Official Report 72KB pdf
Various matters were raised with the Executive on the regulations, some of which it has dealt with. However, a matter that remains outstanding is the breach of the 21-day rule. Are we persuaded by the Executive's explanation that it had to act contemporaneously with the Lord Chancellor's Department? The analogy of the tail wagging the dog is not exact, but I must ask why we cannot go at our own pace when our legal system is entirely separate. That is especially true on matrimonial matters.
I agree. I am not convinced by the argument that we needed to work in co-ordination with the Lord Chancellor's Department. Of course, there should be liaison between the two departments, but I do not think that the two pieces of legislation—ours and Westminster's—had to be introduced at exactly the same time.
I agree. On issues such as firearms or drugs, for which we have UK policy and legislation, I can understand that doing things contemporaneously would be important. In Scotland, however, the grounds for divorce and the methods by which it is obtained are distinct and different. We should perhaps make that point to the lead committee so that the Executive is made aware that we are not satisfied with its position. On subjects such as matrimonial law we should not necessarily follow the time scales of the Lord Chancellor's Department. We have a separate jurisdiction.
I agree. The Executive's reason is not good enough.
A further point that we raised was that the Executive note that accompanies the regulations is lacking in detail. Executive notes provide a simple précis of the issues, so we should draw attention to the fact that they are important for people who peruse regulations.