Subordinate Legislation Committee,

Meeting date: Tuesday, May 31, 2005

Official Report 106KB pdf

---

Draft Instrument Subject to Approval

---

Draft Instrument Subject <br />to Approval

---

Dentists Act 1984 (Amendment) Order 2005 (draft)

Article 50(2) of the order gives the Privy Council a power, by order, to make

"such further transitional, transitory or saving provisions as it considers appropriate".

We are discussing this power because, when exercised, it could affect a devolved area, namely, the regulation of certain professions complementary to dentistry—PCDs—or dental nurses. It is therefore not clear why orders made under this power are subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament at Westminster but not a resolution of the Scottish Parliament.

We should pursue this matter. It is odd that an order would be subject to annulment at Westminster but not here; as you have rightly pointed out, convener, devolved competencies such as those affecting dental nurses could be affected.

The committee has received legal advice on this matter and, strangely, dental nurses are devolved but dental hygienists are reserved. From my point of view, that is an example of the lunacy of devolution. It seems completely bizarre. However, dental nurses are devolved and this Parliament should have some say over devolved matters. If Westminster has made an order that cuts across a devolved area of competence, that order may be incorrect. The issue should come before the Scottish Parliament.

We are talking about a draft order, so I hope that we have time to pursue the matter with the Executive. Is there time for that?

Yes, there is time. If I understood our legal advice correctly, quite a number of professions complementary to dentistry are not devolved and that is because of the Dentists Act 1984. That act covers a number of allied professionals but not dental nurses, which is why they are devolved.

That may well be, but I would be extremely interested to hear an explanation in layman's terms of why a dental nurse is devolved but a dental hygienist is reserved.

That would not be easy.

It is a bit over the top to refer to this as "the lunacy of devolution". It would be more appropriate to reflect on the fact that devolution is a process.

Within that process, does the committee agree that we should ask for clarification of why the Scottish Parliament is not mentioned? From looking at the draft order, I think that any additional wording would go into article 50. However, it would be better to get clarification first. We should ask whether the Scottish Parliament has been forgotten in error or whether there is a good reason for its omission.

We should ask the Executive to speak to colleagues at Westminster.

The Executive may well have done that already. We would find that out.

We should get our officials to talk to officials at Westminster to find out whether a change can be made.

We should first have it clarified whether or not there has been an error. There may have been discussions already and there may be good reasons why the Scottish Parliament is not mentioned. After we hear the clarification, we can discuss the matter again.

And then Mike can go for the Executive.

That would be a compromise; Stewart wants to go for the Executive right now.

Do members agree that we should seek clarification from the Executive?

Members indicated agreement.