Subordinate Legislation Committee, 07 Jun 2005

Meeting date: Tuesday, June 7, 2005

Official Report 123KB pdf

---

Executive Responses

---

Dentists Act 1984 (Amendment) Order 2005 (draft)

The committee asked the Executive to clarify why the order-making power that was conferred on the Privy Council by article 50(2) of the order is not subject to any procedure in the Scottish Parliament. The Executive has explained that, where transitional provisions regarding new professions complementary to dentistry are necessary, they will be included in regulations made by the General Dental Council under new section 36A of the Dentists Act 1984, and that, by virtue of new section 51(4) of the 1984 act, any such regulations, where they affect devolved areas, will be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of the Scottish Parliament. Are we content with the Executive's response on that? I see Murray Tosh nodding.

The Executive's response partly explains the situation but, as our legal brief points out:

"the UK Government does not intend to use the power at article 50(2) to make provision for devolved areas … The fact remains, however, that the power at article 50(2) of the Order is capable of being exercised in a way which would affect a devolved area."

I accept that the brief goes on to say that

"this would appear to be unlikely in practice."

However, the fact remains that the Government could use the power in a devolved area. I do not find it acceptable that the UK Government has decided to create powers that could be used in a devolved area. That is unacceptable. It should be this Parliament that deals with areas of devolved competence. It should be pointed out to the lead committee and the Parliament that, under the draft order, the UK Government could exercise power over a devolved area of competence.

Are we agreed on that?

Yes, because that is a statement of fact. The entire devolution settlement is subject to the competence of the Westminster Parliament, and I would have no difficulty in our underlining that again for the lead committee's interest.

Members indicated agreement.

---

Right to Purchase (Prescribed Persons) (Scotland) Amendment Order 2005 <br />(SSI 2005/275)

We have noted the example about janitors' property. We asked for clarification on why an Executive note was not provided. The Executive confirmed that it considered producing an Executive note, but decided that the explanatory note provided information in sufficient detail, and that no additional information would be provided through an Executive note.

The question whether janitors might have been disadvantaged by the provisions when they moved house is interesting to speculate on. Perhaps there are a number of them out there. Speculation is great fun, but it is not very good when it comes to being clear about what the law is intended to do and who is intended to be covered by it. Some clarity might have been useful to both the committee and those who must implement and use the legislation. Can we report that to the lead committee and the Parliament?

We can indeed. I was going to suggest that we mention failure to follow proper legislative practice and that we highlight the fact that we really did feel in need of greater clarification in this instance. Is that agreed?

Members indicated agreement.