Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee, 23 Sep 2009

Meeting date: Wednesday, September 23, 2009

Official Report 164KB pdf

---

Subordinate Legislation

---

Criminal Jurisdiction (Application to Offshore Renewable Energy Installations etc) Order 2009 (SI/2009/1739)<br />Civil Jurisdiction (Application to Offshore Renewable Energy Installations etc) Order 2009 (SI/2009/1743)

Item 3 is subordinate legislation. We are considering two statutory instruments. The clerks have produced short papers on both the orders, which are being considered under the negative resolution procedure, meaning that they enter into force unless Parliament decides otherwise. Do members have any points or concerns to raise?

Sorry, but what was the proposition?

We have two negative instruments. Do you have any comments on them?

I support the principle behind them. Will the minister come to the committee to address them at some point?

They are negative instruments.

So there is no requirement for that.

Indeed.

That is fine. My only comment on the orders is to recognise the benefits that they bring. They are derived from the Scottish Adjacent Waters Boundaries Order 1999, which was one of the first items that the Scottish Parliament debated 10 years ago. I am happy to support these orders, given that Alex Salmond moved a motion against that order 10 years ago. Clearly, there is room for a learning process on the part of all members of the Scottish Parliament. I am glad that, 10 years on, Mr Salmond is now founding new legislation on the 1999 order.

As you raise the issue, I draw attention to the explanatory note that is attached to SI/2009/1739. Clearly, it was not one of Alex Salmond's friends who wrote in paragraph 7.4 that

"Second, for the reasons set out … the Scottish border in this Order is based on boundaries in the Scottish Adjacent Waters Boundaries Order 1999",

as Lewis Macdonald pointed out. It continues:

"This is a different (and indeed more southerly) border than that provided for in the 1987 Order. We considered that, absent a precise definition of the Scottish border, there was real risk of confusion as to the correct boundary to be applied."

Although the SI contains latitude and longitude in figures, there is no map in the explanatory notes. Any map would show that that 1987 order had a more southerly boundary and that the 1999 order had a more northerly one, so the explanatory note is incorrect. I ask members what we might want to do about that. The issue is not with the order—the explanation is wrong.

I, too, was struck by the phraseology, which is slightly surprising. I recall that, when the Scottish Adjacent Waters Boundaries Order 1999 was debated in Parliament 10 years ago, a map was provided as part of the accompanying documents. I was surprised that that was not repeated in this case. However, I suspect that we might have a consensus on the 1999 line, so it might be as well to endorse the proposals without further comment.

I wonder whether it is worth commenting on the need for the provision of a map with any such explanatory notes. I have certainly seen maps with other statutory instruments. Do members agree that it would be useful to write to the Government about that?

Members indicated agreement.

Do members agree that we have no recommendations to make on the orders?

Members indicated agreement.

That brings the public part of our meeting to an end. We will now go into private. The committee's next meeting will be on 30 September, when Robert Peston, business editor with the BBC, is to give evidence on banking issues and we will take evidence as part of our scrutiny of the budget.

Meeting continued in private until 11:33.