Official Report 138KB pdf
Instruments Subject <br />to Annulment
European Communities<br />(Lawyer's Practice) (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 2004 (SSI 2004/302)<br />Advice and Assistance (Scotland) Amendment (No 2) Regulations 2004 Amendment Regulations 2004<br />(SSI 2004/305)
Criminal Legal Aid (Scotland) (Fees) Amendment (No 2) Regulations 2004<br />(SSI 2004/316)
No points arise on the regulations.
Oil and Fibre Plant Seed (Scotland) Regulations 2004 (SSI 2004/317)
There are a few points on the regulations, which form a large tome and are lengthy and complex. We wondered whether we should ask what steps have been taken to provide guidance to help people who will be affected by the regulations to understand them. That seems to be eminently sensible, especially because our review is going to consider that issue.
Another issue is the fact that we do not have a copy of the transposition note, which would have been helpful. It is also pointed out that a similar instrument has been radically altered in England. Paragraphs 57 to 65 of the legal advice relate to that issue.
For consistency, we should ask for the transposition note. We have done that before.
Are there any other points on the United Kingdom issue?
I agree with Christine May that there is not really a UK issue here. If companies can operate in various countries across Europe, I do not think that there is a problem with their ability to follow the regulations, which are similar to other European regulations. The wording might be different in England and Scotland, but a company that works in Ireland and England or France and Germany will also have to deal with differently worded regulations. It seems more sensible to go down the route that we have gone down in Scotland, whereby we have kept the format roughly the same as that of the previous regulations. That will make them easier for the relevant companies to understand than if we had given them a radical overhaul, as happened in England. I do not think that there is a problem.
I agree. Either we have legislatures that do such things individually or we do not. The only way to ensure that they are all the same would be to have them all created centrally; there has already been a policy decision that that is not to be done.
I take that on board, but I can see Christine May's point. It was obviously thought necessary to make the changes in England and I wonder whether the length and complexity of the regulations is an issue for us at the moment. Perhaps the Executive could ask the people who will use the regulations whether they have a problem with that. If they do not, that is fine.
I understand what you are saying but, as Alasdair Morgan just said, the users of the regulations will refer to the guidance and explanatory notes rather than to the technical detail in the regulations. I am not sure where consultation of the sort that you outline would take us.
My suggestion was to ask not the users about the differences but those in the civil service down south who are involved in making the changes to the style and terminology of the regulations. It might be useful to find out what thoughts they have had on the resolution of any confusion.
I am tempted to suggest that it would do no harm to ask them about that. Stewart Maxwell's point relates to the first recommendation in our legal advice, which is that we should ask what steps the Executive has taken to provide guidance to people who will be affected by the requirements that will be imposed by the regulations. We might also ask whether there has been consultation, because of the length and complexity of the regulations. That might be a way of starting to consider whether any changes are needed—of course, it might be that changes are not needed. It might be useful to put down such a marker, given that, as our legal adviser points out, the regulations are lengthy and complex.
I am not arguing that the regulations are not lengthy or complex; I am saying that all that is important is whether they have been drafted correctly. The critical point is dealt with in the first recommendation in the legal advice, which relates to the guidance that the Executive will provide to the relevant people. The difference between the precise wording in England, Scotland, France or anywhere else is a bit of a sideshow.
That is what I am saying. Perhaps I did not put it as well as you did.
Given that I do not foresee enormous confusion over the matter, it is not something that I want to die in a ditch over. I was merely curious as to whether there had been any conversation between the people in the Executive and their counterparts down south. If no one in the rest of the committee agrees with me, I am perfectly happy to drop my proposal.
We are agreed that the crunch issue is whether the regulations are understandable. Therefore, we should simply ask about the guidance. Are we agreed?
Register of Sasines<br />(Application Procedure) Rules 2004<br />(SSI 2004/318)
The legal adviser suggests that we should ask why the word "registration", which has rather a technical meaning, is used in rule 6 rather than "recording". "Registration" is also used in question 20 of the form in the schedule to the rules. Is that agreed?
Housing (Scotland) Act 2001<br />(Payments out of Grants for Housing Support Services) Amendment (No 2) Order 2004 (SSI 2004/348)
No points have been identified in relation to the order.
The legal adviser points out that the regulations breach the 21-day rule. Should we at least put that fact on the record and state that we would generally prefer that that not happen?
The Executive has explained the reason for the breach; it is obvious that the breach was necessary. There have been difficulties with the process of registering with the Scottish Commission for the Regulation of Care.
I am not denying that. I was merely saying that, given that we generally pressure the Executive to stick to the 21-day rule, we should note that it has been breached in this instance rather than pass over the fact as we were about to.
Is that agreed?
Sports Grounds and Sporting Events (Designation) (Scotland) Order 2004<br />(SSI 2004/356)
No points have been identified in relation to the order.
These regulations also breach the 21-day rule but, as that was necessary to allow Hearts to play at Murrayfield, I think that this week of all weeks we should turn a blind eye to the breach.
There has been enough trouble at Tynecastle without our interfering.
Environmental Protection<br />(Restriction on Use of Lead Shot) (Scotland) (No 2) Regulations 2004<br />(SSI 2004/358)
We previously had great concerns about the regulations but, as members will see, they have been rewritten to include everything that we asked for, and now no points arise on the regulations. We should express great pleasure about that.
International Criminal Court (Enforcement of Fines, Forfeiture and Reparation Orders) (Scotland) Regulations 2004 (SSI 2004/360)
A significant issue appears to arise on the regulations. What is being recommended appears to go totally against what the Official Report records ministers as having said when questions were asked about the matter. Both Iain Gray—in a discussion with the Justice 2 Committee, which obviously took place some time ago—and the Deputy First Minister argued against what is proposed in the regulations. That seems to be a bit odd.
We should take that up with the Executive. As far as I am concerned, the regulations are incorrect and of dubious vires. It might be that there is a good reason for the situation that has been identified and, if so, we should try to find out what it is.
I am curious to find out what answer we will be given. We should ask why the situation has arisen, but I would not like to pre-empt the answer at this stage.
Do we agree to ask the Executive for an explanation?
Plant Protection Products (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 2004<br />(SSI 2004/368) <br />National Health Service<br />(Charges to Overseas Visitors) (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 2004<br />(SSI 2004/369)
Sexual Offences Act 2003<br />(Prescribed Police Stations) (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 2004<br />(SSI 2004/370)<br />General Medical Services and Section 17C Agreements (Transitional and Other Ancillary Provisions) (Scotland) Amendment Order 2004 (SSI 2004/372)
No points arise on the instruments.
Mental Health Tribunal for Scotland (Delegation of the President's Functions) Regulations 2004 (SSI 2004/373)
No points of substance arise on the regulations. A few minor points arise, however. Do we agree to deal with them in an informal letter?
Mental Health Tribunal for Scotland (Appointment of Medical Members) Regulations 2004 (SSI 2004/374)<br />Mental Health Tribunal for Scotland (Appointment of General Members) Regulations 2004 (SSI 2004/375)
No points arise on the regulations.
Freedom of Information<br />(Fees for Disclosure under Section 13) (Scotland) Regulations 2004 (SSI 2004/376)
It has been suggested that we might want to consider getting an explanation of the effect of the reference in regulation 4 to the agreement of the person requesting the information. We might want to ask what that means. Is it suggested that some sort of bartering might go on?
Regulation of Care (Scotland) Act 2001 (Commencement No 5 and Transitional Provisions) Amendment Order 2004<br />(SSI 2004/377)
No points arise on the order.
Fodder Plant Seeds Amendment (Scotland) Regulations 2004 (SSI 2004/380)
It is suggested that we ask the Executive what, if any, plans it has for consolidation, as that is happening elsewhere. Do we agree to do so and also to write an informal letter to deal with some minor points that arise?
Agricultural Subsidies (Appeals) (Scotland) Regulations 2004 (SSI 2004/381)
No items arise on the regulations.
It is 11 o'clock. We will stop here and resume in one minute. This silence is in remembrance of the tragedy in Beslan.
Thank you.