Official Report 152KB pdf
Standards in Public Life Code of Conduct: Members' Model Code (SE 2001/51)
We talked about the model code at the previous meeting. The problem is that there is not a clear statement of whether the provisions are discretionary or mandatory. Does anybody have anything to say?
It appears that the provisions in the model code are supposed to be discretionary, but that is not stated clearly. The matter is left in limbo when it should be more clearly stated.
The matter is probably on the borderline between our work and that of the lead committee, which must decide whether the presentation impacts on the substance of the code. I think that it does, and that we should draw the attention of the lead committee and the Parliament to the code. Is that agreed?
Scottish Social Services Council (Consultation on Codes of Practice) Order 2001 (SSI 2001/424)
The order does not contain the definition of the phrase "SQA qualification" that was established by the Education (Scotland) Act 1996. To find out what that phrase means one must hunt through a lot of legislation. That is the type of thing that the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments has said is bad drafting. Perhaps we should draw the Executive's attention to that. It is called unnecessary referential drafting, which I think means that we have to go and look up lots of things.
Import and Export Restrictions<br />(Foot-and-Mouth Disease) (Scotland)<br />(No 3) Regulations 2001 (SSI 2001/429)
Four questions were raised about the regulations.
They amount to pointing out bits of inelegant drafting.
The Executive has already made amending regulations, which is all to the good.
The Executive has not, however, dealt with the fourth point, about money being recoverable "as a debt".
That matter has arisen before. Should we talk to the Executive about it at some point?
It is a legal nonsense to say:
We can tell the Executive that, or we can ask it to come and have it out with us at a committee meeting. Which would members prefer?
What is the practical purpose of the words "as a debt"?
There is no purpose.
There is none.
It is already a debt.
Indeed, a sum of money that is owed is a debt. The wording is wholly unnecessary.
I would like to know why the Executive believes that the phrase serves a practical purpose.
Since this is not the first time that the phrase has come up, shall we invite someone from the Executive to come and tell us about it in the new year?
Someone should tell us what it means.
Right. We might raise some similar points at that time. We could point out that two or three drafting points keep arising and that, rather than writing to the Executive every week, it would be better to address them.
I am trying to think of a situation where money could be owed to somebody and there was no debt.
Please do not. We would have to sit here until next week.
National Health Service<br />(Charges for Drugs and Appliances)<br />(Scotland) Regulations 2001 (SSI 2001/430)
We move to the regulations on charges for drugs.
Do not forget that sinister word, "appliances".
Once again, the regulations have defective drafting. The third and fourth points of our letter to the Executive have been acknowledged. The failure to follow proper drafting practice noted in the first and third points has been partly acknowledged by the Executive. The Executive has acknowledged some points, for example that on regulation 3(3) and the use of gender-neutral terms. The Executive has agreed that all those men are not gender neutral and has apologised.
What men?
Chemists. You missed the good bits last week, Gordon.
Previous
Delegated Powers Scrutiny