Official Report 109KB pdf
Home Energy Efficiency Scheme (Scotland) Regulations 2006 (SSI 2006/570)
We asked the Executive five questions about the regulations. Do members have any comments on the Executive's response?
Our legal advisers seem to be concerned about the appeal mechanism, particularly in light of a recent European Court of Human Rights ruling. However, I think that it was suggested last week that there could be an appeal against the European judgment. It is worth drawing the attention of the Parliament to the matter.
I think that paragraphs 15 and 16 of the legal brief refer to the point that you have raised. Is that correct?
Yes. It is about giving the contractors, or the people who are delegated to implement the energy efficiency scheme, powers to refuse or turn down applications. If they have that power, how independent is the appeal mechanism against those decisions?
That is certainly the most important point that has been raised about the regulations. Did you want to raise any other points?
No.
Further information was requested from and supplied by the Executive on the meaning of "withdrawn" in regulation 4(2). That was the first point that we raised. The explanation that we got back seems to be okay. On the second and third points that we raised, the position regarding appeals under the regulations remains unclear, and that could raise a devolution issue. Our fourth point was that the regulations fail to follow proper legislative practice and our fifth point was that the form or meaning of the regulations could be clearer.
Scottish Charity Appeals Panel Rules 2006 (SSI 2006/571)
We put three questions to the Executive on the rules. I refer to paragraph 37 of the legal brief in particular. The big issue seems to be to do with the vires, especially of rule 10, and the point has not really been answered.
I agree. In commenting on the instrument, the legal brief suggests
So you think that, instead of saying that there is doubt, we should say that there is serious concern.
I will leave the wording to you, convener, but I think that it should be slightly stronger than doubt. As I said, if the power is not there, it is not there.
First, there is concern as to whether rule 10 is intra vires. Secondly, the formal meaning of rule 24 could clearer. Thirdly, we asked for more information about rule 18(5), which was supplied to us.
Conservation of Salmon (Collection of Statistics) (Scotland) Regulations 2006 (SSI 2006/572)
We put two questions to the Executive. One was about the representations that had been made in respect of the regulations. We asked about that, and details have been provided to the committee. There was certainly one objection, and the Executive has explained how it considered it.
It would have been helpful if the information about those representations had been contained in the Executive note.
Yes; there was one representation and one objection, so why could that not have been said before? That is the important thing. Perhaps we should report that in stronger terms, on the ground of failure to follow proper legislative practice. It would have been useful if the details of representations had been included in the Executive note.
Environmental Impact Assessment (Agriculture) (Scotland) Regulations 2006 (SSI 2006/582)
We asked five questions of the Executive. If members have no comments I will point out that the important points relate to the defective drafting of regulations 14(5) and 28(3)(a). The Executive has undertaken to amend that drafting and I am sure that we are happy about that.
The final point is that the transposition note does not cover the implementation of the habitats directive, so there has been a failure to follow proper legislative practice.
I welcome Adam Ingram to the meeting. I also welcome Euan Robson; I am sorry that I did not do that when you came into the room.