Subordinate Legislation Committee, 07 Oct 2003

Meeting date: Tuesday, October 7, 2003

Official Report 88KB pdf

---

Instruments Subject to Annulment

---

Instruments Subject <br />to Annulment

---

National Health Service (Travelling Expenses and Remission of Charges) (Scotland) (No 2) Regulations 2003 <br />(SSI 2003/460)

We move swiftly on to item 4. Fire away, Christine.

The first line of regulation 2 says:

"unless the context otherwise requires".

I understand that in session 1 the committee waged ceaseless war on what is termed "unnecessary verbiage". We should do the same. We have identified nine points to raise on the regulations. Such regulations can be confusing enough, and they can be difficult to work through, even though we are dealing with a consolidation in this case. We should report that that wording is unnecessary.

Regulation 2, when defining "date of claim", refers to "an appropriate office", which is not defined anywhere. That needs to be explained. The same regulation refers to "the Secretary of State", which raises a devolution issue. We should ask whether or not the Executive intended that reference.

On the matter of people being accompanied on medical grounds, the circumstance of the person being a child is referred to in one context, but not in another. That has to be made clear. It is a bit of a mix up.

It is quite a mess. As I said, we have nine points to raise on the regulations. If members agree, we will refer them to the Executive for explanation. Is that agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

---

Collagen and Gelatine <br />(Intra-Community Trade) (Scotland) Revocation Regulations 2003 <br />(SSI 2003/466)

Although no points of substance arise on the regulations, there is an issue about the "Made" entry in the instrument's italicised heading, which simply refers to "30th September 2003". The regulations came into force at 11:00 hours on that date. It would have been helpful to have had an indication in the "Made" entry as to when the Deputy Minister for Health and Community Care signed the regulations. Is that agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

---

Feeding Stuffs (Scotland) Amendment <br />(No 3) Regulations 2003 (SSI 2003/474)

No points arise on the regulations.

We might ask whether there are proposals to consolidate, as the regulations constitute a fifth amendment to the legislation in this area.

As we are getting hot on consolidation matters, is it agreed that we ask about that?

Members indicated agreement.

---

Protection of Animals (Anaesthetics) (Scotland) Amendment Order 2003 <br />(SSI 2003/476)

It is perhaps because I am a townie, not somebody from the countryside, but I cannot believe that any animal is castrated without anaesthetic, whatever age it is.

It is elastic bands that they usually use.

That might not be painful, but—

I have no idea.

Without getting into details, I remind the committee that we are not concerned with the policy issues, but only with the legal aspects of delegated powers.

There are two points to raise. The first is that the order breaches the 21-day rule. An explanation of the delay in making the order is given. The second point is to seek explanation why, in article 2 and in the explanatory note, reference is made to "the First Schedule", rather than "schedule 1". That is similar to the issue that we raised on the draft Agricultural Holdings (Consequential Amendments) (Scotland) Order 2003. Is that agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

Could I ask that we also raise the issue concerning footnote (a) to the order? I have read it several times, but it seems to be irrelevant, as it largely relates to Wales. I do not see the point of it, and we should perhaps ask why the footnote is there at all.

We will ask the Executive about that.

It is nice to know about Wales, but Scotland would be nicer.

There is a further point about the explanatory note, the last two sentences of which do not seem to be necessary. We could mention that in an informal letter.

Members indicated agreement.