Subordinate Legislation Committee, 12 Sep 2000
Meeting date: Tuesday, September 12, 2000
Official Report
113KB pdf
Prohibition of Fishing with Multiple Trawls (Scotland) Order 2000 (SSI 2000/226)
We raised a significant number of points about this instrument and we still seek clarification, not only about legal matters but about the definition of what constitutes a sound. Do members have any comments?
It seems that the Executive is suggesting that Jura means the same as the Sound of Jura, and that the east coast of the one is the same as the east coast of the other. That seems rather unlikely to me. We should draw people's attention to that serious point of contention over the drafting of the instrument.
Presumably, the Sound of Jura refers to a stretch of water, but Jura is not a stretch of water. There must be a difference between water and an island. It seems rather odd that that has not been clarified in more detail.
Another point, which may have more legal significance, is that it is accepted that there was an error in referring to a council regulation. Reference was made to regulation 1259/99, when it should have been 1459/99. That seems to be a fairly serious defect, and members thought that it could have fatal consequences for the validity and effectiveness of the order.
I note that the Executive's reply states that the errors that have been made do not, in its opinion, prejudice the effect of the order, and one hopes that that is so. However, no authority is given for that view, nor any argument adduced as to why the Executive has reached the opinion that the order has not been prejudiced. It may be a clerical error, but it could have serious consequences. Because this is a matter that could arise in future when numbering errors are made, it would be extremely useful to receive a detailed statement of the Executive's reasoning and why it thinks that the order is not prejudiced.
Perhaps we could also have a useful exchange of views with members of the appropriate department to discuss the issues and be absolutely sure that the order is properly valid.
It appears that there is a bit of an impasse, as the points that we raised seeking clarification and the response that we have received from the Executive do not tie up.
It is suggested that we report our position and the Executive's responses to the lead committee. Next Tuesday will be the 20th day since the instrument was laid before Parliament and that will be the day on which we ask the Executive to clarify matters and perhaps attend the committee meeting. We should put in a written submission now, either from the committee or from me as convener, to the lead committee, indicating whether we are satisfied, and that we are left in a position where we have raised various points which the Executive has not dealt with adequately. Perhaps we will be satisfied next week. We could then finally indicate to the lead committee in a note of one paragraph that we are satisfied—or not—after next week's meeting. Are members happy with that? Our legal briefing indicates that matters have not been addressed to our satisfaction.