Food Safety (General Food Hygiene) (Butchers' Shops) Amendment (Scotland) Regulations 2000 (SS1 2000/93)
The next item is the Food Safety (General Food Hygiene) (Butchers' Shops) Amendment (Scotland) Regulations 2000. Members have received copies of the letter from the Scottish Retail Consortium.
I would like to record an oblique interest in this item, as I am a member of the Co-operative party—which is a sister organisation of the Co-operative Wholesale Society. The Co-operative party was involved in drafting the response from the SRC. Having put that on the record, I would like to raise one or two issues. Many issues relate to policy and are, therefore, not necessarily for the committee to take up with the Executive. However, I would like the committee to draw issues to the attention of the lead committee, which is the Health and Community Care Committee.
First, the term "butchers' shops" could be regarded as representing the whole premises. In large premises such as a supermarket, only a small proportion of the shop is used as a butcher's shop. The consortium believes that the definition is too widely drawn and could incur additional costs to such businesses. It recognises the importance of the regulations following the 1996 E coli outbreak and of ensuring that everything that is possible is done to avoid such an outbreak in the future. However, the Health and Community Care Committee might want to consider whether it is necessary to have such a broad definition of a butcher's shop.
Secondly, there are inconsistencies throughout the instrument in the use of the term "proprietor". In schedule 1A, on page 5, the reference in paragraph 5(3) is to
"the holder of the licence."
For reasons of consistency, it might be better to refer to that person as the proprietor.
Thirdly—moving on to areas of policy—concern has been expressed over the suspension or revocation of licences and the appeals procedure, because that procedure does not allow for appeal to an independent third party. The consortium suggests that when a licence is revoked there should be a right of appeal to a sheriff.
Those are the issues that I would like to raise, but, as I said, they would probably be better addressed by the Health and Community Care Committee.
I support Bristow Muldoon's point that there should be a right of appeal. It seems odd that there is no right of appeal—
There is a right of appeal, but not to an independent third party.
I was going to say that it seems odd that there is no right of appeal to an independent third party.
Let me clarify the situation. There is such a right of appeal. The Food Safety Act 1990 allows an appeal to the sheriff.
We all recognise the need for effective regulations to prevent recurrence of the tragedies of the recent past. At the same time, I am uneasy about some aspects of the regulations. They are substantial and have huge cost implications—the figure of £2.5 million is referred to in the Executive note—and there are grave training implications for small businesses in particular, because of the provisions of regulation 5. Paragraph 5(2)(b) says that
"where practicable separate staff shall be used for the handling of raw meat."
I do not know whether the word practicable is defined, but that seems to be a rather curious provision.
I hope that the lead committee will consider the instrument very carefully—in the context of its impact on the small business community—and ensure that that £2.5 million will be allocated to the small business community to cover the substantial costs of training.
I find the regulations exceedingly complicated and convoluted. The committee has made the point on other occasions that such regulations come not in a form that an unqualified person can easily digest. The Executive should consider that general point. As Fergus Ewing said, the regulations are not straightforward for an individual who runs a butcher's shop on his or her own without recourse to advice.
While advice will probably always be necessary for certain matters, we should try to make regulations as straightforward as possible. The explanatory note is particularly poor on the regulations that we are considering. I would have hoped for a better note than the rather short and vague one that has been produced.
I agree with what has been said. If the regulations are so complicated, it is difficult to understand how the sole proprietor of a butcher's shop or anyone else could understand them—we might even need a particular type of lawyer to understand them.
I suggest that the correspondence that you have received, convener, should be sent to the lead committee. That committee will want to pick up on some issues that arise from it. The regulations are very convoluted, but they should not be, given that they apply to small businesses, to people running small shops and so on. They are not acceptable.
Annexe C of the regulations says that
"costs will mainly fall on small businesses. In order to assist businesses, initiatives to help individual butchers to understand and implement effective food safety control systems are being carried out. These initiatives will include training, advice and practical guidance materials."
The regulations are there, and I presume that there will also be an explanatory note of sorts.
The letter from the SRC indicates that its concerns about the draft regulations do not appear to have been addressed. The letter adds that SRC members
"feel very strongly that the Executive and the Scottish Parliament should make sure that the regulations are drafted in such a way as to make them administratively workable for food retailers and the enforcement authorities. This has already happened in the case of comparable legislation considered by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and by the Westminster Parliament."
Far be it from me, as a nationalist, to say that we should learn lessons from Westminster. However, it would be sensible if the regulations that are referred to in the SRC's letter were made available to the lead committee. That committee could find out how regulations down south have been altered, adapted and changed. That might reflect some of the concerns that the committee has expressed.
It seems to me that food safety should be a United Kingdom matter. Regulations should not be different in Scotland from those that apply elsewhere in the UK.
I should declare an interest. I had an aunt who was critically ill—allegedly because of cold meat that was purchased from a butcher's shop in Leith—during the E coli outbreak some three years ago.
We could pursue two avenues. We could take the normal course of approaching the Executive with some points—we may know what its response would be if we went with the SRC letter. The other option is to go directly to the lead committee. According to our legal advice, there seems to be a typographical error. There is also ambiguity regarding the use of the words "holder" and "proprietor".
I would also draw the lead committee members' attention to the points that are raised in the SRC letter. That might circumvent going backwards and forwards to the Executive. Would it be worth approaching the Executive in full, as it were, instead of drawing ministers' attention to a copy of the letter that is going to the Health and Community Care Committee?
I am not sure about the Executive's response—the letter might be sent back to us. It should go to the lead committee.
I am concerned that the legislation in Scotland is different from that in England and Wales—perhaps we should point out our concerns about that to the Executive. The regulation is also convoluted.
I presume that if we go to the Executive first—as we usually do—we will not be precluded from copying the SRC's letter in due course. That might also save the Health and Community Care Committee from being deluged with documents. Perhaps that committee might also take the view that it is the job of the Subordinate Legislation Committee to sift through such matters first. That would allow the Health and Community Care Committee to proceed with a clean sheet of paper.
We will raise with the Executive our concerns on the use of the terms "holder" and "proprietor" and on the English legislation and so on, and we will ask whether it has considered the points from the SRC. That will allow us to go to the lead committee with a full report.
Could we ask the Executive what steps are being taken to simplify legislation that applies to small businesses and to individuals? The same point has been raised about different pieces of legislation on a number of occasions by all committee members. It would be useful to know that some thought is being given to that matter.
Recently, the Executive set up a body called IRIS, which was referred to during a meeting of the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee and which has the role of considering regulations from the business point of view. I would be most interested to know whether IRIS had the opportunity to consider these regulations before they were promulgated.
What does IRIS stand for?
I do not know—I was hoping that no one would ask me that.
We should also simplify acronyms.