Subordinate Legislation Committee, 27 Nov 2001

Meeting date: Tuesday, November 27, 2001

Official Report 120KB pdf

---

Instruments Subject to Annulment

---

Scottish Social Services Council (Consultation on Codes of Practice) Order 2001 (SSI 2001/424)

There appear to be some superfluous definitions, particularly that of the "SQA qualification" in article 1(2) of the order. Those can be drawn to the Executive's attention in a letter. There are no other substantive points that we want to draw to the Executive's attention.

---

Import and Export Restrictions<br />(Foot-and-Mouth Disease) (Scotland) (No 3) Regulations 2001 (SSI 2001/429)

The points on the regulations are a bit more substantial. There are questions of English and definition. The terms "export" and "dispatch" are used in regulations 16 and 20(1), but it might be sensible to use only the word "dispatch".

We would like clarification of whether the Executive thinks that there is a difference between the terms and of what that difference is. If there is no difference, the Executive could use one word or the other.

I was just going to use a red pencil and strike out the word "export". However, if you wish to ask the Executive, we will do so.

Ian Jenkins was an English teacher.

There is a bit of duplication between regulation 3(3) and regulation 25. It might be an idea to have an explanation of that.

We can ask for that.

Do we wish to ask again why a provision relating to the recovery of costs has been included? I think that we decided before that we did not need it.

That is right. The words, "as a debt" appear in regulation 21(2). They are superfluous and might give rise to the suggestion that if they do not appear, costs cannot be recovered in the future. Those words should be removed and we should ask the Executive not to use such words in future.

We will write to the Executive about those points.

---

National Health Service (Charges for Drugs and Appliances) (Scotland) Regulations 2001 (SSI 2001/430)

There are points on which we require explanation.

The real biggy is the assumption in regulation 3(3) that all chemists are men. Some of the chaps in the committee might not have noticed that point.

Most of the chemists whom I have come across happen to have been women.

Are we talking about chemists or pharmacists?

Margaret Thatcher was a chemist, but is she a woman?

That is too philosophical for this time of the morning.

Mrs Thatcher was a research chemist. Everyone on the floor of the House of Commons knew it and called her, "sir".

Perhaps we could ask for regulation 3(3) to be redrafted in gender-neutral terms.

We had already drawn the Executive's attention to regulation 8, which refers both to the "sum prescribed" and the "prescribed sum". The Executive thinks that it has changed the wording, but it has not.

Why does the Executive not just stick to using the same phrase?

Regulation 8 refers to pre-payment certificates. People have to be able to understand the regulation, which confuses the matter of when the pre-payment certificates are operational. We have to ask the Executive to clarify that.

We could also ask why the Executive did not split regulation 8 into two or three bite-sized bits.

That would allow easy comprehension for committees and citizens.

Particular care has to be taken over any regulations that are at the pointy end of legislation. They have to be easily understood and these regulations are not.

There is perhaps a mistake in schedule 4. The reference to SI 1993/552 ought to read as a reference to SI 1993/522.

There should be special brownie points for whoever spotted that.

You know me. I have an eye for detail and a head for figures.

That is why we are all on the committee.

There are one or two points on the Protection of Wild Mammals (Scotland) Bill.

Look at the faces lighting up.

I can deal with most of the points by talking to committee members later. As it is a members' bill, the committee might have a slight problem because three subordinate legislation amendments are being lodged at stage 2. One of those is an Executive commencement order. If those get agreed to, we might have to have members in as witnesses to explain why those provisions are in the bill.

Is that because the bill is not an Executive bill? We will not have the background notes before us.

The committee will not have the benefit of the usual policy memorandum. The Executive would usually provide such a memorandum. The non-Executive bills unit has not been involved in the bill.

The committee has the option to invite members whose amendments are successful to explain the purpose of their amendments.

That is the only way that we will understand the purpose of the amendments, although both the potential witnesses are lawyers, so we still might not understand. I warn members that we have that delight in store. Unless other business—

So it is Fergus Ewing and who else?

It might not come to pass: we are not absolutely certain exactly what will happen to the bill, because some of the leading figures in the proposed legislation might be otherwise engaged from this afternoon onwards. We are not sure what will happen, but it will be an interesting experience. Just think: all those wee foxes might live.

A bit longer.

Or are they more likely to die? No—they never get caught.

That brings today's meeting to an end.

Meeting closed at 11:45.