Committee
Rural Affairs Committee, 19 Dec 2000
19 Dec 2000 · S1 · Rural Affairs Committee
Item of business
Salmon Conservation (Scotland) Bill: Stage 2
At an earlier stage, it was suggested that imposing a time limit was covered by section 10D(2)(a):
Watch on SPTV
"regulations may make . . . provision . . . in relation to . . . any time or season".
However, I understand that the considered view now is that those words relate only to the period of time—the months, weeks, days or hours—within each year during which the specified prohibition applies, for example, requiring catch and release before or after such-and-such a date.
None the less, I understand that the Executive has indicated that it will be possible to make time-limited regulations under section 10A, and that the authority for doing so comes from the Interpretation Act 1978, which provides that a power to make regulations includes, without any need for specific mention, the related power to revoke, amend or review such regulations. It is said that because ministers have powers to revoke a regulation, it can be inferred that they have a power to specify in the regulation that it will cease to have effect on such-and-such a date, for example, three years after it comes into force. That would be a form of revocation in advance.
I am nervous about that inference, unless there is ample, clear and authoritative precedent for relying upon it. This nervousness is reinforced by suggestions that, in the past, the Scottish Office implied that some regulations or orders could not be time limited from the outset. It was said that the way to limit them was to revoke them in due course, whenever that was appropriate. That would not be enough for this bill.
The committee and the minister were all agreed that it was essential that regulations should be capable of being time limited from the outset. My amendment is intended to put the matter beyond doubt by expressly providing in section 10D(2) that regulations can be made for a specified period or without limit of time.
In the same item of business
The Convener:
Con
We move on to item 2. Members should have a copy of the groupings and the marshalled list of amendments. If everyone has those papers, I propose to start dea...
Section 1—Conservation of salmon and sea trout
The Convener:
Con
Amendment 8, in the name of the minister, is grouped with amendment 9, which is also in the name of the minister. I ask the minister to move amendment 8 and ...
The Deputy Minister for Rural Development (Rhona Brankin):
Lab
The Executive's amendments 8 and 9 apply specifically to the sections that will be inserted into the Salmon Act 1986 as sections 10C(2) and 10C(3)(b). The ef...
The Convener:
Con
If no one else wishes to comment on the two amendments, and if the minister does not wish to make a winding-up contribution, I will put the questions.
Amendment 8 agreed to.
Amendment 9 moved—Rhona Brankin—and agreed to.
The Convener:
Con
Amendment 24, in the name of Alex Fergusson, is grouped with amendment 25, in the name of Mr Jamie McGrigor. Before asking Mr Fergusson to speak to and move ...
Alex Fergusson (South of Scotland) (Con):
Con
Much of the evidence that the committee received on this bill demonstrated considerable concern over the lack of time limitation for any regulations that are...
Mr Jamie McGrigor (Highlands and Islands) (Con):
Con
I must declare an interest in fisheries—the same interest that I have declared before. Is that good enough?
The Convener:
Con
You may wish to give us some brief details.
Mr McGrigor:
Con
I have an owning share in a fishing syndicate on the River Awe in Argyllshire. I am a member of the Atlantic Salmon Trust, chairman of the Loch Awe Improveme...
At an earlier stage, it was suggested that imposing a time limit was covered by section 10D(2)(a):
"regulations may make . . . provision . . . in relation to . . . any time or season".However, I understand that the considered view now is that those words r...
The Convener:
Con
We now have an opportunity for contributions from the floor.
Mr Mike Rumbles (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD):
LD
I am puzzled by the amendments that we are discussing, because they seem to be opposites. The problem that I have with Alex Fergusson's amendment is that it ...
The Convener:
Con
Can you provide clarification, Jamie?
Mr McGrigor:
Con
Yes. Does Mr Rumbles wish examples of regulations that would not be time limited?
Mr Rumbles:
LD
Yes.
Mr McGrigor:
Con
Examples would be regulations for the collection of information by fishery boards, or the banning of the sale of rod-caught fish, which has been mentioned. W...
Mr Rumbles:
LD
We cannot accept both amendments 24 and 25, can we?
The Convener:
Con
The reason that one amendment is not deemed to pre-empt the other is that they amend different parts of the bill. Technically, there is nothing to stop us ap...
Alex Fergusson:
Con
I wish to answer Mike Rumbles's point. My amendment seeks to achieve an annual justification for the continuance of an order made under this bill. That adds ...
Mr Rumbles:
LD
Alex Fergusson has still not persuaded me.
Mr McGrigor:
Con
My point is that some regulations may appropriately be time limited, while others may not. If things kept having to be reviewed, the pressure of work would b...
Mr John Munro (Ross, Skye and Inverness West) (LD):
LD
I get rather confused between amendments 24 and 25. I do not know what the end result would be if both were accepted.
The Convener:
Con
The end result would probably be a further amendment at stage 3.
Mr Munro:
LD
Mr Fergusson's suggestion is that we should have a review of the regulations at least once a year. That would be impossible, and would not give any credibili...
Fergus Ewing (Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber) (SNP):
SNP
On the time limits, it may be useful to point out that the committee, at paragraph 46 of its stage 1 report, considered the issue carefully. The conclusion r...
Dr Elaine Murray (Dumfries) (Lab):
Lab
I recall the concern voiced about time limitation; people in my constituency spoke to me about it. However, I do not recall the committee deciding that time ...
Rhoda Grant (Highlands and Islands) (Lab):
Lab
I have several concerns about Alex Fergusson's amendment, because it says that the regulations should be reviewed"not less than once a year".Many of the dist...