Official Report 103KB pdf
Although the point about the need for consolidation has also been raised about this instrument, this appears to be only the fourth amendment to the regulations. The principal regulations have been amended even more times than those already mentioned. This appears to be a legal guddle. Should we deal with this matter in a general letter or do we want to individualise it?
Because the principal regulations have been subject to many amendments, we might want to flag up this instrument as an example.
We could also note our cause for concern.
Who would be responsible for the process of consolidation? We can express concern about the number of amendments all we like, but what is involved in the process of consolidating such a range of amendments?
The matter would go back to the lawyers, who, instead of lodging an amendment to the legislation, would start afresh and try to redefine the regulations. Perhaps now, at the start of the new Scottish Parliament, is the time to work out how we wish to regulate our health service within the devolved structures. That cannot be done across the board, because the lawyers would be snowed under. It is a matter for the Executive, which should perhaps start to consider things afresh instead of tinkering with them.
Are we still considering SSI 1999/54?
Yes.
These seven or nine statutory instruments about the health service concern changes in nomenclature following the re-organisation of the health service. However, although I have to confess that I have not made a detailed study of the issue, I note that the regulation covers a number of entirely unrelated, substantive and intriguing matters such as contraceptive service, erectile dysfunction, Parkinson's disease and prostate cancer. Obviously, such matters are not being taken into account because of health service reorganisation.
The next regulation on the agenda is being amended for an eleventh time. That cannot be satisfactory from anyone's point of view. I see that that regulation has the benefit of introducing a definition of Viagra.
Ian, did you want to raise a point?
No.
Fergus's point is a good one. The more amendments and other matters that are included in an instrument, the more things spiral off. Before I was elected to Parliament, the bane of my life as a practising solicitor was the situation where subordinate legislation meant for the care and protection of children was mixed up with legislation for the monitoring of offenders. That was ludicrous. The two should have been separated and different regulations made. That is a separate anecdote, but the point is that—whether it regards Viagra or something else—new matters are being addressed. That is not simply an amendment. If ever there was a case for consolidation, this might be it.