Subordinate Legislation Committee, 08 Nov 2005

Meeting date: Tuesday, November 8, 2005

Official Report 268KB pdf

---

Instruments Subject to Annulment

---

Instruments Subject <br />to Annulment

---

Avian Influenza (Preventive Measures) (Scotland) Regulations 2005 (SSI 2005/530)

Item 7 is instruments subject to annulment. I refer members first to paragraph 119 of the legal briefing. You will be aware that the exercise of powers of entry to private houses has given rise in the past to a number of cases being brought under the European convention on human rights. For that reason, if for no other, where a power of entry encompasses dwelling houses, it is usual for regulations to provide specifically that that power can be exercised only at a reasonable time and/or after reasonable notice. However, such a provision is absent from the regulations. Do we want to raise that point with the Executive as well as the minor one?

I think that we probably should raise it. Normally, I would agree that the timing should be stipulated and that inspectors should enter private premises only at reasonable times. However, if a case came to light late in the day and, as I hope that they would, the inspectors acted immediately, it might be that action would need to be taken outside the times that would normally be deemed to be reasonable. Perhaps that is the intention.

If that were the case, it would be better if that were spelled out in the regulations, so that we could all understand the intention. It would therefore be appropriate for us to go back and clarify whether this is a policy choice or not.

Do we agree to put those points to the Executive?

Members indicated agreement.

Were we not going have an argument about what "midnight" means? I was not aware that there was any dubiety about that. Perhaps legal advice will clarify the issue subsequently.

---

Avian Influenza (Preventive Measures in Zoos) (Scotland) Regulations 2005 <br />(SSI 2005/531)

The regulations form the second part of the package to reduce the spread of avian influenza and impose controls on the keeping of birds in zoos.

Regulation 5(2) refers to vaccination being carried out in accordance with instructions from Scottish ministers. European Commission decision 2005/744/EC provides that vaccination must be carried out

"under the supervision of an official veterinarian of the competent authorities".

We wonder whether regulation 5(2) meets that requirement. Do we agree to ask that important question?

Members indicated agreement.

Annex II of the decision imposes a number of conditions in relation to vaccination including restrictions on the movement of vaccinated birds. However, it is not clear how those are to be enforced. Do we agree to ask for clarification of that matter?

Members indicated agreement.

---

Food Labelling Amendment (No 3) (Scotland) Regulations 2005 (SSI 2005/542)

No points appear to arise on the regulations. However, members might want to comment on whether they should have been made available free of charge.

Did the Executive not do that?

I do not think that it did.

Our legal advice says:

"the mistake in this case was not of the Executive's making".

Shall we ask for a bit more clarification?

We could maybe just ask.

It is worth finding out about. From the point of view of whoever is regulated, legislation is, presumably, a seamless process and the issue of where the fault has arisen scarcely matters.

We will ask for clarification of why the regulations were not made available free of charge.

The next meeting of the committee is on 15 November. At the meeting after that, which is on 22 November, the committee will be taking evidence from the Deputy Minister for Finance, Public Service Reform and Parliamentary Business, George Lyon—I did not realise that he had such a long title. It is important that we are all here for that.

Meeting closed at 12:44.