Subordinate Legislation Committee, 30 Oct 2001

Meeting date: Tuesday, October 30, 2001

Official Report 123KB pdf

---

Instruments Subject to Annulment

Processed Animal Protein (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 2001
(SSI 2001/383)

The regulations caused some amusement because, as members will remember, there was a mistake in the drafting. The regulations suggested that feedstuffs for animals should be prepared alongside foodstuffs for human consumption. That mistake has been corrected. However, considering that the regulations concern BSE, they seem to have taken a long time to come back to us. As the matter is serious, should we send a nice letter to ask the Executive to explain the delay?

I have a nice stylistic point. The regulations state that premises prepare food, but that is not normally the case; people in the premises prepare it and the food is prepared in the premises.

That is a reasonable point for an English teacher to make.

Abolition of the Intervention Board for Agricultural Produce (Consequential Provisions) (Scotland) Regulations 2001 (SSI 2001/390)

The regulations deal with a cross-border agency—the Intervention Board for Agricultural Produce. Westminster will literally dispose of the matter, because the board is going to come to an end. Once again, there is a question as to why section 2(2) of the European Communities Act 1972 will be used, rather than domestic legislation.

The regulations allow Scottish ministers to make arrangements for the board's functions to be carried out by the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. Members might think that that is contrary to section 93 of the Scotland Act 1998, which makes specific provision for such arrangements. This is not the first or the last time that cross-border agencies will have to be changed so we should ask the Executive why it has chosen to take this route instead of the route advocated by the Scotland Act 1998. Do members want to comment?

The issue is a bulwark against the slippery road to independence.

In that case, we should forget it. No, that is a bad idea—please forget that remark.

On that basis, we should definitely ask the question.

As everyone is talking about Sewel motions, it is a good idea to clear up why the Executive chose that route.

There are a couple of minor points on the regulations—I bet that that members do not know that there is a Home-Grown Cereals Authority. The way in which the regulations are drafted is not as precise as we would have wanted. For the purpose of the Scotland Act 1998, that authority is a cross-border public authority for which the Scotland Act 1998 (Cross-Border Public Authorities) (Adaptation of Functions etc) Order 1999 (SI 1999/1747) makes specific provision. The imprecise drafting is not a major problem, but it is worth while raising it with the Executive. We will ask for an explanation by letter.

Legal Aid (Employment of Solicitors) (Scotland) Regulations 2001 (SSI 2001/392)

No points arise on the regulations.