Official Report 129KB pdf
Public Health etc (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1
Good afternoon and welcome to the 13th meeting of the Subordinate Legislation Committee in the third session of the Parliament. I have received apologies from Richard Baker and Jackson Carlaw. As usual, I ask everyone to turn off their mobile phones.
On section 5, "Designation of competent persons by local authorities", are members content that the power is delegated and that it is subject to the negative procedure?
On section 12, "Lists of notifiable diseases and notifiable organisms", are members content with the power to amend the lists in schedule 1?
Are members content to seek further explanation from the Scottish Government for its claim that the negative procedure would be appropriate, given that speed of action would be required, and to ask the Government to explain its reasons for framing the power to remove diseases and organisms from the scope of the bill without a need for ministers to have assessed the impact on the risk to public health?
The committee should draw ministers' attention to the final item in the list of notifiable organisms in part 2 of schedule 1. The term,
Right. We note Ian McKee's comment.
Section 25, "Supplementary", is on investigatory powers. Are members content to invite the Scottish Government to provide further justification for the width of the provision, which would allow ministers to confer any power that they considered necessary for a public health investigation, with no apparent restrictions? It is right and proper that we probe that provision.
Given the power to modify any enactment in the course of conferring additional functions by regulations made under section 25(3), are members content to ask the Scottish Government to clarify whether it is intended that such powers could conflict with or undermine the powers that would be conferred by sections 22 to 24?
Are members content to invite the Government to comment on and provide further justification for its approach?
Are members content to seek further justification from the Scottish Government on the appropriateness of the negative procedure for such a wide power to amend primary legislation?
The use of the negative procedure is becoming a theme.
On section 68, "Notice on occupier or owner of infected etc premises or things", are members content that the power is delegated and that it is subject to the negative procedure?
On section 71, "Power of local authority to disinfect etc premises or things", are members content that the power is delegated and that it is subject to the negative procedure?
Section 89, "International Health Regulations", would confer very broad powers on the Scottish ministers. A full explanation is necessary. Are members content to seek further clarification from the Scottish Government on its intentions for the delivery of international health regulations and on how the powers would be exercised? Are members also content to ask about proposals to amend the provision at stage 2? We might get a useful snapshot of the Government's intentions.
On section 90, "Provision of information on the effects on health of sunbed use", are members content that the power is delegated and that it is subject to negative procedure?
We no longer have experts on sunbeds in the Scottish Parliament.
On section 94, "Power to make further provision regarding statutory nuisances", are members content to ask the Scottish Government to explain why it would take such a wide power and in what circumstances the power would be used? In other words, how far does the Government want to go?
Are members content to seek the Scottish Government's views on limitations to which the use of the power would be subject?
Given the statutory duties imposed on local authorities under part III of the Environmental Protection Act 1990, are members content to ask the Scottish Government whether procedural requirements, for example on consultation with local authorities and the need to have regard to their views, would be appropriate in the exercise of the power to extend the law of statutory nuisance?
Section 95, "Enforcement of statutory nuisances: fixed penalty notice" jumped out at me. Are members content to consider whether the power to modify the period for payment of the fixed penalty—14 days—should be subject to the higher level of parliamentary scrutiny that is afforded by the affirmative procedure? Should we invite the Scottish Government to restrict the exercise of the provision to the extension of the period for payment, thereby retaining a minimum period for payment in the bill? We could either call for use of the affirmative procedure or suggest the restriction of the provision, or we could do both.
We should ask the Government what suits it.
Yes. Do you agree that we need to be reassured on the potential for the period for payment to be reduced from 14 days, which might raise human rights issues?
On section 98, "Disclosure of information", are members content to ask the Scottish Government which bodies it anticipates that it might add to the list of relevant authorities?
Are members content to ask the Scottish Government to comment on whether it would be in order to restrict the power, for example by limiting the types of persons or bodies that could be added to the list, or to subject the power to the higher level of scrutiny that is afforded by affirmative procedure?
Are members content with the provision in section 102, "Regulations and orders"?
Are members content with the power in section 108, "Short title and commencement", and that it is not subject to parliamentary scrutiny?
Before we leave consideration of the bill, I point out that we will consider the Government's responses in two weeks' time. We will have to pay fairly close attention to them, given what we have said already.