Education, Culture and Sport Committee, 18 Sep 2001

Meeting date: Tuesday, September 18, 2001

Official Report 296KB pdf

---

Subordinate Legislation

All the pieces of subordinate legislation that we have before us today are subject to negative procedure. However, I felt that it would be useful for the committee if members of the Scottish Executive came to advise us on what the instruments are about.

Officials have been invited who may be able to answer questions on the first and second instruments. I am not sure whether the officials who are present will be able to answer questions about the Protection of Wrecks (Designation) (Scotland) Order 2001 (SSI 2001/242).

The purpose of the Child Minding and Day Care (Registration and Inspection Fees) Amendment (Scotland) Regulations 2001 (SSI 2001/214) is to increase the registration and inspection fees for providers of day care and for childminders. That is in line with Government policy that the reasonable costs of regulation should be met by providers and is a move towards the introduction of a unified fee structure in the light of the establishment next year of the Scottish commission for the regulation of care. Members will have the Executive note that gives a fuller explanation of the details.

In the Subordinate Legislation Committee, there was comment on the breach of the 21-day rule, which states that, after an instrument is laid, there should be a 21-day period before it takes effect. The fact that that did not happen in this case is drawn to our attention. It is no big deal, but constitutes a minor rap over the Executive's knuckles.

Also in the Subordinate Legislation Committee, a question was asked about the large hike in inspection fees. I would like the officials present to explain why the hike was so great, just for interest's sake. The Subordinate Legislation Committee recognised that a principle had been introduced in relation to the fees. Perhaps someone would like to explain that.

The rise that is proposed in this regulation is fairly small and sticks to our 10 per cent rise policy. Mr Jenkins is probably referring to certain other regulations, such as those relating to nurse agencies and care homes. Those sectors have been subject to larger increases in fees, but that is because of factors such as the fact that fees in nurse agencies had not risen since the 1960s. The rise seems large but is, in fact, a rise from 4/6d to about £400.

Childminding fees are kept low, with a rise of only 10 per cent a year, because the Scottish Executive's policy is to subsidise fees relating to childminding and early education. The Executive does not have a policy of subsidising the fees of regulated services such as care homes and nurse agencies. In relation to those services, the policy is to arrive at full cost recovery by 2004-05.

That explanation is helpful. This committee shares the concern of the Subordinate Legislation Committee that the 21-day rule was broken. I hope that the Scottish Executive will give an appropriate explanation of that to the Presiding Officer.

The argument was that, because of the Regulation of Care (Scotland) Bill, the civil servants were under extreme pressure. That was recognised by the Subordinate Legislation Committee as an explanation that, while it should not be used all the time, was acceptable in this case.

While we can accept that the civil servants were under pressure at the time, we should endeavour to ensure that the 21-day rule, which is helpful and allows for proper discussion and consultation, is met by the Executive. It is appropriate for the Subordinate Legislation Committee to draw the attention of the Scottish Parliament to the fact that it was not. There appears to be no strong feeling in the committee on this matter and I therefore suggest that our report recommend that Parliament accepts the instrument.

The second instrument for consideration is the Adoption of Children from Overseas (Scotland) Regulations 2001 (SSI 2001/236). The instrument has been the subject of some considerable speculation and press interest because of events south of the border in relation to the Kilshaw family's attempt to adopt over the internet. All of us were concerned about those events, particularly the effect that the situation had on the children involved.

I ask the officials to detail what is in the regulation.

The regulation seeks to place duties on prospective adopters and on local authorities' adoption agencies. Before prospective adopters bring children into the country for the purposes of adoption, they have to apply to an approved adoption agency for assessment and the adoption agency has to have approved them. That did not happen in the Kilshaw case. The prospective adopters must also have notification from the Secretary of State for Health that he is prepared to certify them as suitable adopters. Once the child is brought in, the adopters must notify their local authority that the child is there so that the local authority can take protective measures to look after the child while it is awaiting full adoption.

The other duties that are placed on the adoption agency and the adoption panel are that they must assess anyone who applies to them for inter-country adoption. That means that inter-country adoption procedures and domestic adoption procedures are now in line in terms of assessment of prospective adopters.

When we debated issues around this matter in April, there was general agreement that this loophole needed to be closed. While the proposed requirements are fairly stringent, the top priority must be to safeguard children and we must do whatever is necessary to do so. What is being presented to us today will achieve that.

I think that that is the unanimous view of the committee. We will therefore make no recommendation. I thank our witnesses for their time.

The final instrument for consideration is the Protection of Wrecks (Designation) (Scotland) Order 2001 (SSI 2001/242). The purpose of this order is to designate as restricted an area around the wreck of a vessel and its cargo that is considered to be of historical and archaeological importance, to protect it from unauthorised interference. Do members have any comments on the order?

I am slightly annoyed that no civil servant is present to answer questions on this order. I would have thought that someone might want to appear before us to explain the importance of the instrument, because it is important.

There are a number of questions that I would like to ask, although I cannot get an answer to them. First, how many such designation orders are in place at present? Secondly, what notification is given of the orders? In the note from Historic Scotland there is reference to a consultation period. What is that consultation period and how is the consultation undertaken?

Thirdly, I am concerned about a point arising from the documentation that accompanies the order, which is not very complete. The site was discovered in 1998. After that date the National Museums of Scotland were involved and identified the vessel as a possible Armada wreck. There were then more investigations. The Archaeological Diving Unit in St Andrews examined the wreck and decided that it was of importance. Over what period did those investigations take place? The order was not laid until 19 June, but the accompanying documentation indicates that the Archaeological Diving Unit examined the wreck last year. Presumably if any information was available about the site between last year and 19 June 2001 it could have been interfered with. Why has it taken about a year from the investigations, and about three years from the discovery of the wreck, for the Executive to lay this order before the Parliament? Does that not put sites at risk? Is there no faster procedure?

I would like answers to those questions. There is no point in our opposing this instrument, which is good in principle. However, it would have been nice if someone could have been here to answer our questions, instead of our having to ask them into the ether.

I take responsibility for the fact that there is no one here to answer members' questions. I realised that there were issues arising from the Adoption of Children from Overseas (Scotland) Regulations 2001, and I thought that it would be useful to have those explained to us. However, I take on board the points that Mike Russell has made and suggest that we write to the relevant minister for an explanation. The member also said that there was no point in our opposing this order. Unfortunately, we will not be able to obtain the information required before our next meeting, so I suggest that we allow the order to proceed but seek the relevant information that Mike Russell has requested.

This instrument is also in breach of the 21-day rule. I cannot imagine that that was caused by pressure of work, so I would like to know in more detail the reasons for it.

Absolutely.