Subordinate Legislation Committee, 13 Dec 2005
Meeting date: Tuesday, December 13, 2005
Official Report
160KB pdf
Executive Responses
Feeding Stuffs (Scotland) Regulations 2005 (SSI 2005/605)
We move on to consideration of Executive responses. On the regulations, the committee asked the Executive why there had been a delay in implementing regulation 1831/2003/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on additives for use in animal nutrition, which should have been implemented by 18 October 2004, and European Commission directive 2004/116/EC, on Candida guilliermondii, which should have been implemented by 30 June 2005, for which the regulations make provision.
The Food Standards Agency Scotland explained that the delay in implementing regulation 1831/2003/EC was a result of the regulation's resource implications and that directive 2004/116/EC was implemented late because of an oversight. The FSA assures the committee that it will do its best to ensure that that does not happen again, but considers that no detrimental public health consequences resulted from the delay in providing for the enforcement of the European legislation in question.
Are members happy for us to draw the attention of the lead committee to the regulations on the ground of late implementation of Community obligations and to the response that we have received?
Members indicated agreement.
Meat (Official Controls Charges) (Scotland) Regulations 2005 (SSI 2005/607)
As members will remember from last week, the committee raised two points on the regulations. Confirmation was sought that paragraphs 9(3)(d) and 9(3)(e) of schedule 2 were not intended to exclude the possibility of judicial review. The FSA has confirmed that the procedure that is outlined in paragraph 9 does not exclude that possibility, so that is fine.
Secondly, we asked for an explanation of why section 2(2) of the European Communities Act 1972 was chosen as the enabling power, rather than section 56 of the Finance Act 1973. The response states that it was not considered appropriate to use the power in the 1973 act in circumstances in which the services for which charges were being levied were being provided by the Food Standards Agency rather than a Government department. The legal briefing provides a longer explanation, if members would like to read it.
Is the committee happy to draw the regulations to the attention of the lead committee, on the ground that further explanation was sought and received?
Members indicated agreement.
Feed (Hygiene and Enforcement) (Scotland) Regulations 2005 (SSI 2005/608)
Again, two points were raised on the regulations. The committee noted that regulation 35 did not include a provision on unincorporated associations and wondered whether that was a deliberate omission. The response was that it was not considered necessary to extend the application of the provisions to unincorporated associations with no distinct legal personality in order to provide for the proper enforcement of the regulations.
Secondly, the committee asked for explanation of why the Executive chose to use section 2(2) of the European Communities Act 1972 as the enabling power, rather than section 56 of the Finance Act 1973. We have been told that, in the circumstances, it was not considered appropriate to draw down the power in the 1973 act, which relates to fees charged in respect of authorisations by Government departments. The legal advisers agree that use of the power in section 56 of the 1973 act would have been inappropriate.
Are we content to draw the regulations to the attention of the lead committee, on the ground that further information was requested from the Executive and has been supplied?
Members indicated agreement.
Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (External Requests and Orders) Order 2005 <br />(SI 2005/3181)
We asked the Executive to clarify why schedule 5 to the order contains references to provisions of the salmon acts that were repealed by the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries (Consolidation) (Scotland) Act 2003. There is no reference to that act in the order.
The Executive agrees that schedule 5 to the order should have referred to the 2003 act alongside the other salmon acts. The Executive states that the omission was an oversight and that, in practice, it is unlikely to give rise to difficulties, but it will monitor the situation and seek to amend the order if necessary.
Are we content to draw the lead committee's attention to the instrument on the ground of defective drafting?
Members indicated agreement.