Official Report 75KB pdf
The next item on the agenda is the consideration of Executive responses. We raised various points on the instrument at the previous meeting. Are members satisfied with the responses to their questions?
No. In fact, the Executive response has actually confirmed my worst fears about how and why the subordinate legislation has been drawn up. We should draw the legislation to the attention of the Parliament, as it might have ramifications for other legal areas. People might think that it provides a good example to follow, when it does not.
I agree with Kenneth Macintosh. We should make it clear that we do not want to see the legislation again without a further, more detailed explanation of its purpose. I hope that people do not incorporate such a provision as a matter of style when drafting legislation in future, because it has far-reaching consequences.
I agree. The Executive is in danger of putting into the instrument a provision that should be common sense, or in a code of practice, not binding. We can at least lay down markers and flag up the issue, even if we can do little beyond that.
I was extremely puzzled by the legal advice to the committee that the case of Universal Thermosensors v Hibben, as reported on page 860 of the 1992 "Weekly Law Reports", provides authority for the proposition that a female should attend with a male commissioner when a woman is alone on the premises, to avoid any alarm to the woman. How can the commissioner know before arriving whether the woman will be alone? When the commissioner discovers that the woman is alone, must he send for someone else and hang around until that person arrives before he can pass over an envelope, for example?
The commissioner might already have alarmed the woman when he ascertained that she was alone.
I am indebted to my learned junior for that point.
Previous
Salmon Conservation (Scotland) Bill