1.In its letter to the Department of 3rd February 2021, the Committee requested a memorandum on the following point:
Explain why paragraph 3.1 of the Explanatory Memorandum refers to the fact that an earlier version of the instrument, which was laid before and approved by Parliament, was not made, when: that earlier instrument was numbered (the SI number being 2019/830)
2.The Department’s response to the Committee’s point is as follows.
3.The SI numbered 2019/830 was never officially made further to its passage through Parliament. This is because that SI when it was originally laid before Parliament did not take account of the implications of the Northern Ireland Protocol to the EU Withdrawal Agreement. The implications of the Protocol upon this SI necessitated further extensive amendment post the passage of the SI in Parliament and the Department therefore chose not to proceed to make the SI but to lay a replacement SI instead.
4.In consequence SI 2019/830 does not appear on legislation.gov.uk. The Department notes the inaccuracy of these third-party websites in this specific instance identified by the Committee; and will be requesting of those companies that these references are deleted since they do not accurately reflect the legislation that applies to restrictions on trade and cat and dog fur.
5.In the Committee’s letter, the Committee requested a memorandum on the following point;
Explain the effect of the words “in Great Britain” in regulation 2A(1) of the Cat and Dog Fur (Control of Import, Export and Placing on the Market) Regulations 2008 (“the 2008 Regulations”) inserted by regulation 3(3).
6.The Department’s response to the Committee’s point is as follows.
7.The reference to Great Britain was included to clarify the scope of the new penalty provisions under this regulation confining their application to offences committed in the criminal law jurisdictions of Scotland and England and Wales.
8.In the Committee’s letter, the Committee further requested a memorandum on the following point;
Explain the effect of the words “in Northern Ireland” in regulation 2(1) of the 2008 Regulations, as substituted by regulation 4(2).
9.Specific reference to Northern Ireland has been included to clarify the scope of the new penalty provisions under this regulation, confining their application to offences committed in Northern Ireland.
10.In the letter, the Committee finally requested a memorandum on the following point;
In the amendments made by regulations 3(3) and 4(2), why are fines imposed on summary conviction in Scotland or Northern Ireland not subject to the statutory maximum?
11.The Department responds as follows.
12.Summary fines for Northern Ireland and Scotland are capped for the purpose this regulation. For Northern Ireland where there is primary legislative statutory cap of summary offences fines in Article 4 of Fines and Penalties (Northern Ireland) Order 1984 (as amended), and for Scotland, section 225 Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1982 sets the standard scale for offences triable either way. A summary offence would be understood by the relevant judicial officers with reference to the underlying standard scale levels in primary legislation in each jurisdiction where the penalties would be applied.
13.The Department notes that at the time of the original 2008 regulation, a statutory maximum applied across these criminal jurisdictions equally with reference to the standard scale for summary fines.
Department for International Trade
9 February 2021