Instruments Subject <br />to Annulment
European Communities (Services of Lawyers) Amendment (Scotland) Order 2004 (SSI 2004/186)
Two points have been raised on the order. The first refers to whether the omission from the order of a reference to solicitor advocates is deliberate. It may be that the reference to solicitors is taken to be all-encompassing and that it covers solicitor advocates. The second point is whether the term that has been used for the designation of a Luxembourg lawyer is correct.
I agree with those two points, which we should ask about. I note that, for some fascinating reason, possibly to do with the European Communities Act 1972, the instrument has been made by the Privy Council rather than the Scottish ministers, which is quite unusual.
For the benefit of those of us who did not have Alasdair Morgan's classical education, perhaps.
I was going to say something similar. You obviously had a serious classical education, Alasdair.
Would you like to say that through the chair?
Sorry.
If we are going to ask about the Luxembourg designation of "avocat-avoué", we might as well ask why the Hellenic Republic seems to have given up the Greek alphabet.
That is very interesting. There are no further points. We will ask the Executive those questions.
Supervised Attendance Order <br />(Prescribed Courts) (Scotland) Order 2004 (SSI 2004/194)
No points have been identified in the legal advice.
It is good that the provisions under the order have come into force, and I look forward to their being rolled out to district courts across Scotland.
That is a policy point.
I realise that.
There are no points from a subordinate legislation point of view.
Act of Sederunt (Fees of Solicitors and Witnesses in the Sheriff Court) (Amendment No 2) 2004 (SSI 2004/196)
The Court of Session has acknowledged that the instrument is technically defectively drafted, by reason of the typographical error in paragraph 2(2). There therefore seems to be no need for a further letter to the court, but the committee should perhaps draw the attention of the lead committee and the Parliament to that error, so that there is no confusion. Is that agreed?
Special Waste Amendment (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 2004 <br />(SSI 2004/204)
These regulations have returned to us. We pointed out a difficulty, and the erroneous reference to "producer return" has now been removed. There are no further points. Is that agreed?