Official Report 136KB pdf
Domestic Water and Sewerage Charges (Reduction) (Scotland) Regulations 2002 (SSI 2002/47)
No points arise on the instrument.
Notification of Marketing of Food for Particular Nutritional Uses (Scotland) Regulations 2002 (SSI 2002/50)
I believe that an Executive note on these regulations has just come in. However, we might want to ask the Executive to explain the late implementation of the directive on which the regulations are based.
We should not be forced to work in a compressed time scale.
Sea Fishing (Enforcement of Community Quota and Third Country Fishing Measures) (Scotland) Order 2002<br />(SSI 2002/51)<br />Ethical Standards in Public Life etc (Scotland) Act 2000 (Stipulated Time Limit) Order 2002 (SSI 2002/55)
No points arise on either instrument.
Road Traffic (NHS Charges) Amendment (Scotland) Regulations 2002 (SSI 2002/56)
Aha! I should have stuck to my guns on this matter.
What?
There was a mistake in the regulations as originally published. The amended regulations must now be published. In keeping with what we have done in the past, we should ask the Executive whether people who purchased the original regulations will be charged for the amended regulations.
If the regulations are to be free, we should ask why no headnote states that.
Who does buy the regulations? I am not being funny. Is it not just big organisations such as insurance companies that do so?
What have you got against insurance companies?
Nothing. I just wonder who we are worrying about. I am curious.
It is a point of principle. If the Executive makes a mistake, somebody else should not pick up the tab.
I just wonder who buys such regulations.
I would have thought that the regulations might be bought not only by insurers, but by couples with policies and so on.
It works both ways. If nobody buys the regulations, the Executive cannot complain about giving them away for free. It will not matter one way or the other.
The interesting thing about this instrument is that we originally raised concerns on the matter of consultation.
You were right to do so.
Someone in England subsequently decided to challenge the equivalent English regulations on the matter of consultation. Where there is a reasonable expectation of consultation being required or where consultation has taken place before, the Executive can be held to be in default if it does not have consultation. I seem to remember that we talked about that matter in a general way, but then we let it go.
We did.
Now Westminster must deal with the matter in the equivalent English regulations. The absence of a statutory obligation to consult does not mean that an instrument cannot be challenged on that ground. I thought that Gordon Jackson would be interested in that matter.
He is still suffering from post-traumatic stress caused by ScotRail.
The regulations also breach the 21-day rule, but that is okay because it is sensible to keep the regulations in line with what is happening south of the border.
Sea Fish (Prohibited Methods of Fishing) (Firth of Clyde) Order 2002 (SSI 2002/58)
No points arise on the instrument, so you can come up the Clyde in your fishing boat.
With a banana skin, in my case.
Scottish Social Services Council (Appointments, Procedure and Access to the Register) Amendment Regulations 2002 (SSI 2002/60)
A point arises that requires a question to the Executive. Perhaps we should seek clarification on how regulation 11(3)—which has not been amended—is to have effect, in view of the amendments that the instrument makes on fees and allowances for members of the Scottish social services council. The matter is important as the instrument changes how folk are paid their allowances and expenses. Do members agree that we should seek clarification from the Executive?
Sweeteners in Food Amendment (Scotland) Regulations 2002 (SSI 2002/61)
This instrument is the one for weight-watchers everywhere. The Executive has done an enormous amount of work on this instrument, I am happy to say. I found the instrument helpful because it tells one exactly to what products sucralose can be added, such as
That is useful.
It is one of the best Executive notes that I have ever seen—it is excellent. I congratulate the Executive on the regulations. I shall take them to WeightWatchers, so we can see what change the regulations will make to the nation's diet. The matter is as important as the earlier issue of the sheep and goats. On behalf of the committee, I thank the Executive for its highly informative and helpful note on the regulations.
Race Relations Act 1976 (Statutory Duties) (Scotland) Order 2002 (SSI 2002/62)
Do members have comments on the order?
It is not clear from article 5(5)(a) whether article 5 is to apply to staff who are employed by education authorities.
That is an important matter, on which we must get clarification. The Executive was helpful, but we did not get the instrument until 20 February. Perhaps we should not complain too much when we see the volume of work that the Executive has been involved in on the instrument.
Children's Hearings (Legal Representation) (Scotland) Rules 2002 (SSI 2002/63)
No points arise.
A Norway point.
Nul points.
From now on, we shall call such instruments Norways. We cannot tell them apart.
That is unfair. They should be called Finlands.
It will be a new legal term in Scotland. From now on, a statutory instrument on which no points arise will be called a Finland or a Norway.
Do I need to put that to a vote?
No.
Food (Star Anise from Third Countries) (Emergency Control) (Scotland) Order 2002 (SSI 2002/64)
No points arise on the instrument.
Scotland Act 1998 (Agency Arrangements) (Specification) Order 2002 (SI 2002/261)
No points arise on the instrument, which is technically correct, but I am aware that a policy issue has been raised, which I want the committee to draw to the attention of the Transport and the Environment Committee. The matter concerns trading emissions and whether a substantial point might be debated on how one should evaluate what should be traded north and south of the border.