Subordinate Legislation Committee

Meeting date: Tuesday, September 13, 2011

Official Report 262KB pdf

---

Instruments subject to Negative Procedure

---

Food Additives (Scotland) Amendment (No 2) Regulations 2011 (SSI 2011/305)

As members will note from the legal brief, the regulations were not laid before the Scottish Parliament before they came into force, as required by section 28(2) of the Interpretation and Legislative Reform (Scotland) Act 2010. Given the breach of section 28(2), does the committee agree to draw the regulations to the Parliament’s attention on reporting ground (j)?

Members indicated agreement.

Members may wish to note the explanation provided by the Food Standards Agency for failing to lay the instrument 28 days before it came into force. The FSA said that the approach taken was necessary in order to comply with article 2 of European Commission directive 2011/3/EU and to ensure the same coming-into-force date as the rest of the jurisdictions in the United Kingdom, with a view to ensuring consistency. Is the committee happy to accept that explanation?

In our annual reporting procedure, do we list what we have reported on in terms of the responsible authority, which in this case was the Food Standards Agency? It might be interesting to know whether certain responsible authorities are giving us more grounds for reporting.

I am advised that it would come under the Government department that sponsored the instrument, rather than the FSA or any other agency.

Good afternoon, Mr Scott. It is wonderful to see you.

It is always open to the committee to point out to the Government that a particular organisation or drafting section is giving us problems. It is probably something that we would do informally. If we picked up something like that, I suggest that we would point it out to the Government quite quickly.

Although the FSA has provided an explanation, it appears to demonstrate that the FSA had forgotten that a recess was coming up. I have a sneaking feeling that it could have laid the regulations within the 28 days had it decided that it wanted to. The fact that it was consulting at the time would not have prevented it from doing what it should have done. We should note that, and remind the Government that there are reasons for the 28-day rule. There will sometimes be good excuses, but this does not seem like a terribly good one to me. Is the committee happy to accept that suggestion?

Convener, forgive me, you have probably already covered this point, but I note that this is the sixth occasion on which the principal regulations have been amended.

We are on the instrument previous to the one that you are looking at. We are on the Food Additives (Scotland) Amendment (No 2) Regulations 2011.

Forgive me.

Are we content with those thoughts on the regulations?

Members indicated agreement.

---

Plant Health (Import Inspection Fees) (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 2011 (SSI 2011/311)

No points arise on the regulations but, as John Scott was just about to say, the committee may wish to note that this is the sixth occasion on which the principal regulations have been amended. The Government has registered that fact and has suggested that it will consolidate the regulations. We should welcome that and acknowledge that it establishes a good principle to which, I imagine, we will return. Is the committee content with the regulations?

Members indicated agreement.