Subordinate Legislation Committee, 05 Sep 2006

Meeting date: Tuesday, September 5, 2006

Official Report 170KB pdf

---

Instruments Not Laid Before the Parliament

---

Instruments Not Laid Before <br />the Parliament

---

Perth and Kinross (Electoral Arrangements) Order 2006 (SSI 2006/370)<br />Moray (Electoral Arrangements) Order 2006 (SSI 2006/372)

---

Inverclyde (Electoral Arrangements) Order 2006 (SSI 2006/373)<br />East Dunbartonshire (Electoral Arrangements) Order 2006 (SSI/2006/374)

---

Dundee City (Electoral Arrangements) Order 2006 (SSI 2006/375)<br />Stirling (Electoral Arrangements) Order 2006 (SSI 2006/376)

---

South Lanarkshire (Electoral Arrangements) Order 2006 (SSI 2006/377)<br />Argyll and Bute (Electoral Arrangements) Order 2006 (SSI 2006/378)

---

East Renfrewshire (Electoral Arrangements) Order 2006(SSI 2006/391)<br />Falkirk (Electoral Arrangements) Order 2006 (SSI 2006/392)

---

Angus (Electoral Arrangements) Order 2006 (SSI 2006/393)<br />Orkney Islands (Electoral Arrangements) Order 2006 (SSI 2006/394)

---

Aberdeenshire (Electoral Arrangements) Order 2006 (SSI 2006/416)<br />North Ayrshire (Electoral Arrangements) Order 2006 (SSI 2006/427)

---

East Ayrshire (Electoral Arrangements) Order 2006 (SSI 2006/428)<br />South Ayrshire (Electoral Arrangements) Order 2006 (SSI 2006/429)

---

Dumfries and Galloway (Electoral Arrangements) Order 2006 (SSI 2006/434)

We have the Perth and Kinross (Electoral Arrangements) Order 2006 (SSI 2006/370), followed by umpteen orders for other parts of Scotland. There are 17 of them, in fact, and no points arise on any of them.

---

Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 (Commencement No 7) Order 2006 (SSI 2006/381)<br />Private Security Industry Act 2001 (Commencement No 1) (Scotland) Order 2006 (SSI 2006/382)

No points have been identified on the orders.

---

Housing (Scotland) Act 2006 (Commencement No 3) Order 2006<br />(SSI 2006/395)

We should draw the order to the attention of Parliament on the ground of unduly limited use of the powers, as is acknowledged by the Executive, which is moving to correct the matter.

---

Act of Sederunt (Jurisdiction, Recognition and Enforcement of Judgments in Matrimonial Matters and Matters of Parental Responsibility Rules) 2006 <br />(SSI 2006/397)

No substantive points arise on the act of sederunt. There is a minor point that can be raised informally with the Court of Session.

---

Act of Sederunt (Ordinary Cause and Summary Application Rules) Amendment (Miscellaneous) 2006 (SSI 2006/410)

No points arise on the act of sederunt.

---

Act of Sederunt (Child Care and Maintenance Rules 1997) (Amendment) (Adoption and Children Act 2002) 2006 <br />(SSI 2006/411)

No points arise on the act of sederunt as such. However, something quite concerning did arise. I do not really know what happened. Our legal advisers found some typographical problems with the instrument. When they queried them with the court, they found that the typos were not in the original instrument that was held by the court. The Executive processes rules of court. I would really like to know what happened. I presume that signed originals are kept somewhere for ever and a day and that what we get are certified true copies.

The actual difference in this case does not matter, but we and our advisers deal with certified true copies. Our whole business—and my whole training—is to take the description "certified true copy" as an act of faith. That is how I have always dealt with things. I do not see how there can be even a minor error. We might think in this modern day of word processors that what comes out as a copy will be identical to the signed original. I find quite disturbing the fact that there can be any differences at all. If the process allows for a minor difference, it could presumably allow for a major difference. That is quite a serious point, albeit that the differences do not matter in the case of the act of sederunt that is before us. It is the existence of a difference that I think is of some concern.

It is not of concern just to us, but to every committee of Parliament. If we cannot have faith in the certified true copies with which we all work, that undermines everything.

It would be very strange if the original was different. The question about the process and how such changes are allowed to happen is quite serious. We will ask it.

Do we ask it of the Executive, or do we ask the Court of Session to comment? How is it done? Whoever is responsible for acts of sederunt up the road at the court should be aware that we are raising the question of acts of sederunt not actually being true copies.

Rules of court are processed by the Executive for the court. We could write to both, or we could ask the Executive to include a response from the court in its response to us.

If we are raising the issue with the Executive, the Lord President should, presumably, know that we are doing so.

Even though the inference is that the fault might lie in the transmission, and that the Executive is to blame for the discrepancies, we should not presume that. We should ask both parties to the process to examine the protocols that apply to how they do their work. Both should satisfy themselves that their part in the procedure is absolutely foolproof.

If nothing else, the court should know that the problem has arisen. We are making it clear that there is not a problem with the instrument; it is the fact that there is a difference that is odd.

---

Police, Public Order and Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 2006 (Commencement No 1) Order 2006 (SSI 2006/432)<br />Act of Adjournal (Criminal Procedure Rules Amendment No 4) (Miscellaneous) 2006 (SSI 2006/436)

---

Act of Sederunt (Summary Applications, Statutory Applications and Appeals etc Rules) Amendment (Miscellaneous) 2006 (SSI 2006/437)

No points arise on the instruments.

That, with regret, will have to do us until 12 September.

Meeting closed at 11:19.