Subordinate Legislation Committee,
Meeting date: Tuesday, May 6, 2008
Official Report
109KB pdf
Delegated Powers Scrutiny
Public Health etc (Scotland) Bill
We move on to agenda item 2. The Government has responded to the issues that we raised in our stage 1 report on the bill. The bill is due to commence stage 2 on 7 May. It is anticipated that sections 1 to 66 will be dealt with on 7 May, sections 67 to 89 will be dealt with on 14 May and the remainder of the bill will be dealt with on 21 May. Today, we will consider issues that are relevant to the first day of stage 2 consideration.
The first of those relates to section 12, "Lists of notifiable diseases and notifiable organisms". I am sure that everyone will be pleased to note that, in its response to our stage 1 report, the Scottish Government has agreed to remove at stage 2 reference to the expression, "any other clinically significant pathogen found in blood" from the list of notifiable organisms in part 2 of schedule 1 to the bill. That is a satisfactory outcome. Dr McKee, you may be allowed a smile, given that it was your good self who raised the issue.
Thank you.
That was constructive work. It is a compliment to the Scottish Government that it took on board the point and has been flexible.
We come to section 25, "Supplementary", which is on investigatory powers. In view of the deadline for amendments for the first day of stage 2 consideration, last week I lodged two amendments in my name. Members will recall from our stage 1 report that we were concerned about whether the correct balance had been struck between the public interest in being able to use the powers effectively and the public interest in ensuring proper scrutiny of enforcement powers.
The first amendment that I lodged provides for the insertion of the word "supplementary" into section 25(3). The intention is to make it clear that ministers' powers to confer additional enforcement powers are restricted to conferring supplementary powers on investigators for the purposes of public health investigations.
By that, we seek to ensure that any additional powers conferred on investigators by regulations made under section 25(3) do not undermine or cut across the existing investigatory powers that are set out in sections 22 to 24. We seek to ensure that we build on previously laid foundations.
My second amendment is to section 102(4) and is to provide that regulations under section 25(3) that contain provisions that modify an act of Parliament or an act of the Scottish Parliament should be subject to affirmative procedure. We raised that point repeatedly.
The bill is just about to start stage 2. We are at an early stage in the passage of the bill and matters can be revisited at stage 3. I am in the committee's hands. Are members content with the amendments that I lodged in relation to the exercise of the power to confer additional enforcement powers under section 25, and for me to move those amendments at stage 2?
Members indicated agreement.
We have no way of knowing how the Government will respond, but the debate on the amendments will be informative in itself.
Later at stage 2, we will deal with section 89, "International Health Regulations"; section 94, "Power to make further provision regarding statutory nuisances"; and section 95, "Enforcement of statutory nuisances: fixed penalty notice", which inserts new section 80ZA(11)(e) into the Environmental Protection Act 1990. The idea was that we would write to the Scottish Government requesting confirmation of its proposals for replacement powers to implement international health regulations under section 89 of the bill and in relation to the other sections that I mentioned. Late last week, we received notification of the content of the proposals in relation to section 89. It is therefore unnecessary to write to the Government at this stage. We will receive formal feedback by way of a briefing before next week's meeting. We got a wee bit ahead of ourselves, but we got what we wanted on Friday night. Is that acceptable to members?
Members indicated agreement.
Of course, what I said relates only to section 89. Are members happy that we write to the Government about sections 94 and 95, as per the summary of recommendations?
Members indicated agreement.