Subordinate Legislation Committee, 11 Dec 2001

Meeting date: Tuesday, December 11, 2001

Official Report 120KB pdf

---

Executive Responses

---

Pesticides (Maximum Residue Levels in Crops, Food and Feeding Stuffs) (Scotland) Amendment (No 3) Regulations 2001 (SSI 2001/435)

Members will recall the instrument from last week's meeting. We asked a couple of questions about the regulations because we thought that there was defective drafting in regulation 2(3)(c) and a failure to follow good drafting practice in schedule 1.

Our first question was about defective drafting in regulation 2(3)(c). The difference between the committee and the Executive was 0.03, as far as I can make out. However, the Executive says that the reference to "0.02 (37) (39)" of mg/kg of Spiroxamine in milk and dairy produce is substituted with a reference to "0.02 (37)", as footnote (39) refers to liver and kidney. I have not the faintest idea what that means. Does anyone?

Part of the problem is that the Executive did not read our question properly. Its response does not answer the question that we asked—it has come up with the wrong answer.

Perhaps we could say to the Executive informally that it would help if it read our questions.

In a nice way.

Yes.

We could draw the attention of the lead committee and the Parliament to regulation 2(3)(c).

I think so.

I do not see why the lead committee and the Parliament should not enjoy defective drafting as much as we do.

They could not enjoy it as much as we do.

Bill Butler is absolutely right. We will draw that to the attention of the lead committee and Parliament.

We also asked why the European Community directives could not be listed in tabular form, as that would make the information easier to read. The Executive's response is that it does not agree with the committee. I suggest that we draw that point to the attention of the lead committee, as people who have to read the regulations must be able to understand them. At present, the format is not user-friendly.

---

National Health Service (Superannuation Scheme, Injury Benefits and Compensation for Premature Retirement) (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 2001 (SSI 2001/437)

We raised six points on the regulations with the Executive. Its responses are a bit hard to follow. Do members want to raise points on them? Should we draw the attention of the lead committee and the Parliament to regulations on the grounds that they fail to comply with proper drafting practice?

Yes.

This goes back to what we have said about having user-friendly instruments. We should draw the six points to the attention of the lead committee and Parliament. The response from the Executive is not very satisfactory. The one instrument amends three different instruments. The instrument shows why the Executive should not do that. It is extremely difficult to follow.

---

Beef Special Premium (Scotland) Regulations 2001 (SSI 2001/445)

We asked four questions on the regulations. We should draw the regulations to the attention of the lead committee and Parliament, because there is an unusually limited use of the power in the regulations and there is a question of compliance with the European convention on human rights. The Executive has acknowledged that there was defective drafting in relation to the second and third points that we raised. The regulations fail to comply with good drafting practice.

The important point is the third one about complying with the ECHR on self-incrimination. It raises what is known as a devolution issue.

Yes. I now know what a devolution issue is. I know even more about the failure to mention that you do not have to incriminate yourself by giving evidence. This important point must be drawn to the attention of the lead committee. It will probably deal with the issue.

We asked why the definitions of European Community legislation contained in regulation 2(1) were not consigned to a schedule in a more user-friendly form. We will point that out to the lead committee.

---

Community Care (Direct Payments) (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 2001 (SSI 2001/447)

We asked the Executive why the explanatory note does not comply with the guidance on drafting of statutory instruments. The Executive said just what it had said in the first place. Do we agree to draw to the attention of the lead committee the fact that the explanatory note is insufficiently informative?

Members indicated agreement.