Official Report 131KB pdf
Teachers' Superannuation (Scotland) Regulations 2002 (SSI 2002/288)
I call this meeting of the Education, Culture and Sport Committee to order. We are in public session. Would everyone please ensure that all mobile telephones and pagers are switched off or in silent mode? It is good to be back.
No.
Thank you. As there are no questions, I assume that members are content to let the regulations proceed.
Okay. Thank you, Christine. You will hope that every visit to the committee is as easy as this one.
Advisory Council (Establishment) (Scotland) Regulations 2002 (SSI 2002/293)
The Advisory Council (Establishment) (Scotland) Regulations 2002 (SSI 2002/293) will establish an advisory council to the board of the Scottish Qualifications Authority for the purpose of considering matters relating to qualifications that are devised or awarded by the SQA, and to the SQA's functions and procedures. Executive officials Peter Hancock and Tom Wallace, from the education department, and Neil Ross from the legal department are in attendance.
The Subordinate Legislation Committee suggested that there was a slight flaw in the regulations in that it is not clear who will appoint the convener. I do not know whether the officials would like to explain the situation in response to that suggestion.
The comment on that point has been made in paragraphs 52 to 54 of our report to the Subordinate Legislation Committee. I find it difficult to offer much more by way of comment today. My colleagues might wish to make brief comments in relation to the question of there being no intention to appoint more than one individual as a member of the advisory council. I do not know whether that would assist the committee today.
That is fine. I just wanted to put that on the record.
It has been drawn to our attention that there is a concern about the process for appointments, so much so that it has been suggested that the regulations' drafting is defective. Are you able to comment on that?
As I said, it is difficult to expand on the remarks that are offered in the report that went to the Subordinate Legislation Committee. It was acknowledged in that report that it might have been helpful if the point had been made explicitly. I would say that it is implicit that there is authority for the process that is envisaged in the regulations. I do not think that there is a great deal more that I can add to the comments that have already been put forward in written form to the Subordinate Legislation Committee.
Is there a specific reason why the point is not made explicit, but left implicit?
No, there is no reason for that and, as I said, the point is acknowledged that it might have been helpful if the regulations had made the point explicitly. However, I consider that there is appropriate authority for the regulations to be read in the manner that is intended.
I am sorry to see that, in the five months of my maternity leave, the drafting of regulations—as they come before the committee—seems not to have improved. I know that the committee has previously been concerned about drafting. We need to continue to examine the matter until the Subordinate Legislation Committee is not drawing to our attention defects in drafting time after time. That is something that we want to look at. Obviously, we are concerned that the point is not made explicitly in the regulations, but I do not think that we would want to knock back the regulations. Is that agreed?
However, I would like to write again to the minister about the issue and to ask that the Executive continue to examine the matter and make improvements as it can.