Official Report 140KB pdf
Robert Gordon University (Scotland) Order of Council 2006 (SSI 2006/298)
Like Murray Tosh, I was not at the committee meeting last week, so it is over to Ken Macintosh, because poor old Maureen Watt has just entered the fray.
Our concern last week was the number of errors in the instrument. The Executive has produced a helpful response, in which it agrees with a number of our points about defective drafting. That will be amended.
Are members content to draw the order in council to the attention of the lead committee and the Parliament on the ground of defective drafting on all the points that we raised, apart from the second, and on failure to follow proper legislative practice on that point?
Contaminants in Food (Scotland) Regulations 2006 (SSI 2006/306)
We asked the Executive to explain why the sampling requirements provided for in the Contaminants in Food (Scotland) Regulations 2005 (SSI 2005/606) have been omitted from the current regulations and why there is no explanation in the explanatory note for that substantial change. Is there any comment on the explanation that we have been given?
No. We should pass it on to the lead committee and to the Parliament.
We have now been given the information, but—this point follows on from the one that Murray Tosh raised earlier—if the information had been there previously we would not have had to ask for it.
National Health Service (Superannuation Scheme and Additional Voluntary Contributions) (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 2006 (SSI 2006/307)
We asked the Executive to explain the reference in new regulations T2A(4), T2A(5) and T2A(6) to "the information referred to" in new regulations T2A(7) or (8), as those provisions do not appear to contain any such information. Members will see that the Executive has admitted that there was a drafting error and that the references ought to have been to new regulations T2A(3) or (4). It will correct the error during the consolidation of pension regulations that will take place after the summer recess.
It is fortunate that there is a consolidation exercise in the offing that will allow the Executive to make the correction. If there had not been, there would have needed to be a fresh instrument or the instrument would have had to be left incorrect indefinitely. This is another example—we like to pick out at least one a week—of an instrument in which the power of amendment at an early stage would be useful, not just for the committee, but for the Executive and for those who are subject to the regulations.
Exactly. Do we agree to point out the defective drafting to the lead committee and the Parliament?
Yes.
Last week we were concerned about the number of times—14—that a set of regulations had been amended without consultation. Are these the regulations in question?
I think that we will discuss those regulations later.
I thought that these were the regulations, although I may be wrong. We were concerned because the Executive said that it was in the middle of consolidating the regulations. I am glad that it has pinned down what the middle is—shortly after the summer recess.
You are correct in identifying these as the regulations that were amended 14 times. We will welcome the fact that they will be consolidated after the summer recess.
Common Agricultural Policy (Wine) (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 2006 (SSI 2006/311)
The committee raised four points about the regulations. Members have a copy of the Executive's response, in which it acknowledges drafting errors in relation to each point. It intends to correct all but one of those by amending instruments at the next legislative opportunity. The second point that we made can be addressed prior to printing, which is helpful. Are members content to bring the points to the attention of the lead committee and the Parliament?
Seed (Registration, Licensing and Enforcement) (Scotland) Regulations 2006 (SSI 2006/313)
We asked the Executive why Council directive 2004/117/EC was being implemented later than the date specified in the directive and why there was no transposition note. I point out to Maureen Watt that we have been asking about transposition notes for a considerable time. At Westminster, such notes are provided automatically. This is one of several occasions on which we have not received one.
It is good that in its response the Executive considers that, on reflection, it would have been useful to produce a transposition note. That is very much what we would like it to say. We want it to treat the matter in a consistent and rigorous fashion, as happens at Westminster.
We also welcome the information that was provided about the date.
Plastic Materials and Articles in Contact with Food (Scotland) Regulations 2006 <br />(SSI 2006/314)
We put two questions to the Executive on the regulations. First, we asked about the wording of regulation 9(4) and the reference to
The FSA's explanation is that the Scottish regulations were drafted differently from the English regulations. However, they appear to be an exact copy. That said, we should draw the regulations to the attention of the lead committee.
It is curious. The FSA has been liable to produce instruments that are not sensitive to Scottish requirements, yet here we have a statement that these regulations are indeed sensitive to Scottish requirements. We should applaud that—although it is made difficult by the fact that the regulations are in fact identical to the English ones. However, keep trying, Food Standards Agency. One day we hope you will get this; one day we hope that we might be able to give you genuine praise for the work that you do.
Plant Health (Potatoes) (Scotland) Order 2006 (SSI 2006/319)
The committee raised eight points on the order; you were busy last week, I have to say. Members will see that the Executive's responses are not very helpful on many of those points.
We should draw the defective drafting to the attention of the lead committee and the Parliament.
I will summarise the points for the record. The first point that we raised was whether the provision is intra vires. The second point was about defective drafting, as Murray said. Should we describe that point as defective drafting, or as a failure to follow proper legislative practice? Our second point also covers another issue, where there is defective drafting.
We could therefore raise both issues.
Okay—a failure to follow proper legislative practice and defective drafting.
National Health Service (General Dental Services) (Scotland) Amendment (No 2) Regulations 2006 (SSI 2006/321)
For these regulations, we asked the Executive to explain the reference in regulation 2(2) to
We should welcome the consolidation and should report to the lead committee and the Parliament that the Executive will move to correct the defective drafting of regulation 2(2).
We were keen to keep an on-going log of when the Executive said that it was going to consolidate things—something that Stewart Maxwell and I observed when we went to visit a Westminster committee. I look to the clerk to ensure that we have an on-going log to refer to.
Education (Graduate Endowment, Student Fees and Support) (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 2006 (SSI 2006/323)
We raised four points on these regulations last week. Members will have seen the Executive response, and the legal advice, on the defective drafting of paragraphs 11(a) and 11(b) of schedule 1 to the Education (Fees and Awards) (Scotland) Regulations 1997 (SI 1997/93). The Executive acknowledges that defective drafting.
I think that we welcome the Executive's acceptance that there has been defective drafting. It is interesting that the Executive has explained its reasoning behind not using the word "step-child"—which I think we would accept—but that its consideration revealed that the word was missing from other regulations. We should draw that to the attention of the lead committee and the Parliament.
Are you referring to the Nursing and Midwifery Student Allowances (Scotland) Regulations 1992 (SI 1992/580)?
Yes.
I will summarise. In addition to the first point that we raised, we can draw to the attention of the lead committee and the Parliament the defective drafting in paragraph 5 of schedule 3, which the Executive has acknowledged; the fact that the Executive provided information as requested by the committee and that paragraph (10)(a) of schedule 1 to the 1992 regulations is defectively drafted, as the Executive has acknowledged; and the Executive's proposal to bring forward a consolidating instrument later this year. That is another one for the list.
Animals and Animal Products (Import and Export) (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 2006 (SSI 2006/335)
The committee asked the Executive whether, in new regulation 18, the reference should be to article 2.3 of the Commission decision and not to article 2.4. The Executive thinks that the reference to article 2.4 of the Commission decision is relevant and does not consider that reference to article 2.3 would be appropriate. Do members have any comments to make on the regulations?
Things could be clearer, but if the Executive is happy that the regulations will be effective, I am happy with the response. Perhaps we could draw the matter to the attention of the lead committee.
Do you mean that the meaning of regulation 18(3)(a) could have been clearer?
Our legal adviser is not entirely sure that the Executive's explanation makes sense.
The legal advice is that it is difficult to follow the Executive's distinction between the relevance of article 2.3 and that of article 2.4 for the purposes of regulation 18(3)(a). Are members happy to draw the attention of the lead committee and the Parliament to the regulations on the ground that the meaning of regulation 18(3)(a) could be clearer?