Instruments Subject <br />to Annulment
Common Agricultural Policy Single<br />Farm Payment and Support Schemes (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 2005 (SSI 2005/257)
The regulations breach the 21-day rule. Committee members might remember that we agreed recently to send a letter asking about liaison between the Scottish Parliament and the Westminster Government on European Union directives. We have not yet had a response to that letter, so the matter will arise at a later meeting. On this occasion, the Executive states that, "due to an oversight", the adoption and publication of European Commission regulation 606/2005, which entered into force on 20 April 2005, did not come to light until 9 May 2005.
We should write. My understanding is that, although farmers generally welcome the flexibility that the regulations provide, those who might lose money or not be paid as much as they were previously are very concerned, as they had no time to make representations. We learned of those concerns only through media reports in the past few days and, given the level of concern, it is appropriate that the committee ask further questions.
I agree. Farmers have approached MSPs on the issue, so there is obviously strong feeling on it.
Mental Welfare Commission for Scotland (Appointment of Medical Commissioners) Regulations 2005 (SSI 2005/261)
No points arise on the regulations.
Mental Health (Conflict of Interest) (Scotland) Regulations 2005 (SSI 2005/262)
No points arise on the regulations.
Additional Support for Learning (Appropriate Agency Request Period and Exceptions) (Scotland) Regulations 2005 (SSI 2005/264)
The meaning and practical effect of regulation 2 may be unclear. It provides that an appropriate agency must comply with a request
Given the fairly well-publicised Royal Mail delivery results, it might be important for recipients to know whether the date on which a request became effective was the date on the postmark or the date when they received the letter. Clarification would be welcome.
I would think that the relevant date would be the date on which the request was received. That would be in line with the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002, under which time limits apply from the date on which an authority receives a freedom of information request. As the point is not absolutely clear, we should seek clarification on it, but the relevant day must be the day that the request is received; I cannot imagine that it would be the day on which it was posted in the high street.
I hope that that is the case.
Should there not be standard practice throughout the governmental machinery and ought the same rule not to apply in every circumstance?
No. I can think of some emergency situations—perhaps the closure of a dangerous operation—in which an order becomes effective as soon as it is made, regardless of whether the subject of that order has received the paperwork.
In that case, there might be a graded policy that provides for the date of issue to be the relevant date, but there ought to be a presumption that the date of receipt is the relevant date unless there is a justifiable reason for treating some circumstances differently.
We will write to the Executive to ask for clarification on that point. I gather that the same issue arises in regulation 3(3). In addition, we will ask what the standard practice is.
If there is one.
Indeed. We will also ask what exemptions there might be from that standard practice, as we accept that there may be exemptions. Is that agreed?
Additional Support for Learning<br />(Changes in School Education) (Scotland) Regulations 2005 (SSI 2005/265)
The regulations set out actions that education authorities must take when changes occur in the school education of children and young persons who have additional support needs. The introductory wording to regulation 3(2)(b) includes the words:
Additional Support for Learning<br />(Co-ordinated Support Plan) (Scotland) Regulations 2005 (SSI 2005/266)
Regulation 3(1)(b)(iv) specifies that the matters that are contained in section 9(2)(a) to (d) of the Education (Additional Support for Learning) (Scotland) Act 2004—the parent act—must be included in a plan. However, under section 9(2) of that act, it is already required that such information be included in a plan. Do we agree to ask for further clarification on that point?
Regulation 5 provides for the time limit for reviews of a plan under section 10 of the 2004 act, and includes several cross-references to sections 10 and 11 of the parent act. Regulation 5(a) provides that, where an education authority completes a review of the plan, the copy of the plan, as amended, must be given to the persons mentioned in
I agree that that is unclear. I also have a question. The legal briefing notes:
We can ask about both those points. We will write to the Executive. Is that agreed?
Additional Support for Learning (Publication of Information) (Scotland) Regulations 2005 (SSI 2005/267)<br />St Mary's Music School (Aided Places) (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 2005 (SSI 2005/269)
Education (Assisted Places) (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 2005<br />(SSI 2005/270)
No substantive points arise on the regulations.