Official Report 152KB pdf
Local Government (Exemption from Competition) (Scotland) Amendment Order 2001 (SSI 2001/431)
No points arise on the order.
Local Government Act 1988 (Competition) (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 2001 (SSI 2001/432)
The instrument has been replaced, so we do not need to consider it further.
Excellent. We will send the Executive a bunch of flowers for replacing it so quickly.
Smoke Control Areas (Authorised Fuels) (Scotland) Regulations 2001 (SSI 2001/433)
The Executive has chosen to consolidate. Once again, we should thank it for doing so timeously.
Pesticides (Maximum Residue Levels in Crops, Food and Feeding Stuffs) (Scotland) Amendment (No 3) Regulations 2001 (SSI 2001/435)
Regulations such as these do the ordinary person's head in.
Absolutely. Would you care to speak for the ordinary man?
The matter is confusing to the ordinary person, but the details are no doubt needed. Our legal advisers spotted one or two errors that had better be corrected. We could ask the Executive to explain the reference in regulation 2(3)(c), about which I will not go into detail.
Go on.
Regulation 2(3)(c) refers to 0.02(37)(39) when I think it ought to refer to 0.05(37)(39).
We could also ask why the directives in schedule 1 are not listed in a tabular form.
That relates to presentation. Gordon Jackson is reading from a need-to-know perspective.
Is the suggestion to delete 0.02(37)(39) and put the same figure back in?
Your figures are wrong.
The figures are different.
So the figures in the brackets are different.
He cannot see the small figures.
What does that mean? More importantly, do we care?
We really care. That is why we will ask the Executive to explain its efforts in regulation 2(3)(c). We must do so—the regulations concern pesticides, which are bad.
While you are at it, I am worried about Jerusalem artichokes.
At the Liberal Democrat bazaar on Saturday, I was sold a lot of Jerusalem artichokes on the basis that they would cure my diabetes.
Did you check the pesticide levels?
They said, "Here is a Liberal coming. Let's sell him some."
They were forced upon me.
National Health Service (Superannuation Scheme, Injury Benefits and Compensation for Premature Retirement) (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 2001 (SSI 2001/437)
There is quite a lot on the regulations in the legal briefing. Should we ask the Executive to explain its drafting approach? Amendments to three sets of regulations were incorporated in the same instrument, but it appears that there are no provisions common to each set. Also, why are the references to the three sets of regulations that are contained in regulations 2 to 4 divorced from the relevant amending regulations? There are a number of bizarre things about the drafting.
Regulations 2, 3 and 4 are completely unnecessary.
Right. We will write to the Executive asking for an explanation of those apparently anomalous things.
Regulation 15 removes, or inserts, a comma.
Yes. I noticed the commas. The Executive decided that that was not good drafting practice.
The solicitors are underemployed.
On the other hand, perhaps they cannot work their PCs.
We are not talking about our solicitors, but the drafters.
Act of Sederunt (Fees of Solicitors in the Sheriff Court) (Amendment) 2001<br />(SSI 2001/438)
No points arise on the act of sederunt.
Act of Sederunt (Fees of Sheriff Officers) 2001 (SSI 2001/439)
No points arise on the act of sederunt.
Beef Special Premium (Scotland) Regulations 2001 (SSI 2001/445)
The regulations concern the suckler cow premium. Does any member wish to address that subject?
It is rather odd that there is no protection against self-incrimination in relation to regulation 18.
For the cows?
I am not sure that that is correct.
What? Is that not usually the case?
There was a recent road traffic case in which the question of people having to give their name was raised. The court held that that was self-incrimination, which is illegal under the European convention on human rights. The name of the case escapes me, but the Privy Council overturned it, saying that it is okay for a person to give their name—Brown or whatever—in a road traffic case. I am not sure whether that ruling impacts on the regulations.
That is another reason for us to ask the Executive about that.
By all means, we should ask.
That is fine, if that is the reason. It means that the Executive is absolutely up to date with the Brown case.
A similar case was apparently appealed in Strasbourg. I believe that we are awaiting the outcome of that case.
That makes it all the more necessary for us to ask for an explanation.
Fine.
I am glad that I raised that point.
We are proud that you did so.
In the past, self-incrimination has been a difficult legal question in Scotland.
I am sure that it has.
It will be interesting to hear what the Executive has to say.
An informal letter will cover the minor mistakes, including the typos, but we must ask the Executive about self-incrimination and about the reference to Commission Regulation (EC) No 2801/1997 in the definition of Commission Regulation 3887/1992, which is on page 3 of the regulations.
Further to that, there is also the question about the derivation of regulation 3B of the Suckler Cow Premium (Scotland) Regulations 1993, as it does not appear to be SI 1194/1528 as stated in the footnote to the regulations.
Right. The regulations are consolidated regulations. Perhaps that is where the difficulty lies. I am not sure, but we can ask.
Local Government Act 1988 (Competition) (Scotland) Amendment (No 2) Regulations 2001 (SSI 2001/446)
No points arise on the regulations.
Community Care (Direct Payments) (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 2001 (SSI 2001/447)
Does anyone want to comment on the regulations?
The explanatory note is rather poor.
We could ask the Executive for an explanation for that.
The Executive note gives a helpful exposition of the effect of the regulation. However, the regulation is unintelligible to the ordinary reader. As time goes on we will need to decide just how much of a point we want to make on the issue of clarity for lay people.