Skip to main content
Loading…
Chamber and committees

Subordinate Legislation Committee, 05 Feb 2002

Meeting date: Tuesday, February 5, 2002


Contents


Instruments Subject to Annulment


National Health Service (Optical Charges and Payments) (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 2002 (SSI 2002/17)

There is a particularly helpful explanatory note with the regulations. We should thank the people who supplied it.


Scottish Commission for the Regulation of Care (Consultation on Transfer of Staff) Order 2002 (SSI 2002/18)

No points arise on the order.


Import and Export Restrictions<br />(Foot-and-Mouth Disease) (Scotland) (No 3) Amendment Regulations 2002<br />(SSI 2002/21)

No points arise on the regulations.


Cattle Identification (Notification of Movement) (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 2002 (SSI 2002/22)

The Convener:

Do we want to ask the Executive, informally, why it has chosen not to remedy the defects in the principal regulations, which were acknowledged by the Executive and to which the committee drew attention in its 4th report in 2001?

Members indicated agreement.


Police Act 1997 (Criminal Records) (Registration) (Scotland) Regulations 2002 (SSI 2002/23)

The Convener:

There was something odd in the regulations. Did anybody else notice it? Regulation 4(6)(a) relates to physically and mentally disabled people. I wondered about the civil rights of mentally and physically disabled people. We should perhaps ask for an explanation. Do members agree?

Members indicated agreement.


Children's Hearings (Legal Representation) (Scotland) Amendment Rules 2002<br />(SSI 2002/30)

The Convener:

Something may well be missing in the instrument. It is required by the guidance on the drafting of statutory instruments that the Scottish Committee of the Council on Tribunals be consulted on the rules, but there is no indication that that has happened. We should ask the Executive whether that committee has been consulted. Also, the original rules were changed. Are these new rules to be made available free of charge to the people who bought the original rules? If they are, why does not the instrument say so?

Ian Jenkins:

There are a couple of drafting errors. The enabling powers citation is not complete because it does not refer to section 103(3) of the Children (Scotland) Act 1995. Also, there is no footnote to the regulations that are referred to in rule 2. Those are technical matters that we should draw to the attention of the Executive.

We have to ask about the consultation and the payments for the redrafted rules.

Sorry, I thought that you had gone past that.

The Convener:

We will draw the other matters to the attention of the Executive.

The letter that went to the Presiding Officer is inaccurate because it cites the wrong enabling powers, but that does not affect the essence of the instrument. We point that out because the rules breached the 21-day rule. That is understandable, however, as it happened because of the recess.

I believe that this instrument was brought forward with great speed, for which we should thank and congratulate the Executive. No other points arise.


Local Authorities' Traffic Orders (Procedure) (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 2002 (SSI 2002/31)

I wonder if Murdo Fraser is up to speed on this one, if he will excuse the expression.

One wonders what power authorised the retrospection in regulation 3.

Yes. That is right. Further, why was regulation 2 thought necessary, and why is regulation 1 headed, "Citation, commencement and extent", when the regulation does not appear to contain any provision that relates to extent?

Lastly, why has it taken three years, which seems an excessively long period, to bring forward the regulations?

We will ask the Executive about those points. The important point is the one about the timing.


Scottish Legal Services Ombudsman (Compensation) (Prescribed Amount) Order 2002 (SSI 2002/32)

Oh, aye—I read this.

As opposed to the rest of us.

You read all of it.

I remember some things more easily than other things. The explanatory note is not clear. I do not know what it means. Perhaps we can ask the Executive why the order did not take the same wording as the Executive note. No other points arise.