Subordinate Legislation Committee, 14 Sep 1999

Meeting date: Tuesday, September 14, 1999

Official Report 78KB pdf

---

Food (Animals and Animal Products from Belgium) (Emergency Control) (No 2) (Scotland) Order 1999 (SSI 1999/32) Animal Feedingstuffs from Belgium (Control) (No 2) (Scotland) Regulations 1999 (SSI 1999/33)

Let us begin with item 4. We have an Executive response to these two pieces of subordinate legislation. The letters have been commented on and we have had the benefit of advice from our lawyers. It has been flagged up that the response is not all that it should be, given the serious representations that we made and our view on the implications with regard to retrospectivity and penal sanctions.

There are various options available. Obviously, it is possible to request another Executive response, but the time scale makes that difficult. Do members have a view on how we should proceed?

I suggest that we bring the instruments to the attention of the Parliament and of the lead committee. We should say that we are not happy with the situation and that they should look at it.

I support that. The other options available to us—a further written response and oral evidence—are not appropriate because of the time scale. In view of the seriousness with which last week we as a committee regarded this issue—the instruments may affect only a limited number of individuals, but the consequences could be serious—we should seek to lay down a marker for how we wish to see such matters dealt with. Accordingly, as Ian said, we should bring this to the attention of the Parliament and of the lead committee. Is that the committee's view?

I agree with that. In this initial period, it is important that we take a hard line on these issues, to ensure that errors do not become endemic. We must make it clear that we want best practice. That is the way in which we should proceed.

I agree with what Ian Jenkins and David Mundell have said. It might be appropriate to consider inviting the Executive to make an explanatory statement in the business bulletin, for the benefit not just of the members of this committee but of all members of the Parliament. That will make members aware of the dangers of retrospective legislation and familiar with the issues that we, by virtue of being on this committee, have had to grapple with over the past few weeks. That would serve the Parliament well and might ensure that there is no repetition of what has occurred in this case.

Is that acceptable to you, Alasdair, as committee clerk? We want to ensure that Parliament realises why we take a serious view of this matter, and that we are not simply being truculent for the sake of it.

I could raise that with the business team in the chamber office.

Certainly.