Official Report 164KB pdf
Supervised Attendance Order (Prescribed Courts) (Scotland) Order 2007 <br />(SSI 2007/120)
Last week, we asked the Executive why no Executive note was provided with the order. The Executive considers that the effect of the order is fully explained in the explanatory note. However, given the committee's comments, it has now prepared an Executive note.
That is a welcome precedent that we should encourage the Executive to follow at every opportunity.
Does everyone agree with that?
We will therefore draw the order and the Executive's response to the attention of the lead committee and Parliament on the ground that we did not have the Executive note, and point out that we now have it.
It is also worth pointing out that the information that is provided in the Executive note is additional to that which was provided in the explanatory note, but the explanation for not providing the former was that there was no additional information. The Executive made the right decision in this case, although the decision that it made in the first place is odd, given that there is new information.
I am sure that we will remember the order so that it will set a precedent. Well said.
Sea Fishing (Enforcement of Community Quota and Third Country Fishing Measures) (Scotland) Order 2007 <br />(SSI 2007/127)
We asked the Executive to explain why the order, unlike previous ones, does not contain a savings provision for the purposes of prosecution of offences under the order that it revokes. Members have a copy of the Executive's response, saying why it considers a savings provision to be unnecessary in view of the provisions of the Scotland Act 1998 (Transitory and Transitional Provisions) (Publication and Interpretation etc of Acts of the Scottish Parliament) Order 1999 (SI 1999/1379).
Shall we draw the order to the attention of the lead committee and Parliament?
Parental Involvement in Headteacher and Deputy Headteacher Appointments (Scotland) Regulations 2007 (SSI 2007/132)
Members will recall that we asked the Executive to explain who is to chair an appointment panel where an acting head has been deemed to be "inappropriate". The Executive takes the view that the regulations do not preclude the appointment of a chairperson from among the members of the panel. The Executive has suggested that it will proceed with guidance on that.
That is a bit odd. The regulations do not preclude lots of things, but that is rather a strange argument for what can or cannot be done. The Executive has been very specific about the appointment process, so it is a bit strange to say that, if there is a problem with the process, the panel can do whatever it wants, because what it should do is not mentioned in the regulations. I suppose that, technically speaking, that does not cause any problems, but it is a bit odd to have ended up in this position. I would have thought that there was time for the Executive to withdraw the regulations and resubmit them with specific regulations for what to do in such an event.
There is time, as the regulations do not come into force until 1 August.
Such proceedings are open to challenge—and sometimes they are challenged, although probably only ever informally. It would have been better to have had the process spelled out fully in the first place, but it might well be that the guidance will be sufficient, in practice, to defend any authority against a formal or informal challenge.
Shall we therefore report to the lead committee and Parliament that there is defective drafting in that a gap has been left and there is no specific provision?
Previous
Delegated Powers Scrutiny