Official Report 170KB pdf
Instruments Subject <br />to Annulment
Adults with Incapacity (Removal of Regenerative Tissue for Transplantation) (Form of Certificate) (Scotland) (No 2) Regulations 2006 (SSI 2006/368)
No substantive points arise on the regulations, although members will note that they replace the Adults with Incapacity (Removal of Regenerative Tissue for Transplantation) (Form of Certificate) (Scotland) Regulations 2006 (SSI 2006/343), on which we previously raised points that were agreed to by the Executive. We can informally raise a minor point with the Executive, which is that the regulations breach the 21-day rule, although that seems to be okay in this case.
Inshore Fishing<br />(Prohibition of Fishing for Cockles) (Scotland) (No 2) Order 2006<br />(SSI 2006/383)
No points arise on the order. There has been another breach of the 21-day rule, the reasons for which seem to be acceptable. Is that okay?
Designation of Institutions of Higher Education (Scotland) Amendment Order 2006 (SSI 2006/398)
SSI 2006/398 corrects an error in the Designation of Institutions of Higher Education (Scotland) Order 2006 (SSI 2006/279) in relation to the Robert Gordon University. There has in this case also been a breach of the 21-day rule. Members may also wish to note that instruments that we have considered in relation to the Robert Gordon University were part of a package that we have received piecemeal, which has not helped our legal advisers to see precisely what is happening.
Avian Influenza (Preventive Measures) (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 2006 (SSI 2006/399)
There are no points to raise on the regulations. The breach of the 21-day rule was simply an oversight. I do not think that we will report any concern about that—everybody does it.
Council Tax (Exempt Dwellings) (Scotland) Amendment Order 2006 (SSI 2006/402)
There is a minor point on the order, which can be made by informal letter.
The Robert Gordon University (Scotland) Amendment Order of Council 2006<br />(SSI 2006/404)
The amendment order of council seeks to restore the functions of the governing body of the Robert Gordon University, which were removed by a previous Scottish statutory instrument. That order came into force on 21 June, but the present order comes into force on 21 July. Do we need to ask the Executive to explain the effect of that gap, or do we consider the matter to be water under the bridge?
It might be water under the bridge in a sense, but it is curious. The point might conceivably arise again, so let us ask what the justification for the gap is.
We will ask for an explanation as to why the place was left ungoverned—and ungovernable.
Absolutely. There might have been things that were done during that interlude that are, in effect, under a cloud because of the lack of the relevant powers. As I find the whole thing baffling, we might as well get the one thing that I do understand explained.
If there is a gap, it might forever remain a problem: there might not be any retrospective powers. It is to be hoped that nobody does anything in Aberdeen in the first three weeks in July—which is possible, for all I know.
It is a bit like the old story about Berwick still being at war with Russia. I gather that that is not true, but it illustrates the difficulty of not tying the loose ends together properly.
Okay.
Products of Animal Origin (Third Country Imports) (Scotland) Amendment (No 2) Regulations 2006 (SSI 2006/419)
No points arise on the regulations. There is another acceptable breach of the 21-day rule. It is one of a sequence: it always seems to be okay in such cases.
Human Tissue (Scotland) Act 2006<br />(Human Organ Transplants Act 1989 Transitional and Savings Provisions) Order 2006 (SSI 2006/420)
There are no points on the order apart from the breach of the 21-day rule.
TSE (Scotland) Amendment (No 3) Regulations 2006 (SSI 2006/430)
We might ask the Executive to explain, with reference to the amendment of regulation 33 of the principal regulations that are made by regulation 3, paragraphs (a), (b) and (c), of the present regulations, whether new subparagraph (c) of regulation 33(2) is intended as an alternative to subparagraph (a) or subparagraph (b), or to both. That sounds like a good question to me.
It is a pity that we do not have somebody here to whom we could have put that question without notice.
There has also been another breach of the 21-day rule, but that is okay.
Road User Charging Schemes (Keeping of Accounts and Relevant Expenses) (Scotland) Regulations 2005 Revocation Regulations 2006 (SSI 2006/431)
There are no points on the regulations. They will revoke another instrument, which we thought was defective.
National Health Service<br />(Travelling Expenses and Remission of Charges) (Scotland) Amendment (No 3) Regulations 2006 (SSI 2006/440)
We might ask the Executive why the new regulations could not have been made earlier and why there was, therefore, such a short time between the making, laying and bringing into force of the regulations. Secondly, we could ask why regulation 2(1) refers to schedule 1 to the National Health Service (Travelling Expenses and Remission of Charges) (Scotland) (No 2) Regulations 2003 (SSI 2003/460) when that instrument does not appear to have a schedule that is so numbered. Thirdly, what plans, if any, does the Executive have to consolidate the series of instruments of which the regulations form part? The other questions are not unimportant—although we will no doubt find that they are simply a matter of errors—but that third one, about consolidation, is probably quite serious.
The Executive's reason for the regulations' breach of the 21-day rule was that it was not aware of the English regulations, or that it was waiting for matters to be resolved in England before bringing in our regulations. That is fair enough—I can accept that. However, the legal brief makes it clear that
Is that a mistake?
It says "8 June."
The legal brief also mentions 5 August.
The brief says that
Paragraph 234 says "made on 5 August".
Could we have an explanation as to which date is relevant?
It is 5 August. That is what it should have said.
It was just a mistake.