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.
—Official Report, Health Committee, 31 May 2005; c 2001.The bill was not just or fair on 31 May, when the committee agreed with me and voted by five votes to two to remove the date of 29 August 2003 from the bill.
I presume that a gap will exist until the Executive produces a new statutory instrument, which is what will have to happen, during which period the rules that we are discussing will be in force and we will still have the problem. That may be challenged; I do not know. Could we have further clarification of the situation?
The papers that accompany the petition contain a response from COSLA to a letter from Michael McMahon, although you may not believe that that is a sufficient response.
Paragraph 27 of the legal advice states:"It will … be for the lead committee to decide the urgency with which an amending instrument is required although it is suggested that given that failure to comply with article 5 is a criminal offence, it may not be entirely satisfactory to leave the matter entirely to administrative discretion in the meantime."
There has never really been any argument about its intention, which I am sure is entirely honourable, and I understand why there may be difficulties in some of the cases that it highlights.
There is slight amusement about this exchange, as I suspect that our constituents have a very different notion of the definition of accountability. That may be where some of the issues arise.