Official Report 347KB pdf
Certification of Death (Scotland) Act 2011 (Authorisation of Cremation – Death Outwith Scotland) Regulations 2015 (SSI 2015/162)
Certification of Death (Scotland) Act 2011 (Application for Review) Regulations 2015 (SSI 2015/163)
Certification of Death (Scotland) Act 2011 (Consequential Provisions) Order 2015 (SSI 2015/164)
The three instruments, along with Scottish statutory instruments SSI 2015/165 and SSI 2015/166, which I will address later, were laid on 2 April 2015 and come into force on 13 May. That breaches the 28-day rule, given that no account has been taken of the days when Parliament was in recess over Easter.
The committee recognises that some complex issues involving representations from and discussions with various stakeholders led to a delay in laying the instruments. However, the committee considers that, when it is critical to announce in advance the coming-into-force date for a package of instruments, sufficient time should be built into planning those instruments so that any required review of the provisions after consultations can be done before the announced date, while respecting the requirements of section 28(2) of the Interpretation and Legislative Reform (Scotland) Act 2010.
Does the committee therefore agree to draw those three instruments to the attention of the Parliament under reporting ground (j), as they fail to comply with the requirements of section 28(2) of the 2010 act?
I agree that we should draw that to the Parliament’s attention, and I would like to highlight in part why that is the case.
In my constituency work, I have been working with undertakers and the health board on the introduction of the new system of certification. It is clear that a significant amount of preparation has to be done by both those parties, among others, so it is very important to give sufficient notice. I understand that the reason for the delay is precisely that there has been interaction, so there ought to be reasonable knowledge, but at the end of the day people do not know the final form of the regulations until they are published. They therefore need time to ensure that they are as they had thought they would be and to be ready to implement them.
The reason for having the 28-day rule can, in some circumstances, be quite significant, and this is one such circumstance.
I agree. The five instruments in this series have breached the 28-day rule, and we should encourage the Scottish Government to do better. As Stewart Stevenson has said, there is a good reason for the notice period, and it should not be breached.
Thank you.
Certification of Death (Scotland) Act 2011 (Post-Mortem Examinations – Death Outwith United Kingdom) Regulations 2015 (SSI 2015/165)
There is a patent drafting error in the form of the schedule to the regulations. It specifies that it is a
“Form of application under Section 19 of the Certification of Death (Scotland) Act 2015”.
Regulation 2 cites the act correctly, as enacted in 2011.
The Scottish Government proposes to correct the error by means of a corrections slip, on the basis that it is self-evident. That may be suitable in this instance, if agreed with the National Records of Scotland.
The committee may consider, having regard to the fact that the only purpose of the instrument is to provide for that form of application, that the patent error should be reported. Does the committee therefore agree to draw the instrument to the attention of the Parliament under the general reporting ground, on account of the aforementioned drafting error?
Members indicated agreement.
As was the case with SSI 2015/162, SSI 2015/163 and SSI 201/164, SSI 2015/165 was laid on 2 April 2015 and comes into force on 13 May 2015. That breaches the 28-day rule, given that no account has been taken of the days when Parliament was in recess over Easter. The same comments apply to this instrument as applied to SSI 2015/162, SSI 2015/163 and SSI 2015/164.
Does the committee therefore agree to draw the instrument to the attention of the Parliament under reporting ground (j), as it too fails to comply with the requirements of section 28(2) of the Interpretation and Legislative Reform (Scotland) Act 2010?
Members indicated agreement.
Registration of Births, Deaths and Marriages (Scotland) Act 1965 (Prohibition on Disposal of a Body without Authorisation) Regulations 2015 (SSI 2015/166)
The meaning of regulation 8 and of form N in the schedule to the regulations could be clearer in a particular respect. They could more clearly implement the policy intention that the section of form N relating to post-mortem examinations will require to be completed by a registered medical practitioner who has appropriate expertise in pathology.
The Scottish Government has undertaken to bring forward an amendment to make this clarification
“at the next appropriate opportunity”.
Given that form N is significant as having effect to release body parts for disposal after a post-mortem examination, the committee may consider that the provision should be clarified by an amendment as soon as possible.
Does the committee agree to draw the instrument to the Parliament’s attention under reporting ground (h), as the meaning of regulation 8 and of form N in the schedule to the regulations could be clearer?
Members indicated agreement.
Does the committee also agree to call on the Scottish Government to clarify the intended provision by bringing forward an amending instrument as soon as possible?
Members indicated agreement.
Finally, as was the case with SSI 2015/162, SSI 2015/163, SSI 2015/164 and SSI 2015/165, this instrument was laid on 2 April and comes into force on 13 May, which breaches the 28-day rule, given that no account has been taken of the days when Parliament was in recess over Easter. Again, the same comments that applied to the previous instruments apply to this instrument.
Does the committee therefore agree to draw this instrument to the Parliament’s attention under reporting ground (j) as it fails to comply with the requirements of section 28(2) of the Interpretation and Legislative Reform (Scotland) Act 2010?
Members indicated agreement.
Does the committee also agree to reinforce the point that, when it comes to a package of instruments, sufficient time should be built into planning the instruments to ensure that any required review of the provisions after consultations can be done before the announced date, while still respecting the requirements of section 28(2) of the 2010 act?
Members indicated agreement.