Official Report 125KB pdf
Instruments Subject<br />to Annulment
Energy Performance of Buildings (Scotland) Regulations 2008 (SSI 2008/309)
Are members content to ask the Scottish Government the two questions set out in the summary of recommendations?
Inshore Fishing (Prohibition on Fishing) (Lamlash Bay) (Scotland) Order 2008 <br />(SSI 2008/317)
First, are we content to ask the Scottish Government to confirm that the area described in article 2(1) of the order is within Scottish inshore waters as defined in section 9(1) of the Inshore Fishing (Scotland) Act 1984? Are we satisfied with the reason given for why it was necessary not to comply with the 21-day rule?
The reason given was that it was to prevent fishermen from overfishing the area. Does that fall within the Subordinate Legislation Committee's remit or within the lead committee's remit?
It is for the committee to scrutinise the reason within its powers and then report it to the lead committee, which can take up the issue if it sees fit. Are you happy with that?
Yes. I just wondered whether we should say whether we were satisfied, as the reason that was given seems to be a matter that is more for the lead committee than for us. If we decide that the reason given for the decision not to comply with the 21-day rule is not within the competence of our committee but within that of the lead committee, should we agree or disagree with the reason or just present the question to the lead committee?
We are in danger of straying into matters that lie outwith our competence. We could just note the point, which would mean that it is put out there, if you like.
I suggest that we note the reason given and pass the order on to the lead committee.
I would like to reflect on that for a moment. It would not be unreasonable for us to ask the Government the question. The matter is important to the Government and to people throughout Scotland's fishing industry. It might be helpful to get the Government to confirm that the terms of the order are clear enough. It would not be unreasonable to write to the Government and ask it that question.
Surely that is covered by the question that I suggest that we ask the Scottish Government. That question is extant.
Yes, but I am just making it clear for the audience. We have seen our papers but our audience might not realise that.
Thank you for that; it is very worth while.
I am going to be very boring and exercise a hopelessly unhelpful point. I take it that the order is not setting a precedent that it is perfectly okay for the Government to indulge in a degree of subterfuge in the event that it thinks that the public might exploit a particular piece of legislation, and that it could apply that principle generally. Can the Government decide that it is better not to tell the public that something is going to happen? Is that a legitimate excuse for a general principle?
You have just told them, Mr Carlaw. You can look forward to next week's meeting with great interest. Perhaps it is as well that I shall not be here.
That is sort of what the Government's reason says, as far as I can see.
Building (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 2008 (SSI 2008/310)<br />National Health Service (Recognition of Health Service Bodies) (Scotland) Order 2008 (SSI 2008/315)
Mental Health (Certificates for Medical Treatment) (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 2008 (SSI 2008/316)
The committee agreed that no points arose on the instruments.