Official Report 144KB pdf
National Health Service (General Dental Services and Dental Charges) (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 2002<br />(SSI 2002/99)
There are lots and lots of regulations in this area, as members can work out from their papers. We have in the past asked for there to be a consolidation of the principal regulations in such areas. Notwithstanding anything else that we might wish to do, I think that we should again ask the Executive how progress on that consolidation is going.
National Health Service (Charges for Drugs and Appliances) (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 2002<br />(SSI 2002/100)
No particular points have been identified under the regulations, but I would like to make a point, with the committee's agreement. The regulations concern people's ability to get prostheses, wigs and so on at a time when they are feeling absolutely rotten, and when it can be difficult for them to cope with the bureaucracy. Anything that relates to such situations should be written in very plain English, and these regulations are not: I had a look at them, and they are quite dense.
Council Tax (Exempt Dwellings) (Scotland) Amendment Order 2002 (SSI 2002/101)
No points.
What do we say instead of that now ?
I am not using the expression that we used last time—I admire small nations. I think that Bristow Muldoon is missing this.
No, I know what you are talking about.
Council Tax (Dwellings and Part Residential Subjects) (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 2002<br />(SSI 2002/102)
Nothing arises under the regulations.
NHS Education for Scotland Order 2002 (SSI 2002/103)
There are a few small points to raise under the order. One of them appears just to be technical, but it is worth while doing this properly. The order revokes the instrument that constituted the council. What was its old name?
The Scottish Council for Postgraduate Medical and Dental Education.
Although the order revokes the instrument that constituted that council, it does not dissolve the council. That is a slight untidiness, which would not have made a huge difference, but it is worth writing an informal letter, in which we will say that we would like that to be dealt with in a slightly more businesslike fashion.
Control of Noise (Codes of Practice for Construction and Open Sites) (Scotland) Order 2002 (SSI 2002/104)
No points arise.
Scottish Council for Postgraduate Medical and Dental Education and NHS Education for Scotland (Transfer of Staff) Regulations 2002 (SSI 2002/105)
No points arise.
Thank you. The regulations refer to a public service, but I noticed that they have moved away from the enabling power's use of the term "servant", which is replaced by the term "employee". Is that really a mark of progress?
We have moved into the 21st century, Margo.
That is the "Forward March of Labour".
Three steps forward and two steps back.
We will write informally to the Executive about the "Forward March of Labour", and tell the Executive that Bill Butler said that.
I was merely quoting, but I agree with the quotation.
Scottish Commission for the Regulation of Care (Appointments and Procedure) Regulations 2002 (SSI 2002/106)
It is a bit quaint that the schedule to the instrument identifies individuals by name. There might be good reason for doing so, but it seems to be a bit strange.
That point applies to an instrument that we will with deal with later.
I am sorry. I am on the wrong instrument.
There are two instruments on the Scottish Commission for the Regulation of Care. The one with which we are dealing refers to appointments and procedure.
I was referring to the other instrument.
We have not yet dealt with the order on the disposal of the commission's staff—or servants, as I think of them.
Prisons and Young Offenders Institutions (Scotland) Amendment Rules 2002<br />(SSI 2002/107)
I think that the instrument is okay. Can any member tell me whether it is part of the "Forward March of Labour" to classify prisoners as requiring low, medium or high supervision, rather than as categories A to D? I think that that is sensible. I presume that a very bad prisoner needs high supervision.
And female prisoners.
Aye, I suppose so.
Scottish Commission for the Regulation of Care (Staff Transfer Scheme) Order 2002 (SSI 2002/108)
This is the order that Colin Campbell is worried about.
I will repeat what I said previously. The order refers to people by name and not by job designation, which is a bit quaint. Perhaps someone has an ambition to be named in statute.
We can say that the committee thinks that in that regard the order is not consistent with other orders and statutes. When the clerk speaks informally to the Executive about the matter, he will ask why people are named in the order. Perhaps there is a reason for that of which we are not aware.
Import and Export Restrictions (Foot-and-Mouth Disease) (Scotland) (No 3) Revocation Regulations 2002<br />(SSI 2002/109)
Nul points. The 21-day rule is breached by the instrument, but because the regulations concern foot-and-mouth disease we accept that there will be such breaches. [Interruption.] I am informed that we are being very understanding about that matter—The Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments at Westminster was censorious about the regulations' drafting and felt that it could have been much better. We will merely note that we are perhaps more understanding. However, the drafting matter should not be passed over lightly, as European Commission regulations are involved.
Dairy Produce Quotas (Scotland) Regulations 2002 (SSI 2002/110)
We have three questions for the Executive. First, we could ask the Executive to explain the effect of the phrase "before 1st March" in regulation 8(1)(a)(i), which is the phrase's first occurrence. Secondly, we could ask the Executive to confirm that the "General Provisions" regulations to which regulation 2(1) refers have been made and will come into force at the same time as, or before, the regulations.
There is also a problem in that it is difficult to trace the regulations to which the instrument refers—our legal advisers have said that they are unable to find them. The regulations must be somewhere, but if we cannot find them, how is anyone else supposed to do so?
The instrument will affect incomes. Dairy produce quotas are important. Given that we could not check the instrument's regulations against the original regulations, because we could not find them—
We presume that the original regulations are Great Britain regulations, but they still cannot be found.
That is what we presume. We will write to the Executive asking it to explain where we should refer to, or to provide the source of the original regulations. We do not need to say anything else about the instrument at the moment, because we will be asking only where we can find the original regulations, so that we can check them.
National Health Service (General Medical Services and Pharmaceutical Services) (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 2002 (SSI 2002/111)
Again, we have questions for the Executive.
As with the previous instrument, the regulations to which regulations 2(1) and 3(1) of the instrument refer cannot be found.
Perhaps the word "Scotland" should be in the titles of the regulations to which regulations 2(1) and 3(1) refer. That word might have been in the original regulations' titles, but subsequently disappeared.
The drafting of the instrument appears to be sloppy.
If we cannot find the original regulations, that is a good reason for sending a polite letter to the Executive asking it where we can find those regulations, because we want to check them. Until the Executive responds, there is not much sense in going into the other more detailed points on the instrument.
We should also ask the Executive whether it is time that it introduced a consolidating instrument.
Yes. We know that there are many existing regulations in this area, and this instrument introduces another lot. I agree, therefore, that we should ask the Executive about consolidation. However, perhaps other questions on the instrument can wait until the Executive responds about the source of the original regulations.
Regulation of Care (Fees) (Scotland) Order 2002 (SSI 2002/112)
The order seems to be fine.
Okay.
Regulation of Care (Applications and Provision of Advice) (Scotland) Order 2002 (SSI 2002/113)
No points arise.
Nul points.
Regulation of Care (Requirements as to Care Services) (Scotland) Regulations 2002 (SSI 2002/114)
This is another example of an instrument—we occasionally refer to such instruments—that uses terms that are embedded in English law and statute, but which will be used in Scottish regulations. That is a stylistic point that we like to flag up occasionally.
We will do so by means of an informal letter.
The phrase "personal representatives", which the instrument uses, is an English legal phrase.
The term should be "executor"—which we all understand.
Okay. We will send an informal letter to the Executive to that effect.
Regulation of Care (Registration and Registers) (Scotland) Regulations 2002 (SSI 2002/115)
We need only make a minor drafting point, which does not affect the substance of the order.
Police Grant (Scotland) Order 2002<br />(SSI 2002/116)
There is nothing to note.
Right.
Plant Protection Products Amendment (Scotland) Regulations 2002 (SSI 2002/117)
It so happened that I had a bit of time in hand last night, so I rummaged through the regulations. I am getting Bill Butler worried. The regulations are made under section 2(2) of the European Communities Act 1972 and they implement Commission directive 2001/87/EC, which inserts the active substances acibenzolar-S-methyl, cyclanilide, ferric phosphate, pymetrozine and pyraflufen-ethyl into annexe 1 of the directive.
I am glad to hear that.
That is pretty life enriching—although perhaps not for the pests.
John Swinney will be delighted to hear that the convener is giving all her attention to this instrument.
His dastardly plans are working.
Restriction of Liberty Order (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 2002<br />(SSI 2002/119)
The instrument raises more serious issues. Murdo Fraser knows a bit about the matter.
I am rather concerned that the instrument might involve a breach of the European technical standards directive, because it prescribes the equipment that is to be used for tagging. I understand that a similar concern was expressed in relation to the equipment that is used to breathalyse people in drink-driving cases. We should ask the Executive to confirm that it has considered the matter and that the requirements of the technical standards directive have been fulfilled. Failure to fulfil those requirements would represent a breach of the internal market. That would not affect the question of liberty, but it would represent a breach of European Union rules.
That would distress the member greatly.
Absolutely. I have great concern for the manufacturers of Italian tagging equipment.
There are technical problems with the instrument.
The advice that we have received suggests that failure to meet the requirements of the technical standards directive would not affect the question of someone's liberty. The instrument could not be challenged on that ground by someone who had been convicted of a crime. However, it could be challenged by equipment manufacturers in other EU countries, as a restraint of trade.
That could trigger an interminable trade dispute that would involve the courts and so on. Although the instrument would not affect the liberty of the persons concerned—the subject of the regulations—it could cost a huge amount to defend or to challenge. For that reason, it is important that we get it right.
There is also a question relating to enabling powers. Subsections (2) and (10) of section 245A of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995 have not been cited as enabling powers.
That is important.
She is very thorough.
Regulation of Care (Excepted Services) (Scotland) Regulations 2002 (SSI 2002/120)
No points arise in relation to the instrument.
Animals and Animal Products<br />(Import and Export) (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 2002<br />(SSI 2002/125)
No points arise in relation to the instrument.
The instrument breaches the 21-day rule, but that does not cause any problems.
Adults with Incapacity<br />(Public Guardian's Fees) (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 2002<br />(SSI 2002/131)
The instrument does not make it clear whether Scottish ministers or the public guardian are responsible for exercising the powers that are conferred by section 7(2) of the Adults with Incapacity (Scotland) Act 2000.
There is a problem with the drafting of the parent act, which does not specify who is responsible for exercising the powers to which the convener referred. We should ask the Executive to explain the vires of the instrument.
This is a very important matter, so we shall raise it in a formal letter.