Mrs Anne McIntosh (Shadow Minister, Environment & Transport; Vale of York, Conservative)

This is not a dissimilar point, which may be of some assistance to the Minister and to the hon. Member for Angus. I cannot understand why, having ordered that clause 86 stand part of the Bill, Scotland will have jurisdiction over those devolved powers. Why is there no reference in clause 87 to prosecutions in the Scottish courts? There are no references to the roles of the procurator fiscal, the Advocate-General or the Lord Advocate.

Does the Minister accept that, despite what he said about earlier clauses in part 3, chapter 1 of the Bill, no infringements that apply under Scottish jurisdiction will be prosecuted? Presumably, the Bill should outline the correct procedures of Scots law. The hon. Member for Angus said that this matter has more to do with processes under Scottish criminal law as opposed to English, but from my hazy recollection of Scots law—I practised only briefly, as I moved to practise European Community law, as it was then was, in Brussels—the offences, as well as the processes, are different.

That is a staggering omission. Either the Minister will say that the Scotland Act applies by default or he will have to explain why his Department does not envisage a problem. Obviously, those living in Scotland are very law-abiding, although I represent a seat, Vale of York, that is equidistant from Edinburgh and London. Either the Minister accepts that the Scots are so law-abiding that there will be no prosecutions or he has failed to set out any reference to the relevant procedures and personalities for dealing with such prosecutions under Scots law. Either way, the Committee needs to know this afternoon.

Mr Michael Weir (Spokesperson (Environment & Food; Health; Rural Affairs; Trade & Industry); Angus, Scottish National Party)

I shall be very brief. The hon. Lady's argument is valid up to a point. She is quite right that there are different offences in Scots law, but as the majority of offences under the clause might be committed offshore it is difficult to see a huge difference. However, this issue illustrates the need to be clear as to which jurisdiction applies in each case.

The answer to the question may be rather more simple. Subsection (3) refers to obtaining the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions in England and Wales and the Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland. My recollection is that that particular wording is an attempt to avoid private prosecution, which is much more difficult in Scotland. The Lord Advocate or the procurator fiscal would normally institute proceedings for any breach. However, the question illustrates the lack of clarity in jurisdiction. I urge the Minister to consider that and to come back on Report with a much clearer definition of the jurisdiction question, and therefore the prosecution question, under these various clauses.

Mr Stephen Timms (Minister of State (e-Commerce & Competitiveness), Department of Trade and Industry; East Ham, Labour)

There is a need for clarity and there will be clarity. I do not think that that will be a problem at all. I had hoped that the hon. Gentleman would answer the question asked by the hon. Member for Vale of York. He almost did, but, if I understand the position correctly, not quite.

The general rule is that the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions is required before proceedings can be instituted in England and Wales. Similarly, the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland is needed before any proceedings can begin there. However, there is no provision for proceedings in Scotland because the consent of the Lord Advocate is needed in all cases without enactment here being necessary. The point is already covered as a matter of Scottish common law.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 87 ordered to stand part of the Bill.