Subordinate Legislation Committee, 19 Sep 2006

Meeting date: Tuesday, September 19, 2006

Official Report 180KB pdf

---

Executive Responses

---

Fire Safety (Scotland) Regulations 2006 (SSI 2006/456)

We asked two questions in relation to regulations 15(2) and 24(2)(b), and members will have seen the Executive response. Are members content to draw the regulations to the attention of the lead committee and Parliament on the ground of defective drafting in regulation 15(2) and because the meaning could be clearer in regulation 24(2)(b)?

Members indicated agreement.

---

Fire (Scotland) Act 2005 (Consequential Modifications and Savings) (No 2) Order 2006 (SSI 2006/457)

We asked the Executive to provide an explanation of the background to the drafting of article 3. Members will have seen the response. Are members content to draw the attention of the lead committee and Parliament to the order on the grounds that its meaning could be clearer but also—in fairness—to the full and helpful explanation provided by the Executive?

Members indicated agreement.

---

Scottish Schools (Parental Involvement) Act 2006 (Commencement No 1) Order 2006 (SSI 2006/454)

We asked the Executive to explain the vires for making the commencement order in the form of an SSI and we have seen the response. Shall we draw the order to the attention of the Parliament on the basis that there are procedural doubts about the making of the order as an SSI but that those doubts do not appear to have any adverse effect on the commencement of the provisions specified in the order?

Members indicated agreement.

---

Act of Sederunt (Child Care and Maintenance Rules 1997) (Amendment) (Adoption and Children Act 2002) 2006<br />(SSI 2006/411)

We come now to an act of sederunt to do with child care. We seem to have upset someone—and not for the first time, I have to say. We wrote to the Lord President of the Court of Session and to the Executive because copies of the instrument that were submitted to the committee were not true copies of the original signed version.

The Executive says, "Mea culpa"; it accepts that the error was its fault. The Lord President's office says that the error did not happen at the Court of Session and has somehow managed to read into what we said a criticism and something that raises a question mark over the integrity of the court. The response from the Lord President's office slightly suggests that we have been a bit unfair.

What can I say? I suppose we should write back to say that nothing in our letter or in the Official Report was meant to suggest such a question mark. I do not know whether we should add this, but we could also say that we do not really see how anyone could have thought that that was what we were suggesting. We were saying that we thought that, in all probability, the error had happened at the Executive. However, it would be a good idea to write to the court, if only to say that such things sometimes happen at the Executive.

That was a good summary of our discussion. I am surprised by the reaction.

These are people who make judgments and who interpret words and nuances.

To use a time-honoured phrase, I couldn't possibly comment. A long time ago, I used to work there occasionally.

I do not think that we have the letter from the Court of Session. Has it been circulated?

I am sorry, I thought that everyone had seen it.

My only concern is that, if people are being that precious, I am not sure whether we should write back.

We could send an extract from the Official Report, together with a compliments slip.

I will quote what the legal secretary to the Lord President wrote:

"I am surprised and dismayed that the suggestion is now being made that a certified copy of the instrument submitted to the Parliament was not a true copy of the original. I am also extremely concerned that the impression might have been given by some of the comments by members of the Committee in public that this Office may somehow have provided the Parliament with certified copies of instruments which were not true copies. If correct, that would be a matter of the utmost seriousness and would raise questions as to the personal integrity and professionalism of the staff of this Office"—

to which my response is, "We never said any such thing."

I recollect clearly that we operated entirely on the assumption that the error had occurred at the Executive. However, we thought that we ought to draw the matter to the Lord President's attention because—applying an appropriate judicial standard—we thought it might not be correct to damn the Executive without our being aware of all the evidence.

We will send the court the Official Report, which will make our position clear. We certainly did not intend to question the court's integrity.

We are dismayed by the dismay.

It sounds as if the writer of the letter has read the Official Report and has misinterpreted it. I therefore think that it would be appropriate for us to write a letter.

We will write to make it clear that we were not questioning anyone's integrity and that we are a little surprised at the court's response.

And dismayed.

I think that we will move on. However, we will draw the attention of Parliament to what has happened and we will express our concerns. Also, now that the Executive has said that the error was its responsibility, we will tell the Executive that we are concerned about that.