Subordinate Legislation Committee, 31 Jan 2007

Meeting date: Wednesday, January 31, 2007

Official Report 118KB pdf

---

Draft Guidance Subject to Approval

---

Draft Guidance Subject <br />to Approval

---

Licensing (Scotland) Act 2005: Draft Guidance for Licensing Boards and Local Authorities (SE/2007/9)

We move on to agenda item 4, which is consideration of the second version of the draft guidance for licensing boards and local authorities. The first version was laid before the Parliament on 23 January but was withdrawn by the Executive because it contained a number of errors. Although no substantive points arise, there are still a few errors in the text, which we can raise informally—thank goodness.

I agree. The new version is an improvement on the first version. However, the legal brief states:

"It is also observed that there are numerous grammatical and punctuation errors which, though not individually listed here, do suggest that the editorial checking of the draft was not particularly robust."

Given that our legal adviser found some more errors and that there are a number of grammatical and punctuation errors, we are left with the suspicion that the draft guidance might still be full of mistakes. That is concerning, given that it is the Executive's second attempt. Rather than raising the matter informally, can we point out to the lead committee that there are still errors in the second version? In particular, there is an amusing one about

"Sending children to obtain alcohol or young persons".

Yes. We are not clear about what that would entail.

I think I know what it means, but it does not say that.

We think that it means "sending a child or young person to obtain alcohol."

Yes.

Can we send the letter, then? Sorry—we are just reporting, are we? That is all we have got time for.

For clarification, do you want us to draw the matter to the attention of the lead committee?

Yes—we should do that.

We will also write to the Executive.

We should mention the errors and our concern that, given that it is a thick document, it might contain other, more substantive errors.

Yes, especially as it is the second version.

Our adviser had little time to look through it. We are left with some concern that there might be more serious errors.

Okay.