Official Report 109KB pdf
Agricultural Holdings (Consequential Amendments) (Scotland) Order 2003 (draft)
We move to item 3, Executive responses. We raised points about four instruments. The first is the draft Agricultural Holdings (Consequential Amendments) (Scotland) Order 2003. We raised a drafting issue, to do with the naming of schedules. I recommend that we simply report the matter and that we keep the issue of this drafting principle alive. Our legal advice informs us that naming a schedule "Schedule 6" rather than "the Sixth Schedule", for example, notwithstanding the reference in the original legislation, should be common practice in the context of trying to modernise drafting procedures. It is not a big issue, but drafting procedures are important. Is that agreed?
Our legal advisers, having pursued the issue with the Executive, commented that they do not have a copy of the Executive's current guidance, which struck me as strange. I would have thought that, in the interests of transparency and co-operation, we ought to have that guidance. If we do not have it by now, we should make the proper approach through the appropriate mechanism to ensure that our people have the relevant guidance documentation before them.
I have just been told by the clerk that we will ensure that we obtain the most recent copy.
National Health Service (Travelling Expenses and Remission of Charges) (Scotland) (No 2) Regulations 2003 <br />(SSI 2003/460)
We raised many points on the regulations. The Executive agreed that many amendments to the regulations are required, and it will address them at an early date. We have not listed each of the points in turn, but I think that we can be reassured that they will all be examined.
Given that we were quite critical of the Executive about the regulations at a previous meeting, it is good that it has come back with such a positive response. There is perhaps a lesson here for the Executive. If the Executive, for whatever reason, does not intend to amend regulations or other statutory instruments heavily at a certain point, but intends to do so shortly thereafter, it should perhaps simply tell us that, rather than waiting for us to write to Executive officials, asking them why they are not making the revisions at the time. It would be helpful to know about any intentions to carry out such amending work.
The situation will hopefully improve with the earlier and more extensive informal contact that is provided for under our new arrangements.
Feeding Stuffs (Scotland) Amendment <br />(No 3) Regulations 2003 (SSI 2003/474)
Members will recall that there was an issue about it being time for consolidation at the fifth substantive amendment to the regulations. The Food Standards Agency has indicated that the amendments to the regulations have so far been reasonably modest. However, there will be further amendments in future, particularly next year, in order to implement European Commission directive 2003/57/EC. The FSA foresees that there could well be a consolidation then.
The Food Standard Agency's response is a good one, but I repeat the point that its correspondence had to be written in response to a point from us. We have a trigger of five changes before consolidation should take place, and the Executive or the FSA know that we are likely to ask about that. If they have concluded that they will not make a consolidation at a certain stage, but will do so the following year, after further matters have come up, it could just tell us that up front, rather than having a ping-pong with the committee. If the FSA told us what the game plan was first, we would understand it reasonably quickly and would accept the good faith in which that was offered.
Exactly. Remember that we are awaiting a response to our letter to Richard Henderson, in which we raised all those points. We will hopefully get some good news in the near future—perhaps even next week, when Gordon Jackson is chairing the meeting.
I think that this is a good week to be chairing the meeting. There is nothing much in it—that is the sort of week that I like.
Are we agreed that we pass that information on to the lead committee and the Parliament?
I back up what Murray Tosh said, but are we actually going to write to the Executive and recommend, as Murray suggested, that it should simply tell us in advance what its plans are when it comes to the fifth amendment to a set of regulations? If it did that, it would not waste time with correspondence getting sent backwards and forwards.
I suggest that we await the reply from Richard Henderson, when we can return to the matter. I ask Stewart Maxwell to hold that point in his mind until then.
Protection of Animals (Anaesthetics) (Scotland) Amendment Order 2003 <br />(SSI 2003/476)
The order was not an easy one to understand. We are effectively dealing with both the consequential order, the Protection of Animals (Anaesthetics) (Scotland) Amendment Order 2003 (SSI 2003/476), and the affirmative order, the Welfare of Farmed Animals (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 2003 (SSI 2003/488). Are we happy with the explanation that we have been given? We are told that both the order and the regulations were intended to come into operation at the same time.
The answer to that has to be yes. The same point that I was making earlier arises again. When we asked the Executive about the matter, it had a perfectly good explanation, which the advisers deem "not unreasonable". I think that it is a bit better than that: it is quite a convincing explanation. The Executive knows that the instruments will come to the committee, and that we will ask about the 21-day rule.
So why not just tell us at the time?
Yes, the Executive could tell us and give us the explanation in advance. Then, we would not waste time again.
I ask Alasdair Rankin, the clerk, to keep a note of these points so that we can highlight them when we are next writing back. That covers the first point that we had to make on the order.
This was a technical knockout by our legal advisers.
Not only was it suggested by our legal advisers that such a footnote is of doubtful relevance; it is confusing to anyone reading the instrument who is not thoroughly in the know. One wonders why we should have such a footnote. Footnotes are meant to clarify, but the one in the order does precisely the opposite.
Should we put that on our list of notes?
Yes.
Or we could make it a footnote.
Well done, Stewart.