Official Report 211KB pdf
The next item on the agenda is the European documents that have been circulated to the committee. They should have been circulated with the papers last week. Have members had an opportunity to read through those documents, and are there any comments on them?
As you say, convener, there are some problems with the documents. The European Scrutiny Committee in the House of Commons is not happy with them. We have all had correspondence from farmers, in Orkney and elsewhere, who are worried about regional and Scottish labelling. I would like more explanation of the possible effects of the proposed regulations.
When the European Committee considered the documents on 25 January, it decided to defer the matter and request further clarification. Is it necessary for us to see that clarification?
Yes.
Should we take some evidence on the documents? The current voluntary label scheme arrangements have been extended to 31 August. The voluntary scheme was to have been replaced by a compulsory scheme on 1 January. The date of 31 August gives us some scope, but we will need to be well within the time scale to have an active input.
It would also give us the opportunity to see the clarification and decide whether we want witnesses.
We circulated two Scottish Executive covering notes. The first note is dated 23 December and was considered by the European Committee in January. The committee asked for further clarification, which is contained in the second Executive cover note, which begins:
Is there another note to come?
Not at the moment.
Everyone thinks that we should be pretty rigid about having clear and unambiguous labelling. In spite of the efforts of departments to ensure clear and distinct labelling, it is not happening to any great extent. The wording of some labels is deliberately framed to confuse.
I do not think that the documents clarify the issue. I would like further information before making a decision on the matter.
I would be interested in other views on that. We might ask someone to come before the committee to explain and interpret the documents and to answer our queries.
That is a good idea.
I would be unhappy about making a decision based on the information that we have at the moment. We all have questions.
I have spoken to several people who have clearly misinterpreted parts of the document. That is why we must be extremely careful. Do we have any suggestions concerning whom we should invite?
We should leave it to the Executive to find an appropriate official to come to explain the documents.
In that case, we will continue with that at the earliest opportunity.
Next
Petitions