Subordinate Legislation Committee,

Meeting date: Tuesday, May 9, 2006

Official Report 215KB pdf

---

Executive Responses

---

Registered Social Landlords (Purposes<br />or Objects) (Scotland) Order 2006<br />(SSI 2006/211)

We asked the Executive why the order contains a definition of

"disposed of on shared equity terms",

but not a definition of "shared equity terms".

The Executive has said that the former definition illustrates the meaning of the latter. However, the legal advisers still think that "shared equity terms" should have been defined.

We should report the order in those terms.

Yes. As you said on the previous such occasion, clarity is always the best thing when it comes to matters of shared equity. Is that agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

We will report the order on the grounds of defective drafting and we will make our suggestion as discussed.

---

Croft House Grant (Scotland) Regulations 2006 (SSI 2006/214)

It is suggested that we draw the attention of the lead committee and the Parliament to the regulations in relation to a number of points that were raised.

First, on point 1, defective drafting of the citation of the enabling powers renders the instrument ex facie of doubtful competence procedurally. However, in practice, the validity of the instrument is not likely to be affected. Secondly, there is a failure to follow proper legislative practice on point 2. However, that does not affect the validity of the instrument. Thirdly, its meaning could be clearer on points 3, 6 and 9. Fourthly, defective drafting has been acknowledged by the Executive on point 4. Fifthly, further information was requested from and supplied by the Executive on points 5 and 8. Sixthly, there are doubts about whether the instrument is intra vires on point 7. That has been acknowledged by the Executive.

In the list in the legal brief, there are two paragraphs called (d). The list goes (a), (b), (c), (d), (d), (e). The list should go up to (f).

I am sorry about that. We got all the papers a bit late.

The list should go up to (f), not (e).

We will check to ensure that we have covered all the points that need to be made.

Do we agree to follow the suggested course of action?

Members indicated agreement.

---

Charities Accounts (Scotland) Regulations 2006 (SSI 2006/218)

The committee raised two points on the regulations with the Executive. First, we asked why no indication was given either in a footnote or in the explanatory note of where copies of the publications that are referred to could be obtained. The Executive has acknowledged that the information might usefully have been included in the explanatory note.

Secondly, the Executive has confirmed that regulation 3(7) is intended to prevent a charity from having more than two financial years exceeding 12 months in any five-year period. It has acknowledged that the drafting is ambiguous and that, technically, it could allow a charity to have four financial years exceeding 12 months in a five-year period. However, it takes the view that a charity would be highly unlikely to do so in practice.

It has been suggested that we should report the instrument on the grounds of failure to comply with proper legislative drafting on point 1 and defective drafting on point 2. Do we agree to do so?

I think that we should do so. It is disappointing that the Executive has made no commitment to resolve the matter. Usually, in cases such as this, the Executive at least says that it will amend the instrument at the next available opportunity.

Unfortunately, there is not enough time for us to write to the Executive with a recommendation that such an undertaking be given.

That does not prevent us from writing to the Executive to ask why that commitment has not been given. That would seem to be a sensible thing to do.

Is that agreed?

Members indicated agreement.