Subordinate Legislation Committee, 31 Oct 2000
Meeting date: Tuesday, October 31, 2000
Official Report
117KB pdf
Agricultural Subsidies (Appeals) (Scotland) Regulations 2000 (SSI 2000/347)
A considerable number of issues were raised regarding appeals. Are there any comments?
I examined the Executive's response to the main point that was raised, which was about the lack of a specified procedure requiring notification of the right of appeal. As I understand it, the Executive referred to an intention to distribute leaflets, which is irrelevant, and an intention to intimate decisions by recorded delivery letter, which will be the normal method, and sometimes by hand delivery. That may shore up potential problems about whether the 60-day period has been met by an appellant. Recorded delivery is notoriously problematic, especially where the recipient of the recorded delivery package lives in a remote part of Scotland. If he is not there, or cannot be found by the postman, the package has to be collected from a local post office, which in some instances may be 150 miles away.
The lack of a specified procedure is a problem, perhaps mostly for the officials in local Scottish Executive rural affairs department offices, who are likely to be blamed for any inconsistencies or problems. It is a shame that the Executive has not taken the opportunity presented by this important instrument, which has long been awaited by farmers and crofters, to include in it a specified written procedure, akin to those setting out the ordinary court rules in acts of sederunt. Unless the Executive provides for a written procedure that is clear and understood by everybody, it will be shoring up serious problems and probably compounding unfairnesses that these rules are in part meant to address. I hope that the Executive will think again on the matter.
I am at a loss to see why it has been decided that the new tribunal should not be listed in schedule 1 of the Tribunals and Inquiries Act 1992—unless it is because the Executive does not want the matter to fall within the ambit of the Scottish committee of the council on tribunals. That would suggest that, for some reason, the Executive wants to deny the desirable role of scrutineer to the Scottish committee.
Does anyone else want to comment?
I agree with the points made by Fergus Ewing. Regulations should be easily understandable by the practitioner, who may be consulted regarding a possible appeal. If the regulation does not say what the mechanism for appeal is and what the specified dates are, it will be difficult for anyone—layman or lawyer—to work out what action they should take and when. If the matter is outwith the remit of a tribunal, it is not governed by sheriff court rules; the person appealing against an organisation might have to telephone that organisation to find out what must be done in order to appeal. That is not acceptable. The matter should be referred to the lead committee.
Can we ask the Executive to supply an explanation? There seems to have been an unexpectedly limited exercise of powers in relation to this matter.
I agree that clarification should be sought, although I do not know whether we have the time to deal with it ourselves or whether the response could be brought to the attention of the lead committee.
If we do not get a satisfactory explanation, the practical problems raised today mean that it might be useful to ask the civil servants to come and give us more information. Perhaps we could review that option when we get the further explanation.
We do not have time to deal with the matter. We will have to leave it with the lead committee, who will receive the Executive response and take on board the points that we have raised.