Official Report 130KB pdf
Members will recall that we wrote to the Scottish Government last week about a variety of issues, and we have received the Government's responses. I also draw members' attention to the summary of recommendations. As I said at last week's meeting, the summary is a public document, so we do not have to go through the detail of the Government's responses.
Provision of School Lunches (Disapplication of the Requirement to Charge) (Scotland) Order 2007 (draft)
We asked several questions about the order. As no points arise on the Government's response that the order is intra vires—in other words, it is all right—are members content to draw the order to the attention of the lead committee and Parliament on the grounds that are outlined in the summary of recommendations?
Licensing Conditions (Late Opening Premises) (Scotland) Regulations 2007 (SSI 2007/336)
I refer again to the Government's response and the summary of recommendations. The general thrust is that much of what we were concerned about is already covered by certain powers conferred by earlier legislation. As no further points arise, are members content to draw the regulations to the attention of the lead committee and Parliament on the basis that the Scottish Government has provided a satisfactory explanation about the sub-delegation in paragraphs 2 and 6 of the schedule to the regulations?
European Communities (Lawyer's Practice) (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 2007 (SSI 2007/358)
Are members content to draw the attention of the lead committee and Parliament to the regulations on the grounds that an explanation was requested from and supplied by the Scottish Government about the delay in implementing directive 206/100/EC, and that a satisfactory explanation has been provided such that, in this case, the delay between making the regulations and laying them is considered justifiable?
I am content, convener, but we were told that the delay was due to various legislative pressures on the Government. That is also true of another instrument that we will consider today. In view of the fact that the legislative programme is fairly light, as set out in the new programme for government, can we get an assurance from the Government that such delays will not occur in future?
That seems a pertinent point. Do other members want to comment?
I am quite keen to know the timescale behind the delay.
That information is contained in the papers, although I know that you have not had a chance to read them properly.
I have looked at some of them, but I would like to clarify that point.
Directive 206/100/EC was supposed to be implemented on 1 January 2007, the date of accession to the European Union of Romania and Bulgaria, so we are eight months late.
Was there a separate gap of about a week or so, when the new Government laid the regulations before Parliament?
Let me put it this way: this is not a partisan issue because it is in everyone's interests to keep delays to a minimum. I joked in our pre-meeting briefing that it is just as well that no Romanian or Bulgarian lawyers are seeking to set up in Scotland. We will have to try and meet in the middle on this issue. The Government will do its best, and the committee will try to be as reasonable as possible. Is that acceptable to the committee?
European Communities (Services of Lawyers) Amendment (Scotland) Order 2007 (SSI 2007/359)
The questions that we asked on the order were similar to those that we asked on SSI 2007/358, which we have just considered, and we have had a similar response. Are members content to draw the order to the attention of the lead committee and Parliament on the same basis as we will report on SSI 2007/358?
Animals and Animal Products (Import and Export) (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 2007 (SSI 2007/375)
Are members content to draw the regulations to the attention of the lead committee and Parliament on the ground of defective drafting, as acknowledged by the Scottish Government in relation to the four points that we raised, none of which was of such seriousness as to affect the validity or operation of the regulations?
Import and Export Restrictions (Foot-and-Mouth Disease) (Scotland) Regulations 2007 (SSI 2007/376)<br />Import and Export Restrictions (Foot-and-Mouth Disease) (Scotland) (No 2) Regulations 2007 (SSI 2007/377)
We will consider the two sets of regulations together. We asked the Scottish Government to explain a couple of drafting points. Members will have seen the response, which seems quite reasonable. Are members content to draw the regulations to the attention of the lead committee and Parliament on the basis of defective drafting, which the Scottish Government has acknowledged, on two points? Neither is likely to make much difference to the workings of the regulations.
Foot-and-Mouth Disease (Export Restrictions) (Scotland) Regulations 2007 (SSI 2007/386)
The committee raised three drafting points on the regulations. The Government has acknowledged the drafting errors and will rectify them in the near future. On that basis, are members content to draw the regulations to the attention of the lead committee and Parliament?
I think that we are demonstrating that we can work constructively; it is a meeting of minds.
Act of Sederunt (Rules of the Court of Session Amendment No 6) (Recognition and Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters) 2007 (SSI 2007/350)<br />Act of Sederunt (Sheriff Court European Enforcement Order Rules) Amendment (Extension to Denmark) 2007 <br />(SSI 2007/351)
We asked the Lord President's office to explain why specific articles in the European Communities Act 1972 have not been cited as enabling powers in these acts of sederunt, and we have received a detailed response. Are members content simply to note that the information that we sought was supplied by the Lord President's office?
Act of Sederunt (Rules of the Court of Session Amendment No 7) (Devolution Issues) 2007 (SSI 2007/360)<br />Act of Adjournal (Criminal Procedure Rules Amendment No 4) (Devolution Issues) 2007 (SSI 2007/361)
Act of Sederunt (Proceedings for Determination of Devolution Issues Rules) Amendment 2007 (SSI 2007/362)
Again, we asked the Lord President's office a number of questions about drafting points and we have seen the responses. Are members content therefore to note that the information sought was supplied by the Lord President's office?
Disease Control (Interim Measures) (Scotland) Amendment Order 2007 <br />(SSI 2007/387)
We discussed the order last week, and interesting and important points were raised. We have now had a response, which I found very interesting. It appears that we do not have a problem, unless members have seen something that I have not. Is there anything to be raised at this stage?
I do not have a problem with the order because the Government has said that it got it wrong and that it will effectively withdraw the provision. However, the Government's response says that it sees no problem with making part of an instrument subject to no procedure and part subject to the negative procedure. We were not particularly happy with that.
The Scottish Government has acted properly in response to the comments that we made last week. We are taking a belt-and-braces approach, in order to establish the ground rules at this stage. Are members content that we should write to the Scottish Government in the terms that Richard Simpson has set out?
I may have missed a point. Where did the Government say that it had no problem with combining the two procedures?
Richard Simpson will highlight the relevant part of the Government's response.
On page 11 of paper SL/S3/07/04/3, the Government states:
I agree that the higher level of scrutiny should be applied.
Are we content to bring the order to Parliament's attention on the following grounds: that there has been a failure to follow proper drafting practice by reason of the citation of an unnecessary enabling power; that the Scottish Government has provided a satisfactory explanation on the issue of the statutory consultation requirement; and that there is defective drafting of article 12, which the Scottish Government has acknowledged but which is not such as to affect the order's validity?
The Scottish Government has provided us with a proper response, but we will write to it in the terms that Richard Simpson has suggested, which would be prudent. Such an approach can only be of service to the Government, because I cannot imagine that any Government would want to bypass proper scrutiny.
Previous
Interests