Official Report 165KB pdf
Joint Inspections (Scotland) Regulations 2006 (draft)
We have the Executive's response to our questions on the regulations. In relation to regulation 11, the committee asked whether it is the Executive's intention that failure of a person to comply with regulation 5(2) is to be a criminal offence. The Executive confirmed that that is not the intention. However, as members can see from the legal briefing, that would be the effect of the regulation. I suggest that we draw the attention of the lead committee to the instrument on the ground of defective drafting.
I agree. We should make it clear to the lead committee that a mistake has been made.
Do members agree that we should do that?
National Health Service (General Ophthalmic Services) (Scotland) Regulations 2006 (SSI 2006/135)
We asked four questions about the regulations. First, we asked about the reference in regulation 7(1)(b) to a definition provision, which appears to be a minor point. Unless members want to comment, I suggest we just note the Executive's response to our query. Is that agreed?
Our second point related to why the reference to convictions for murder is restricted to those obtained in the British isles. The Executive has given us a full and helpful background on the matter. I propose to draw the attention of the lead committee and the Parliament to the instrument on the ground that clarification was requested from and supplied by the Executive. Are we agreed?
Thirdly, we asked the Executive to explain the reference to paragraph 11 in schedule 1. The Executive has acknowledged that this is a typographical error and has said that it will correct it at the next appropriate opportunity. The Executive considers that the error does not affect the validity of the regulations. I propose to draw the attention of the lead committee and the Parliament to the instrument on the ground of defective drafting. Do you want to come in on this one, Stewart?
I am happy to come in, convener, but if I did that every time we made the point, I would be doing so constantly. The fact is that typographical errors are a fairly common occurrence. We have made the point strongly. I will leave it there, convener.
Okay. Our last point was to ask the Executive to explain the provision to which the words "paragraph 9(1)(a) to (i)" refer. The Executive seems to agree that the provision is defectively drafted. I propose to draw the attention of the lead committee and the Parliament to the instrument on those terms. Are we agreed?
National Health Service (Primary Medical Services Performers Lists) (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 2006 <br />(SSI 2006/136)
We asked the Executive to clarify three related points on the regulations which, as drafted, are confusing for the reader. The points relate to regulations 2(2)(d) and 7(4). The Executive seems to admit that the regulations are defectively drafted, although it does not consider that the failure to define a term that is used in the regulations will affect their operation. The Executive has said that it will clarify the wording at the next available opportunity. Again, I propose to draw the attention of the lead committee and the Parliament to the instrument on the ground of defective drafting. Are we agreed?
National Health Service (General Dental Services) (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 2006 (SSI 2006/137)
We put three questions to the Executive on the regulations. First, we asked about the definition of "principal regulations" in regulation 1(2). The Executive accepts that the inclusion of the title of the instrument was an error.
National Health Service (Optical Charges and Payments) (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 2006 (SSI 2006/138)
Again, we put three questions to the Executive on the regulations. On the first point, the Executive has accepted that references to regulations in the principal regulations should have been removed following the revocation of part III of the principal regulations. It also said that, although the inclusion of the redundant references does not affect the validity of the instrument, it will amend it at the first available opportunity. I propose to draw the attention of the lead committee and the Parliament to the instrument on the ground of defective drafting.
National Health Service <br />(Service Committees and Tribunal) (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 2006 (SSI 2006/139)
We put two questions to the Executive on the regulations. First, we asked for an explanation of the reference in regulation 2(3) to paragraph 10 of schedule 1. The Executive response is that the intention was to refer to paragraph 11 only; it will ensure that the reference is removed when the 1992 regulations are consolidated later this year.
We also expressed regret that the regulations broke the 21-day rule, which could have been anticipated with better planning. The Executive explains why it chose a particular commencement date for the regulations but has still not explained why, with that in mind, it was necessary to break the 21-day rule. Are we content to draw the unjustified breach of the 21-day rule to the attention of the lead committee and the Parliament?
I am happy for us to do that, but it is rather disappointing. It has happened before that we ask a specific question and get back an answer to a question that we did not ask. I do not want to be flippant about it, but the Executive should answer the question that we ask and it is rather unfortunate that we sometimes get back letters that do not do so. The point about which we asked is fairly straightforward, so I would have thought that a straightforward answer would be available and forthcoming. I am happy with the suggestion that you make, convener, but I make the point that the Executive's responses should be a bit better.
National Health Service (Charges to Overseas Visitors) (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 2006 (SSI 2006/141)
We asked the Executive for an explanation of the purpose of the definition of "the Act" in regulation 1(2)(a). The Executive has admitted that the definition is unnecessary. We also drew to the Executive's attention the omission of the words "of the principal Regulations" from regulation 3. The Executive accepted our comments on that point. Are members content to draw the instrument to the attention of the lead committee and the Parliament on the ground of defective drafting?
National Health Service (Travelling Expenses and Remission of Charges) (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 2006 (SSI 2006/142)
The Executive confirms that the word "claims" in regulation 3 is intended to refer to claims to ministers under the regulations and accepts that the transitional provision in that regulation should also apply to payments under regulation 11(7). It will amend the regulations before 1 April 2006, which is very near. It also accepts that the definition of "the Income Support Regulations" in regulation 1(2) is unnecessary, as the term, which appears in regulation 2(6) and (7), is already defined in the principal regulations—the National Health Service (Travelling Expenses and Remission of Charges) (Scotland) (No 2) Regulations 2003. Are members happy to draw the instrument to the attention of the lead committee and the Parliament on the ground of defective drafting?
Pesticides (Maximum Residue Levels in Crops, Food and Feeding Stuffs) (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 2006 (SSI 2006/151)
We asked why the term "principal Regulations" is defined in regulation 2, given that it is used only once in the regulations thereafter. The Executive accepts that the definition could have been avoided but does not consider that it causes any confusion to the reader. I suggest that we report to the lead committee and the Parliament that the approach is not in accordance with drafting guidance.
We also asked 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. The Executive has explained the reasoning behind the drafting and considers that the legal effect is clear. Are we content that clarification was requested from and supplied by the Executive on its approach to the drafting of the regulations?
Gambling Act 2005 (Licensing Authority Policy Statement) (Scotland) Regulations 2006 (SSI 2006/154)
We asked the Executive whether the sections of the Gambling Act 2005 to which the regulations relate and the enabling power would be brought into force on or before the coming into force of the regulations. Are we content that the Executive has confirmed that they will be?