After our meeting on 6 May, we wrote to the Scottish Government about three Scottish statutory instruments, and we have seen the responses.
Advice and Assistance (Limits, Conditions and Representation) (Scotland) Regulations 2008 (Draft)
We pointed out an error in the regulations and, as a result, the Government has decided to withdraw the regulations and lay new ones. We will consider the new regulations later during the meeting, but we need to dispose of these.
Further and Higher Education (Scotland) Act 1992 Amendment Order 2008 (Draft)
We should note that our legal advisers have been informed that the Government intends to withdraw and relay the order, given our comments on it last week. With the committee's agreement, we should welcome that and perhaps take the opportunity to encourage the Government to take that approach more often by fixing issues at the time rather than at some point in future. It seems that a flexible and constructive approach has been taken, which is surely encouraging as it makes our work seem rather worth while. We might even say that the Government is helped when we head off these things, as it were, before they get anywhere near the pass. I was told before the meeting that the new order will be laid next week.
Transmissible Spongiform Encephalopathies (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 2008 (SSI 2008/166)
Are we satisfied with the Scottish Government's response on the three bullet points set out in the summary of recommendations and, if so, are we content to report to the lead committee and the Parliament accordingly? Further, the summary of recommendations highlights that paragraph 21 of new schedule 6 to the principal regulations refers to seven definitions—of Commission regulations 1664/2006 and 1665/2006; Council regulation 1791/2006; and Commission regulations 1243/2007, 1244/2007, 1245/2007 and 1246/2007. Are we also content, therefore, to draw the regulations to the attention of the lead committee and the Parliament on the ground that paragraph 21 of new schedule 6 fails to follow normal drafting practice by including superfluous definitions, although they are not considered to have any effect on the validity or operation of the instrument?