Official Report 179KB pdf
Instruments Subject <br />to Annulment
Robert Gordon University (Scotland) Order of Council 2006 (SSI 2006/298)
A large number of points are raised on this instrument, which is one of a package on this subject.
Do you have one question in particular that you would like to ask, Ken?
Before the meeting started, I said that the legislative history of the regulations is interesting and complex. The substantive point is to do with the number of governors, how they are appointed and how they are removed. Those issues are unclear. How will that happen and who will do it?
We will be happy to ask all those questions. Some are, no doubt, more important than others. There are also a couple of minor points that we can raise with the Executive informally.
Contaminants in Food (Scotland) Regulations 2006 (SSI 2006/306)
Do members wish to ask the Executive to explain why the sampling requirements that were provided for in SSI 2005/606 have been omitted from the present regulations and why there is no explanation in the explanatory note of that change of substance? Do we agree to ask the question formally?
National Health Service (Superannuation Scheme and Additional Voluntary Contributions) (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 2006 (SSI 2006/307)
We might want to ask the Executive to explain the references in new regulation T2A(4), (5) and (6) to "the information referred to" in paragraphs (7) and (8), given that those provisions do not appear to contain any such information. We will ask that question of the Executive and see what the answer is.
The Executive has said that it is in the middle of such a consolidation. We should note that.
We will note that and ensure that everyone else notes it.
I do not think that the Executive is in the middle of a consolidation. It has only started consultation on a draft consolidation. Progress has not been as fast as we had hoped it would be.
The Executive is working to lay a consolidated instrument.
We can say, perhaps, that the Executive is in the middle of the beginning of the consultation.
Teachers' Superannuation (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 2006<br />(SSI 2006/308)
A couple of minor points arise in relation to the regulations.
Human Tissue (Specification of Posts) (Scotland) Order 2006 (SSI 2006/309)
No points arise.
Approval of Research on Organs No Longer Required for Procurator Fiscal Purposes (Specified Persons) (Scotland) Order 2006 (SSI 2006/310)
One minor point—but nothing of any substance—arises in relation to the order.
Common Agricultural Policy (Wine) (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 2006 (SSI 2006/311)
A number of points arise on the instrument, including a number of minor points that can be raised with the Executive informally.
Pesticides (Maximum Residue Levels in Crops, Food and Feeding Stuffs) (Scotland) Amendment (No 2) Regulations 2006 (SSI 2006/312)
No points arise.
Seed (Registration, Licensing and Enforcement) (Scotland) Regulations 2006 (SSI 2006/313)
Perhaps we can ask why Council directive 2004/117/EC is being implemented later than the date specified in the directive. We should also ask why no transposition note was submitted with the regulations.
Given the volume of work currently facing our committee, it is important that we emphasise that point. The lack of such a note makes what is already a very difficult job more onerous.
I totally agree.
Plastic Materials and Articles in Contact with Food (Scotland) Regulations 2006<br />(SSI 2006/314)
Two questions have been identified about the regulations. First, why does regulation 9(4) refer to
Home Detention Curfew Licence (Prescribed Standard Conditions) (Scotland) Order 2006 (SSI 2006/315)<br />Education (Student Loans) Amendment (Scotland) Regulations 2006 (SSI 2006/316)
No points of substance arise on the instruments.
Plant Health (Potatoes) (Scotland) Order 2006 (SSI 2006/319)
About nine points, all of which are technical matters, have been raised about the order. I will not read them all out. Are members content that we ask about the points that have been identified?
National Health Service (Pharmaceutical Services) (Scotland) Amendment (No 3) Regulations 2006 (SSI 2006/320)
No points arise.
National Health Service (General Dental Services) (Scotland) Amendment (No 2) Regulations 2006 (SSI 2006/321)
Are these the regulations that deal with denturists?
They are.
My reason for asking is that the regulations are probably, oddly enough, politically rather contentious. I think that we have all received representations on them. However, such matters are not the business of this committee, so let us move swiftly on from matters of politics and policy.
Although the committee might be slightly abusing its position in doing so, we should alert the Executive and the lead committee to the fact that the regulations will undoubtedly attract a level of scrutiny that subordinate legislation does not normally attract.
We should ask the Executive about the reference in regulation 2(2) to
We are considering the Scottish version of regulations that implement an approach that was agreed at United Kingdom level, so can we ask the Executive what scope there is to amend the regulations, for example to make dispensation for denturists, or to delay implementation of the regulations? Will such matters depend on the new regime for denturists, who will be subject to a professional body?
There is no scope to amend the regulations; they can only be annulled. One of the reasons why the committee proposed a new procedure was to allow for amendment. However, I am a little afraid that we are entering into policy matters that I am sure the lead committee will be zealous in pursuing.
I did not phrase my question properly. I was not suggesting that the regulations be amended; I meant that, given that the regulations reflect UK-wide measures, we should ask what scope the Executive has to vary the approach in Scotland. I suspect that the Executive has no room to vary the approach, but perhaps it has.
I see. I think that the rules can be different in Scotland. I am trying to remember an occasion that is in the back of my mind, when political representation was made and a health measure that was implemented in England was not implemented in Scotland. Perhaps Stewart Maxwell remembers the occasion.
I cannot remember it, but surely the general point is that the Scottish Parliament has the right to decide to annul the instrument, which would mean that there would be a different approach in Scotland.
I am trying to dredge up the example that is in the back of my mind. I remember that an approach was taken countrywide to a health matter, but representations were made—was Frank McAveety the Deputy Minister for Health and Community Care at the time? He has been minister for everything else.
I appreciate that the Parliament has the power to annul the regulations—if we did not have that power, we would not be considering them. However, I am trying to ascertain whether the Executive has the scope to vary a measure that has been drawn up and consulted on at national level.
The statutory instrument is entirely the Executive's.
Yes.
The Scottish Parliament might agree to a Sewel motion on a parent act that would be passed at Westminster, but implementation of the approach in Scotland through regulations would remain the business of the Scottish Parliament. In other words, by allowing a power to be conferred on it through Westminster legislation, the Scottish Executive does not lose its ability to do what it wants when it comes to making regulations—I think that that is the legal position. There is a UK statute and the Westminster Government is implementing measures in the rest of the UK, but the Executive may or may not implement the same measures in Scotland. The situation arose in a health context in the past—the example will come back to me.
Would the Executive have to carry out a consultation and revisit the process that was carried out—on its behalf, as it were—at UK level?
Perhaps that is a matter for the lead committee.
The regulations are subject to annulment and are a good example of a point that we made in last week's debate in the Parliament about our draft report on the regulatory framework in Scotland. Sometimes instruments that are subject to the negative procedure are much more important than is suggested by their being subject to annulment.
That is a fair point.
Education (Graduate Endowment, Student Fees and Support) (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 2006 (SSI 2006/323)
Several points have been identified. We will seek explanations on the drafting of a paragraph, on the references to regulation 13 and on the inclusion of the term "step child". We will also seek further information on the timing of consolidation of the remaining parts of the principal regulations. We will ask those questions, as we often do.
National Health Service (General Ophthalmic Services) (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 2006<br />(SSI 2006/329)<br />National Health Service (Discipline Committees) (Scotland) Regulations 2006 (SSI 2006/330)
No substantive points arise on the regulations.
Animals and Animal Products (Import<br />and Export) (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 2006 (SSI 2006/335)
We will ask the Executive whether, in new regulation 18 in the principal regulations, the reference should be to article 2.3 of the relevant Commission decision, not article 2.4.
General Dental Council (Professions Complementary to Dentistry) Regulations Order of Council 2006 (SI 2006/1440)
No points arise on the order of council.