Official Report 88KB pdf
Instruments Subject <br />to Annulment
Local Authorities Etc (Allowances) (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 2004 (SSI 2004/146)<br />Act of Sederunt (Fees of Shorthand Writers in the Sheriff Court) (Amendment) 2004 (SSI 2004/149)
Act of Sederunt (Fees of Solicitors and Witnesses in the Sheriff Court) (Amendment) 2004 (SSI 2004/152)<br />Mental Health Tribunal for Scotland (Disqualification) Regulations 2004 <br />(SSI 2004/154)
Mental Health Tribunal for Scotland (Appointment of President) Regulations 2004 (SSI 2004/155)
No points arise on the instruments.
Primary Medical Services (Sale of Goodwill and Restrictions on Sub contracting) (Scotland) Regulations 2004 (SSI 2004/162)
Somebody say something.
The regulations breach the 21-day rule—as do a number of the other instruments. However, the excuse that has been given, which was that the results of national negotiations and discussions were being awaited, was reasonable.
An informal letter will deal with that.
General Medical Services and Section 17C Agreements (Transitional and other Ancillary Provisions) (Scotland) Order 2004 (SSI 2004/163)
Are there any comments on the order?
You might be sorry that you asked, given the number that could be made.
In my experience, this is probably the worst instrument that has come to our attention.
What are we going to do about the order? Twenty different points needing clarification from the Executive have been pointed out to us.
There are 20 substantive points detailed in the legal brief.
And then there are about another 150 minor points.
We could do one or two things. We could go through the points now, or we could take them as read, send them all to the Executive and then deal with them when they come back.
We should write to the Executive formally on the 20 substantive points, also pointing out the more minor points in our letter. There are about four and a half pages of mistakes listed in our legal brief. Frankly, that is an unacceptable level of error.
I totally agree. However, rather than talking all those points on to the record now, we will wait until the responses come back to us next week.
I congratulate the people who found all those errors, but the problem is that, despite what I am sure were their best efforts, they might not have found all of them. It is like proofreading, as I was saying before the meeting: the fourth person proofreading something might still find mistakes. It would not surprise me at all if one or two points have been missed. Given the huge number of mistakes that have been found, it would be understandable if that were the case.
The committee will give the impression that we are not exactly over the moon about the level of mistakes in the order. We would like pretty clear answers on what we are raising.
On what went wrong.
National Health Service (Travelling Expenses and Remission of Charges) (Scotland) Amendment (No 2) Regulations 2004 (SSI 2004/166)
There are one or two things that could be raised.
Four points are raised by the legal brief: the breach of the 21-day rule; the discrepancy between the explanatory note and the substantive provisions of the regulations; the timing of the commencement of regulation 2(4); and the making of formal amendments to the punctuation of the principal regulations. The last of those might not seem particularly serious, but it is nonetheless worth drawing the Executive's attention to those matters.
If the fourth point was the only one, we might deal with it in a different way, but we should raise the four points with the Executive.
Point (c) on that list, on the timing of the commencement of a provision, seems rather bizarre. All the other provisions take effect on 6 April—why should one be commenced on 1 April? I believe that, although that has been pointed out to the Executive, it has decided to stick with that inconsistent date. We should pursue that with the Executive again. It does not seem sensible to commence most of the provisions on 6 April and one provision on 1 April.
Doing so would mean that ancillary provisions relating to the "relevant child" would come into force on 1 April, before the substantive provision.
National Health Service (Optical Charges and Payments) (Scotland) Amendment (No 2) Regulations 2004 (SSI 2004/168)
There is a breach of the 21-day rule, but I think that we will accept it.
Okay—we accept that in this situation.
National Health Service (General Ophthalmic Services) (Scotland) Amendment (No 3) Regulations 2004 <br />(SSI 2004/169)
The comments that we made on the previous regulations also apply to these regulations.
It is the same point—we have accepted a similar breach before.
Organic Aid (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 2004 (SSI 2004/174)
Nothing has been identified on the regulations.
We should congratulate the Executive for putting right the breach of the 21-day rule so quickly.
Indeed.