Official Report 161KB pdf
National Health Service Superannuation Scheme (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 2003 (SSI 2003/55)
There is confusion over the commencement date. Regulation 1(1)(b) says that it is 5 April 2003, but the explanatory notes say that it is 1 April.
We will ask the Executive to clarify that.
I thought that it was 5 April. Do they think that we are fools?
Do not tempt providence.
Regulation 9 adds a new paragraph (4A) to regulation M2 of the principal regulations.
That paragraph qualifies the effect of paragraphs (2) and (3) of regulation M2.
No consequential amendments have been made to paragraph (3) to include a reference to paragraph (4A). I think that we will just ask the Executive to explain the apparent mistake.
The matter has not been fully followed through.
The same applies to regulation 16(4), which inserts a new paragraph 2B into schedule 1 to the principal regulations. We will ask the Executive to clarify the matter.
Two conditions are mentioned, but which is meant?
I do not know.
Under regulation 19(2), proposed new paragraph 9A(2), as drafted, is almost impossible to follow.
What does it say?
It is about locum practitioners.
Is it intended to have the same effect as paragraph (4A) of regulation C3, as inserted by regulation 5(c)? If so, why has the same drafting approach not been adopted?
What do you think?
When I read the legal briefing on the train, I thought that the matter was quite complex.
I presume that we are running into difficulties because—
Anything that has C3(4A) in big letters is a dog's dinner.
This is the seventh set of amendments of the principal regulations. We could suggest to the Executive that it should consider consolidation as a matter of urgency.
I would be slightly cautious about doing so, given that there are burnt fingers. Consolidation will not be straightforward.
We are talking about regulations rather than bills. A committee will not have to deal with them.
Subject to that helpful proviso, we could do what is suggested.
We will do so.
Registration of Foreign Adoptions (Scotland) Regulations 2003 (SSI 2003/67)
The committee might raise with the Executive the wording of regulation 4(4).
In the light of recent developments in the context of the European convention on human rights, we must consider regulation 6(2), which refers to "adoptive father and mother" at subparagraphs (f), (g) and (h), rather than to "adoptive parents", which would include same-sex adoptive couples. Although adoption by same-sex couples is not yet allowed in the United Kingdom—
It will not be UK legislation.
Indeed. The instrument applies to adoptions in all the convention countries, some of which allow same-sex couples to adopt. The wording could probably be changed to be more inclusive.
I would be interested to hear the Executive's comments on that. I think that legislation in Scotland on who can adopt a child is different from the proposed legislation south of the border and is certainly different from that in a number of the convention countries. We can ask whether the Executive meant what is said.
National Assistance (Assessment of Resources) Amendment (Scotland) Regulations 2003 (SSI 2003/69)
No points arise on the regulations.
Road Traffic (Permitted Parking Area and Special Parking Area) (Aberdeen City Council) Designation Order 2003<br />(SSI 2003/70)
Here we go again. Members will be glad to know that Ken Livingstone and his officials will have nothing to do with the uniforms that the mob of parking attendants in Perth and Kinross will wear. On the other hand, the same mistake has been made as that which was made with the Perth and Kinross order, which members may remember. There was an argument about designation, and we think that a similar issue arises with this order. The committee should ask the Executive to clarify the designation of the Aberdeen city local government area.
One of the points is that the order excludes roads within the area for which Aberdeen City Council is not the traffic authority. I presume that that means trunk roads, but it may mean unadopted roads. The question is how somebody who falls foul of the order would know that. The answer is clear to me, but the question might need to be asked for the proper functioning of the regulations.
It would seem a bit rotten if someone did not get their road taken over but found it included. That would add insult to injury.
We will ask the Executive the six questions that have been suggested.
Road Traffic (Parking Adjudicators) (Aberdeen City Council) Regulations 2003 (SSI 2003/71)
The regulations have not been drafted in gender-neutral terms. Should they be?
Aye. That can be fixed easily. There are also a couple of substantive points.
It sounds like a hotchpotch. If you are saying that we should send this back to the Executive, I agree that that would be advisable.
There is another point on regulation 4, which makes no provision for informing an appellant of the outcome of a request for an extension of the time limit for appealing. We raised the matter previously, when we dealt with the regulations for Edinburgh and Glasgow and Perth and Kinross.
The Executive does not appear to have changed its way of dealing with that issue.
Parking Attendants (Wearing of Uniforms) (Aberdeen City Council Parking Area) Regulations 2003 (SSI 2003/72)
It appears that the minister has undertaken to decide what the parking attendants can wear to work; however, that should be a matter for Aberdeen City Council. We are straying into a policy area.
However, the Executive has an interest in ensuring that parking attendants do not look like policemen, for example.
I hate to contradict you, convener, but you are wrong. The regulations state that the local authority will determine the uniforms. It is just the explanatory note that says that the decision will be made by the ministers.
Oh, is that what it is?
There is some confusion in the instrument.
That shows my poor reading of it. Thank you, Murdo.
That is quite all right.
Taxi Drivers' Licences (Carrying of Guide Dogs and Hearing Dogs) (Scotland) Regulations 2002 (SSI 2003/73)
I am experiencing a strange sense of déjà vu.
We have talked before about the kinds of jackets that the dogs wear.
We discussed whether guide dogs and hearing dogs could be trained by one charity but wear a jacket with the name of another charity on it.
We dealt with similar provisions before, but there is no indication in the explanatory note of why a second instrument has come before us. It would be useful to know that.
Yes. We will ask the Executive why the regulations have come back to us.
Is there some deep magic behind the matter? I am not sure what the differences are between the two instruments.
That is part of our question.
The issue is sensitive. I would not want people to be challenged about—
Who trained their dog—
Or about what jacket their dog is wearing. That might create problems for the person with the dog.
From the point of view of taxi drivers, the regulations will give some derogation from carrying such dogs.
We want people who have such dogs to be out and about and to be able to use taxis in the same way as you or I use them. The last thing that we should do is put obstacles in their path such as challenges from taxi drivers based on the fact that the dog does not have the right jacket. I am not being facetious.
None of us is being facetious; we are all mystified about why the regulations that we discussed have been replaced. We do not understand, so we will ask the Executive.
I presume that the present regulations are supposed to be an improvement, but the explanatory note does not say what was wrong with the previous regulations, why they had to be improved or what has been changed. The note should make that clear, but it does not. We also need clarification of the definition of "assistance dog" in regulation 2(2) and the point about the jackets that the dogs must wear. We need an explanation on paper that goes behind the regulations.
Given that the Executive must have a reason for changing the previous regulations, it would be better if we knew what that reason was.
Schools (Scotland) Code Amendment Regulations 2003 (SSI 2003/75)
No points arise on the regulations.
Sea Fish (Prohibited Methods of Fishing) (Firth of Clyde) Order 2003 (SSI 2003/79)
My heart sank when I saw the order because I thought that it was about haaf nets. However, it is about scallop dredges.
We know all about haaf nets.
Yes, but do you know anything about scallop dredges? Do you know what is meant by "specified Pecten maximus"?
Big pecten.
That is the problem: there is no definition of "specified Pecten maximus".
Brian, can you help?
My knowledge of scallops is entirely incidental.
They are lovely with a twist of black pepper and a little lime juice.
I suspect that these ones are not.
There is no definition of the term, so we will ask the Executive about that. We must also ask why a reference to a British sea-fishery officer pops up in relation to a contravention of the order within British fishery limits.
Yes. The Scottish Fisheries Protection Agency operates in the area concerned.
It is a bit mysterious, so we will ask about it.
We think that the word "specified" in the definition of scallop dredge should be "species". The definition should state: "used or intended for the purpose of fishing for king scallops of the species pecten maximus."
There is a typo.
There you go.
That is clever.
That is the value of thorough reading.