Subordinate Legislation Committee, 10 Jan 2006
Meeting date: Tuesday, January 10, 2006
Official Report 141KB pdf
Contents
- Scottish Parliament Subordinate Legislation Committee Tuesday 10 January 2006
- Item in Private
- Delegated Powers Scrutiny
- Legislative Consent Memorandum
- Draft Instrument Subject to Approval
- Instruments Subject to Annulment
- Instruments Not Laid Before the Parliament
Legislative Consent Memorandum
Health Bill
Members have been sent the legislative consent memorandum on the Health Bill. The first provision is a proposal to amend section 17S of the NHS (Scotland) Act 1978. The provision will confer regulation-making powers on Scottish ministers to allow for the dispensing of medicines by persons other than registered pharmacists.
To look at the bigger picture, the legislative consent memorandum is the new procedure for dealing with Sewel arrangements. This is the first time that we have used the new procedure, although it has been rather rushed. We and the Health Committee have made that point. We therefore hope that, in future, we will have a much longer time to consider legislative consent memorandums; indeed, that longer time has been built into the system. However, on this occasion the procedure has been so rushed that I will have to go the Health Committee this afternoon to report on the various points that we have raised. Luckily, on this occasion it does not look as if there are many such points, but it could have been difficult.
The first point is about the dispensing of medicines other than by registered pharmacists. Are members quite happy with that?
Members indicated agreement.
The second point is about the recovery of NHS costs in cases of personal injury compensation. The provision will extend the powers of Scottish ministers to make regulations prescribing the circumstances in which the amount recovered in respect of NHS costs in personal injury cases is to be reduced in proportion to any reduction in the compensation payable due to contributory negligence.
One of the points that has been raised is that if this is the first set of regulations, the procedure should be affirmative. Are members content with that?
Members indicated agreement.
The final point to make about the memorandum is about commencement. The bill provides for Scottish ministers to commence those parts of the bill within devolved competence. Clause 76 of the bill also confers powers to make any necessary supplementary, incidental or consequential provision. Are we happy with that?
Members indicated agreement.
Was that point on commencement?
Yes.
I am sorry; I though that we had moved on to the next point.
Members will see that—for the committee's information—the legal brief contains an additional point on which we will have to keep an eye. Did you want to raise something on that point Stewart?
From my personal political standpoint, it seems to me to be more than odd that the United Kingdom should be able to amend acts of the Scottish Parliament. Obviously I would disagree with that. However, I am very concerned that there is no procedure for the Parliament or the Executive to be informed about it. Clearly, that point will have to be taken up, presumably by the lead committee, to ensure that the proper information comes from Westminster to the Scottish Parliament so that we can know about what is going on and about any changes that have been proposed or made. It seems to be very odd that we do not get that information. Perhaps that is partly to do with the speed of this particular procedure, or maybe it is a fault in the procedure itself—I do not really know.
There are two points. I do not believe that Westminster should be amending acts of the Scottish Parliament, and some sort of procedure should be put in place to inform the Parliament if that is being done.
In all fairness, the legal brief points out that there is no suggestion that any of those powers relate to devolved matters. However, we do not know that, so we will have to keep a watching brief.
The supplementary point in paragraph 75 of the legal brief is that there has not been time to carry out any relevant research. Is there a proposal that there should be some research?
Perhaps we should draw this matter to the attention of the Procedures Committee, which recently reported on the Sewel process, and ask if it considered this aspect of the process, in case it might want to consider some kind of supplementary consideration. It would also be appropriate to flag up the issue to the Executive to ask whether the protocols that exist between the Executive and the UK Government provide for the full exchange of information, and to ask how it thinks that the Parliament could officially be made aware. I assume that we might become aware of any such changes informally, but Stewart Maxwell is calling for some kind of procedure so that we are officially made aware. That is important. If we pursued those courses of action we would be in a better position to judge how serious the matter might be.
That sums the position up nicely. Is that agreed?
Members indicated agreement.