Official Report 116KB pdf
Public Health etc (Scotland) Bill: As Amended at Stage 2
Welcome to the 19th meeting of the Subordinate Legislation Committee this year. We have received apologies from John Park. As usual, I remind everyone present to turn off mobile phones and BlackBerrys.
It may be helpful if I set out the rationale for the provision and make it clear that in the short term we do not envisage making regulations under the power in section 90D. Although the amendment that inserted the section in the bill was lodged by Kenneth Macintosh, the Scottish Government supports his aims and wishes to ensure that the legislation is effective and works in practice.
Thank you. I remind colleagues that we must consider today whether to lodge amendments for stage 3 of the bill, because all amendments must be lodged by Friday.
I refer members to the main legal brief. On section 66, "Applications and appeals", are members content with the change to the delegated power in section 32 of the Sheriff Courts (Scotland) Act 1971 and that the power should be subject to no parliamentary procedure?
On section 90, "Prohibition on allowing use of sunbeds by persons under 18", are members content with the delegated power in section 90(4)(c) and that it should be subject to negative procedure?
On section 90A, "Prohibition on sale or hire of sunbeds to persons under 18", are members content with the delegated power in section 90A(5)(c) and that it should be subject to negative procedure?
Our guests from the Scottish Government are here today to discuss section 90D, "Medical use of sunbeds". We had some questions to put to officials on the provision and may yet do so. Having heard Joyce Whytock's statement, do members wish to proceed with that line of questioning?
I am content with the response that we have received.
The response was helpful, because it signalled a change of approach by the Government, which is always welcome. For information, could you describe the potential use of sunbeds in settings other than sunbed premises and private clinics? Have you done any scoping of the issue, or is the provision based on fear of the unknown?
We have not had the opportunity to do any scoping. I was at a meeting with Kenneth Macintosh and Professor Colin Munro, who expressed concerns about how ingenious some people might be in trying to overcome the legislation. The provision seeks to take into account those concerns.
You will recognise that the scope of the power that ministers wanted the Parliament to confer on them was so broad as to be slightly troubling to the committee. However, I welcome the Government's change of heart.
Members have indicated that they have no further questions. Is the committee content to monitor the situation as stage 3 amendments are lodged?
The officials are welcome to stay with us for the remainder of our consideration of the bill.
Is it in order for me to put a question about section 102(2A) to the Government team?
I have no objection, if officials are content to respond to it.
You have accepted the obligation to consult before making regulations under the power in section 102(2A). We thought that it might be a good idea to specify in the bill that ministers will consult the committee before proceeding. Is that a reasonable request for us to make of you?
We want ministers to consult the Parliament, rather than the committee.
We do not wish to include in the bill a commitment to consult parliamentary committees, but we have approached the minister about the issue. She is content to make a commitment to consult parliamentary committees should regulations be made under that section. It is not usual to include in the bill a requirement to consult parliamentary committees.
I should have asked whether the minister would consult the Health and Sport Committee; not both committees.
Is Ian McKee content with that answer?
Yes.
We will monitor the situation.
On section 90F, "Duty to display information notice", are members content with the delegated power and that it is subject to negative procedure?
On section 90K, "Fixed penalties for offences under section 90, 90C, 90E or 90F", are members content with the delegated power in section 90K(11) and that it is subject to affirmative procedure?
On section 91, "Insect nuisance", are members content with the amendment to the delegated power imposing a duty to consult and that the power is subject to affirmative procedure?
On section 94, "Power to make further provision regarding statutory nuisances", are members content to welcome the amendment to the delegated power imposing a duty on the Scottish ministers to consult local authority associations and other persons, where practicable, in advance of making regulations under this delegated power; and that the power is subject to affirmative procedure?
On section 95, "Enforcement of statutory nuisances: fixed penalty notice", which inserts new section 80ZA(11)(e) into the Environmental Protection Act 1990, are members content with the delegated power and that it is subject to affirmative procedure?
On section 101A, "Form of applications etc", are members content with the delegated power and that it is subject to negative procedure?
On section 102, "Regulations and orders", are members content with the amendment to section 102, which prescribes the parliamentary procedure to apply to regulations and orders made under the bill, imposing a duty on the Scottish ministers to consult before making any regulations?
Thank you. That concludes our consideration of the bill at this stage. I thank the officials from the Scottish Government for taking the time and trouble to join us today.
Judiciary and Courts (Scotland) Bill
We considered and reported on the bill at stage 1. We raised some issues to which the Government has now responded, and members have seen the responses, which are referred to in the summary of recommendations. In section 66, "Default power", subsection (2) confers powers on the Scottish ministers to carry out the functions of the Scottish Court Service. Are members content to note the further response from the Scottish Government on the issues raised by the committee in relation to section 66(2) and that the response relates in part to policy and in part to issues that we referred to the lead committee for its consideration in our stage 1 report?
Are members also content to monitor any amendments to section 66 made by the Scottish Government at stage 2 of the bill, as undertaken in its response in connection with, first, applying negative procedure to an order revoking an order made under section 66(2) and, secondly, making it clear that any action taken by the Scottish ministers during a period between the order being made and the Parliament choosing not to affirm it, shall remain valid; and, finally, to reconsider those matters after stage 2 if necessary?
Sections 15(1) and 15(2) are on guidance to the Judicial Appointments Board for Scotland. Are members content to note the further response from the Scottish Government on the issues that the committee raised in relation to sections 15(1) and 15(2); to note that the response on those matters relates to the issues in our stage 1 report that were referred to the lead committee for consideration; to note that as a result of the Justice Committee's stage 1 report, the Government has undertaken to lodge amendments at stage 2 to the effect that the Justice Committee shall be able to scrutinise the guidance in draft and that ministers should consult the Lord President and the JAB, and the Lord President should consult the Scottish ministers and the JAB, on the draft guidance before it is laid in the Parliament; to monitor any such amendments lodged at stage 2; and to reconsider those matters after stage 2 if necessary?
That concludes our consideration of the bill after stage 1.
Offences (Aggravation by Prejudice) (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1
The bill is a member's bill proposed by Patrick Harvie MSP and we are considering it at stage 1. The bill contains but one delegated power, which is the commencement provision at section 3. On section 3, "Commencement and short title", are members content to ask the member in charge to clarify whether there is any intention or prospect of sections 1 and 2 requiring to be commenced on different days; and whether reliance is being placed on schedule 1, paragraph 3(c) of the Scotland Act 1998 (Transitory and Transitional Provisions) (Publication and Interpretation etc of Acts of the Scottish Parliament) Order 1999 (SI 1999/1379)?
Do members consider the commencement order powers in section 3 acceptable in principle, and if so, are members content that the commencement power is not subject to parliamentary procedure, in line with usual practice?
Are members content to note that, in line with normal drafting practice, the bill does not specify how many days are required between making the commencement order or orders and the appointed day or days, and are they content to ask the member in charge to confirm that a suitable minimum period will be left for the purposes of allowing sufficient notice of commencement to those potentially affected by the bill?
Very good. We will consider Patrick Harvie's response to those points at our meeting on 17 June, two weeks hence. That concludes our consideration of the bill.