Health and Sport Committee

Meeting date: Tuesday, November 17, 2020

Official Report 588KB pdf

---

European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018

---

Food Amendment (EU Exit) Regulations 2020

We now move on to agenda item 6, which is consideration of a consent notification proposing that the Scottish Government give consent to the UK Government legislating using the powers in the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 in relation to a UK statutory instrument. I invite comments from members.

I have raised this particular issue in relation to most EU withdrawal acts. It is to do with the Northern Ireland protocol. Page 4 of paper 3 mentions country of origin information. We know that the Northern Ireland protocol says that Northern Ireland produce coming into Great Britain—it is not called the UK in this particular protocol—will be labelled differently. However, the last paragraph on page 4, about country of origin information, mentions that this SI

“updates Article 1(2) to reflect new EU legislation covering, names of spirit drinks, ractopamine and the use of the names of spirit drinks in other foods, the use of geographic indications in this sector”

and

“adds a new Article 1A to define the United Kingdom as a whole to be a country rather than the constituent countries (Scotland, England and Wales could be used separately on labels under ‘place of provenance’)”.

That is the issue that I am concerned about, but it does not necessarily mention that here. The paper also says that the instrument

“amends Article 2(a) to define ‘region’ or ‘geographic area’ to cover more than one country. This is to move away from the terms ‘Member States’ and ‘Third Countries’”.

I want a bit of clarification on that particular point. I know that, on page 5, the paper mentions the fact that the Scottish Government will keep in contact with the UK Government to continue to look at this and that it is still concerned about the Northern Ireland protocol and the continuity of law. I know that we wrote to the Government last week, or two weeks ago, and received a very good reply, and I do not want to hold things up, but I am concerned about this issue, particularly if one country is to be referred to on labels rather than England, Scotland and Wales, as separate countries of origin.

That is an absolutely fair point. The recommendation from the office of the solicitor is that, if we give consent today, we should ask for more information about that specific point, which certainly makes sense.

My point is similar to Sandra White’s. The Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee has also done work on similar statutory instruments. One that relates to country of origin, labelling, the traceability of food and food safety standards was about veterinary medicine residues, which are chemical residues that can be contained within the skin or the carcass of animals or meat as it is transferred from one country to another. Certain levels of residue are acceptable.

I am concerned that food standards might be compromised in future trade deals and I have been following issues relating to hormones used in beef cattle and pigs. There are issues about ractopamine and Carbamax, which is an antibiotic.

I note that the Northern Ireland protocol is something that the Scottish Government needs to continue to engage with the UK Government about. I am especially concerned about how we track and trace food produce coming from external countries. We should continue to be alert to that, and the Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee, of which I am also a member, will do the same.

Thank you for that important point. If that committee is following up that point, it clearly falls into their domain more directly than ours, although, clearly, we have an interest. I ask you, as a member of both committees, to convey to that committee that we would be pleased to be kept informed of any reply that it receives.

The recommendation in the paper is that we should agree to give consent. I note that the draft letter from the office of the solicitor contains a number of important points, and I draw members’ attention to the advice from the Scottish Parliament information centre as well.

Sandra White, I think you want to come back in on this before we move to conclusions.

Maybe I have jumped the gun a wee bit, as you might say. Emma Harper mentioned that the Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee would be looking at this issue, and you asked her to ensure that it kept us informed. For clarity, does that mean that the Health and Sport Committee will not be writing to the Government with the concerns that we have raised or the points that are outlined in the letter from the office of the solicitor?

No, it does not mean that. My apologies if that was a confusing point. Veterinary medicines are clearly a matter that come under the remit of the Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee more directly than that of our committee, but I was about to note a couple of issues that you had raised.

First, on the consequences of adding article 1A, defining the United Kingdom as a whole to be a country, it is important to understand what that means for the provenance of Scotland and of other parts of Great Britain and whether it would mean any material change. Secondly, we would also, as we have done previously, ask to be kept up to date on the Scottish Government’s engagement with the UK Government on the Northern Ireland protocol. Thirdly, it is an improvement on past practice that we have, unusually but in a way that we would welcome, seen this SI in draft today, and that is something that we want to encourage and will welcome in our letter.

If members are agreed, I propose that we give that consent, subject to those points being raised in the relevant letter to ministers. Are we all agreed to follow that approach?

Members indicated agreement.

That is agreed. We will now move into private session.

11:58 Meeting continued in private until 12:18.