Subordinate Legislation Committee, 02 Oct 2001

Meeting date: Tuesday, October 2, 2001

Official Report 79KB pdf

---

Executive Responses

Parole Board (Scotland) Rules 2001
(SSI 2001/315)

I take it that last week's minutes are as read. Item 2 on the agenda is the Executive's response to the eight points that we raised on the rules. Does anyone want to pick up anything from the Executive's response?

We raised several points on defective drafting, which we can note on the way past. I would, however, like to draw attention to the point that we raised about the meaning of rule 12(3), which could have been made clearer. We also had a quibble about the wording of that rule, as it includes phraseology from English law. We are advised that we should be wary of that.

To make the point clear for our new member, the phrase in question is

"by certificate under his hand".

We thought that the word "signed" would have been easier and more suitable. We continue to advise the Executive that the encroachment of such phraseology is not something that we view with tremendous pleasure.

It is a threat to the integrity of Scots law.

I hope that it is not as serious as that. We want to resist such phraseology for stylistic reasons. Our legal advice is that the phrase in question is a "term of art"—I like that description. However, the use of such phrases should be resisted.

The Executive denied that that was the case, but let us not pursue the point.

Let us not labour it.

We also questioned whether rule 22(3) is an unduly limited use of the power. The Executive has failed to include an obligation to give reasons to the party concerned for a decision to refuse representation. We should draw that point to the attention of the lead committee and of the Parliament.

That point relates to the previous one that we are to draw to the attention of the Parliament and of the lead committee. However, this point is more substantive, as it is important for good legislation to include the reasons for decisions. We will draw this to the attention of the lead committee. Is that agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

Is there anything else?

There was defective drafting, due to the failure to provide adequate footnotes to rule 14.

The Executive said that it accepts that that was a mistake. It has pleaded guilty, so perhaps we will not demand its head.

No, but what will the Executive do about that in future?

There was a noticeable difference in the drafting and explanatory notes this week. We will get to the good bit later, when we have to congratulate the Executive on some of the material that it has sent us.