Draft Instruments Subject to Approval
Draft Instruments Subject <br />to Approval
Smoking, Health and Social Care (Scotland) Act 2005 (Variation of Age Limit for Sale of Tobacco etc and Consequential Modifications) Order 2007 (draft)
I draw members' attention to the summary of recommendations—it is a very useful aide-mémoire—as well as to the legal brief. Our legal team has identified no substantive points on the draft order, although there are some minor points that we could raise informally with the Executive.
I am glad that I gave up smoking almost three years ago to the day. I am well past the age of 18.
The committee agreed to raise minor points on the instrument.
Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c) Amendment (No 2) (Scotland) Regulations 2007 (draft)
The second draft affirmative instrument is the one that was laid only last Friday. The legal brief on the draft regulations was included in members' supplementary papers, which came out yesterday. As I said, it is unusual that the regulations are being considered under rule 10.7 of standing orders. Although there is no formal role for the committee under that rule—and there is no lead committee, on which I believe Elaine Smith wishes to comment—this committee does usually consider such instruments and reports to Parliament if it is agreed that that is necessary.
No substantive points have been identified on the draft regulations, although the committee could raise some minor points informally with the Executive. Are members content with the regulations? Are there any comments?
The timescale involved is extremely unfortunate, as is the fact that the draft regulations will not go before a lead committee. As I understand it, the regulations will not even go before a Committee of the Whole Parliament on Thursday—there will simply be a debate in the Parliament. That leaves little time to ask questions on the regulations; members can only comment on them.
It is not within the committee's remit to question the substance of an instrument; it is just a matter of ascertaining whether or not it is competent. Given that the regulations will not go before any lead committee, however, issues need to be raised now.
I am concerned about a precedent being set. Some of the questions that could have been asked are about the fact that the instrument extends powers under part IV of the Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c) Regulations 1994 (SI 1994/2716) to all plans and projects—it gives new powers to call in plans and projects. We know that one of the issues that might arise is that of the ship-to-ship transfer of oil, which has attracted a lot of attention and concern among the public and members of the Parliament. Questions would have been asked at a lead committee about points such as the possibility of retrospective application of the legislation, so that Forth Ports could not approve schemes on ship-to-ship oil transfers before the Parliament approved the regulations.
Such questions were asked by Marilyn Livingstone and Malcolm Chisholm, and I do not think that answers were forthcoming from civil servants. Before dissolution Sarah Boyack, the then Deputy Minister for Environment and Rural Development, gave a commitment to the Environment and Rural Development Committee to provide answers on some of the issues. Did civil servants find those answers? The lead committee would have wanted to take up such points with a minister. We do not have a minister before us today, and we do not even have the opportunity to write to the Executive to ask about technical issues.
Those are my concerns. Questions could be asked during the debate on Thursday, and they might be answered. This is an unusual process and I would be extremely concerned if it set a precedent or became the norm. The convener said that standing orders allow for this situation, but I would like the committee to question how the decisions on the process were made. Do you know who decided to proceed in this fashion, convener? Has this been done before? Could the committee express concern over the procedure that has been adopted?
By virtue of the fact that every word that we say is being taken down by the official report, what you have just said is now on the record and it will be published by Thursday, when the Parliament is due to consider the draft regulations.
I am duty bound to remind members that the committee must act within its remit, which is to consider the appropriateness of instruments within the framework of the parent legislation, and we have strong advice from our legal team that the regulations are perfectly correct. Discussion of the political dimension and of the rights and wrongs of the intention behind the regulations rightly lies with a lead committee, as Elaine Smith has mentioned.
I will make two points by way of being helpful. First, it is most unfortunate that we are constrained in this fashion and that there is so little time that the regulations cannot go before a lead committee, but must go straight before the Parliament. Secondly, I hope that ministers will exercise some foresight and wisdom when they read the Official Report, in terms of choosing what to say in the debate on Thursday and in terms of answering questions and taking interventions. However, the issues that Elaine Smith raises are not competent for consideration by this committee. I have said enough.
I have a final point about process. Given that there will be a debate on Thursday, rather than a Committee of the Whole Parliament or a statement with questions and answers, perhaps there is some way of conveying to the Scottish Executive that the colleagues I mentioned—it may not be me—will wish to intervene on speeches, as there has not been a lead committee process. I hope that there is some way of conveying that to the Executive and of ensuring that ministers see the Official Report. That would be helpful.
Also by way of being helpful, I remind the committee that we are proceeding in this way because the Parliamentary Bureau decided it. You might wish to take up the matter with your representative on the bureau, Elaine, and members of other parties may wish to do the same.
To get us back on track now that we heard comments on the regulations, I ask again whether members are content with the regulations and whether the committee wishes to report to the Parliament?
As you said, convener, Elaine Smith's comments will have been noted and we should leave it at that.
The committee agreed to raise minor points on the instrument.