Official Report 126KB pdf
Animal Health and Welfare (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1
I welcome members to the second meeting in 2006 of the Subordinate Legislation Committee. Gordon Jackson will be with us, although he will be a bit late. I remind all members to switch off their mobile phones.
That proposal is helpful. It would least be an improvement, in that the Executive would be required to give that explanation. However, that does not answer our original, central point, which was that it would be open to the Executive to instigate the 28-day procedure ad nauseam, without Parliament ever having the opportunity to agree or disagree with that approach. I am not sure that I can see a way around the situation under the present set-up. Perhaps this demonstrates why we are considering the possibility of a specific emergency procedure in our inquiry into the regulatory framework. This is a classic example of why such a procedure might be useful in resolving such difficulties.
I should clarify that, as I understand it, section 1 suggests the use of the draft affirmative procedure with the possibility of using the 28-day facility. That is already being suggested, but the Executive has not included anything similar to the order-making powers in the Food and Environment Protection Act 1985, under which the Executive would have to clarify why it was laying an order under the 28-day emergency procedure.
I accept that. I do not have the bill in front of me but I remember that, in other sections, the draft affirmative procedure is not used.
That is correct—it is not used in all instances.
That is of more concern.
Yes. Does Ken Macintosh have any concerns?
No. I am happy with the powers in the bill. It is a question of balance. We are talking about emergency situations, and we need to get the balance right between expecting the Government to respond to an emergency and ensuring that Parliament has powers to scrutinise the actions that are taken. Given the animal health scares that are around at the moment, the emphasis has to be on responding appropriately to an emergency. I think that the committee's suggestions will be welcomed by the Executive.
Paragraph 5 of our legal brief says that the Executive acknowledges that the negative procedure might be appropriate, even though its use might breach the 21-day rule more often than not. However, at least that option would give us some sort of scrutiny, which is the nub of our concerns over the issue.
I understand from the Executive's response—we have already had this explanation twice from the Executive—that it is trying its utmost to have the best parliamentary scrutiny and, at the same time, the ability to respond quickly to emergencies. Obviously, that is what we want it to do.
Fundamentally, the procedure is the problem. We all accept that emergencies have to be dealt with quickly in the interests of public health; we have no argument with that. The emergency affirmative 28-day procedure has been used before. However, it has been used extensively in the Animal Health and Welfare (Scotland) Bill—this is the first time that I have seen it used so much. Perhaps that is why we have had so much debate on the bill, although, as I say, the procedure has been used before.
I agree. If we were to extend the approach that is used in section 1 and recommend the draft affirmative procedure, we would be indicating that we want as much of the matter as possible to be brought before Parliament so that Parliament knows about it. We would still give the Executive the option of using the emergency affirmative 28-day procedure if it had to act very quickly. The committee takes on board that the Executive says that the emergency procedure is the best possible way of dealing with fast spreading diseases. That is where we are at.
We should report that the maximum level of parliamentary scrutiny should always be used, depending on the circumstances.
One way of doing that is through the emergency affirmative 28-day procedure, but we should say that we would like there to be clarification in any order of why that procedure was being used. Are we agreed?
Section 18 deals with mutilation. The committee confirmed that it would prefer a statutory requirement to consult to be included in the bill, because mutilation is such a sensitive area. The Executive has noted that, which is fine.
Joint Inspection of Children's Services and Inspection of Social Work Services (Scotland) Bill: as amended at Stage 2
We have made quite a bit of progress on the bill—the stage 3 debate will be held on Thursday afternoon.
Section 7, on interpretation, enables "social work services functions" to be prescribed by regulations. The committee was concerned that that definition, which is critical to the interpretation of the bill, had been left to regulations. The bill has since been amended to define those functions. Are members content?
Section 7(3) deals with the power to amend the list of enactments in section 7(2). The relevant amendment that has been made to the bill again relates to allowing the definition of "social work services functions" to be included in the bill. It is consequential on the amendment made to section 7(1). Are members content?
New section 8A deals with ancillary provision. We were concerned at stage 1 that the bill did not include provision for consequential or transitional arrangements as a result of repeals under section 8. The Executive is content that it does not need to provide for transitional arrangements; however, it has amended the bill to allow for consequential arrangements. Are members content?
Section 1(5A) deals with codes of practice. The committee's attention has been drawn to this provision, which provides that persons and bodies who carry out inspections should have regard to guidance that is issued by ministers. That will include matters that relate to access to confidential information. Obviously, many policy issues arise, but I do not know that there are any technical issues. Are members content?
Next
Executive Responses