Official Report 76KB pdf
Loch Ewe, Isle of Ewe, Wester Ross, Scallops Several Fishery (Variation) Order 2002 (SSI 2002/185)
Members might remember the order from last week. There was defective drafting in the explanatory note and points 2 and 3 of our letter to the Executive asked for clarification. That must be drawn to the attention of the lead committee.
Little Loch Broom Scallops Several Fishery Order 2002 (SSI 2002/186)
A question came up on this order and on the previous one: Ian Jenkins was very concerned about fishermen who might die.
I wondered what would happen to an order that named an individual if that individual then died. The Executive has explained that the order would fall and would have to be renewed with a new, named individual. I still wonder what would happen in the interim if fish were being grown and harvested. However, the order is now clarified and the Executive has answered our questions to our satisfaction.
What you say is true if it is a small business. However, if it is a small business, presumably there is not a huge amount of fish being produced. It seems to be an issue where folk have to use their common sense.
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)
These are interesting orders. We asked for an explanation because the explanatory notes were—what is the word? They were dense.
Impenetrable.
Incomprehensible.
Impenetrable and incomprehensible. We have discovered why that should be the case. Bill Butler has a smile playing on his face—he thought that they were just wee orders to tidy things up. We suspect that the orders are quite important.
Indeed.
They have goofed.
The impenetrable nature of the note meant that it was not immediately obvious that there might have been a hiatus of two years during which people have been paying up for excess parking charges when, perhaps, the statutory instruments were not in place for that to happen. That is only a suspicion.
Part of the Executive's response points out that the effect of omitting section 66(2) of the Road Traffic Act 1991 from the designation orders meant that a penalty charge was no longer payable in circumstances where a vehicle was left in a parking place beyond the period of parking that had been paid for. The purpose of the two designation amendment orders is to re-introduce the appropriate section. A gap in the legislation is concealed by all the obfuscation of the explanation.
We should ask the Executive if that is the case and we should draw that to the Executive's attention.
Should we not refer the matter to the lead committee and advise its members of our concerns, given that it is a policy matter and not a matter for the Subordinate Legislation Committee?
You are right. I am sorry. I should have said the lead committee. As far as the Executive is concerned, there is no time to do anything about it. However, now that we have spotted the deliberate mistake, it is up to the lead committee to decide how to dispose of the orders. Are we agreed?