Official Report 213KB pdf
Instruments Subject <br />to Annulment
Prisons and Young Offenders Institutions (Scotland) Rules 2006 (SSI 2006/94)
The rules provide no specific power to amend or revoke any direction that is issued under the rules, although such a direction could be amended or replaced by the making of a new direction. Do we want to raise that point formally with the Executive or should we suggest informally by letter that the issue could be tidied up at a later date?
This issue occurs regularly. Although the matter is not itself very important, it is disappointing that the Executive does not automatically provide for such revocation. I suggest that we send a formal note about what we expect and that we should do that whenever revocation issues arise, until the Executive gets into the habit of applying what ought to be best practice.
Is that agreed?
Smoking, Health and Social Care (Scotland) Act 2005 (Consequential Amendments) Order 2006 (SSI 2006/95)
There is an issue about whether the order should have been made using general powers or specific powers. Should we ask the Executive to explain why it has chosen to use general powers under the Smoking, Health and Social Care (Scotland) Act 2005 as the vires for the order, rather than the specific powers under the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997? It appears that powers under the 1997 act would have been available and might have been more appropriate for the purpose. As the legal brief explains, there is a bigger issue about whether general or specific powers are more appropriate.
I agree with the legal advice that the specific power should have been used. It seems odd to use the general power when the specific power is available. I can see no reason for not using the specific power. It will be helpful to have that clarified.
We will raise that question, along with the other minor points, in an informal letter.
Police Act 1997 (Criminal Records) (Scotland) Regulations 2006 (SSI 2006/96)
Two issues arise on the regulations. We may wish to ask the Executive to explain the purpose and effect of the words:
Police Act 1997 (Criminal Records) (Registration) (Scotland) Regulations 2006 (SSI 2006/97)
Three substantive points arise on the regulations. We may wish to ask the Executive whether the definition of "statutory office-holder" in regulation 2(1) will include persons who are appointed under acts of the Scottish Parliament. We may also wish to ask the Executive to explain the purpose and effect of the words:
Fish Labelling (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 2006 (SSI 2006/105)<br />Title Conditions (Scotland) Act 2003 (Rural Housing Bodies) Amendment Order 2006 (SSI 2006/108)
Abolition of Feudal Tenure etc (Scotland) Act 2000 (Specified Day) Order 2006 <br />(SSI 2006/109)<br />Title Conditions (Scotland) Act 2003 (Conservation Bodies) Amendment Order 2006 (SSI 2006/110)
Transfer of Property, Rights and Liabilities from the Strathclyde Passenger Transport Authority and the Strathclyde Passenger Transport Executive to the West of Scotland Transport Partnership Order 2006 (SSI 2006/111)
No substantive points arise on the regulations or the orders, but we will raise some minor points in an informal letter to the Executive.
Strathclyde Passenger Transport Area (Variation) Order 2006 (SSI 2006/112)
Under section 40 of the Local Government etc (Scotland) Act 1994, ministers are required to consult before making the order. The Executive note refers to the consultation requirement that is set out in section 10(8) of the Transport (Scotland) Act 2005, but that does not appear to be relevant to the order. Information relating to the fact that consultation was carried out should have been narrated in the preamble to the order, as it is relevant to the vires of the order. Are members content to ask the Executive why it did not include that information?
National Assistance (Assessment of Resources) Amendment (Scotland) Regulations 2006 (SSI 2006/113)<br />National Assistance (Sums for Personal Requirements) (Scotland) Regulations 2006 (SSI 2006/114)
Civil Partnership Family Homes <br />(Form of Consent) (Scotland) Regulations 2006 (SSI 2006/115)
No substantive points have been identified on the regulations. There are minor points, which we can raise with the Executive in an informal letter.
Diligence against Earnings (Variation) (Scotland) Regulations 2006 (SSI 2006/116)
No substantive points arise on the regulations, but members will note that the Executive has chosen not to revoke the regulations that these regulations have superseded. Do members wish to raise that point with the Executive?
We should ask the Executive about that.
Formally or informally?
We should get an answer from the Executive on the record.
I agree.
National Bus Travel Concession Scheme for Older and Disabled Persons (Eligible Persons and Eligible Services) (Scotland) Order 2006 (SSI 2006/117)<br />Beef Carcase (Classification) (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 2006 <br />(SSI 2006/118)
No substantive points have been identified on the order or the regulations. There are minor points, which we can raise with the Executive in an informal letter.
Dairy Produce Quotas (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 2006 <br />(SSI 2006/119)
The regulations correct errors in the Dairy Produce Quotas (Scotland) Regulations 2005 (SSI 2005/91) and have been made available free of charge to all known recipients of the original regulations. I am sure that we are happy about that and support it, but the Executive note makes no comment on whether any person has been disadvantaged by the errors and, if so, what, if anything, has been done to put matters right. Shall we ask about that?
On regulation 7(b), are members content to ask for confirmation that no penalty will be applied in respect of statements submitted before the date when the regulations come into force?
There is also a minor point that we can raise in an informal letter.
Provision of Water and Sewerage Services (Reasonable Cost) (Scotland) Regulations 2006 (SSI 2006/120)
Do members wish to ask the Executive to explain the policy intention behind the drafting of regulation 3, which is not clear?
National Health Service (Tribunal) (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 2006 (SSI 2006/122)
No substantive points have been identified on the regulations. There are minor points, which we can raise in an informal letter.
I do not know how you want to deal with the matter, convener, but the number of minor points that we are identifying is disturbing.
Today?
Yes, points of drafting error are being raised on almost every instrument. We are describing them as trivial—typos and errors in brackets or subparagraphs. The number is remarkable. Our legal adviser picks them up, so why are they not picked up elsewhere?
Why do we not ask the Executive to introduce a system whereby we could make changes? If it were to publish instruments in draft form, we could change them.
That is another argument for a big cop-out; we would have to deal with the errors. Presumably the system is that, although we do not get instruments in draft form, they are drafted somewhere and somebody checks them. I accept that there will always be errors—that is inevitable—but the checking system is not working. The matter may not be one for the minister of whatever it is that we call her, but individual departments should check their drafts.
We should write to the Executive to ask about the checking system.
I am sorry if I am sounding petty, convener.
No, you are not. We have had more errors today than is normally the case.
In isolation they are trivial things, but there seems to be a huge number of errors.
I think that the minister and the official report would like Gordon Jackson to specify the minister to whom he referred.
I thought that you wanted to come in, Murray, to say that the number of errors is because of the number of instruments before us today.
It is partly to do with that.
No, it is to do with the P-aren't acts.
It may have something to do with the number of instruments that we have before us this week. We have raised the point about timetabling.
We have many instruments to deal with, but that is because all instruments end up before us. They come from different departments, however; each individual department does not have to deal with many instruments.
We have one or two people finding all these mistakes and yet the instruments have been checked by dozens of people.
Okay. Are we agreed that we will write to the Executive asking about the checking system in individual departments?
Perhaps we should also suggest that it should consider a system of laying draft instruments.
There may be an argument in that respect.
There is. We discussed that possibility during our inquiry, and the rate of errors is partly why we ended up discussing it.
Absolutely. I agree totally.
Local Government Pension Scheme (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 2006 (SSI 2006/123)
No points arise on the regulations.
Non-Domestic Rates (Levying) (Scotland) Regulations 2006 (SSI 2006/124)
Are we content to ask the Executive why it has chosen not to cite the 2005 instrument by the title given in that instrument, which provides that it is to be cited as an order, not as regulations?
We have also a minor point to raise by way of an informal letter.
Non Domestic Rating (Rural Areas and Rateable Value Limits) (Scotland) Amendment Order 2006 (SSI 2006/125)<br />Water Environment and Water Services (Scotland) Act 2003 (Designation of Responsible Authorities and Functions) Order 2006 (SSI 2006/126)
No points arise on the orders, other than a minor point on SSI 2006/126, which we can raise by way of an informal letter.
Water Environment (Consequential Provisions) (Scotland) Order 2006 <br />(SSI 2006/127)
No substantive points arise on the order. The point that we discussed earlier on the use of general as opposed to specific powers arises again, however. Do we want to ask the question again, or will we leave it in this case?
The point is similar to that we made earlier. It would therefore be consistent to make it again. The use of general powers is a recurring issue.
Yes. We will raise the matter, just to be consistent.
Waste Management Licensing (Water Environment) (Scotland) Regulations 2006 (SSI 2006/128)
No substantive points arise on the regulations.
I do not claim to have checked this personally of an evening, convener, but we are told that these regulations are the 20th amendment of the principal regulations. I am sure that the figure is right. Surely consolidation is looming on the horizon.
You would not want the Executive to rush into things.
We should mention it.
We will include that point in the letter that we will send about the minor points that arise. We should ask the Executive when it proposes to consolidate the regulations. Are we agreed?