Official Report 117KB pdf
Instruments Subject <br />to Annulment
Common Agricultural Policy Schemes (Cross-Compliance) (Scotland) Regulations 2004 (SSI 2004/518)
Our legal adviser has raised some minor points on these regulations and on some of the others to come. We usually send such points to the Executive in an informal letter. Rather than go through them all, I suggest that we write informally to the Executive as a matter of course, if members agree.
No substantial points have been identified on the regulations.
Environmental Information (Scotland) Regulations 2004 (SSI 2004/520)
No substantial points have been identified on the regulations.
Although this might not be a point of substance, it is at least interesting to note that the United Kingdom legislation requires the affirmative procedure to be used, and it is being proposed here that the negative procedure be used. It is reasonable to ask why the negative procedure is being proposed here when the UK legislation uses the affirmative procedure.
There is no harm in that. The legal adviser does not think that there are any substantial points on the order, but I see no harm in asking the question.
Race Relations Act 1976 (Statutory Duties) (Scotland) Amendment Order 2004 <br />(SSI 2004/521)
No substantial points arise on the order.
Protection of Children (Scotland) Act 2003 Determination Regulations 2004 <br />(SSI 2004/523)
There are some points on the regulations. On page 13 of the legal brief, members will see that it is suggested that we should ask the Executive the following question:
I am curious to know what difference it would make. What does it matter if the Executive legislates twice? If something is legislated on twice, the new legislation is not intra vires only because the old legislation is still there. It is all right to ask the question, but what difference does it make if they re-enact the legislation? It is different if something is ultra vires and someone comes along later and says, "That was ultra vires," because then we have lost that legislation. We are only saying that we have the legislation already.
I am told that it is a technical issue.
It is fairly technical.
We are doing it for neatness and tidiness.
Yes; neatness and tidiness.
We are content.
We should ask the question.
The clerk is suggesting that we could do that informally.
I am not saying that we should not ask the question; we should ask the question properly. I cannot see how legislation is ultra vires just because it has been enacted twice.
Okay, we will ask the question. Are we agreed?
Plastic Materials and Articles in Contact with Food Amendment (Scotland) Regulations 2004 (SSI 2004/524)<br />Contaminants in Food (Scotland) Regulations 2004 (SSI 2004/525)
Police Act 1997 (Criminal Records) (Protection of Children) (Scotland) Regulations 2004 (SSI 2004/526)
No substantial points have been raised on the regulations.
Fire Services (Appointments and Promotion) (Scotland) Regulations 2004 (SSI 2004/527)
No substantial points have been identified on the regulations.
This is an interesting one. The legal adviser has drawn our attention to the question of whether it is material that the word "role" is used in the regulations, as opposed to the word "rank", which was used in the previous regulations. I am aware that there are proposals to change how the fire service operates and to base appointments on job descriptions rather than rank. It might be that the regulations are intended to support that. However, it is reasonable to ask the question. It might make no material difference to the purposes of the regulations, but I think that we should ask.
Are we agreed?
Salmonella in Laying Flocks (Sampling Powers) (Scotland) Regulations 2004 <br />(SSI 2004/536)
I gather from our legal adviser that the regulations are an improvement on the English draft. Do we want to question the Executive about paragraph (2) of regulation 6, particularly about what offence will be covered by the paragraph?