Official Report 139KB pdf
We move on to agenda item 4. Before we consider the instruments, are members happy for us to gather any minor points that arise and put them in an informal letter to the Executive?
Draft Instruments Subject <br />to Approval
We move on to agenda item 4. Before we consider the instruments, are members happy for us to gather any minor points that arise and put them in an informal letter to the Executive?
Fundable Bodies (Scotland) Order 2005 (draft)
No points of substance arise on the draft order. There is a point on the explanatory note, but we can raise it in our informal letter to the Executive. I think that the explanatory note could have been better.
The explanatory note does not explain. That is the problem.
Do you want to raise that more formally?
Yes, because we have had issues with explanatory notes before. It is entirely reasonable to raise the matter formally.
Is that agreed?
Scotland Act 1998 (Modifications of Schedule 5) (No 3) Order 2005 (draft)
No points arise on the draft order.
Contaminated Land (Scotland) Regulations 2005 (draft)
No substantive points arise on the draft regulations. However, there is a point about the use of Keeling schedules.
I have to say that I was not familiar with Keeling schedules before now. Apparently, they are a method that was used in the past to allow the latest amendments to subordinate legislation to be made available to the reader. After several amendments to subordinate legislation, they are consolidated into one text to make them readable. When there are complex amendments, as has been the case with the draft regulations, Keeling schedules are useful for everyone to read and understand.
The Executive note is perhaps the most appropriate place. In evidence to our inquiry, Colin Reid spoke about the need for such clarity. Of course, it is always better to have such a schedule than to have nothing at all. We would always like to move towards consolidation, obviously, but a Keeling schedule is helpful.
I am curious about a couple of things. I agree that Keeling schedules would be helpful, but if the Executive is working to show schedules in their new form, it would seem better to have rolling consolidation, which is one of the subjects of our inquiry. I imagine that rolling consolidation would be preferable to just having Keeling schedules, which—as I understand it—have no legal effect.
That is right.
That would be my preference. I wonder whether Keeling schedules were included in the Executive note or the explanatory notes. The briefing paper explains that the last time that this was done, which was in relation to part 2 of the Transport (Scotland) Act 2005, it was done in the explanatory notes and not in the Executive note. I am not sure whether that makes any difference.
From the looks that I am getting from our legal adviser and clerk, I think that Keeling schedules could be included in either. I take on board what you are saying, Stewart. Should we leave it to one side as being part of the inquiry or send a separate letter on the issue?
Given the continuing dialogue with the Executive, it is entirely appropriate that we should flag up complex things as and when we come across them. We should do so with a difficult example such as the Keeling schedules and the clarity that they could have given. If the Executive agrees ultimately to rolling consolidation, that will be well and good. At the moment, it does not. It does, however, do Keeling schedules and it should have done one in this instance. We should pursue the matter.
Do members agree to send the letter?
Previous
Executive Responses