Beet Seed (Scotland) Regulations 2010 (SSI 2010/67)
We could have an informal session—it need not be in public—but we need to send a strong message to officials. We pay attention to the documents that come across our desks and I am particularly interested in European transposition issues. We look for quality.
I do not totally oppose the proposal, but I wonder what it would achieve. The person who answered questions could be the employee who was responsible for the poor drafting of the regulations. As a first port of call, should we ask the minister to respond in writing and hold our position on whether to call the minister or another individual to the committee? Should we give the Government an opportunity to respond first?
The trouble is that, if we have a private session with officials, we will—as a public body—be asked why we are meeting in private.
If you want to have the session in public, I do not mind—I am happy with that.
We will write first—
We move to agenda item 2. As we have seen from the size of the legal briefing, our legal advisers have raised several issues on the regulations, which are detailed in the summary of recommendations. Do members agree to report all the recommendations to the lead committee?
I am sorry to be a pain, but I have a point about the regulations. When I read the briefing last night, I was quite perturbed. We should call the officials to attend a committee meeting to answer questions about the quality of the drafting of the regulations, although I would hesitate to call ministers at this stage. The background information on our buff-coloured pages refers to fundamental drafting errors and the lack of priority for drafting and for transposing European Union legislation. Page 6 says:
Do members agree?
We have the option of writing to the Government—we could do that.
I suggest that we write to the Government, because that will allow us to lay out in proper form our objections to the totally intolerable situation, and it would facilitate a thoughtful response. If we were not satisfied with that response, we could go further. Otherwise, all that I see happening is that an official would come next week to say, “I’m terribly sorry—it shouldn’t have happened,” and we would not get much further than that. We want a response from the civil service.
We will reserve our position on inviting witnesses.
We will write but reserve our position. If the response is unsatisfactory, we will call people to appear. Thank you—that is good.
Food Hygiene (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 2010 (SSI 2010/69)
Do we agree to report the regulations on the grounds that are set out in the summary of recommendations?
National Assistance (Sums for Personal Requirements) (Scotland) Regulations 2010 (SSI 2010/74)
Do we agree to report the two drafting errors in the regulations, as set out in the summary of recommendations?
Bankruptcy Fees (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 2010 (SSI 2010/76)
Are we content with the Government’s response on the authority for the savings provision in the regulations and are we content with the regulations?
Tobacco and Primary Medical Services (Scotland) Act 2010 (Ancillary Provisions) Order 2010 (SSI 2010/77)
Although we might be content with the explanation for the failure to comply with the requirement that negative instruments be laid before the Parliament before they come into force and comply with the 21-day rule, under articles 10(1) and 10(2) of the Scotland Act 1998 (Transitory and Transitional Provisions) (Statutory Instruments) Order 1999 (SI 1999/1096), we might want to draw to the attention of the lead committee, for interest, the particular circumstances that gave rise to the need for the order to be made, which members will have seen in the legal brief. Is that agreed? The circumstances are unusual.
Non-Domestic Rating (Valuation of Utilities) (Scotland) Amendment (No 2) Order 2010 (SSI 2010/78)
Police Pensions Amendment (Scotland) Regulations 2010 (SSI 2010/85)
Rural Development Contracts (Rural Priorities) (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 2010 (SSI 2010/87)
Zoonoses and Animal By-Products (Fees) (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 2010 (SSI 2010/88)
Fish Labelling (Scotland) Regulations 2010 (SSI 2010/90)
Registration Services (Fees, etc) (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 2010 (SSI 2010/92)
National Health Service (General Medical Services Contracts, Primary Medical Services Section 17C Agreements and Primary Medical Services Performers Lists) (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 2010 (SSI 2010/93)
National Health Service (Travelling Expenses and Remission of Charges) (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 2010 (SSI 2010/94)
No points arise on the instruments, but I point out that in relation to Scottish statutory instruments 2010/85, 2010/87 and 2010/94, there is a need for consolidation, which has been identified in the legal brief. We should put that on the record, given the problem with consolidation. Are members content with the instruments?