Official Report 119KB pdf
Instruments Subject <br />to Annulment
TSE (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 2004 (SSI 2004/277)
The regulations deal with scrapie and BSE. No points of substance have been identified by the legal team.
I would like my standard paragraph 1 on transposition notes to be noted.
That will be included.
Pig Carcase (Grading) Amendment (Scotland) Regulations 2004 (SSI 2004/279)
No points have been identified on the regulations.
That is unfortunate. I was looking forward to some points being identified on what is a very large document.
Civil Legal Aid (Scotland) (Fees) Amendment Regulations 2004 <br />(SSI 2004/281)
It is suggested that we ask the Executive to explain the drafting of regulation 3(2), which does not appear to be an amendment of the Civil Legal Aid (Scotland) (Fees) Regulations 1989 (SI 1989/1490), as stated under regulation 3(1). Rather, it seems to be a free-standing provision or an amendment of regulation 2 of the Civil Legal Aid (Scotland) (Fees) Regulations 2003 (SSI 2003/178). I wonder if we should deal with the matter by means of an informal letter—or perhaps our response should be stronger than that.
We should make our point more strongly, because the question that arises is a serious one.
We will ask the Executive about the matter.
There is a further issue on the regulations, which also applies to the regulations that we will consider next: the citing in footnotes of amending instruments that are not relevant. That does not affect the validity of the regulations, but folk should not have to wade through a whole load of stuff that is not relevant. It is incumbent on the Executive to weed that out, rather than expecting people to identify the non-relevant amending instruments.
That relates to a point that we made previously.
Yes. We should write an informal letter to the Executive on that point.
We will write an informal letter.
Criminal Legal Aid (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 2004 (SSI 2004/282)
No points of substance have been identified.
As with the previous regulations, irrelevant amending instruments have been cited in a footnote.
That is the same point that Christine May made on the previous regulations. We can also mention these regulations in the informal letter.
Conservation of Seals (Scotland) Order 2004 (SSI 2004/283)
No points arise on the order.
National Health Service (Borrowing and Loans from Endowments) (Scotland) (No 2) Regulations 2004 (SSI 2004/284)
No points have been identified on the regulations, apart from one small matter. The explanatory note cites the Public Appointments and Public Bodies etc (Scotland) Act 2003 and the National Health Service (Borrowing and Loans from Endowments) (Scotland) Regulations 2004 (SSI 2004/16). It is believed that those are unnecessary, as both are given in footnotes in the regulations. We can address that also through an informal letter. Is that agreed?
National Health Service (Transfer of Property between Health Boards) (Scotland) (No 2) Regulations 2004<br />(SSI 2004/285)
It is suggested that we ask the Executive to explain what powers authorise regulations 2(c) and 2(d)(vii). Is that agreed?
Mental Health Tribunal for Scotland (Appointment of Legal Members) Regulations 2004 (SSI 2004/286)<br />Victim Statements (Prescribed Offences) (Scotland) Amendment (No 2) Order 2004 (SSI 2004/287)
No points have been identified on the instruments.
Environmental Protection<br />(Restriction on Use of Lead Shot) (Scotland) Regulations (SSI 2004/289)
We now come to an instrument that has caused a bit of concern. There is a big issue in relation to what has been transferred to the regulations from the parent act. Points (a) to (i) of our legal advice show where it is thought that there are serious vires issues. I can go through those points individually or we can just accept them. Do members have any comments on the legal advice?
No. We have received a fairly lengthy briefing. One specific issue that has been raised is that the Executive should be asked to confirm that the notice of the making of the regulations was published in the London Gazette as well as in the Edinburgh Gazette. That seems to be a requirement. Given the importance of shooting and sporting activities to the tourism industry in Scotland, I am sure that that is relevant. I have no doubt that committee members read the London Gazette regularly.
Absolutely.
Fascinating although the gazettes are, the main point is the conferral of fairly draconian powers on the police when the parent act may not allow the conferral of those powers. That is something on which we want a speedy answer.
They are stop-and-search powers. There are serious concerns; therefore, we will write to ask the Executive to clarify those issues. Is that agreed?
National Health Service (Vocational Training for General Dental Practice) (Scotland) Regulations 2004 (SSI 2004/292)
Most of the points that are raised in our legal briefing are drafting points. There are four points altogether. Do members have any comments on the regulations?
None, other than those that are made in the legal briefing.
Okay. We will ask the Executive for responses to points (a) to (d) in the legal briefing. Is that agreed?
Regulation of Care (Scotland) Act 2001 (Transitional Provisions) Amendment Order 2004 (SSI 2004/293)
No points on the order are raised in our legal advice. Do members have any points to raise?
The order breaches the 21-day rule.
Yes, it does. However, the Executive explains in its letter to the Presiding Officer that, until the beginning of this month, it was hoped that most, if not all, relevant providers would have applied by the due date. They had not.
I hear what the Executive is saying, but that seems over-optimistic and has been proved so.
A little, yes.
The Executive should have expected that not all providers would have applied by the due date.
We could write an informal letter to the Executive.
Yes, we could write an informal letter. Is that agreed?