Official Report 141KB pdf
Seed Potatoes (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 2005 (SSI 2005/280)
The committee asked for an explanation of the drafting of regulation 15(e) because it seemed that the amendment that is intended by that provision has already been achieved by an earlier instrument. The Executive acknowledged that and agreed to amend the regulations at the next legislative opportunity. It will also amend the explanatory note. In the light of that response, do members agree that we should simply report the regulations to the lead committee and the Parliament on the ground of defective drafting?
Pesticides (Maximum Residue Levels in Crops, Food and Feeding Stuffs) (Scotland) Amendment (No 2) Regulations 2005 (SSI 2005/281)
The Executive has acknowledged that there are errors in the drafting of the footnotes to the regulations and it has undertaken to amend them at the next legislative opportunity, which is expected to be before the end of the year. Do members agree to draw the regulations to the attention of the lead committee and the Parliament on the ground of defective drafting?
Registration of Fish Sellers and Buyers and Designation of Auction Sites (Scotland) Regulations 2005 (SSI 2005/286)
The title of the regulations is wonderful.
I think that it is. I hope that everybody has access to the internet.
It is a bit strange to say that a person must have access to the internet to be able to know things. The legal briefing states:
I do not know what the logic is.
I recall that a person could cite in their defence that they did not know and could not reasonably have been expected to know in one case, but not in the other. It seems that the Executive is now saying that that information will be published, but that there is still no defence.
I still do not understand the logic. The two issues are different, but I cannot see why they are different. Information on registered fish sellers and registered fish buyers will be published, but there is a defence in one case and not in the other.
Whoever sells fish from a vessel will surely know whether it is black or white—if I might use politically incorrect labels in the context of fish—whereas the buyer will not necessarily know whether the fish are legitimate.
I suspect that that would be more difficult to know, although the Executive has said that information will be published for the buyer.
The legal adviser is nodding. Legal advice on the matter might benefit the committee. I always like legal advice.
In its response, the Executive explained that it can be difficult to identify the owner of a vessel and that a person should not necessarily be penalised if they cannot identify the owner of a vessel from which fish are sold. However, if a person is involved in the trade of buying fish that will be known, and it can be commonly established whether they are involved in that trade. Information will not simply be published on the internet—it will be commonly known in the fish-marketing world. The distinction lies in the difficulty of establishing who owns a vessel and knowing who is buying fish from a person. That is why a defence has been provided in one circumstance but not in another.
It can be difficult to know who is selling fish to a person.
Yes.
I give in.
It sounds as if the Executive has a statable case.
One defence has been provided in any event. The Executive says that the person who most needs a defence gets it.
You could have a big family, or maybe a fish party.
Moving swiftly on from fish—
Have we agreed what we are going to do with the regulations?
No, sorry. I was just going to say that I thought—
We will draw the regulations to the attention of the lead committee.
I think so.
All right. We will do that.