This search includes all content on the Scottish Parliament website, except for Votes and Motions. All Official Reports (what has been said in Parliament) and Questions and Answers are available from 1999. You can refine your search by adding and removing filters.
I congratulate the people who found all those errors, but the problem is that, despite what I am sure were their best efforts, they might not have found all of them.
In an answer to a question from Karen Gillon last month, I said that I would be more than happy to meet her but, at that stage, we concluded that it might be best if we waited until we had fully considered the judgment.
We were unsure about whether that is the best way to draft a regulation. The Executive has suggested that it will lodge an amendment to section 8, so all that we can do at this stage is draw the Executive's response to the attention of the Parliament.
As we went through the instruments last week, it occurred to me that we should study carefully the best-before dates. Indeed, we should do so more carefully than we have done up until now.There is a question of defective drafting in regulation 4(3) of both regulations, which the Food Standards Agency Scotland has acknowledged.
(S1O-4621) It is for national health service boards and trusts to plan and implement immunology and allergy services that best meet the needs of their local populations and periodically to review the operation of such services.
The committee's interest lies with those general concerns and considering them as part of our inquiry is perhaps the best way of dealing with the petition.
In the light of recent experience, I am considering how best we can use the provisions of the Regulation of Care (Scotland) Bill to lever up standards.
I do not think that we have to go through every issue that has been brought to our attention. It would be best to draw all the points together in a critique of the regulations and to put that before the Executive.