Subordinate Legislation
We now move to the part of today's business that involves the minister. If members can pay attention for a few minutes—Mr Campbell—I will tell them that the minister is here to lay before us a subordinate legislation order. He will not be able to answer technical questions—that is not his role. I will stop members if they put such questions. He has brought civil servants with him who may be able to give clarification on some points.
This is a formality. Such orders arise in other committees and among members' notes there should be a note from the Executive that fully explains the order. I do not think that it is very complicated. Mr McAveety is here to present the order; he will not answer technical questions. We can debate the order, although I am not sure that we need to.
We are all on a learning curve.
It is not as if I have spent sleepless nights worrying about trying to bring together a draft order on the breeding of dogs—it has not been one of the biggest priorities.
I want to run through the purpose of the statutory instrument before responding to any questions that may arise. The purpose of the draft Scotland Act Order 1998 (Transfer of Functions to the Scottish Ministers etc) (No 2) Order 1999 is to transfer two regulation-making powers from the minister of the Crown to the Scottish ministers.
Earlier this year, the UK Parliament approved a private member's bill, tabled by James Clappison MP—the Breeding and Sale of Dogs (Welfare) Bill—the main aim of which was to improve the welfare of dogs, particularly at licensed breeding establishments. The bill received royal assent on 30 June and will come into effect on 30 December.
Two provisions conferred regulation-making powers on the Secretary of State to be exercised by statutory instrument. Those relate primarily to the breeding records that must be kept by the licensed breeder and made available for inspection and the information other than the place where the dog was born that must be shown on the identity tags of certain dogs sold by such establishments. Those regulations are currently subject to negative resolution procedure in the UK Parliament. However, in terms of the Scotland Act 1998, matters relating to dogs and their welfare fall within the devolved competence of the Scottish Parliament. That means that it is for the Scottish ministers to make the regulations as regards Scotland subject to the scrutiny of this Parliament, which we all support and believe in.
The powers contained in enactments made before the Scotland Act 1998 came into effect have been passed to Scottish ministers by the transfer arrangements. Unfortunately, the provisions of the Breeding and Sale of Dogs (Welfare) Act 1999 did not provide ministers with the necessary powers. Therefore, subject to approval elsewhere, the draft order in council will address that anomaly by transferring the regulation-making powers to the Scottish ministers. It does not transfer any additional legislative powers to the Scottish Parliament; it transfers regulatory powers to the ministers responsible for the subject that Parliament has agreed should fall within the competence of Scottish ministers and the Scottish Parliament.
I move,
That the Parliament Local Government Committee in consideration of the Scotland Act 1998 (Transfer of Functions to the Scottish Ministers etc.) (No 2) Order 1999 recommends that the Order be approved.
I cannot believe that you are going to ask a question, Gil.
I have to. Does the order include all dogs—poodles, for instance?
Welfare rights organisations have lobbied us for a long time and the bill has widespread support. Its purpose is to improve welfare standards at commercial dog-breeding establishments by strengthening the Breeding of Dogs Act 1973. Therefore, it applies to all dogs that are bred in such establishments.
The legislation has been brought about because of the changes in dog breeding in the past 10 years, particularly with regard to the breeding of fighting dogs. We want to ensure that the dogs are not misused. A number of establishments had treated their dogs badly with regard to their breeding pattern.
Motion agreed to.
If only it were always that easy. I hope that I get the same response when we deal with a local government bill.
Meeting suspended.
On resuming—
I welcome Trevor Jones, who is the secretary of the Scottish health boards general managers group. He will give a presentation on the Ethical Standards in Public Life etc (Scotland) Bill from the group's point of view and answer questions. I am sorry that we are rushing you in—at one point I thought that we were running late, but we have made up some time.
Trevor Jones (Scottish Health Boards General Managers Group):
I will be very brief. In the health service we are keen to have the highest standard of public practice; we strongly support the principle of having common standards of service right across the Scottish public sector.
We believe that the health service is well placed to respond to the bill and have no problems with it. Since 1994, following the establishment of the Nolan committee, we have been introducing common standards across the service. We have codes governing corporate governance and probity, and audit committees are in place in all the health organisations with responsibility for standards. We operate in an open way—health board meetings have always been held in public and NHS trust meetings have been held in public since 1 April. We operate in the spirit of the draft bill and we are keen for it to be implemented. The only change that will hit the health service if the bill becomes law is the introduction of a standards commission, but we do not foresee any problems arising from that.
There are probably two issues that we will need to think about. First, the bill proposes that employees should be excluded from the legislation. That is interesting from the perspective of a health board or a national health service trust board, which consist of both executive and non-executive members. Although executive directors are employees of the organisation, they are also full corporate members of it. We need to consider whether the bill should apply to executive directors of NHS organisations. As executive directors, we are covered by our contracts of employment and the organisation's grievance and disciplinary procedures, which ensure a particular standard of public behaviour. However, I suggest that the same standard should apply to executive directors as to non-executive directors, as they are full voting members of boards.
Secondly, chief executives of NHS organisations are sub accounting officers and report to the chief executive of the NHS in Scotland, who is the accounting officer for expenditure on health services in Scotland. We need to think about how the role of the chief executive of the NHS in Scotland in respect of performance—currently, he has a responsibility for the performance and probity of NHS organisations—will relate to the standards commission.
In general, we warmly welcome the proposal. We do not envisage any problems arising from its implementation as far as the health service is concerned, subject to consideration being given to the two issues that I mentioned.
Thank you. Are there any questions?
This is a bit of a naive question, but is your situation similar to that of local government in the sense that some local health boards already have a standards committee?
As we are appointed to NHS boards, there is a code of accountability and a standards code. We sign up to a style of operating. In each health organisation there are audit committees comprising non-executive directors of the organisation. Those committees are charged with upholding the organisation's standards, in line with the Nolan committee's recommendations. The existing audit committees comprise individuals who would be covered by the terms of the act, so there is an issue there.
Do you see that structure being changed to bring it in line with the bill?
I do not think that it needs to change. We would need to check the detail of the audit committees' terms of reference, but the introduction of the bill would not require changes to the spirit in which they operate.
It is unusual for there not to be more questions—members of the committee are usually a very chatty lot. Thank you for coming. If we need to clarify anything, we will invite you back.
We will now move into private session. I ask the official report, members of the public and the press to leave.
Meeting continued in private until 12:40.