Subordinate Legislation Committee, 26 Nov 2002

Meeting date: Tuesday, November 26, 2002

Official Report 125KB pdf

---

Executive Responses

---

Scottish Local Government Elections Regulations 2002 (draft)

We raised four points. The Executive has stated its intention to bring forward an amending instrument at the next available opportunity. That is pretty civil of the Executive, but as it is a draft order, the Executive could simply have relayed that fact. Why does it need to bother to amend it? We can ask the Executive that.

The Executive has been quite handsome in its recognition of the points that we raised throughout the process.

We will write, "Dear Executive"—

We can tell the lead committee about it too.

We can put that in our report.

---

Cairngorms National Park Elections (Scotland) Order 2003 (draft)

This is another draft order, which is similar to the order for the Loch Lomond and the Trossachs national park. We want the Executive to take another serious look at the order.

There is defective drafting, which makes an unusual use of the powers. The order was based on electoral legislation, which allows for sanctions if people do not keep to the rules. However, the order does not contain such sanctions. Because of that, we question the basis of the order.

The position seems anomalous.

The Executive said that it was trying to keep the order simple and that it intentionally missed out sanctions, which seems a bit quaint.

It is odd that the order says that candidates can spend only £250 on their election, but does not say what happens if they spend £255.

Perhaps they get elected.

We should note our concern.

We will draw that to the attention of the lead committee and the Parliament. Clarification could be supplied. Do I need to go into detail? We have said what concerns us about the measure.

Our report to the lead committee should reflect the comments that were made at our previous meeting.

Okay. Is that agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

---

Plastic Materials and Articles in Contact with Food (Amendment) (Scotland) Regulations 2002 (SSI 2002/498)

The regulations are another of those clever measures from the European Union. We asked the Executive about defective drafting of the preamble and to explain some other drafting.

The Executive said that it saw no need to refer to the consultation in the preamble.

We are at variance with other UK legislatures on that. We consult on our domestic legislation on the subject. [Interruption.] I say hi to Brian Fitzpatrick, who has just entered the room. It is good form to consult on European legislation, too. We are the odd ones out in not doing that. It is reasonable to let the lead committee know that we have noticed that. Is that agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

---

Taxi Drivers' Licences (Carrying of Guide Dogs and Hearing Dogs) (Scotland) Regulations 2002 (SSI 2002/500)

The Executive agreed with some of the six points that we raised with it. We asked why the regulations do not prescribe the category or the disability as the enabling power requires, but rely solely on a definition in regulation 1(4). We might not have made ourselves clear to the Executive, because it appears to have misunderstood the point of that question. We were not questioning the Executive's power.

That is a generous interpretation.

If you want to be less generous, on you go.

Not at all. Is not Advent about to start? We should all try to be generous at least until the new year.

I would love to hear you being less generous than me. On you go.

Brian Fitzpatrick is overcome with generosity.

Were you waiting for me?

Yes.

We have been waiting for the past three quarters of an hour.

I was dealing with constituency business, Colin. You would not know about that.

Mine's bigger than yours—my constituency, that is.

The regulations rely solely on a definition to introduce a category of dog not covered in the enabling power. As we have pointed out before, that can have serious consequences. In producing delegated legislation, drafters must adhere closely to the terms of the delegation, including the wording of the enabling power, to be certain of being within the terms of the delegation. In the order, the assistance dog is not properly prescribed as another category of dog, which is required by the enabling power. For those reasons, we believe that the regulations appear to be defective.

Another, perhaps less serious, drafting error concerns the definitions of hearing and guide dogs in regulation 1(4).

The Executive has accepted that one.

Yes, so we will draw that to the attention of the lead committee and the Parliament.

We questioned a discrepancy in the dates that the regulations come into force. The Executive has accepted that there is an inconsistency and thanked the committee for pointing it out. The regulations would come into force on 2 December, but the prescribed condition would apply only to licence applications made on or after 3 March 2003. The Executive explained that that is to give applicants due notice of the change in the licensing condition.

That seems reasonable.

The Executive will introduce an amending instrument to remove the discrepancy and issue it free of charge. As I told you all, this is a lovely Executive.

There was a point about whether the dog would be wearing the right jacket.

Who could forget it?

The provision is still ambiguous and therefore constitutes imprecise drafting. We should point that out to the lead committee.