Official Report 207KB pdf
Instruments Subject <br />to Annulment
Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 (Consequential and Supplementary Amendments) (Scotland) Order 2006 <br />(SSI 2006/129)<br />Title Conditions (Scotland) Act 2003 (Conservation Bodies) Amendment (No 2) Order 2006 (SSI 2006/130)
No substantive points arise on the orders, but minor points do arise, which we can mention in an informal letter.
National Health Service (Dental Charges) (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 2006 (SSI 2006/131)
No points arise on the regulations.
Convener, did we cover the Title Conditions (Scotland) Act 2003 (Conservation Bodies) Amendment (No 2) Order 2006?
We did.
Did I miss it?
We can go back.
No, it is all right. I apologise—I was still reading about the previous order and I did not realise that we had covered it.
Functions of Health Boards (Scotland) Amendment Order 2006 (SSI 2006/132)<br />Water Environment (Oil Storage) (Scotland) Regulations 2006 (SSI 2006/133)
Sight Testing (Examination and Prescription) Amendment (Scotland) Regulations 2006 (SSI 2006/134)
No substantive points arise on the regulations or the order, but there are minor points that we can raise informally with the Executive.
National Health Service (General Ophthalmic Services) (Scotland) Regulations 2006 (SSI 2006/135)
We now come to a few instruments with which there are problems. One must ask whether that is because a large number of instruments are coming through before the Easter recess.
National Health Service (Primary Medical Services Performers Lists) (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 2006 <br />(SSI 2006/136)
There appear to be serious errors in the regulations relating to definitions in the regulations and in the National Health Service (Primary Medical Services Performers Lists) (Scotland) Regulations 2004—the principal regulations. There is also a concern that the regulations will not achieve their intended purpose. The legal advisers suggest that we ask the Executive to give further consideration to the regulations. As the errors are so substantive, I do not know whether I should say in the same breath that there are also minor points that we can take up with the Executive informally. Do we agree to raise those points?
National Health Service (General Dental Services) (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 2006 (SSI 2006/137)
Three main points arise on the regulations. It is suggested that we ask the Executive why "principal Regulations" is defined in regulation 1(2) when the term is used only once and the title of the instrument so defined is narrated in full in regulation 3. It is suggested that we also ask which enabling power authorises regulation 2(6) and why the Executive has chosen not to pursue consolidation, given the number of amending instruments. Is that agreed?
There are also a few minor points that we can deal with in an informal letter.
National Health Service (Optical Charges and Payments) (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 2006 (SSI 2006/138)
Two points arise on the regulations. It is suggested that we ask the Executive why references to regulations 5(2) and 6 in regulations 21(2) and 22 respectively of the principal regulations—the National Health Service (Optical Charges and Payments) (Scotland) Regulations 1998—have not been removed following the revocation of part III of the principal regulations, and why the final sentence of the explanatory note refers to regulation 2(4)(b)(ii) and to a coming-into-force date of 6 April 2006 when neither of them appears in the regulations. Is that agreed?
The committee might also note that although the Executive has acknowledged the desirability of consolidating this series of regulations, it has no immediate plans so to do.
National Health Service (Service Committees and Tribunal) (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 2006 <br />(SSI 2006/139)
It is suggested that we ask the Executive to explain the reference in regulation 2(3) to paragraph 10 of schedule 1 of the National Health Service (General Ophthalmic Services) (Scotland) Regulations 2006, which does not appear to be relevant. Is that agreed?
Do members have any comments on the Executive's explanation for breaking the 21-day rule? The principal reason appears to be delay on the part of the Scottish Committee of the Council on Tribunals, which might have been anticipated. The Executive also intends to consolidate the principal regulations—the National Health Service (Service Committees and Tribunal) (Scotland) Regulations 1992—by the summer. Are there any comments on those points?
Not on the consolidation.
What do members think about the Executive's reason for breaking the 21-day rule?
It takes us back to the point about advance planning that we discussed before. The delay could have been anticipated. I do not understand why it has led to a breach of the 21-day rule. It has happened, but the explanation is not particularly strong.
Perhaps we should say that it is regrettable because it looks as though the delay could have been anticipated.
Children (Protection at Work) (Scotland) Regulations 2006 (SSI 2006/140)
No points arise on the regulations.
National Health Service (Charges to Overseas Visitors) (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 2006 (SSI 2006/141)
It is suggested that we ask the Executive to explain the purpose of the definition of "the Act" in regulation 1(2)(a). Is that agreed?
There is another point. Do members wish to write to the Executive formally or informally on the omission of the words "of the principal regulations" from regulation 3? We might as well do it in the same letter.
There are also a couple of minor points that we can raise with the Executive informally.
There are more than a couple.
Are there? I was being optimistic.
National Health Service (Travelling Expenses and Remission of Charges) (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 2006 (SSI 2006/142)
Two points arise on the regulations. Should we ask the Executive whether "claims" in regulation 3 is intended to refer to claims to the Scottish ministers or to applications to boards for payment and, if the former, why the transitional provision in regulation 3 does not apply to payments under regulation 11(7) as well as to payments under regulations 6 and 7 of the principal regulations—the National Health Service (Travelling Expenses and Remission of Charges) (Scotland) (No 2) Regulations 2003? Should we also ask the Executive to explain why regulation 1(2) defines "the Income Support Regulations", a term that does not appear in the regulations?
There are also a couple of minor points—well, some—that we can raise with the Executive informally.
National Health Service (Pharmaceutical Services) (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 2006 (SSI 2006/143)<br />National Waiting Times Centre Board (Scotland) Amendment Order 2006 <br />(SSI 2006/144)
No substantive points arise on the instruments, but there are minor points on both that we can raise with the Executive informally.
Before we move on to the next instrument, I will make a general point. We have been through a substantial number of national health service instruments, many of which relate to the Smoking, Health and Social Care (Scotland) Act 2005, and all of them have errors. Some of the instruments have quite a lot of minor errors—such as typographical errors—and some have more serious errors. How we got to the point at which all these instruments are rushing through at this late stage is a planning issue, but I return to the point that I made earlier about the desirability of laying instruments in draft so that they are much closer to being completely correct when they come into force, rather than coming into force when they have so many errors. The Executive says that they are minor matters that can be sorted out the next time the instruments are amended but, yet again, we have pages and pages of examples that show exactly why instruments should be laid in draft and changes should be allowed during the process.
Most of us agree. Your suggestions would make the process much simpler. Did you raise your points to get them on the record or do you think that we should do something else?
We should do something else in the report on our regulatory framework inquiry. I am not saying that we should do anything now, but I wanted to put the points on the record before we moved on to the next regulations. We have just considered a series of NHS instruments that demonstrate the need for advance planning and the laying of instruments in draft. If the Executive had done that, it would have made quite a difference to the outcome of our discussion.
Pesticides (Maximum Residue Levels in Crops, Food and Feeding Stuffs) (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 2006 (SSI 2006/151)
Two main points arise on the regulations. Should we ask the Executive to explain why it has defined "principal Regulations" in regulation 2 when the term is used only once, and why the words "Subject to" have been used in regulation 3 when it appears that the provisions that are referred to do not qualify regulation 3?
There is also a minor point that can be raised with the Executive informally.
Gambling Act 2005 (Licensing Authority Policy Statement) (Scotland) Regulations 2006 (SSI 2006/154)
It is suggested that we ask the Executive to confirm that the sections of the Gambling Act 2005 to which the regulations relate and the enabling power will be brought into force on or before the coming into force of the regulations. There is also a minor point that we should raise. If there are no other comments, is that agreed?
Previous
Draft Instrument Subject to Approval