Subordinate Legislation Committee,

Meeting date: Tuesday, May 21, 2002

Official Report 89KB pdf

---

Draft Instruments Subject to Approval

---

Draft Instruments Subject <br />to Approval

---

Community Care (Assessment of Needs) (Scotland) Regulations 2002 (draft)

A number of points arise. First, the title of the regulations does not indicate the transitional nature of the provisions. We can ask the Executive why that is the case. In addition, what look to be substantive provisions in relation to a "relevant person" have not been dealt with as such, except in regulation 1(2), which is a definition provision. Perhaps we might ask for an explanation of that.

Agreed.

A definition of the term "the 1968 Act" has been included in regulation 1(2), although the term is defined in the parent act. On a number of occasions, we have said that we do not—

That seems a bit redundant.

Yes. We do not need definitions in both layers of legislation.

A question of vires also arises, but as it relates to an order coming up later in the agenda—the Community Care and Health (Scotland) Act 2002 (Consequential Amendment) Order 2002 (SSI 2002/233)—perhaps we should discuss the issue of vires in detail when we get to that order.

The regulations are also difficult to follow. We have said in the past that when regulations apply directly to a consumer they should be in easily understandable language. As these regulations apply to elderly people and all the rest of it, we could mention to the Executive that we do not think that the explanatory note is at all easy to follow.

Those points will be intimated to the Executive. If there is nothing else on that, we will move on.

Members indicated agreement.

---

Community Care <br />(Personal Care and Nursing Care) (Scotland) Regulations 2002 (draft)

Again, there are questions of definition. Regulation 1(2) defines the terms "the 1968 Act" and "the 1984 Act", both of which are defined in the enabling act. The committee has said previously that it is not regarded as good drafting practice to define in subordinate legislation a term that is already defined in a parent act. Perhaps we can ask for an explanation from the Executive for that.

Members indicated agreement.

---

Criminal Justice Act 1988 <br />(Offensive Weapons) Amendment (Scotland) Order 2002 (draft)

There is a mistake in the preamble that is probably just a typo, because it refers to the "Criminal Justice Act 1998", whereas the act to which the order refers is the Criminal Justice Act 1988. That does not seem to be a big deal, but we should note it anyway and ask the Executive to verify that that is the case.

There might have been questions arising out of EU legislation on free trade. However, I do not think that that is the most important thing for the committee to consider. We must consider whether or not the Executive has gone about implementing its policy in a way that corresponds correctly with the technical standards directive of the EU. Does anyone else want to say anything about the order? It is about knives. The Executive has said that it does not want any knives manufactured, and there is an argument as to whether or not it can actually do that and whether or not that is an amendment.

It is clear from the Executive's note that it has looked carefully at the technical standards directive and decided that it is not contravening that directive. When considering the technicalities of the manufacture of knives, such as the length of the blade and so on, there are certain things that can easily be put down on paper, but others are more difficult to describe. For example, a penknife that looks like a lipstick is not easy to describe in terms of technical standards. We should just draw the Executive's attention to that slight difficulty or awkwardness.

There is also a problem about the extent of the provision. It is a Scotland-only order. Perhaps there should be some sort of extent provision in the order.

It is worth while asking why that is not included in the order.

I think that that is obvious, given that the order amends a Great Britain act. I echo what Ian Jenkins says. I strongly support the Executive's reasons for rejecting the suggestion that the directive applies. The Executive is to be commended for taking action. If the European Commission or anyone else wants to step up the argument for free trade in disguised knives or the like, let them do it.

That is what I like to hear—a good dose of Euro-scepticism.

I do not think that it was that.

That is what it sounded like to me, but perhaps not.

Is there anything else?

That is quite enough.