Subordinate Legislation Committee, 27 Apr 2004

Meeting date: Tuesday, April 27, 2004

Official Report 83KB pdf

---

Delegated Powers Scrutiny

---

National Health Service Reform (Scotland) Bill: as amended at Stage 2

I welcome members to the 14th meeting of the Subordinate Legislation Committee this year. I have received no apologies.

Item 1 is delegated powers scrutiny of the National Health Service Reform (Scotland) Bill as amended at stage 2. A number of changes have been made to the bill, which introduce or amend delegated powers. The first of them concerns community health partnerships. A new regulation-making power has been added at new section 4B(5)(da) of the National Health Service (Scotland) Act 1978, as inserted by section 2 of the bill as amended. As our legal advice indicates, the big question is why the new power is needed for joint community health partnerships. The provisions in any case appear at new section 4A(1B) of the 1978 act, also as inserted by section 2 of the amended bill.

I am not quite sure whether that is a big question, but you are right to point out that the provisions in new section 4B(5)(da) of the 1978 act do not seem necessary in view of the provisions already in place under new section 4A(1B). Some explanation should be sought, in case that needlessly complicates things for the future.

Is that agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

The second point is also on section 2 and community health partnerships. There were Executive amendments to do with the number of such partnerships. It has been suggested that the provisions are unduly prescriptive, that there should be more flexibility, and that those provisions should be moved over to guidance. Are we agreed on that?

Members indicated agreement.

The next point relates to the specification of community health partnerships' functions under section 2. It is similar to what we have already discussed in relation to the number of community health partnerships. It is thought that the illustrative list that was provided was too prescriptive and that it should be moved over to guidance. If we agree with that, there remains the point that such guidance is not subject to parliamentary procedure, so I want to ensure that members are happy with that proposal.

Members indicated agreement.

Would it be in order for us to make Parliament aware of those two changes, which have resulted in our recommending that the provisions concerned be put instead in guidance—which will not be subject to parliamentary scrutiny?

Members indicated agreement.