Official Report 241KB pdf
Protection of Children (Scotland) Act 2003 Determination Regulations 2004 <br />(SSI 2004/523)
We move on to subordinate legislation. We will consider under negative procedure the Protection of Children (Scotland) Act 2003 Determination Regulations 2004, which we considered last week. We have among the papers a helpful note from the clerks about the duplication and there is a report from the Subordinate Legislation Committee.
Ordinarily, would we not have the Executive officials here to question about those points?
We have had them here already.
Yes, but should they not have stayed for this item so that we could question them about the Subordinate Legislation Committee's points?
Is this not one of those occasions when we can take guidance from the clerk because the Subordinate Legislation Committee is making a technical point about the regulations? That committee's report says that the regulations are technically incorrect, but it is not suggesting that we do anything with them; rather it is a note for Executive officials to consider in the context of future subordinate legislation. I am not sure whether anything else can be added, but perhaps Martin Verity can guide us.
I do not think that much more can be added. The Subordinate Legislation Committee made its point to the Executive and got responses to its questions. That committee's report is the normal kind of report that we would expect to receive from it.
There is nothing wrong with the report. When we have looked at statutory instruments previously, we have asked the officials for responses. If the Subordinate Legislation Committee has already done that, it is fine, but normal practice dictates that the officials should have stayed for this item.
The issue is whether there is a substantive point that anybody wants to check on. We could continue consideration until 12 January if we had to. I do not think that that is necessary, but what do others think?
I do not think that that is necessary because the duplication might assist the voluntary bodies, the charities and the local authorities. It should be seen as a one-off occurrence and not taken to be a precedent.
I am inclined to agree.
It would have been nice to have the Executive officials here so that we could ask them to confirm that point.
With great respect, we can have the Executive officials at the next meeting if you want them. However, I suggest that that is not necessary based on the relatively limited point that we are considering. Is that all right?
Yes, I just think that they should have stayed.
To finish off our consideration of the regulations, the instrument is to be made under negative procedure. The advice is that unless there are strong objections, the committee should agree that it does not want to make any recommendation in its report to Parliament. Is that agreed?
Police Act 1997 (Criminal Records) (Protection of Children) (Scotland) Regulations 2004 (SSI 2004/526)
We will now consider the Police Act 1997 (Criminal Records) (Protection of Children) (Scotland) Regulations 2004 under the negative procedure. We do not have Executive officials to question about the regulations, which are before us for the first time.
The lead committee on the regulations is the Justice 2 Committee and the Education Committee is secondary to that committee.
So we should make no recommendation to that committee.
From the documentation before us, it is not immediately obvious that there is anything particularly at issue with the regulations, which merely prescribe details for the list arrangements and for how directions should be dealt with. All of that seems fairly obvious. Does anyone want to raise any points about the terms of the documentation?
We should ensure that the Justice 2 Committee is aware of our concerns, which are, as Elaine Murray said, not so much about the content of the regulations as about the interpretation of the Police Act 1997 in relation to the Protection of Children (Scotland) Act 2003. It might be helpful to refer that committee to our discussions this week and last week, which could provide background information for that committee's deliberations.
We can indicate that we have been considering the wider issues surrounding the 2003 act so that the lead committee is aware of our concerns. I think that that would be acceptable.
Next
Work Programme