Subordinate Legislation Committee, 17 Jan 2006

Meeting date: Tuesday, January 17, 2006

Official Report 126KB pdf

---

Instruments Subject to Annulment

---

Instruments Subject <br />to Annulment

---

Public Contracts (Scotland) Regulations 2006 (SSI 2006/1)

The regulations give effect in Scots law to the European directive on the co-ordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts. A lot of material was sent to members about that.

Regulation 8(5)(a) is about thresholds. The question is whether it was intended that the €137,000 threshold should apply only where offers are sought by schedule 1 entities "and" the Secretary of State for Defence, as opposed to it applying where offers are sought by schedule 1 entities "or" the Secretary of State for Defence.

The second question is to explain the origin of the threshold amounts specified that do not appear to correspond with the figures specified in the directive. This seems to be another common issue; it will come up again in another instrument.

There are also some minor points of form that we could pass on to the Executive.

There is a full page of those minor points in the legal brief.

Yes. Is that agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

---

Utilities Contracts (Scotland) Regulations 2006 (SSI 2006/2)

The problem seems to be that an explanation is needed for the calculation of the threshold figures contained in regulation 11(2), given that they do not appear to correspond with the figures that are contained in the directive. Is it agreed that we seek an explanation of that and raise some other minor points?

Members indicated agreement.

---

Food Hygiene (Scotland) Regulations 2006 (SSI 2006/3)

There is a worry about whether regulation 24 is intra vires. We should ask for an explanation of that. Are there any other points?

No.

---

Older Cattle (Disposal) (Scotland) Regulations 2006 (SSI 2006/4)

We have three questions. Why is there a reference to "the standard scale" in regulation 10(a), given that it relates to an offence triable either summarily or on indictment? I am sure that Gordon Jackson could give us an explanation of that if he were here.

The second question is about the effect of the wording of regulation 9(1) in relation to regulations 5(4) and 7(2). Is it the intention that breaches of those provisions should be a criminal offence? Is it the intention that breach of a notice under regulation 7 should be an offence?

Thirdly, why has the term "operator" been used in the schedule to the regulations, given that the definitions and regulation 4 employ the term "occupier"?

Are there any other points?

It would appear that the 21-day rule has been broken. However, when the regulations were introduced at Westminster, there was advance notice. They were certainly published and dealt with within the required period. We have not been able to do that. The reasons are understandable; it happened over the Christmas break. It is interesting that the European directives were implemented in England and Wales in time, but not here. I would be interested to know what it is about the process that means that the Executive is slower than Westminster.

We will ask that question; it is not an unfamiliar one. It is also pointed out that, on this occasion, the Executive might have followed the English regulations because they are a lot more straightforward.

I was going to raise the point that Ken Macintosh has raised about breach of the 21-day rule. Westminster obviously knew about that and was able to publish its regulations in time; however, I presume that, for whatever reason, the information did not get here. I think that we should highlight that.

My second point relates to what you were just saying, convener, about the regulations following the English regulations. Virtually all the points that have been made are about how the Executive's failure to follow the good regulations that have been made for England has led to various problems in the Scottish regulations. Furthermore, the one point where the Scottish regulations follow the English regulations turns out to be the very point at which they should not have followed the English regulations, as they use the word "operator" rather than "occupier". I would like an explanation of why the Executive failed to follow all the good points in the English regulations, but followed those regulations at the one point at which they were wrong. It would be worth asking about that—we might get an interesting reply.

Absolutely. Is that agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

---

Prisons and Young Offenders Institutions (Scotland) Amendment Rules 2006<br />(SSI 2006/5)

The only observation to make in relation to the rules is that there is no formal Executive note.

No, but there was a press release, which I am sure was very helpful. Far be it from me to say, "Government by press release." I would not say that.

Well, we will ask that very question. There are also a few minor points on the rules.