Skip to main content
Loading…
Chamber and committees

Subordinate Legislation Committee, 15 Nov 2005

Meeting date: Tuesday, November 15, 2005


Contents


Executive Responses


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

The Convener:

We noted that provisions concerning powers of entry usually limit the exercise of those powers and we sought clarification as to why they were not limited in the regulations. The Executive's answer is that it did not wish to place any time restrictions on entry to premises because entry might be required at any time to ensure that all required steps are being taken to prevent the transmission of the virus. The Executive said that it would be reasonable as far as was humanly possible. Are we happy with the Executive's explanation?

Mr Macintosh:

The explanation is fine, but it reveals a policy issue rather than a fact for subordinate legislation. I think that we should draw the lead committee's attention to that. Certainly, my own view, if I am allowed to speak on the policy, is that if the Executive is going to be reasonable then it should say that in the regulations.

The difficulty is in defining "reasonable."

Absolutely. There are many definitions of that. We should draw it to the lead committee's attention that the Executive has referred to a matter of policy in order to ensure that the committee knows that it is a deliberate policy.

Yes, we should inform the committee of the Executive's explanation.

Mr Maxwell:

I was not going to say anything, but the discussion has opened up the matter. Much as it goes against the grain to support the current Executive, I support it on this matter. It is entirely reasonable for it to take immediate action and to have the flexibility to do so at any time that it deems necessary. This matter is relevant to public health, whether it be human or animal health. There is an overriding factor in these cases that might demand, for example, that taking action at two in the morning is reasonable under certain circumstances.

I am not sure what we would gain from putting that in the regulations. The Executive has been clear that, whenever possible, it would try to ensure that action was taken at a reasonable time and that such action would not be taken unnecessarily. In a matter of public health, it is entirely reasonable for the Executive to have that flexibility.

I tend to agree with Stewart Maxwell. What do Murray Tosh and Adam Ingram think?

I agree with Stewart Maxwell.

The point is well made.

We will go with that, but report to the lead committee and the Parliament with the Executive's explanation.


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

The Convener:

The committee raised two points with the Executive. First, we expressed concern about whether regulation 5(2) meets the requirement that vaccination must be carried out

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

which was imposed by Commission decision 2005/744/EC.

The Executive explains that ministers are required to take advice from the chief veterinary officer and that that is sufficient. Are we okay with that explanation?

Members indicated agreement.

The Convener:

Secondly, the committee asked the Executive to explain how the conditions in annex II to the decision are to be enforced. The Executive explains that, where not carried out under the supervision of ministers, vaccination must be carried out in accordance with their instructions, which will necessarily require compliance with annex II to the decision. Are members happy with that explanation?

Members indicated agreement.

We will pass those explanations to the lead committee and the Parliament.


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

The Convener:

The committee asked the Executive for further explanation of why the regulations were not made available free of charge. The Executive has explained that the regulations do not correct a defect in earlier regulations that existed when these regulations were made and that, therefore, it is not required to make the regulations available free of charge.

Do we accept that explanation?

Members indicated agreement.