Official Report 168KB pdf
Item 4 deals with subordinate legislation. [Interruption.] Can I hear somebody yawning?
I have never seen a room empty so quickly.
There are a number of items before us, some of which call for more detailed consideration than others.
Other than wishing you a good afternoon, no.
We recognise, having read the Subordinate Legislation Committee's report, that a number of concerns arise. As it is this committee's responsibility to decide whether to take no further action in relation to the order, perhaps you can explain to us the nature of the problems and how you believe that they can be solved.
I hope that this can be dealt with very quickly, but if you believe anything of what I say to be incorrect, I will be happy to go through it with you. The committee papers that I have seen say that you received a letter from the convener of the Subordinate Legislation Committee asking for the introduction of an amending instrument to fix the problems identified two weeks ago. I appeared before that committee with David Ford last week to address the matter. Following that meeting, we have taken steps to prepare an amending instrument, which deals with all the matters that were raised. The intention is to introduce that amending instrument in order to fix the problems raised by the Subordinate Legislation Committee.
Are there any other questions?
Apart from the whole discussion about whether the Sound of Jura can have a coast—which is fairly fascinating, and is probably the sort of thing about which readers of The Daily Telegraph spend years writing letters to the editor—I do not have anything to ask.
Are there any other questions relating to the issues raised in the Subordinate Legislation Committee's report?
I am not sure whether this is a question for the officials or simply for us to discuss: I want to know about the time scale for producing amended instruments.
That probably is a question for us, as it resides with the solicitor's office. We have a small difficulty: I mentioned to the Subordinate Legislation Committee that I am currently standing in the shoes of the draftsman who produced the original instrument, who is away until next week. I think that, in this situation, it would be courteous to allow him to have the final say on the actual text. Beyond that, subject to clearance from the Scottish Executive rural affairs department, which has not yet seen the draft, the introduction of the amending regulation should be fairly prompt. Following what happened last week, we are all agreed.
There is a general problem. I have spoken to industry representatives who are pulling their hair out at the fact that an agreement was reached in December to introduce urgently required conservation measures, namely, the regulations concerning 90 mm square-mesh panels and multiple trawls. This instrument now has a deadline of 2 October—the reaching of the time limit for parliamentary action on the order. That is a number of months after the agreement was made at a European level, in December. The agreement to proceed with these measures was made with the industry in March, if I am correct. It is now 10 months later and an amended instrument has to be introduced, which may mean a further delay.
The instrument is already in force—it was brought into force on 3 August. Last week, we discussed with the Subordinate Legislation Committee its concern that the validity of the instrument was affected by the errors. At that meeting, I presented myself as not agreeing with that. It is only because the committee was so vociferous about the matter—I said at the meeting that we would consider it if we were asked to do so, particularly by the convener—that we did what it asked. We have considered the matter, and our draft reflects that. In the explanatory note, we have said that we have listened.
Given that there are no further comments or questions, can we assume that, given the commitment outlined on behalf of the Executive, members do not wish to comment further on the order?
The next instrument is the Farm Woodland Premium Scheme Amendment (Scotland) Regulations 2000 (SSI 2000/290). The instrument makes a minor amendment to the principal regulations to allow a further undertaking to be required of applicants as a condition of approval being issued under the scheme. The need for that arises under European Council regulation 1257/99.
I have slight reservations, in that I have not been able to determine what the further undertaking to be required of applicants is. I am sure that it is in there somewhere, but I have not managed to find out.
Is it not the case that because the European Union has not passed the regulation we cannot get any undertaking? That was my reading of it, but I may well be wrong.
I did not catch what Alex Fergusson was saying. To which document was he referring?
On the third page of our copy of the statutory instrument is a letter from a SERAD official, addressed to the Presiding Officer, that refers to an autumn planting—which is unheard of, at least in the south-west of Scotland. That is a minor point. I am more concerned about the further undertaking. Alasdair Morgan may well be correct in his interpretation of that. I do not want to hold up the process. If my question cannot be easily answered, I can make inquiries elsewhere.
If you wish to find out exactly what the further undertaking is, we can make an inquiry in writing and put off final approval of the instrument until next week.
I would appreciate that.
It has been suggested that we circulate any clarification that we receive to members. That would mean that the matter would need to be raised again only if there was an objection.
That is all right with me.
At this stage we feel that we do not need to make further comment on the instrument. The matter will be raised again if, after the information that we are requesting has been circulated, any member feels that that is necessary.
I have no comment, so long as the seeds are not genetically modified.
That matter is not on today's agenda. Are members content with the instruments?
There was a great deal of satisfaction there. That brings us to the end of our agenda.
Meeting closed at 15:19.
Previous
Petitions