Official Report 96KB pdf
I welcome everyone to the third meeting of the Subordinate Legislation Committee in 2008. There are no apologies; everyone is here. I ask members to turn off their mobile phones.
Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board Order 2007 (Draft)
Are members satisfied with the explanations that have been provided? If so, are you content to draw the draft order to the attention of the lead committee and Parliament on the grounds that are set out in the summary of recommendations, in paragraphs (a) to (e)?
I would be grateful for advice about point (d) and whether my concerns come within the remit of this committee. It seems strange to have an instrument that would make it almost certain that someone would commit an offence. If someone gets a milk order in on the last day of a month and does not report it on that day, that is technically an offence. We have reassurance from the Government that it would not pursue the offence if there was a reasonable excuse. Is making an instrument that means that someone might commit an offence almost automatically, and then ignoring that offence, a reasonable way to do business? Would it not be good drafting practice to allow someone a period of time in which notification could be given, if a purchase had been made right at the end of the month, when the notification is meant to take place?
I would certainly agree that it would be good drafting practice to be specific about the period within which notification should be given. Persons who potentially commit such an offence should know what behaviour would constitute that offence. I agree with the points that the member makes.
Should we therefore not be stronger in our recommendation?
The recommendation is to report on the ground that there is a doubt as to the validity of that provision. That is the strongest of the grounds that are available to the committee. Further reasoning or background could be put in our report.
It seems a slippery slope if we create legislation that will automatically result in some people committing an offence and rely on the good will of the Government of the day not to pursue it.
The explanation that we have received suggests discretion on the part of prosecutors as to when they prosecute and when they do not. They will take the individual circumstances into account.
But it is intolerable to have a situation where an offence is almost bound to be committed because of the way in which the legislation is framed, and then to leave it to the discretion of prosecutors. We are in a benign environment at the moment, but we might not always be in a benign environment, and we need the benefit of the law to protect honest citizens. The order might make honest citizens commit an offence inadvertently.
I agree. For the reasons that you have described, it is good drafting practice to be specific as to time limits and to allow people a reasonable time limit within which to comply with whatever the requirement is.
I take it that the Rural Affairs and Environment Committee will be the lead committee on the order. Having briefly been on that committee before I had the pleasure of acceding to this committee, I am aware that it has previously discussed concerns regarding similar instruments. Although I would not wish to prejudge that committee's discussions, I think, on the basis of its previous meetings, that it would be interested in this matter. It might therefore be useful for us to flag it up.
Our objective is to liaise and to flex our muscles as much as we can. With the provisos that members have raised, are we content to draw the order to the attention of the lead committee and Parliament on the grounds suggested in our summary of recommendations?
Quality Meat Scotland Order 2008 (Draft)
Are members content to draw the order to the attention of the lead committee and Parliament on the grounds set out in the summary of recommendations?
Local Authorities' Traffic Orders (Procedure) (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 2008 (SSI 2008/3)
Are members content to draw to the attention of the lead committee and Parliament that a satisfactory explanation of the regulations was sought and received from the Government?