Official Report 186KB pdf
Queen Margaret University, Edinburgh (Scotland) Order of Council 2007 <br />(SSI 2007/116)
I welcome members to the 11th meeting in 2007 of the Subordinate Legislation Committee. Convener Sylvia Jackson sends her apologies, as does Adam Ingram. Euan Robson will be here shortly.
No.
The defective drafting in article 2 was acknowledged by the Executive, although it is not such as to affect the order of council's validity.
Charities Accounts (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 2007 (SSI 2007/136)
Do members want to raise any points on the regulations?
I am happy with what is recommended.
We were concerned that there was no Executive note. One had in fact been printed, but not sent to us, and we received an apology from the Executive.
It was lost in the post.
Exactly—it was lost somewhere in the realms of the Executive. Therefore, if members are content, we will draw the regulations to the attention of Parliament on the basis that the Executive inadvertently failed to provide us with an Executive note. Is that agreed?
Tuberculosis (Scotland) Order 2007 <br />(SSI 2007/147)
Are members content to draw the order to the attention of the lead committee and Parliament on the ground that there has been a failure to follow proper legislative practice by reason of the use of enabling powers subject to different parliamentary procedures in one instrument? The issue has raised its head a number of times.
We have covered the point in the past few weeks, and we have come to a bit of an impasse with the Executive. It is now for the legacy paper and a future committee to take up.
I agree. There is a slight difference in that the Executive has explained that, when an instrument contains negative procedure and no procedure, in the event that it is annulled the Executive may implement the no-procedure elements of the package from the same date if it so wishes. I suspect that it is therefore easier than combining the affirmative and negative powers.
We should still point it out to the lead committee.
I agree with both members. The helpful note from our legal advisers goes through all the points. It sums up my feeling that there is a practical reason for the Executive's decision and that there is a sensible outcome in putting together two orders so that the control element and related compensation provisions are in the same instrument. I can understand the practical advantages of that to the users of the instrument. However, from a parliamentary procedure point of view, I note that our equivalent committee in Westminster made a strong point about that, which was accepted by the United Kingdom Government.
That strengthens the argument for a single procedure, does it not?
Exactly—it adds to our general recommendations to reform the overall procedures.
I am sure that I am right that we operate under the same procedures as the Westminster Parliament. It is where we got our procedures from, and we have not moved on from the transitional procedures. Given that we use the same procedure, it is odd that, although the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments has taken a view and the UK Government has accepted it, the position is different here.
It is probably not what you would describe as a Scottish solution for a Scottish problem.
It does not sound like it.
The point has been made that we are concerned about the procedure. I agree with Stewart Maxwell that there is a trend of using it—a few sporadic examples from the past do not counter that argument. We can draw our concern to the attention of the lead committee and Parliament and include it in our legacy paper.
Education Authority Bursaries (Scotland) Regulations 2007 (SSI 2007/149)
We asked the Executive to explain the terms "EEA agreement" and "EEA state"—EEA standing for European Economic Area. Members have seen the Executive's response. Are we content to draw the regulations to the attention of Parliament and the lead committee on the basis that the Executive has provided an explanation?
Education (Fees and Awards) (Scotland) Regulations 2007 (SSI 2007/152)
We asked the Executive if it intended to correct an error. We were concerned about it because we had highlighted such an error in a previous instrument. The Executive accepted our observation and said that it would correct it in future, but did not.
No.
I must say that I was reassured that it was cock-up rather than conspiracy.
I take it that you are ruling that that is an acceptable parliamentary term, convener.
What, conspiracy?
Slip-up.
Graduate Endowment (Scotland) Regulations 2007 (SSI 2007/155)
We asked the Executive a number of questions on the regulations, and members have a copy of the Executive's response.
Education Maintenance Allowances (Scotland) Regulations 2007 (SSI 2007/156)
We asked the Executive why the definition of "employed" that is given in regulation 2 differs from the definition of "employment" that is used in a number of other Scottish statutory instruments. Are members content with the Executive's response?
We will draw the regulations to the attention of the lead committee and Parliament on the ground that the Executive has provided an adequate explanation.
Repayment of Student Loans (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 2007 <br />(SSI 2007/159)
Are members content with the Executive's response to the committee's question?
We will draw the regulations to the attention of the lead committee and Parliament on the ground that further information was sought from and provided by the Executive.
Disabled Persons (Badges for Motor Vehicles) (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 2007 (SSI 2007/162)
We asked the Executive why it did not amend the definition of "disabled person" in regulation 2(1) of the principal regulations. Are members content with its explanation?
Are members content that we draw the attention of the lead committee and Parliament to the regulations on the ground of defective drafting by reason of the failure to amend the definition of "disabled person" in regulation 2(1) of the principal regulations?
Waste Management Licensing Amendment (Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment) (Scotland) Regulations 2007 (SSI 2007/172)
This is the 21st time that the principal regulations—the Waste Management Licensing Regulations 1994 (SI 1994/1056)—have been amended. Stewart Maxwell asked whether that is a record.
I was not being serious; I am sure that there are worse cases.
Our legal advisers have told us that there are worse cases.
Radioactive Contaminated Land (Scotland) Regulations 2007 (SSI 2007/179)
We asked the Executive to explain the vires for regulation 17. Are members content with the Executive's response?
In that case, we will draw the regulations to the attention of the lead committee and Parliament on the basis of a failure to follow proper legislative practice, as acknowledged by the Executive.
Local Governance (Scotland) Act 2004 (Remuneration) Regulations 2007 <br />(SSI 2007/183)
We asked the Executive to explain the purpose of the definition of "the 2004 Act" in regulation 2(1), as that definition does not appear to be used in the regulations. Are members content with the Executive's response?
In that case, we will draw the regulations to the attention of the lead committee and Parliament on the basis of defective drafting by reason of the inclusion of an unnecessary definition in regulation 2(1).
Teachers' Superannuation (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 2007 <br />(SSI 2007/189)
We asked the Executive whether there was an incorrect cross-reference in regulation 29. Are members content to draw the regulations to the attention of the lead committee and Parliament on the ground of defective drafting, although the drafting is not defective to the extent that it will affect the validity of the regulations?
National Health Service (General Ophthalmic Services) (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 2007 <br />(SSI 2007/193)
We asked the Executive two questions. Are members content to draw the regulations to the attention of the lead committee and Parliament on the ground that the Executive has provided an adequate explanation in relation to amending the reference to "paragraph 11" in schedule 1 and on the ground of the defective drafting of regulation 2(12)(a)—which the Executive has acknowledged—although that drafting is not defective to the extent that it will affect the validity of the regulations?
Charities References in Documents (Scotland) Regulations 2007 (SSI 2007/203)
Are members content to draw the regulations to the attention of the lead committee and Parliament on the ground that the Executive has provided an adequate justification of the vires for regulation 3?
The answer is that we probably are, although it still seems slightly odd that the regulations should use the word "wholly" when the phrase "wholly or mainly" could be used. Arguments that were made in our original debate on the regulations are still valid.
Indeed. There was confusion about the use of the word "wholly" and the phrase "wholly or mainly", but the Executive has presented an argument, and it must justify that argument.
Charities Reorganisation (Scotland) Regulations 2007 (SSI 2007/204)
We asked the Executive to explain whether it is intended that the Office of the Scottish Charity Regulator's obligation in regulation 6(3) to send a copy of its decision to
The Executive said that it is up to OSCR whether to send a copy of a decision to people who submitted late objections.
Council Tax (Exempt Dwellings) (Scotland) Amendment Order 2007 (SSI 2007/215)
We asked the Executive three questions on the order. The Executive has responded.