Official Report 121KB pdf
Housing Grants (Assessment of Contributions) (Scotland) Regulations 2003 (draft)
We raised six points on the regulations with the Executive. Do members have any comments?
However, the Executive agrees that the footnote omits the relevant amendment and it intends to rectify that omission in the final print of the regulations.
I think so.
That seems like a reasonable explanation. [Interruption.]
Murray Tosh is not supposed to be here.
No, he has apologised.
It turns out that my meeting is taking place later on.
I welcome Murray Tosh to the committee.
Our fourth question was slightly more serious. It was about the omission of mention of the Eileen trust and the other new trusts that were set up earlier this year to make payments to sufferers of new variant CJD. Although the omission was unintentional, the Executive accepts that it will have to introduce a statutory instrument as soon as possible. Is the committee happy with that?
In answer to the committee's fifth question, the Executive agrees that it could have used better drafting practice and it will correct that at the earliest possible opportunity.
Housing Grants (Minimum Percentage Grant) (Scotland) Regulations 2003 (draft)
Members will recall that the issue with the regulations was about consistency. Terms are defined in the regulations that are already defined in the parent act. As I understand the situation, definitions are normally included in the parent act and it is not consistent to have them in the regulations as well. Are there any suggestions as to how we might proceed on that? The Executive seems to be saying that there is no harm in including such definitions in certain circumstances because they might be helpful to the reader.
In that case, should those definitions be in the explanatory note to the regulations rather than in the regulations? I believe that an explanatory note always forms part of the document, although it is not a legal document.
Are we agreed that we should ask the Executive to include such definitions in the explanatory note?
We should be asking for clarification on that rather than making a particularly heavy point about it. The official who spoke at last week's away day was clear that the Executive wants definitions to appear somewhere. It might be a small point for the Executive, but we should explore the issue before making the point.
We could present it as a point of principle about consistency, and say that we do not believe that what is happening at the moment is consistent because such definitions are appearing in some instruments and not in others. Is that agreed?
Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982 (Licensing of Houses in Multiple Occupation) Amendment Order 2003 (draft)
We had doubts about the vires of the amendment order. The Executive was asked to confirm whether the power conferred by the parent act is sufficient to authorise the creation of the new criminal offences. Does the committee believe that the Executive's response that the situation is acceptable is sufficient or should we take the matter further?
A doubt still exists. The Executive might want to be able to create new offences in that way for obvious reasons, but it is a dangerous precedent and we should not just let the matter drop at this point. There is a principle involved in creating new offences in this way as opposed to just modifying them. We should pursue that.
Are we agreed that we should raise with the lead committee and the Parliament the fact that there are doubts as to whether the instrument is ultra vires?
Welfare of Farmed Animals (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 2003 (draft)
Members will recall that the draft Welfare of Farmed Animals (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 2003 refer to the tethering and moving around of pigs. The first response that we received from the Executive related to the delay in the measure. The Executive argued that the implementation measure does not become ultra vires simply by virtue of being late. The question is whether we accept that view. I gather that, legally speaking, the issue is on-going, so there is some uncertainty. We might wish to write a note to the lead committee on the matter.
A note to the lead committee might be sufficient. Otherwise, I am minded to leave the matter be.
We could point out that, although we have been reassured by the Executive on the issue, it is on-going. Is that agreed?
Yes.
The Executive has explained the situation with regard to tethering more clearly. It has covered what it aims to prohibit and has pointed out that, as certain provisions do not have effect until 1 January 2006, further regulations will be introduced nearer the time. Do members feel that that is a reasonable response?
The last point under these regulations relates to the dimensions of the stall or pen in which the pig is moving around. I felt that the Executive's explanation on the matter was reasonable. Is that agreed?
Yes. Our previous discussions on the matter led to some amusing interchanges between Gordon Jackson and myself on a formula for working out the dimensions of a pen. However, if the explanation from the Executive is reasonable, if the spirit of the relevant European directive is being implemented and if the regulations are physically implemented by breeders, then that is fine.
Is it agreed that the Executive's response is reasonable?
Condensed Milk and Dried Milk (Scotland) Regulations 2003 (SSI 2003/311)
A number of points arose on these instruments. The Food Standards Agency accepted our first point, that the word "fat" is missing from an entry in column 2, item 1(c), in schedule 1 to the regulations. The agency will rectify the omission at the earliest opportunity. That is a matter of defective drafting.
We raised the fact that the regulations breached the 21-day rule. We have been told that a technical issue arose. Members will find some explanation as to what happened at a later point in their papers. We are told that the progress of regulations implementing the European Community directives was delayed late on in the drafting process. FSA officials needed to revise substantially the accompanying regulatory impact assessments to ensure that they fully reflected the impact of the provisions contained in the directives concerning animal feed producers throughout the United Kingdom.
This is not the first time that the issue of the 21-day rule has arisen. Indeed, we will come to it again later today. The Food Standards Agency has stated in its response that it takes the matter seriously, but the 21-day rule problem seems to recur, and I have doubts as to whether the Scottish parliamentary timetable is being taken into account in this instance. We have raised the issue before, but we should raise it again. It is perhaps time to meet representatives of the agency and discuss the matter. The exchange of letters on the matter dates back to the first session. I suggest that we arrange a meeting with the FSA to discuss the issue.
Is the committee agreed on that?
The FSA has stated that it would be happy to discuss the issues with us.
I think that we should take up the agency's offer.
That is agreed. The agency has reassured us that it is taking on board the point about timetabling. We will take up the matter, as it is a recurring one.
Feeding Stuffs (Scotland) Amendment <br />(No 2) Regulations 2003 (SSI 2003/312)
Most of the points that we raised under these regulations are similar to those that we have already discussed: they relate to the 21-day rule and to general issues and concerns, which have been covered by the response that we have received. No other points arise.
Convener, we have not yet considered the Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Act 2003 (Commencement No 1) Order 2003.
I am sorry—I turned over two pages in my papers.
Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Act 2003 (Commencement No 1) Order 2003 <br />(SSI 2003/248)
It is apt that we ensure that we cover this order today—we did not get it covered in the Official Report at the previous meeting. Is it agreed that no substantive points arise?
Next
Draft Code