Official Report 92KB pdf
Air Quality Limit Values (Scotland) Regulations 2003 (SSI 2003/428)
Several issues were raised concerning the regulations. In our first question to the Executive, we sought further explanation for the delay in making the regulations and received information regarding the 21-day rule. What would the committee like to do about that?
Last week I pointed out the difference between the date specified for implementation of the directive and the date on which the regulations will come into force. The Executive has said that it decided to delay implementation to 2 October, rather than 9 September, out of respect for the 21-day rule. On the face of it, that seems to be a reasonable response. However, I remember that the Executive has used the opposite argument when explaining why it has breached the 21-day rule. Here it is changing the argument to suit itself. When the Executive breaches the 21-day rule, it explains that by saying that under Community legislation it has to implement an instrument by a set date. When it delays implementation, it says that it has done so out of respect for the 21-day rule.
We can add that point to our report to the lead committee and to the Parliament.
That is fine—I simply want the point to be made to the Executive.
That would be useful, because the two different arguments that the member outlined have been expressed to us.
National Health Service (Optical Charges and Payments) (Scotland) Amendment <br />(No 3) Regulations 2003 (SSI 2003/431)<br />National Health Service (General Ophthalmic Services) (Scotland) Amendment (No 2) Regulations 2003 <br />(SSI 2003/432)
We agree that these regulations are a bit of mess.
I accept the reasons that the Executive has given for not consolidating the regulations. It is clear that the Health Department is dealing with a significant amount of legislation, including some big bills. However, as has been noted, these regulations have been amended so many times that they are difficult—perhaps impossible—to follow. They are not the only health regulations that suffer from that problem. In the note from our legal adviser, broadly the same point is made about a subsequent set of regulations. Prior to the meeting, it was suggested that if regulations are confusing it may be impossible for them to be implemented correctly and breaches may go unnoticed, because people are unable to make sense of them.
Do we agree that both things must be done? There is on-going work on bills that the drafting team at the Health Department must do, but work to consolidate regulations is also very important.
I agree with Christine May. I accept that the Health Department has difficulties because it has a particularly heavy work load—a number of bills relating to the national health service are before the Parliament. However, a multiplicity of regulations has been introduced. It is important that the people who use those have clarity. If clarity is lost and legislation becomes almost impossible to follow because there are so many regulations that amend previous regulations, it does not help to say that new bills are being prepared: people do not know what the position is. It is important that regulations should be clear. Given that these regulations have been amended so many times, consolidation is vital.
There is an understanding that when powers are delegated to ministers, ministers should be able to exercise them crisply, competently and efficiently. That includes keeping regulations up to date. The argument that has been put to us is that the Health Department cannot do the basic job of consolidation because it has too much primary legislation to deal with. Perhaps ministers should not ask for more powers until they can cope with those that they have. That criticism may be over-severe, but the Executive should be reminded that when introducing and programming legislation it should have an eye to its wider work load, which must include proper and scrupulous concern for the whole body of subordinate legislation for which each department is responsible.
I agree entirely with that point.
We will make those points in an informal letter to Richard Henderson.
The problem is not confined to the Health Department, but affects the whole range of the Executive's work.
Classical Swine Fever (Scotland) Order 2003 (SSI 2003/426)
Before members comment on the order, I would like to say that I am very unhappy about one point. The third question that we put to the Executive related to the 21-day period that is mentioned in paragraph 16 of schedule 1 to the order. I will read out the passage in question, on page 10, so that we have it on the record. It states:
This is confusing. Schedule 1, paragraph 16 prohibits the movement of pigs from the surveillance zone from the point at which the disease was identified. According to the Executive response, however, once the disease has been identified there is a period between that point and the point at which cleansing happens during which pigs may be moved. Are we saying that? I am not sure, but that seems to be the inference. Even if it is not, the situation is confusing and must be clarified.
Given that Scotland has experienced an outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease, it is important that we get this provision clear and ensure that people understand it.
There is also the matter of a transposition note.
Are we all agreed, including on the point about the transposition note?
Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003 (Commencement No 1) Order 2003 <br />(SSI 2003/427)
Members will recall that the title of the order, as cited under article 1, did not correspond with the order's heading. The Executive points out that that does not affect the validity of the order, but it has acknowledged the point, and is taking steps to correct it. However, I think it is important that we should report the matter to the Parliament. Is that agreed?
Previous
Interests