Subordinate Legislation Committee, 01 Nov 2005

Meeting date: Tuesday, November 1, 2005

Official Report 235KB pdf

---

Instruments Subject to Annulment

---

Instruments Subject <br />to Annulment

---

Additional Support Needs Tribunals for Scotland (Practice and Procedure) Rules 2005 (SSI 2005/514)

We have received legal advice on six points about which we should ask for further information. Most of them concern vires, although there are other issues. Do members have other points to make? Do we agree that we should ask for information from the Executive about them?

Members indicated agreement.

---

Additional Support for Learning (Placing Requests and Deemed Decisions) (Scotland) Regulations 2005 (SSI 2005/515)

The regulations make provision for deeming confirmation of a placing request or an education authority's decision on a placing request in circumstances that are specified in the regulations. It has been suggested that we should ask the Executive about regulation 4, which states that if the prescribed conditions apply, an appeal committee will be deemed

"for the purposes of paragraph 6(6)(b)"

of schedule 2 to have confirmed a decision of an education authority on a placing request. The question is whether the phrase should be "for the purposes of this Act". Do members agree that the Executive should clarify matters?

Members indicated agreement.

---

Education (Additional Support for Learning) (Scotland) Act 2004 (Transitional and Savings Provisions) Order 2005 <br />(SSI 2005/516)

The order makes a number of transitional and savings provisions that are necessary on the coming into force of certain provisions of the 2004 act. Are members content to do as the legal briefing suggests and ask the Executive for an explanation of article 3(2), as it is not terribly clear? Was the drafter attempting to reproduce the effect of article 7(4)? It is thought that that was aimed at, but things are not clear.

Members indicated agreement.

A serious number of minor points on the order have arisen that can be dealt with by informal letter. We should at least flag that up. I agree that, cumulatively, they do not come to anything because they are simply minor points, but it is worth saying that there are many of them.

I said earlier that we would deal with all the minor points in one letter, but you have made a valid point. A number of minor points have arisen on the order. Obviously, what we are saying will appear in the Official Report, but do you want to—

I do not know how we should deal with the matter.

We could mention it in the letter that we will send to the Executive.

The number of errors suggests that something is not quite right with the—

Quality controls are lacking.

Indeed. Call it what you like.

Do members agree that we should mention those minor points in our letter to the Executive?

We should do so because there are so many of them. We could make a serious point that is based on many minor points.

Do members agree?

Members indicated agreement.

---

Education (Additional Support for Learning) (Scotland) Act 2004 (Consequential Modifications of Subordinate Legislation) Order 2005 <br />(SSI 2005/517)

No substantive points have arisen on the order.

---

Additional Support for Learning <br />(Co-ordinated Support Plan) (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 2005 <br />(SSI 2005/518)

The Executive undertook to bring forward an amendment in respect of the regulations before commencement of the parent act in order to take account of the committee's criticisms of the instrument. As the original regulations were not yet in force, the Executive has chosen to replace them in their entirety.

There are two points to make on the new regulations. Why does the title of the regulations not follow the usual form for such instruments? The words "Amendment Regulations" are particularly confusing.

Secondly, have the regulations been made available free of charge to all known recipients of the original regulations in accordance with the guidance on statutory instruments? If so, why is there no italic headnote to that effect? Do members agree that those questions should be asked?

Members indicated agreement.

We are thorough.

---

Mental Health Tribunal for Scotland (Practice and Procedure) (No 2) Rules 2005 (SSI 2005/519)

No substantive points have arisen on the rules.

---

National Assistance (Assessment of Resources) Amendment (No 2) (Scotland) Regulations 2005 (SSI 2005/522)

No substantive points have arisen on the regulations, but members will see that the 21-day rule has been breached; you will also have seen the letter about why that has happened. Do members want to make any points about the breaking of the 21-day rule or are they quite happy with the explanation that has been given?

It is a bit strong to say that we are quite happy.

I would not say that we are happy. I am not sure that we should not ask for further information about that, given the dates that are involved. Regulations that were laid in Westminster came into force in September.

We could ask what went wrong with the liaison.

Yes.

We will ask for an explanation about why the 21-day rule had to be broken.

---

Victim Statements (Prescribed Offences) (Scotland) Revocation Order 2005 <br />(SSI 2005/526)

This order also raises a point regarding the adequacy of the explanatory note, as we discussed earlier. Shall we refer the point to the Executive?

Members indicated agreement.