I welcome colleagues to the 15th meeting in 2004 of the Subordinate Legislation Committee. At the moment, I have no apologies, so I assume that our two missing members—Murray Tosh and Gordon Jackson—will arrive.
National Health Service Reform (Scotland) Bill: as amended at Stage 2
Item 1 is delegated powers scrutiny of the National Health Service Reform (Scotland) Bill as amended at stage 2. Our report on that will be produced tomorrow morning.
No further action is required, convener.
Are we all agreed that we have gone as far as we can?
It must be fixed.
Yes, it must be fixed.
Emergency Workers (Scotland) Bill: <br />Stage 1
Item 2 is delegated powers scrutiny of the Emergency Workers (Scotland) Bill at stage 1. Committee members have received the bill and associated information.
The provisions to alter the bill are far too widely drawn to be subject to the negative procedure, and we need to write to the Executive on that point.
Should we be a bit more specific on the point that arises from paragraph 6 in the Executive's memorandum to us?
We should, because if the Executive were to confine ministers' powers to modify the bill to making changes to the list of emergency workers alone, that might—I use the word "might" advisedly—be sufficient to allay the committee's fears. We have time to ask the Executive whether it would be prepared to amend the bill to restrict the powers to modification of the list only, after which we could examine the provisions and determine whether that restriction and the associated scrutiny powers were sufficient.
Is that agreed?
As the legal briefing points out, the exercise of Henry VIII powers is ordinarily subject to the affirmative procedure rather than the negative procedure. I recall that, several meetings ago, we agreed to let something go on the basis that it did not seem terribly significant. However, at some stage, perhaps we should have a paper on the matter that we could discuss in isolation from any statutory instruments, so that we do not make decisions on the basis of the importance of provisions, because that could be the thin end of a substantial wedge. We should at least consider the principle that we should always ask for the affirmative procedure to be used for Henry VIII powers. It may be that, if we consider the matter, we will decide that that is an extreme view to take, but I would not mind having that discussion at some stage.
That is a good point. We could perhaps go further than having that debate ourselves; we could have it at our next meeting with the Executive. Is that what you mean?
Absolutely.
Do the clerks have a note of the wording that Christine May suggested?
Yes, I have taken a note of that point.
Are we agreed on what we will say about section 6?
No points arise on section 7, which concerns the short title and commencement.
Next
Executive Responses