copycat Posted June 30, 2007 Share Posted June 30, 2007 In the House of Lords and House of Commons Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments its reported that the Air Navigation (Isle of Man) Order 2007 has been defectively drafted in several respects.All of this impacts on the IOM's new aircraft registry regulations and its noted its "the intention of the IOM Govt to arrange amendment of this instrument" - how did this screw-up occur? this surely reflects badly on the ability of Govt to get things right first time. http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/j...tin/124/124.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WTF Posted July 1, 2007 Share Posted July 1, 2007 just add it to the list. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert Tatlock Posted July 1, 2007 Share Posted July 1, 2007 the Air Navigation (Isle of Man) Order 2007 has been defectively drafted in several respects. Plane crazy. Heads should role over this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amadeus Posted July 1, 2007 Share Posted July 1, 2007 Does anyone else think that the top title reads a bit odd these days?.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grumble Posted July 2, 2007 Share Posted July 2, 2007 I would think that (in effect) the omission of a dotted i or crossed t in an exceptionally complex technical document hardly justifies a public inquiry. Minor detail, duly noted, move on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gladys Posted July 2, 2007 Share Posted July 2, 2007 Actually, if you read the link, the Committee is there to review secondary legislation that hasn't gone through readings and appears to be a form of quality control; our statutory instrument is only one of a few. The errors are more than dotted 'i's and crossed 't's, there are several errors which seem pretty fundamental, just seems sloppy draughtsmanship. However, the quality control has worked and the errors are going to be put right; so all is well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
copycat Posted July 2, 2007 Author Share Posted July 2, 2007 Actually, if you read the link, the Committee is there to review secondary legislation that hasn't gone through readings and appears to be a form of quality control; our statutory instrument is only one of a few. The errors are more than dotted 'i's and crossed 't's, there are several errors which seem pretty fundamental, just seems sloppy draughtsmanship. However, the quality control has worked and the errors are going to be put right; so all is well. When put right is the matter of concern 'cos only one sitting of Tynwald left before summer recess and then nothing 'till October meantime there is supposed to be a huge amount of business waiting for the new aircraft registrer - what happens to that in the meantime if you register something under some incorrect legislaltion = expensive lawyers bills and IOM looking like aq second bit player that doesn't come up to scratch? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gladys Posted July 2, 2007 Share Posted July 2, 2007 Straying into unfamiliar territory, but some secondary legislation does not need the full parliamentary machine, that is why they are secondary, they derive from primary legislation which does. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WTF Posted July 2, 2007 Share Posted July 2, 2007 the new aircraft register already has aircraft registered on it!! hope they are 'legal' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gladys Posted July 2, 2007 Share Posted July 2, 2007 The Minsitry of Justice memo attached to the report is dated in May, so presumably these errors were known well before then. Let us hope that if they did impact on the legality of the register that it would have been closed. The main point is that do any of the errors impact on the safety of the aircraft registered or provide a loophole for someone (either side may find it convenient) to deny proper registration? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asitis Posted July 3, 2007 Share Posted July 3, 2007 There is no one enjoys Tynwald bashing more than me ! however in this case the errors referred to are four minor typographical errors and have no impact on the legislation at all and can be corrected at leisure. At least this is what I have been told from the 'horses mouth' as it were. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Wright Posted July 3, 2007 Share Posted July 3, 2007 Don't forget that this is English subsidiary legislation, not Tynwald, applying English legislation to the IOM, which is why it came under the scrutiny of the Westmisnter committee. It may have ben drfated here but it would have been checked by the Westmisnter team. It does not affect the operation of our register but it does reflect what happpens when you decide to do something very complex very urgently, mistakes can happen. That is why there is a scrutiny committee. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramsey Posted July 12, 2007 Share Posted July 12, 2007 There is no one enjoys Tynwald bashing more than me ! however in this case the errors referred to are four minor typographical errors and have no impact on the legislation at all and can be corrected at leisure. At least this is what I have been told from the 'horses mouth' as it were. Whatever the errors were, they got through the 'revising chamber' of the Legislative Council! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluemonday Posted July 12, 2007 Share Posted July 12, 2007 Whose job it is to........................... Res Ipsa Loquitur Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Wright Posted July 12, 2007 Share Posted July 12, 2007 There is no one enjoys Tynwald bashing more than me ! however in this case the errors referred to are four minor typographical errors and have no impact on the legislation at all and can be corrected at leisure. At least this is what I have been told from the 'horses mouth' as it were. Whatever the errors were, they got through the 'revising chamber' of the Legislative Council! No they didn't, they got through Parliament in Westminster, never debated here Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.