Official Report 121KB pdf
Instruments Not Laid <br />Before the Parliament
Act of Sederunt (Summary Applications, Statutory Applications and Appeals etc Rules) Amendment (Anti-social Behaviour Orders) 2003 (SSI 2003/319)<br />Argyll and Clyde National Health Service Trusts (Dissolution) Order 2003 <br />(SSI 2003/325)
No points arise on these instruments.
Diseases of Animals (Approved Disinfectants) Amendment (Scotland) Order 2003 (SSI 2003/334)
The order appears to be a classic case of a situation in which consolidation would be useful, which is a matter that we mentioned at a previous meeting. In this case, the principal order was made as long ago as 1978.
Act of Sederunt (Summary Applications, Statutory Applications and Appeals etc Rules) Amendment (Standards Commission for Scotland) 2003<br />(SSI 2003/346)
No points arise on the act of sederunt.
Public Appointments and Public Bodies etc (Scotland) Act 2003 (Commencement No 2) Order 2003 (SSI 2003/348)
There is a question whether the schedule to the Public Appointments and Public Bodies etc (Scotland) Act 2003 that this order purports to commence has already been commenced.
Yes, this is a rather strange situation. The order appears to be doing something that has already been done. We need to clarify whether the schedule has been commenced. If it has not, does that create problems and, if it has, would problems be created by doing it again through this order? There is a danger of our creating a logical loop. We must point out the problem to the Executive.
Is that agreed?
Movement of Animals (Restrictions) (Scotland) Order 2003 (SSI 2003/353)
It appears that an Executive note is absent from the order. Is there anything else that we could ask about?
We could ask why only part of the order is being revoked. Why not revoke the entire order? Also, the Executive does not say whether the order raises any European Community issues. We should ask about that.
Diseases of Poultry (Scotland) Order 2003 (SSI 2003/354)
The legal advice recommends that we raise with the Executive the question of the means of transport as well as that of the premises. It seems that vehicles are mentioned in the order, but not vessels or aircraft. We would want that issue to be explored. The Movement of Animals (Restrictions) (Scotland) Order 2003 (SSI 2003/353) refers to "means of transport" and this order would be an exception if it did not do the same thing.
Many instruments might not need to be accompanied by an Executive note, as they might be sufficiently clear. Nevertheless, it might be good practice for every instrument to come with an Executive note, even if it said only that it was not considered that any further explanation were necessary. That would build in the practice of having an Executive note, whether it said anything or not.
How do we feel about that? It would certainly ensure that we knew that the note had not been left out accidentally.
Every box should be ticked every time.
Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 2000 (Commencement No 4) (Scotland) Order 2003 (SSI 2003/378)
There seem to be issues about the vires of this order. We might want to ask the Executive what effect, if any, the instrument will have on any convictions or other actions taken under the provisions of the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 2000, which is specified in the order, given the delay between the act's coming into law and the making of this order. Is that agreed?
Public Appointments and Public Bodies etc (Scotland) Act 2003 (Commencement No 3) Order 2003 (SSI 2003/384)
Like the Public Appointments and Public Bodies etc (Scotland) Act 2003 (Commencement No 2) Order 2003 (SSI 2003/348), this order seems to commence something that has already been commenced. In this case, we think that the Public Appointments and Public Bodies etc (Scotland) Act 2003 commenced the provision in question. Do we agree to ask the Executive about the purpose of this order?
Act of Sederunt (Rules of the Court of Session Amendment No 5) (Insolvency Proceedings) 2003 (SSI 2003/385)
No points arise on the act of sederunt.
Act of Adjournal (Criminal Appeals) 2003 (SSI 2003/387)
Paragraph 3(3)(b) of the act of adjournal inserts a rule 19.18, dealing with the presentation of the summary sentence appeal in writing. However, it appears that there may already exist a rule 19.18, inserted by SI 1996/2147, which deals with remits in applications for leave to appeal. The rule number appears to have been duplicated. Do we agree to write to the Executive to ask about the numbering?
Act of Sederunt (Sheriff Court Company Insolvency Rules 1986) Amendment 2003 (SSI 2003/388)
Two errors have been identified in this act of sederunt.