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.
In the fourth question, we expressed our concern that the regulations and the explanatory note are difficult to follow because of how they were drafted.
If that is the case, we will need to change the ECHR because there appears to be less justice and balance all round in the new as opposed to the old regulations. Why should we follow a standard that is lower than that in previous legislation?
The Treasury is aware of that. Although there needs to be some follow-up to the Treasury response, I am anxious to canvass all views before we decide on its form.
Perhaps we should seek further comment from the Lord President's office and ask for further consideration to be given to the matter, for the following reasons. On the testing requirement, section 234C(5) of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995 states that"the testing requirement shall specify for each month the minimum number of occasions on which sam...
If it does not stop, one wonders why we are here. I am not suggesting that we follow a policy of three strikes and you are out, much as I would like to, but we should indicate how seriously we regard this repeated breaching of the rules.
I urge members— Before the minister sits down, will he make it clear that his welcome reassurances on staffing will be followed up by funding? Obviously, there is no point in making such commitments on staffing if funding does not follow them.
What guarantees are there that other Government agencies and departments are following best advice and practice in procurement, according to EU directives?