Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 (Exclusions and Exceptions) (Scotland) Order 2013 [Draft]
Paragraph 11 of schedule 1 to the order is defectively drafted in that it appears to allow the disclosure of spent convictions in proceedings taken by way of appeal or review against a decision taken by virtue of this order on consideration of a spent alternative to prosecution. However, no decisions can be taken by virtue of the order on consideration of a spent alternative to prosecution. The drafting of the provision is therefore defective in that respect.
The Scottish Government proposes to correct the drafting error at the next available legislative opportunity. Therefore, rather than withdrawing the order and submitting a correct version for approval, the Scottish Government seeks the agreement of the Parliament to approve the order, including the error. While the committee might not consider that ideal, particularly since the order is a consolidation and should start off from the position of not requiring amendment, the committee might be prepared to accept it, given that the inherent defect should give rise to no adverse legal effects.
I am disappointed that this consolidation is inadequate from the outset. As I understand it, it would not have been impossible to have made it a good piece of work rather than the piece of work that we have in front of us, which has inherent errors. There is a point of principle here. The committee proposes more and more consolidation, but from the point of view of the end user of that consolidation process it would be sensible if the consolidated product were fit for purpose on its arrival.
Indeed.
Like John Scott, I think that consolidation as such does not normally have a timescale attached to it. As it appears in this case that it would be relatively straightforward to remedy the defect, that should certainly be considered.
I agree. At the end of the day, ministers need to be armed with the correct information, particularly when it comes to those who want to use the information. It is important that the information is correct.
It is fair to say that the corrections could have come. Members may wish to note that a number of errors in the original legislation have unfortunately been rolled forward into the consolidation, which suggests that the checking process was not as good as it should have been, notwithstanding the amendments that the Government is trying to introduce. If that approach were to be repeated in future, it would undermine the purpose of consolidation.
That would be helpful—thank you, convener. However, I think that it is more important that you receive a response from the Government that assures you—and, through you, us—that that will happen and which tells us what systems will be put in place to ensure that there is no repetition of what has happened here.
I think that the convener made two proposals. He proposed that there should be interaction with the Government—I support that. He also proposed that the lead committee be made aware of our concerns on the matter so that it can deal with that when the minister appears before it.
Is the committee happy to support Stewart Stevenson’s suggestion that we report to the lead committee and ask it to find out whether there are any time constraints when it consults the minister?
Essentially, we are proposing to the lead committee that the order be withdrawn.
That is our suggestion. If the Government minister defends the order on the basis that it has to stick to a timetable, perhaps he can also suggest a timetable for correcting the order.
It is an affirmative instrument, so it is a serious matter that we are discussing.
Are we content to leave the matter there?
Council Tax (Variation for Unoccupied Dwellings) (Scotland) Regulations 2013 [Draft]
There is a drafting error in paragraph 2(9)(a) of schedule 1 to the regulations. It provides that a company is an associated company “of another person” if certain conditions are met. It is clear that the word “person” should be the word “company”. Does the committee therefore agree to draw the regulations to the attention of the Parliament on the general reporting ground?