Official Report 140KB pdf
Draft Instruments Subject <br />to Approval
Criminal Justice Act 1988 (Offensive Weapons) (Scotland) Order 2005 (draft)
Agenda item 2 is consideration of draft instruments subject to approval. No points arise on the draft order.
Mental Health (Absconding by mentally disordered offenders) (Scotland) Regulations 2005 (draft)
Although no substantive points have been identified on the draft regulations, a few minor ones have been raised. Do members agree to raise those points in an informal letter?
Mental Health (Care and Treatment) (Scotland) Act 2003 (Modification of Enactments) Order 2005 (draft)
As members will see, the next batch of draft orders was withdrawn and relaid over the summer. Quite a lot of work has been done on them over the recess; after all, given that the implementation date for the Mental Health (Care and Treatment) (Scotland) Act 2003 is 5 October, the orders need to be in a reasonable state.
I have no points to raise on the draft order, convener, but I am interested in the process by which our advisers took the lead and raised many issues with the Executive, which has responded. I am very happy with that good work.
I gather from the clerk that the points were very technical and that the matters that were highlighted were clearly wrong. As a result, it was decided that, in orders to get things done on time, this approach should be taken. However, you have raised a very interesting question.
We discuss many technical points such as incorrect indentation or inappropriate commas. Although such matters tend to be dealt with informally, they are nonetheless raised in our briefing paper and we approve the informal letters and ask many technical questions. Presumably, legal advisers wait until the committee agrees to the questions before asking them. Much of that business could be wrapped up if our officials and the Executive officials had a sensible dialogue. Such an approach would leave the committee free to concentrate on more substantive matters instead of having to deal with the routine legalese that we get bogged down in as we move through our agendas.
As you know, our review is on-going. Although that took up some recess time, there was still a bit of time to allow this process to happen. You have raised the issue—
I would simply like some thought to be given to how we might streamline our business. I am not looking for a definitive response, convener.
Well, yes, but I should point out that, in the background, we have been trying very hard to ensure that we bring this type of process into operation. To be quite honest, what happened in the recess was really a continuation of what we hoped would become a matter of course.
I encourage you to develop and expand that scheme of delegated authority. Members would be happy for our officials to be empowered to deal with their Executive counterparts.
Absolutely.
I raised the same point in the discussion before the meeting formally began. I served on the Subordinate Legislation Committee a couple of years ago, and I am very encouraged to find that this approach has been taken. It represents a big improvement and shows the importance of dialogue between the committee and the Executive.
As I said, we have been trying to pursue this matter.
It is a sobering thought that, having left the Subordinate Legislation Committee, one can come back.
I can assure you that it was not a punishment; it was my own choice.
Mental Health (Cross-border transfer: patients subject to detention requirement or otherwise in hospital) (Scotland) Regulations 2005 (draft)
As with the previous draft instrument, the draft regulations were withdrawn and relaid. No further points arise on the regulations.
Mental Health (Definition of Specified Person: Correspondence) (Scotland) Regulations 2005 (draft)
Do members have any points to raise on the draft regulations?
The legal briefing contains a very interesting explanation of the vires of the regulations. However, I am sad to say that it must remain a mystery to the wider readership that follows the committee's proceedings.
Do members agree that no points arise on the draft regulations?
Mental Health (Safety and Security) (Scotland) Regulations 2005 (draft)
Although no specific points have been raised on the draft regulations, we should note that they were withdrawn and relaid. Are members agreed that no further points arise on the regulations?
Mental Health (Use of Telephones) (Scotland) Regulations 2005 (draft)
A number of minor drafting points have been raised on the draft regulations. However, they can be dealt with in an informal letter. Are members agreed?
Public Appointments and Public Bodies etc (Scotland) Act 2003 (Amendment of Specified Authorities) Order 2005 (draft)<br />Public Appointments and Public Bodies etc (Scotland) Act 2003 (Treatment of Office or Body as Specified Authority) Order 2005 (draft)
A similar issue applies to both orders: it is felt that the explanatory notes to each order could be a little more informative. Do we agree to make the relevant points in an informal letter?
Previous
Interests