Police (Special Constables) (Scotland) Regulations 2008 (SSI 2008/117)
Item 2 is consideration of three negative instruments. The Subordinate Legislation Committee raised several drafting and technical points about the first instrument. Do members have comments or are we content with the regulations?
I am content.
Forgive me—I do not remember whether I have raised this issue before. Did we agree to write to ask the appropriate people why the acknowledged drafting error in the regulations cannot be changed?
We have written to the Scottish Government, although we are uncertain about whether we requested an amendment. However, the Government has said that it will in future amend the provision.
That means that the Government will have to come back with another instrument.
The provision will simply be amended.
I am sorry—that is what bothers me. I am looking at a piece of paper that seems to say, "We know it's wrong, but we can't change it." Surely the parliamentary scrutiny process should enable us to say, "It says regulation 20, but it should say regulation 19—correct it." I understand that the issue is totally procedural, but why cannot a change be made?
I may be able to assist. Paragraph 20 of the Subordinate Legislation Committee's report says that the Government has undertaken to correct the error and that the error
That is my view, too. However, we will write again to point out the issue. I wish that, in any future existence, Nigel Don does not find himself on the Subordinate Legislation Committee.
Act of Sederunt (Fees of Shorthand Writers in the Sheriff Court) (Amendment) 2008 (SSI 2008/118)<br />Sexual Offences Act 2003 (Prescribed Police Stations) (Scotland) Regulations 2008 (SSI 2008/128)
Are members content to note the instruments?