom the duty of compliance falls. If somebody vaccinated an animal against bluetongue, who would be to blame? We need an explanation of that.

We also need an explanation of article 8(1)(f), which says that carcases are to be

"destroyed, buried or disposed of in such manner as an inspector may direct."

That does not seem sensible, because a Council directive has specified what should be done in such a situation. It is doubtful whether the inspector has much leeway. Perhaps we could ask why the order does not refer to the Council directive, because the directive appears to have a locus in the decision-making process.

Perhaps it is presumed that the inspectors know about that directive.

There is no provision in the order to reflect section 72(a) of the parent act—the Animal Health Act 1981. It is not clear whether such a provision is needed in addition to section 73 of that act.

Usually, a belt-and-braces approach is taken and both provisions are reflected.

A central question must be asked about the vires of the instrument, because of the implications for compliance with Community law. That relates to a decision of the Privy Council in R v The Lord Advocate.

I think that the case involved somebody called Rourke.

We should ask the Executive whether the vires is secure.

Okay. I thank the committee for its forbearance and I hope that next week's agenda is not as long, interesting and turgid.

Meeting closed at 12:08.