Official Report 140KB pdf
Instruments Subject <br />to Annulment
Mental Health (Compulsion orders—documents and reports to be submitted to the Tribunal) (Scotland) Regulations 2005 (SSI 2005/365)
We can raise a few minor points about the regulations in an informal letter. Do members have any substantive points?
No.
That is agreed.
Mental Health (Compulsory treatment orders—documents and reports to be submitted to the Tribunal) (Scotland) Regulations 2005 (SSI 2005/366)
We can raise minor points about footnotes in an informal letter. Do members have any substantive points?
No.
That is agreed.
Mental Health (Conflict of Interest) (Scotland) (No 2) Regulations 2005 <br />(SSI 2005/380)
We can raise minor points about footnotes via an informal letter. Do members have any substantive points?
No.
That is agreed.
Mental Health (Removal Order) (Scotland) Regulations 2005 (SSI 2005/381)
We have two minor points to put in an informal letter. Are there other points?
I have a general question on the series of regulations that we have just considered. I take it that we did not address those issues with the Executive in the summer because they are only minor matters that would not raise the question of re-laying the regulations.
That is right. I am also told that the regulations are not subject to a deadline such as that for the instruments that we dealt with earlier, which was 5 October.
Teachers' Superannuation (Scotland) Regulations 2005 (SSI 2005/393)
The committee may wish to note that the Executive has now met its undertaking to consolidate the principal regulations and various amending regulations. Do members have any points?
As with the two orders on public appointments, I did not find the explanatory note to the regulations very informative or detailed. However, I then noted that the Executive note expanded on it. I believe that the Executive has published that note and put it on the web, so it is available to all, unlike notes in the past. That is to be noted and commended.
I think that we all welcome the fact that the note is on the web.
Welcomed.
That is welcomed by all.
Paragraph 53 of our legal briefing advises us of the requirement for Treasury consent. Is Treasury consent necessary for the consolidation, the substantive changes to the scheme or both?
I am told that it is required for both.
Could the legal adviser briefly give us a sense of why that is necessary? I appreciate that the legal briefing says that the requirement is in the Scotland Act 1998, but what is the rationale for Treasury consent in the circumstance of the regulations?
We will return to that in a second when the legal adviser has checked that out.
I am happy for the legal adviser to come back to us. The matter is just something that I do not recall encountering.
The legal adviser suggests that, to give you the fullest explanation, we could return to the subject next week. We have time to do that, which would be no problem.
I am not suggesting in any sense that approval of the instrument would be conditional on that. The question is simply for information and an indication of the instruments on which that point arises. [Interruption.]
We will suspend the meeting for a few minutes because of sound difficulties.
Meeting suspended.
On resuming—
Do we agree that the information for which Murray Tosh asked in relation to paragraph 53 of our legal briefing, which will be circulated to members for next week's meeting, does not affect our agreement to the regulations?
Mental Health (Specified Persons' Correspondence) (Scotland) Regulations 2005 (SSI 2005/408)
Members may wish to consider asking the Executive to explain why the term "specified person" is defined in regulation 2, given its definition in the parent act, the Mental Health (Care and Treatment) (Scotland) Act 2003—normally, a term that has been so defined is not defined again—whereas the term "relevant item" in regulation 5(2) is not defined. Do we agree to ask that?
Yes; I am happy with that. I do not wish to labour the point that I made earlier, but the regulations provide a good example of the question that I instanced. The committee's authority is not needed to raise a fairly standard question about definitions in acts.
Adam Ingram is nodding, too, so we all agree to such an approach, if it would speed the process. There seems no reason not to take that approach with minor matters. Is that agreed?
Members are happy to raise the points about the regulations informally with the Executive and to have them cleared up.
Mental Welfare Commission for Scotland (Procedure and Delegation of Functions) Regulations 2005 (SSI 2005/411)
The issue is whether the word "may" in paragraph 1(2) of the schedule to the regulations should be "shall". The word is used in relation to circumstances when the Mental Welfare Commission for Scotland's convener may call a meeting of the commission. The drafting could be deliberate, but it is unclear whether the calling of a meeting is meant to be mandatory when some conditions are met. Do we agree to ask about that?
Mental Health (Fee Payable to Designated Medical Practitioners) (Scotland) (No 2) Regulations 2005 (SSI 2005/412)
Do members have any substantive points on the regulations?
No.
We are agreed.
Mental Health (Period for Appeal) Regulations 2005 (SSI 2005/416)
Did anybody notice that "Scotland" is not in the title?
I did not, but I wonder why our legal briefing suggests asking rather than telling the Executive about that.
That is another example of what we have discussed. Do we agree to raise that point?
Mental Health (Care and Treatment) (Scotland) Act 2003 (Code of Practice) Order 2005 (SSI 2005/417)
No substantive points arise on the order, but does the committee agree to raise by informal letter the minor drafting point that is mentioned in the legal briefing? The same point that Murray Tosh made earlier could be made.