Official Report 116KB pdf
Instruments Subject<br />to Annulment
Sheep and Goats Spongiform Encephalopathy (Compensation) Amendment (Scotland) Order 2001<br />(SSI 2001/458)
There is nothing to note on the order, but perhaps the clerk could mention in an informal letter to the Executive that it is a well-crafted instrument and that we enjoyed reading the particularly helpful footnotes.
Did we?
Well, some of us are really into the spongiform stuff.
Police Pensions (Pension Sharing on Divorce) (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 2001 (SSI 2001/459)
Once again there is a small typo—a footnote has been wrongly transcribed—which can be dealt with by an informal letter to the Executive.
Local Government Pension Scheme (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 2001 (SSI 2001/460)
These regulations are more interesting.
But only marginally.
From the point of view of a civil servant, the regulations are interesting. I thought that members might also be interested, because we have the business of considering whether the matter is within our devolved competence.
I have read the regulations and I think that they are within our competence.
I have no doubt that members will agree that it is worth, at this stage anyway, asking for just a little more information from the Executive on why it has reasoned that the regulations are within devolved competence. The matter is likely to come up again in the future, so we should note that this might be an area for questioning. Do you agree?
I do. My suspicion is that the legal brief is right and that the primary purpose justification of "We're going down this course" will turn out to be the answer. However, we could in future end up having a case about the regulations. It would then be useful if we could demonstrate that we asked the question about devolved competence. The phrase used in the legal briefing—on the face of the record—is a good one. Getting the matter on the record would mean that, whatever happens in the future, no one could say, "Well, the Subordinate Legislation Committee did not even notice it."
Yes.
It is called watching your back—I mean the committee's collective back.
There is something in that. We should at least ask the question of the Executive, but I suspect that the answer that we will get will be the primary purpose justification.
Which might be perfectly reasonable.
It might be. However, "on the face of the record" is a good phrase on this occasion.
It is.
If we are agreed, that is what we will do. The clerk will contact the Executive to that effect.
Police Pensions (Additional Voluntary Contributions and Increased Benefits) (Pension Sharing) (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 2001 (SSI 2001/461)
There is another typo in the regulations, but—again—it can probably be raised informally with the Executive, unless any member wants it to be more formal.
There is a wee point to make regarding the use of the phrase "personal representatives", because the Scottish tradition would be to use the word "executor". However, we cannot make much of the matter, as the use of "personal representatives" has been established by precedent.
This is part of the on-going death of Scottish vocabulary.
I realise that as far as everyday use is concerned, this battle has probably been lost. However, we can at least put a couple of lines in our informal letter to the Executive saying that we note once again such-and-such a thing and regret the loss of these tried and tested Scottish terms.
When, in another context, we used the word "mortgage", a well-known and perhaps somewhat eccentric Scottish sheriff, who is a friend of mine, sent us huge amounts of stuff complaining about the use of that word. Did you get that too?
Yes.
His complaint was that "mortgage" is an English legal term, which is the same reason for complaint in this case. That well-known and eccentric sheriff bombarded us with e-mails on the subject.
Will we identify him afterwards?
He will identify himself.
Yes, he will undoubtedly know to whom I am referring and be proud of my description of him.
Do you want to draw the matter to the attention of the Executive? Or do you want to give in to established precedent?
What is the point, again? Remind me what the word is.
The word "executor" is being substituted by "personal representatives". I am an executor—full stop—for somebody who shall remain nameless. Why should we change that word?
Yes, I like the word "executor". It is nice.
We all know what that word means. It is ours.
We can mention the matter of terminology in our letter to the Executive.
I do not suppose that the Executive will fall over the matter, so I can see no harm in mentioning it.
Well, I do not know. It could be the start.
That is the domino theory. Begin with the Executive and who knows where you will end up.
If the Executive subscribes to using the Scots language and that kind of thing, then to eliminate willingly such a Scottish term is not right.
You are absolutely right. The clerk will write to the Executive stating that we prefer to see the use of Scots terms where they are relevant, understood and cohesive.
And normal usage.
Right. Eccellente! That is Italian.
I can see that it is going to be one those years.
Och no, this is just a wee warm-up.
Legal Aid (Scotland) Act 1986 (Availability of Solicitors) Regulations 2001<br />(SSI 2001/464)
No points arise on the regulations.
National Health Service (Scotland) (Superannuation Scheme and Additional Voluntary Contributions) (Pension Sharing on Divorce) Amendment Regulations 2001 (SSI 2001/465)
There are a large number of typos in the regulations and we should write to the Executive to point that out.
Road Traffic (NHS Charges) Amendment (Scotland) Regulations 2001 (SSI 2001/466)
We may wish to ask the Executive why there has been no consultation on such a large increase in the maximum charge for treatment—from £10,000 to £30,000. The Executive may say that it does not need to consult on this matter.
I am a huge fan of making the Executive consult, but why is that necessary here? The regulations are designed to make insurers pay. The Executive or the health service thinks that the maximum charge needs to be raised to £30,000 to ensure that that happens, but it is not as if you or I are being asked to pay. Charges to the public are not being increased.
Ultimately, charges to the public will rise as a result of the regulations. The insurers will pay, but they will also put up their premiums.
The cost of individual premiums is tied in with the cost to the health service. Who would the Executive consult on this measure? If it says that, in order to recover the cost of caring for people who are insured for that purpose, it needs to increase the maximum limit to £30,000, why should it not do that?
Normally, if increases in charges of any sort have been effected through regulation, the committee has said that they should be examined.
Generally speaking, I agree with that approach. However, the health service will still have to justify the amount that it charges the insurers. This is not like a fee. We have complained about charges being put up that people have to pay as fees.
The insurance companies have not been jumping up and down, so we can take it that the regulations are probably okay.
Children (Scotland) Act 1995 (Commencement No 4) Order 2001<br />(SSI 2001/475)<br />Panels of Persons to Safeguard the Interests of Children (Scotland) Regulations 2001 (SSI 2001/476)
Curators ad Litem and Reporting Officers (Panels) (Scotland) Regulations 2001<br />(SSI 2001/477)<br />Children's Hearings (Legal Representation) (Scotland) Rules 2001 (SSI 2001/478)
Some serious redrafting of these instruments may be necessary. If the committee agrees, we will not consider them today, which will give the clerk time to find out from the Executive what it proposes to do. Our legal advice is that the Executive realises that amendments and redrafting are necessary. There are a couple of ways in which that could happen. However, given that we do not face any great time constraint, perhaps the most effective way of dealing with this would be to give the Executive another shot.
Regulation 2 of the Curators ad Litem and Reporting Officers (Panels) (Scotland) Regulations 2001 (SS1/2001/477) states:
Our legal adviser is indicating that she knows what it means.
It is good that somebody knows what it means.
We are fortunate that that person advises the committee. The Executive has already agreed informally to reconsider the instruments.
After the meeting I will ask our legal adviser what the sentence that I quoted means.
Do members agree to consider the instruments again next week?
One or two changes are outlined in the briefing paper that has been issued to members. However, given that the instruments are likely to be amended, there is no sense in going through those just now.
Rural Diversification Programme (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 2001 (SSI 2001/484)
There are a couple of technical defects in the letter to the Presiding Officer that accompanies the regulations, which has been circulated to members. We should mention informally to the Executive that that letter was not in the correct form.