Justice Committee, 11 Dec 2007

Meeting date: Tuesday, December 11, 2007

Official Report 111KB pdf

---

Subordinate Legislation

---

Licensing (Relevant Offences) (Scotland) Regulations 2007 (SSI 2007/513)

Agenda item 2 is consideration of subordinate legislation. Specifically, we are to consider a negative instrument, which is the Licensing (Relevant Offences) (Scotland) Regulations 2007. We have received a response from the Scottish Government that deals with the points that were raised by the Scottish Beer and Pub Association. The response was received only yesterday and has been circulated.

Do members have any questions on the regulations?

I do not have a question, but I want to intimate that I raised concerns on the back of the Scottish Beer and Pub Association's submission and that I am content with the response that we have received.

I must confess that I was concerned as I read through the Subordinate Legislation Committee's report on the regulations. The issues seem to be summed up neatly in paragraph 8, where that committee mentions that

"the lack of clarity … leaves doubt as to what is covered."

That registered with me.

I am sure that I am not the only member who was formerly a member of a licensing board, and I think that licensing boards are perfectly competent at working out whether something is sensible. Therefore, I am not terribly worried that the regulations are not very specific. In this area, the legislation does not need to be absolutely black and white. On the basis that licensing boards are well capable of sorting out the good from the bad, I am not terribly worried if we have slight elements of doubt.

The issue is whether interpretation and the application of local knowledge are matters for us as legislators or for licensing boards. On balance, I think that the matter can be left in the hands of licensing boards, but it was important that the points that the Scottish Beer and Pub Association raised were clarified.

For clarification, if a licensing board had a difficulty—perhaps because lawyers were arguing a case on how the point should be interpreted—would the letter that we have received back up the intention of the legislation? Would that be considered?

It would be very relevant in any action that was generated on the question of interpretation. In effect, I think that the cabinet secretary has more or less closed the door, but the matter would be for a court to determine if it ever came to that.

In the circumstances, can we simply note the regulations?

Members indicated agreement.