Official Report 151KB pdf
Instruments Subject <br />to Annulment
Personal Injuries (NHS Charges) (General) (Scotland) Regulations 2006 (SSI 2006/592)
No substantive points have arisen, but there is a minor typo that we can raise informally. Is that agreed?
Personal Injuries (NHS Charges) (Reviews and Appeals) (Scotland) Regulations 2006 (SSI 2006/593)
There are no points of substance on the regulations, but there are two styling points on which we can do an informal letter. Is that agreed?
Less Favoured Area Support Scheme (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 2006 (SSI 2006/601)
Are members content that a case has been made for the breach of the 21-day rule? You will all be aware that the regulations needed to be passed fairly rapidly.
The explanation given in the legal brief seems to be satisfactory, except that it means that the lead committee now has little opportunity to do anything about the regulations. That is particularly unfortunate, since the lead committee specifically drew the predecessor regulations to the Subordinate Legislation Committee's attention during our inquiry. The lead committee has effectively been denied the opportunity to challenge whether the regulations could be considered under the affirmative procedure and to have more time to scrutinise the Executive's discharge of its responsibilities and policy objectives.
Yes, and you have made your point; the important thing for us is the procedure, and that is where there is a difficulty. Are we agreed?
There are also some minor points that we can raise informally, if members agree.
Prohibition of Fishing with Multiple Trawls (No 2) (Scotland) Amendment Order 2006 (SSI 2006/602)
Members can see from the legal brief that we need to seek a bit more clarification. If members are happy, we should ask the Executive whether it is a policy intention to apply the conditions set out in paragraphs (2)(a) to (d) of new article 3 of the principal order to single trawls and, if so, to explain why the prohibition in paragraph (1) of new article 3 is "subject to paragraph (2)". I think it is something to do with mesh size and the number of trawls permitted. Is that okay?
There are also a number of minor points that we can raise informally, if members agree.
Are we intending to invite officials to discuss the order with us at the next meeting?
If you want to make a case for that, we can do it.
It would be immensely helpful if we could do so because the explanatory note shows—and I know from my own experience—that some people will be quite severely affected by the order. There might not be many, but it would be interesting to ask about a phasing period or what-have-you. The trouble is that I feel that I am straying into a policy area. Are those questions best dealt with outwith the confines of the Subordinate Legislation Committee?
We could take one of two possible routes. We could ask officials to come just to discuss the clarifications that we are seeking, because we are concerned that everything should be clear. Alternatively, we could pass our concern on to the lead committee's clerks and the lead committee would decide whether to take it up as a policy matter. We could do either of those.
We could do a multiple trawl.
We could.
No, we are banning multiple trawls.
Would you like to do a multiple trawl and ask the officials to come before the committee and clarify the situation first? It is an important point.
It would be useful if they could clarify particularly the numbers involved. I know that there were only 19 responses to the Executive's consultation, but several individuals will be affected by the order.
Ruth Cooper has helpfully suggested that we should wait for the Executive's written response. If it clarifies the situation, that will be all well and good. If it does not, we will ask the officials to come to the committee. Is that agreed?
We will also pass a written response on to the lead committee.
Yes; it might very well have policy issues to discuss.
Yes. Excellent.
Teachers' Superannuation (Scotland) Amendment (No 2) Regulations 2006 <br />(SSI 2006/605)
Are members content to ask the Executive why, with reference to regulation 1(a) and (b), it is considered necessary to provide that regulation 4 is to have effect from 2 December 2006 as well as from 14 June 2006. Is that agreed?
Welfare of Animals (Transport) (Scotland) Regulations 2006 (SSI 2006/606)
There are eight points to raise on the regulations that we could put on the record. Do I need to go through them all or are we quite happy to—
That is a matter for the Official Report. If it is able to read all the points into the record unspoken, then we should be happy for that to happen.
I think that we can say that points (a) to (h) have been raised. I will talk about the first point, because it is pretty important. We would like the Executive to explain why, unlike the Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs, it has chosen to use powers under section 2(2) of the European Communities Act 1972 rather than domestic powers under the Animal Health Act 1981 as the enabling powers for this instrument. Are there any extra comments on that?
The thing that struck me as potentially significant for people affected by the regulations is that the penalties, highlighted in paragraph 144 of our legal brief, are different for those who live north and south of the border. That strikes me as strange. Clearly, we have our own legal jurisdiction in Scotland, but given that the regulations derive from European Council regulations it is peculiar that there is a different range of penalties in England from those proposed for Scotland.
Which part of the regulations are you talking about Murray?
Well, it is in paragraph 144 of our legal brief, which refers to
That is fine. I just want to clarify whether that is one of our eight points.
I think that it is. As you highlighted the first point as significant, I thought that it was worth highlighting that significant anomaly.
Absolutely.
It is worth adding that the time limits within which prosecutions may occur vary north and south of the border. Whereas, south of the border, the limit will be six months from the date of the offence, I think that, in Scotland, it will be three years from the date of the offence.
Yes.
I hope that our legal advisers will be gratified by the extent to which members carefully scrutinise the detailed brief that we are given in advance of meetings.
We are always impressed by that.
Apologies for interrupting, convener, but I have a concern about the powers of the inspectors. Under regulation 22(1) inspectors will be able to
So the issue is about the definition of the term "inspector".
No; it is about the phrase "appearing to the inspector". Let us say that the inspector thinks that so and so is in charge, but they are not actually in charge. The inspector has powers to
Are you referring to one of the points in the legal brief, or is that an additional point?
It is additional.
It is also in the legal brief.
Sorry, I must have missed it, then.
We are talking about regulation 22(1) in part 5, which talks about the inspector serving a notice on a person. Is that correct?
Yes. The regulation mentions
So you are asking why the term "appearing" is used.
Yes.
That is the key point. What is done with the animals is obviously a policy matter that the lead committee might wish to pursue. However, there might be a remit for us to consider the issue of who the notice is served on. We should ask for clarification on that. Well spotted, Euan.
We will double check whether that point is in the legal brief and, if not, it will be our ninth point on the regulations.
I do not think that it is in the brief, but I may be mistaken.
Our legal adviser tells me that the point is not in the brief, although there is a related point, which is what I was thinking about. We therefore have nine points to raise on the regulations and some minor drafting points. We will add those minor points to our letter, rather than raise them informally—we will do it in a oner. I thank members for their points.
Local Government (Discretionary Payments And Injury Benefits) (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 2006 <br />(SSI 2006/609)
No substantive points arise, but there is a minor typo, which we will raise informally if members agree.