Official Report 180KB pdf
Licensing (Scotland) Act 2005: Draft Guidance for Licensing Boards and Local Authorities (SE/2007/9)
On the draft guidance for licensing boards and local authorities, the committee raised an issue to do with clubs, which is well documented. We have received e-mails from Janet Hood and Stewart Ferguson and a response from the Executive. On the issue that Stewart Maxwell raised, about whether the Executive is sure that it has covered all the points that we raised, the Executive says that it is content that that there are no substantial errors in the draft guidance and points out that the draft guidance was considered independently by three members of the licensing team.
The fact that a number of people, including three members of the licensing team, checked the guidance independently but did not spot the errors gives me more cause for concern. The difference of opinion as to what is an error and what is a serious error is interesting. The Executive says that there were no serious errors, but some of the points that the clerk to the City of Glasgow licensing board raised were serious errors. He was right to point them out and I do not agree with the Executive that they were not serious errors. The one that springs to mind is the point that the draft guidance's interpretation of the relationship between a disturbance and licensed premises is different from the one that I remember being in the 2005 act. That was a crucial change and I think that it was a serious error, but I suppose that it is a matter of opinion.
To be fair, we are where we are at the moment, I suppose.
Fundable Bodies (Scotland) Order 2007 (draft)
We asked the Executive to explain the lack of a commencement date for the order and why it had not revised the explanatory note. Members have a copy of the response. Are we content to draw the order to the attention of the lead committee and the Parliament on the basis of defective drafting, which the Executive acknowledged and remedied—it relaid the order—and on the basis that the explanatory note could have been clearer? The Executive has taken steps to rectify the second point as well, so it has done what we asked. Are we agreed?
Prohibited Procedures on Protected Animals (Exemptions) (Scotland) Regulations 2007 (draft)
We asked the Executive to explain the vires for regulation 4(1) and whether it was satisfied that the review procedures in regulation 5 were compliant with article 6 of the European convention on human rights. The Executive has provided the necessary information to explain the vires for regulation 4(1). However, there is still doubt as to whether regulation 5 is ECHR compliant.
The doubt about ECHR compliance is common to many items of subordinate legislation and will not be clarified until we have a further ruling on it in the courts.
Are you happy that we report to the lead committee and Parliament that it is possible for there to be a difference of view on it?
It is worth flagging it up.
Is that agreed?