Official Report 154KB pdf
We move to agenda item 2. Today, we will try a slightly different procedure, in that we will clear the decks of all the stuff that we think is acceptable and then consider the nitty-gritty. That is a slightly different way of doing things, but it involves more tidy thinking on our part.
Members indicated agreement.
Our legal brief then lists the powers that will be subject to the negative procedure and which we think are acceptable. I will read out the list for the record, so forgive me if this takes a minute or two. Those powers are:
Members indicated agreement.
We now move to consider powers that are subject to the affirmative procedure, which are:
Members indicated agreement.
I now turn to those powers in the bill on which it is recommended, as members can see from the legal brief, that we seek further information. The first, which is in section 2, is the power to distinguish between an advert and a display. I had to read what the legal briefing says about that several times. Are we content to ask the Scottish Government to explain the justification for the use of the negative procedure, given that the exercise of the power and choice of regulatory regime impact on the level of applicable penalties? The application of the affirmative procedure to a similar power in the Tobacco Advertising and Promotion Act 2002 is referred to, and the Scottish Government is asked to explain the difference in approach. Are we happy to ask why the Government is doing something different in that regard?
Members indicated agreement.
The next power is in section 3(1), which is on requirements in relation to the display of prices. The power in section 3(1) defines the limits of permitted behaviour and therefore the scope of the offence provisions, and it replicates the power in section 8 of the Tobacco Advertising and Promotion Act 2002. Are members content to ask the Scottish Government why it is considered that the negative procedure is appropriate, given the nature of the power and the fact that the regulations under section 8 of the 2002 act are subject to the affirmative procedure?
Members indicated agreement.
We come to section 8(2)(e), which is on the form and manner of application for registration. Are members content to ask the Scottish Government the following questions? First, in what manner, or by what means, does the Scottish Government propose to publish or otherwise make known to potential applicants the form and manner of an application that is to be determined by the Scottish ministers, if those are not to be prescribed in subordinate legislation? Secondly, does the Scottish Government consider that it would be more appropriate for the form and manner of an application under section 8(2)(e) to be specified in regulations, whereby the requirements would be clear and transparent and potential applicants would have access to them and know what they had to do in order to make a valid application for registration? Do we agree to ask those questions?
Members indicated agreement.
Section 17 is on the power to modify the application of chapter 2 of the bill to vehicles and vessels. Are members content to ask the Scottish Government the following questions? First, given that the power in section 17 is very broad and has the potential to alter any aspect of the regime for the register of tobacco retailers as it applies in relation to
Members indicated agreement.
We move to section 30, which inserts new section 17CA into the National Health Service (Scotland) Act 1978. New section 17CA(1) is on arrangements for
Members indicated agreement.
We move to section 31, which substitutes section 17L in the 1978 act with new section 17L. Subsection (1) of the proposed new section is on the conditions that can be prescribed for entering into general medical services contracts. Are we content to ask the Scottish Government the following questions? First, does it consider that the effect of the power in new section 17L(1) is actually to permit the general prescription of conditions before a health board can enter a general medical services contract with a contractor, which is the position in current section 17L, rather than simply to impose conditions as to eligibility, and is that the intended effect of this power? Secondly, is there any intention to prescribe further conditions beyond those relating to eligibility? Are we content to ask those questions?
Members indicated agreement.
We move to schedule 1, on the fixed-penalty scheme, and the following aspects: paragraph 3, on the time after which a fixed penalty cannot be given; paragraph 4, on the prescribed amount of fixed penalty and the discounted amount; and paragraph 11(2), on the power to modify time to pay. Do we want to obtain a further explanation of the proposals for the exercise of the Government's power to change significant elements of the fixed-penalty scheme, as set out in paragraphs 3, 4 and 11(2) of schedule 1, and why the Government considers that the negative procedure is appropriate? Are we content to invite officials to give oral evidence on the fixed-penalty scheme provisions in schedule 1?
Members indicated agreement.
That is super. We saw in our briefing papers a notion of what the questions might look like. We thank our team for that. The oral evidence session will be on 19 May, all being well.