Subordinate Legislation Committee, 19 Nov 2002

Meeting date: Tuesday, November 19, 2002

Official Report 150KB pdf

---

Instruments Subject to Annulment

---

Instruments Subject <br />to Annulment

---

Plastic Materials and Articles in Contact with Food (Amendment) (Scotland) Regulations 2002 (SSI 2002/498)

Guess who thought this one up.

You.

Our membership of the European Union means that the regulations are required, but there is no reference in the preamble to the regulations to the consultation requirement in Council regulation (EC) 178/2002. In regulation 11, which introduces new regulation 8B, paragraph (1) is stated to be

"Subject to paragraphs (2) and (3)"

and paragraph (2) is stated to be "Subject to paragraph (3)", but paragraphs (2) and (3) are purely interpretative provisions rather than qualifications of substantive provisions. That is another good reason for not adopting the euro.

We are supposed to be objective here.

That was my objective conclusion. A transposition note from the Executive would have been helpful when we were working out paragraphs (1), (2) and (3). The serious point is that the English and Welsh have included in the preamble a reference to the consultation requirement. We might ask the Executive why it has not followed what is generally considered to be best practice in this field.

---

Taxi Drivers' Licences (Carrying of Guide Dogs and Hearing Dogs) (Scotland) Regulations 2002 (SSI 2002/500)

I suggest that members bone up on this subject—this is the sort of thing that you will be asked about in the course of your business.

As members will be aware, taxi drivers have the right to opt out of taking passengers in wheelchairs, and wheelchair users need a medical certificate. Mechanisms exist to administer the subordinate legislation that applies to wheelchair users and I presume that the instrument before us is some sort of parallel. It gives taxi drivers the right—under certain circumstances, and if the requirements are met—to refuse to carry guide dogs or hearing dogs in their cars.

What if the dog fouls in the taxi?

Send for Keith Harding.

I think that guide dogs and hearing dogs are exempt from the provisions of the bill to which you refer, and they are much better behaved than the average taxi occupant.

I am glad that Brian Fitzpatrick said that.

I suspect that it is the case, at certain times of night and in certain parts of our rural areas.

We should perhaps ask for an explanation of why the regulations are so drafted if the clear intention is to make provision in relation to other categories of dog. They do not prescribe the category, or indeed the disability, as is required by the enabling power. They appear instead to rely solely on a definition under regulation 1(4). We should ascertain why the definitions of "a guide dog" and "a hearing dog" under regulation 1(4) are thought necessary, given that both are already defined in the enabling power. I am not sure whether that is just a question of draftsmanship.

Regulation 1(2) provides that regulations 2 and 3 come into force on 3 March 2003, but regulation 2 refers to applications for licences made on or after 1 March 2003. That might be a wee mistake. We should ask the Executive about the apparent discrepancy. We might also make a presentational or stylistic query: we should ask why the italic headnote does not follow the prescribed form for staged commencement.

I will be interested to see the responses on regulation 1(4). The paragraph goes on to say that "an assistance dog" is defined as a dog that is "trained by a charity" or is

"wearing a jacket inscribed with the name of a charity".

There is a missing space in the footnote. We should deal with that informally.

We have no further notices. I thank members for their attendance—and for the fact that we have not had too many doggy do-dos jokes.

Meeting closed at 12:12.