Official Report 112KB pdf
Instruments Subject <br />to Annulment
Home Energy Efficiency Scheme Amendment (No 2) (Scotland) Regulations 2003 (SSI 2003/529)
The legal advice indicates that no particular issues of substance arise.
Public Finance and Accountability (Scotland) Act 2000 (Access to Documents and Information) (Relevant Persons) Order 2003 (SSI 2003/530)
Several issues were raised in relation to the order, which I will summarise, unless members wish to highlight any particular points.
Article 2 says "‘relevant person' includes". As our legal advice indicates, the "relevant person" should either be defined or not. It is not right to purport to have a definition that covers some people who may be relevant, but which leaves it open for other people also to be relevant persons. I am assuming that that wording in article 2 is a mistake, and that the word "includes" should not have been used.
That is agreed.
That was very impressive, Alasdair.
There has also been a delay between the date of making the instrument and its being laid before Parliament. We should perhaps ask the Executive to explain why that was the case—unless we already have such an explanation.
No, we do not have one. We want to find out why that was.
There is also the breach of the 21-day rule, which ties in with what Christine May said. We will make those four points, which cover clarity, the 21-day rule and the delay, to the Executive.
Having made those points, the description of what constitutes a subcontract is very clear.
Good. Perhaps we should include a positive note on that—for a change.
Control of Pollution (Silage, Slurry and Agricultural Fuel Oil) (Scotland) Regulations 2003 (SSI 2003/531)
For the benefit of Gordon Jackson, who was not here for the legal briefing, I should point out that the legal advice contained a slight error. Paragraph 53 should have begun "On page 2, regulation 1(3)(c)", in case you were confused about that point, Gordon.
You mean I sat up the whole night reading the legal brief and it was wrong?
That information is also for Murray Tosh. The main issue about the regulations seems to be whether the reference in regulation 12 to the 1999 regulations should in fact be to regulations made in 1991. We need clarification on that. There is also doubt as to the meaning of "the present Regulation" in regulation 1(3)(c).
On the point about the erroneous reference to the 1999 regulations, do we know that there are other regulations that were made in 1991? Was that just a typographical error?
We think that it was a typographical error.
There is also the fact that amending instruments have not been revoked in addition to the principal regulations. Given that it is generally regarded as good practice to clear the statute book, we might wish also to mention that.
In addition to the two substantive points, which we will raise with the Executive, we could make Christine May's point in an informal letter. We can include in that letter a minor drafting point in relation to regulation 11.
When you say that we will raise the matter of the revocation of amending instruments in an informal letter, does that mean that the committee will receive a response to that point?
We do not normally get responses to informal letters, but we could include that point with the two main points.
It would be interesting to find out whether this is an oversight or an error, in which case we could just forget about it. Alternatively, it might be a reflection of the Executive's practice—sometimes such instruments are revoked; sometimes they are not. If that is the case, there might be some interesting questions to raise.
We will raise the matter in the main letter, then.
I see the legal adviser wincing at the thought of additional work.
Do members agree to raise the three points that we have mentioned in a formal letter to the Executive and to make the minor point about drafting in an informal letter?
Housing (Scotland) Act 2001 (Transfer of Scottish Homes Property and Liabilities) Order 2003 (SSI 2003/532)
Although we have no points of substance on the order, I think that Alasdair Morgan wants to raise a wee point about Scottish Homes.
The order defines Scottish Homes, which is the first time that that persona has been given a legal definition. I am not sure whether former employees of Scottish Homes may feel slighted that the first time that the organisation is thought to be worthy of a legal definition is when it is about to be abolished—sic transit gloria, I suppose.
The question is whether that point is worthy of communication to the Executive. Would you like an informal letter to be sent?
Why not?
Okay. Apart from that, no points arise on the order.
Environmental Protection (Duty of Care) Amendment (Scotland) Regulations 2003 (SSI 2003/533)
No points of substance arise, but there are some small points that we can put in an informal letter. In the explanatory note, the second sentence is not easy to follow and there are a few other small points. Is it agreed to raise the points that are mentioned in the legal brief in an informal letter to the Executive?
Act of Sederunt (Fees of Sheriff Officers) 2003 (SSI 2003/538)
We come to today's first act of sederunt—Gordon Jackson will keep me right on pronunciation. No points of substance arise, although there are a few minor points about footnotes. Alasdair Morgan has a point.
I am beginning to get a bit wary, convener, of your saying, "When there are no points of substance I will call on Alasdair Morgan".
Do members agree to send a letter to the court authorities to ask that question? The answer might be helpful if we were to raise the issue more generally at a later date.
Mike Pringle ought to be excited that one of the acts involved is from 1907. We do not often get the opportunity to comment on legislation that was passed by the Liberals.
I am very excited—thank you for pointing that out. I must note that it was a little before my time.
We do not believe you.
At least the Subordinate Legislation Committee is becoming a little more exciting.
That is because the Liberals are involved.
I assume that we are agreed on the course of action that I outlined earlier.
Air Quality Limit Values (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 2003 <br />(SSI 2003/547)
No points have been identified on the regulations.
Previous
Executive Response