Official Report 242KB pdf
I welcome members to the ninth meeting in 2005 of the Subordinate Legislation Committee. I have apologies from Gordon Jackson. I expect that Murray Tosh will appear in the next few minutes.
Good morning. By way of introduction, I will say a few words about the Food Standards Agency. The FSA is a non-ministerial Government department, which operates at arm's length from ministers. It is governed by a board and acts in the public interest. The FSA provides information and advice for consumers by advising Government on food safety and standards through regulation.
Good morning. We are pleased to be before the committee and we welcome its inquiry. We have made some detailed comments in our written submission, which I hope were useful.
Thank you. The first issue that we will address this morning is improving the quality of new regulation. First, how could we improve the quality of regulatory impact assessments?
One of the questions that we encounter regularly is when one should start the process of developing a regulatory impact assessment. The obvious answer is that one should start it as soon as one can. My view is that, when new policy is being developed, departments should, in most cases, already have a good idea of where industry would sit on an issue and what the enforcement issues that surround that issue might be. We probably all have a good idea of where we are starting from. It is rare to find oneself in a position in which one is considering something totally new. It should be possible to start the impact assessment process early.
Christine May has a question.
Mr Reid has covered the matter that I was going to raise.
In that case, I will ask another question before I bring in other members. The committee heard evidence from Dr McHarg that there is a danger that the process can be selective and subjective. How can we make it more robust? Mr Reid talked about starting RIAs earlier, but I am still not sure how we can ensure that we get back good-quality information, particularly from businesses. The Federation of Small Businesses in Scotland is adamant that there is not enough consultation with small businesses. How can we reach that end of the sector?
Perhaps more targeted advice could be provided centrally. I do not necessarily have the answer to your question, but it would be useful if departments were given advice from the centre on how to access small businesses. I know that there are routes to small businesses, but rather than ask individual Executive departments or divisions to develop their own solutions to what is a common problem across the board, it might be useful if solutions could be identified centrally and developed with representative industry organisations, which could indicate whether a proposed approach would be effective or indeed suggest another approach. Civil servants do not always have the answers up their sleeves, but we are interested in producing documentation that is of the best possible quality.
What contact do you have with organisations such as the Federation of Small Businesses and the Scottish Civic Forum?
In the past few years, we have attempted to build a better relationship with the Federation of Small Businesses, but only as part of our overall stakeholder engagement. In the past two years, the FSA has, uniquely, undertaken a stakeholder mapping exercise. We identified all our key stakeholders and we are actively working at building our relationships with them. Part of the culture of our organisation, from our director right the way down through the organisation, is that building effective working relationships with stakeholders is the primary responsibility of almost all staff. In relation to engagement and extracting information, those developed stakeholder relationships are often the secret of a good result.
We agree with a lot of what Martin Reid and Sandy McDougall have said. Timing is certainly a crucial issue; there is little point in writing an RIA at the point at which one is putting out a bill. We also agree with the comment that was made on information gaps. Businesses sometimes perceive that agencies and Government departments have vast amounts of information to hand. Sometimes we do, but not always, so it would be useful to consider the information gaps in the writing of RIAs. Instead of our waiting until an issue arises and then writing an RIA, it would be helpful if there was a more proactive approach and a policy information system that would identify in advance the information that civil servants would like to have. The situation varies, but it can be hard to get information out of business, partly because people are busy trying to run their companies.
I have a question on a comment that you made at the start. I do not know whether you said that you have changed your mind or whether you just wanted to clarify the benefits of statutory reviews as opposed to administrative means. Will you expand on that point?
We said in our evidence that there should be statutory reviews of all new legislation within a certain period. However, we submitted that evidence some time ago. When we discussed the matter internally, we decided that the same result could be achieved by administrative means, as long as there is a strong commitment. We wanted to clarify that administrative means would be just as effective.
I wonder why you have changed your mind on that. Will you develop your comments on why you originally thought that the requirement should be statutory but have now decided that administrative practices will do?
In the environmental sphere, the Aarhus convention will give third parties more rights to challenge legislation. Our concern is that, even if all the parties involved think that there is no merit in doing a review at a certain time, we might be forced to do one just because someone challenges the legislation. We are always trying to avoid doing things simply because there is a formal requirement to do them. That is the main reason behind our change of heart.
I am interested in the witnesses' comments that it is difficult to get the information that they need from businesses. Mr Gorman talked about working more proactively. I wonder whether it would be possible to do an exercise on the responses that are needed. You could say to businesses, "Do you collect this information? If not, how difficult would it be for you to do that?" I am thinking, for example, of the large combustion plants directive, which has had investment consequences for companies and led to issues being discussed in boardrooms—the directive has been on the go for eight years. Given that the process involving environmental and food regulations takes a long time from initial consultation to final directive, have you thought about how you could work with businesses to codify what you need and how you want it to be produced?
I will offer some comments on that, although Janice Milne might also like to do so. We have a number of liaison groups, one of whose main purposes is to state that we will be asking for certain information and to ask how easy it will be to get. Difficulties arise when regulation is brand new and an entire sector is coming under environmental regulation for the first time, as it is often difficult to work out who the regulation covers.
Industry is consulted through each stage of the development of regulations. Sometimes it misses that opportunity, so we must think about how the consultation process is publicised. It often happens that industry will say that it does not like a particular regulation even though it was consulted before the regulations were made. The key lies in making it clear to businesses when they are being consulted and publicising the consultation process.
Has anyone ever considered that businesses might have given the answers already, perhaps in the consultation on another piece of legislation? Is there any way of checking the responses that different types of businesses or individual businesses have submitted across all the agencies? Perhaps better sharing of the information that is provided would help.
The Hampton review in England and Wales, which has been considering regulatory inspection and enforcement, has raised the issue of repeated requests for information in slightly different forms from multiple Government regulators. We have had to hold up our hands and say that practice could be better. In SEPA, we try to co-ordinate consultation. We have examples in which the process has worked well—we do a lot of work under the Control of Major Accident Hazards Regulations 1999 (SI 1999/743) with the Health and Safety Executive and we also do a lot of close work with HM nuclear installations inspectorate—but we could not say that that happens routinely across the piece. That is an issue for Government. It is difficult for individual agencies to get together and share information, although that happens. We would like there to be more of a push to address the issue through a joint project. We have sympathy with businesses, but we have to ask for the information and the problem is that we are not the only ones who ask for it.
Would it be possible for you to supply us with a couple of examples in which the different agencies have worked well together? You mentioned one such example. Will you also tell us how that good practice might be followed and indicate how the practice could have been even better? That would help us to see a way forward. Secondly, on quality control, you said that it might be useful if a central agency examined the quality of information that is being collected. Will you elaborate on that and tell us which central body you think might be used?
We had one eye on IRIS—that seems the logical body to challenge the quality of the information coming in and, if it finds that the information is not right, to set in train processes to ensure that it is. It is probably for someone else to say how that might happen, but such proactivity could be helpful.
Can you give us information on the better regulation project?
We are more than happy to do so.
Excellent. That would be helpful. Finally, do you think that RIAs should be conducted for every statutory instrument or should they be limited in some way?
I do not think that it is necessary to conduct RIAs for all regulations, particularly when we are dealing with minor technical amendments to legislation that will have little impact. For example, the agency deals with cases where two items might be added to a list of approved sweeteners or additives, the impact of which is minimal. In such cases, the amount of effort involved in conducting an RIA would be entirely disproportionate to the benefit that would be produced. It is not necessary to conduct such assessments on every occasion.
On RIAs, we agree with Martin Reid that there can be the danger that a prescriptive process does not add value. However, our view is that there is a presumption in favour of RIAs and that people should justify why they are not being done—they should not be let off the hook. We would also like the RIAs to go beyond business and to tackle the public sector burdens. The Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 had a major impact on us and we would have liked an RIA that examined the impact on the public sector as well. There is sometimes an assumption that such things do not have an impact on us. We would like the impact to be quantified from our perspective.
Following up on Dave Gorman's last point, I should add that a lot of our activities are delivered through local authorities. Local authorities are certainly among our key stakeholders and our relationships with them allow us to assess rapidly and with a high degree of confidence the impact of many of our policies at the point of delivery.
I want to pursue further the issue of statutory practice and administrative practice. The SEPA witnesses view the work that is done in the process of preparing environmental assessments as being like the procedures for RIAs, but environmental assessments will be a statutory requirement under the Environmental Assessment (Scotland) Bill. Given that the two processes seem similar, are you suggesting that that is a mistake and that they should be administrative, not statutory? Why do you think that environmental assessments should be statutory but that RIAs should be non-statutory?
That is a good question. We are pleased to see environmental assessments put on a statutory footing, possibly because it is harder to get people to think out of the box at a strategic level—that is our main reason for wanting that. We have had environmental impact assessments for major developments for 20 years, and I have often felt that the debates that were going on tended to be between protesters who were saying, "I want a different transport policy," and road builders who were saying, "This is the best environmental solution for this road." There is some merit in having a statutory assessment in such situations.
I agree with you about the environmental assessments. The fact that they are now to be statutory is welcome. However, I cannot quite grasp the difference between the importance of environmental impact assessments being statutory and your view—I may be putting words into your mouth—that RIAs are less important in terms of their impact on the regulations that they are dealing with.
That is not what we are trying to say. Perhaps that is a question on which we should come back to you.
That would be helpful. A more detailed explanation would help us to understand the difference.
You might expect that, as the environmental regulator, we would want to see the environment protected and improved. We are keen to engage with the better regulation agenda, but we do not see that as being the same as deregulation. As we said in our response to the Hampton report, we think that much environmental regulation has major benefits to society and to the environment and we are sometimes concerned that we jump straight to the costs of everything. We wanted to see the environmental benefits being more clearly laid out sometimes, so that people can be clear that there is an environmental benefit and a human health benefit, for example, in protecting air quality. The debate then becomes a debate about how to minimise the burdens of that on industry. The two questions are not the same.
I mentioned the environmental assessments that will be required under the Environmental Assessment (Scotland) Bill. Are you advocating that the assessment of environmental impact that takes place as part of the RIA process should be much more detailed than is the case under the current set-up?
I think that that is what we are saying, but it is fair to say that we are not quite clear about how the strategic environmental assessment process and the RIA process fit together. We would certainly like environmental issues to receive much more detailed consideration somewhere along the line.
That should include consideration of the costs of doing nothing.
Yes.
I have a question for the FSA. At the moment, much of the guidance on food standards is, in effect, voluntary rather than statutory. Is the current set-up adequate or is there a case for having more statutory guidance on food standards?
We are probably comfortable with the current mix. We believe that the appropriate use of voluntary guidance or the development of industry guides has a distinct part to play in contributing to the overall process of interpreting and applying regulation at grass-roots level.
That is what is behind my question. Do you think that voluntary guidance has been effective in achieving ends such as those that you have just mentioned?
On the promotion of foods to children and salt reduction, there are initial signs that the voluntary approach is working, although on salt reduction, it will take a number of years to obtain clear evidence that that is the case. The activity by many of the major industry players and retailers is having an effect.
That is perhaps a matter of opinion at the moment.
Christine May wants to ask about EU directives.
Before I do, I want to clarify something that Mr Gorman said earlier. I think that I am correct in saying that he suggested that SEPA needs to be able to quantify the environmental benefits and then to consider how they can be implemented without putting undue burden on business. Does SEPA prioritise those two tasks in that order? In other words, is assessment of the environmental benefits more important or are the two jobs broadly of equal importance?
There must be a balance. As well as protecting the environment and improving public health, SEPA's role is to contribute to the Scottish ministers' goal of sustainable development. We are an environmental regulator, but we must also take into account the cost to business and social impacts, so I would say that we give equal weight to those two roles.
Thank you.
RIAs are needed, because each directive can be implemented in different ways. A directive sets a framework, but ministers produce regulations. Within that, there is scope for how we regulate and issue permits, so an RIA should still be produced for each set of regulations when applicable.
I very much agree. Before I joined a regulator, I thought that once legislation was agreed at the European level, it was just implemented, but my eyes have been opened to the amount of detail and the number of choices that can have an impact. Part of the problem for members is that the devil is in the detail. The difference between good and poor implementation is sometimes not obvious. Much depends on the detail, on when people are consulted and on the scope of regulations. I very much agree with Janice Milne that having a European law does not mean that thinking through its Scottish implementation has no value.
Does the FSA disagree?
We do not disagree. We must consider the three distinct stages in an impact assessment's development, all of which are important. When a proposal is first tabled and the initial impact assessment is developed, we hope still to be considering several options for delivery at European and domestic levels. That impact assessment can influence a European negotiating position. It must be recognised that that could be a key function of developing an impact assessment.
We will move on to consultation, which is an important part of the process, as we have said.
Both submissions stress that to have any chance of influencing policy development, input must be made at a very early stage. How might consultation with stakeholders and the public be managed to take place early enough to influence policy formation?
I will give an example in which I am involved that I hope will illustrate the situation. SEPA is reviewing its enforcement policy, which could be described as a statement of the rules of the game. The game is between us and industry—we are the main players—but the likes of politicians, stakeholders and the media are watching. It is important for the enforcement policy to make the rules of the game clear.
So, you would advocate a more proactive approach. Rather than simply waiting, you would anticipate things.
It is all about making consultation part of everyday business. We should not simply do things in writing; we should develop innovative means of engagement and not take a one-size-fits-all approach. The FSA clearly distinguishes between informal consultation and formal consultation. Formal consultations are often simply a written document. However, we make extensive use of our website, which is a very interactive feedback tool.
What you describe is perhaps a more informal network approach, as opposed to a formal statutory consultee approach. Would a code of practice be useful? SEPA suggested that Aarhus convention principles ought to be used not only in environmental matters but right across the board. What are your thoughts on that?
I will answer first, if I may.
We would welcome a formal code of practice. Perhaps we could consider what is in place in England and Wales and adapt that for Scotland. I certainly agree with Sandy McDougall that we do not want to cut off avenues that sometimes must be taken in haste. If there is always a commitment to having a 12-week consultation, valuable opportunities will sometimes be missed. There could be something that says what the norm would be but allows other approaches.
I remember the Forth valley area waste plan well. Perhaps the example also points to the importance of civic forums, not directly through consultation in its strictest sense, but in simply raising awareness about major issues that are coming down stream.
Easily understood regulation is close to the hearts of many of us and particularly to mine, given my elevation to the committee on being elected, when it would have been helpful if easily understood guidance had been available for members.
The FSA has two or three tools that we regularly use to attempt to interpret regulation, fundamentally for our local authority enforcement colleagues. The enforcement code of practice is a well-respected and continually updated document. Only last year, there were 20 individual guides, but they have now been consolidated into one enforcement code of practice, which acts as a bible of reference for local authority enforcers.
I am sorry to interrupt, but how do you ensure that something is in plain English? Sometimes people think that something is in plain English, but that is because they are used to the jargon.
There is a learning process, and we are probably not there yet. We recently conducted a consultation on what has been colloquially called a "plain man's guide" to new hygiene regulations, which has resulted in quite a major exercise in the agency. The feedback from the consultation will now allow us to reformulate that guide so that it really is a plain man's guide. However, organisations almost undergo an evolutionary process in moving from using jargon extensively to making documents easily understood.
The "plain man's guide" is also mentioned in your written evidence. Speaking as someone who has a background in the meat industry, I believe that it is an excellent idea to have such a guide for meat hygiene directives. However, the meat industry is a large industry that has many small, medium and large players. I can understand why it would be useful to invest time and effort in producing such a guide, given the size of that industry. Would it be reasonable for the agency to fulfil its duty by following the same process for smaller sectors outwith the meat industry?
A plain man's guide is particularly relevant for the new hygiene regulations because of their complexity. I do not suggest that such guides are applicable to every activity, but they can potentially be used for a complex series of regulations, such as the new hygiene regulations, which cover the whole spectrum of the food industry. We have proved that it is possible to develop a plain man's guide that deals with everyone, from small game establishments up to major drinks players.
Is the enforcement code of practice aimed at environmental health officers?
Yes, it is primarily for environmental health officers.
Is the code of practice now in place? Can we see it?
Yes, it is in place and it is available to everyone via a link on our website.
That is useful. Does SEPA have any comments along the same lines on that issue?
Together with the Environment Agency in England and Wales, SEPA produces NetRegs, which is a guide specifically for small and medium-sized businesses. We recognise that SMEs may not have the same resources as larger organisations, so the guide is written in plain English.
Let me ask the same question that I asked before. How do you ensure that what you think is plain English is what the recipients think is plain English?
Our organisation has a good public affairs section, which we can ask to put the regulations through a plain English test.
Is that done in advance of publication?
Yes.
NetRegs is my pet project, so I encourage everyone to have a look at it. In NetRegs, we have tried to move beyond generic guidance by writing guidance for each of the 100 sectors that are listed online. Instead of simply stating all the environmental legislation, the site describes how the environmental legislation applies to, say, the printing sector or the metal finishing sector.
I was about to come on to NetRegs. Given that it is your pet project, I am sure that you will be able to answer my question. That useful website is probably fine for most businesses that have no problem because they have access to technology. However, that is not always the case with microbusinesses. How do you deal with that sector, especially one-man businesses and those that do not have access to the internet?
That is a good point. As far as we can tell, access varies by sector. In some sectors, even quite small businesses are online, but in others they are not. We are in the process of writing a strategy; it is a UK project, so we work with the Environment Agency and the Environment and Heritage Service of Northern Ireland. We believe that we now have a fairly good product. I will provide the committee with some background. One reason for putting guidance online was to encourage people to understand the legislation as being simple and non-threatening. People worry that if they invite a regulator to examine one issue on their site, the regulator will spot other issues. The idea was that businesses should be able to access information in a non-threatening way. That is the core product.
You are right that some single-person businesses have considerable internet access whereas others do not and that that will depend on the kind of business.
I will throw in another example of an area in which the agency has been active in developing guidance. I am referring to hazard analysis critical control points—members may be familiar with the acronym HACCP. It is a generic approach that is used in a number of industries, but we have focused on introducing HACCP to catering businesses as part of a new consolidated hygiene package. From 1 January 2006, there will be a legal requirement on businesses to introduce the system. I will no doubt get a wee brown envelope later with a request to explain what HACCP is.
I accept that that is a particularly good example of how you are developing guidance through feedback and ensuring that information is available, but there is a bit of a gap, because no matter how many times you do that, you cannot be sure that the guidance is being used. You are putting the information out there, but is it lying on a shelf, rather than being used by businesses? Is it used to help businesses to deal with the regulations?
We have a simple way of assessing whether the guidance is used. Our delivery mechanism, which is the local authority enforcement officers, can assist by introducing the HACCP manual into businesses. Initially, that will be new for the officers, but in the long term it should be incorporated into their normal inspection programme. I hope that the system will not put new burdens on local authority enforcement officers; it should mean that businesses will improve, which will result in less work for the officers. Through our local authorities partners, we have a direct means of measuring whether businesses use the document and, importantly, whether they use it effectively to improve hygiene standards.
We have a methodology for measuring compliance with environmental law. One way in which to test the effectiveness of guidance is simply to see whether compliance increases or, at least, is maintained. That has been the case in examples that I can think of. For instance, after we tried to improve compliance with the bathing water directive by talking to farmers, we found out that the advice that we had offered had been taken up, which was encouraging.
The SEPA response says that the transposition of European directives is achieved in various ways, such as acts, regulations and so on. Does the fact that there are many different vehicles cause problems? Could complexity be reduced if all European directives were transposed uniformly?
My opinion—which is a personal one rather than a SEPA one—is that it is sensible to have general acts such as the Pollution Prevention and Control Act 1999 to set a framework. However, when that framework is used to implement all sorts of other European regulations, we end up with the basic set of regulations being amended again and again, so everything becomes difficult to follow. I do not have an answer for how that can be solved.
With regard to EU directives, we need to concentrate on early influence. One of the issues that we face relates to definitions within various EU directives. For example, the Control of Major Accident Hazards Regulations 1999 defines an establishment, whereas the Pollution Prevention and Control Regulations (Scotland) 2000 defines an installation. We were able to include amendments to the large combustion plant directive. In fact, SEPA's response to the consultation on the directive said that we did not see the need for it because it would be subsumed by the pollution prevention and control directive when it came in.
So, in effect, you think that the problem is more to do with a lack of communication between different departments at European level.
That is an area that we need to concentrate on. SEPA recognises that and will work with the Scottish Executive on the issue.
As I remember, the Federation of Small Businesses said that there was a particular problem with interpretation of the definition of waste. While we have you here, I might as well ask whether SEPA has had any feedback on that.
We could discuss this all day. With regard to the definition of waste, we are bound by judgments in the European Court of Justice. SEPA does not want regulation of waste to diminish the novel approach in the waste strategy, which Dave Gorman mentioned earlier. There can be seen to be a conflict between waste regulation and delivery of the waste strategy, so we need to work closely with the Scottish Executive to ensure that that does not happen.
I want to reinforce what Janice Milne said. There is a European problem. Our approach is that, where we can use the flexibility that is given to us by the law, we will do so but—understandably—legislators are reluctant to give an agency such as SEPA extensive powers because it is not quite clear what we will do with them.
Could the matter have been flagged up better? For example, could there have been better consultation to ensure that we did not find ourselves in this situation, or can we simply not foresee everything that might happen?
I think that we simply cannot foresee everything. After all, the waste regime works on a case-by-case basis. Its whole thrust is to try to prevent harm, and it is sometimes difficult for a regulator to differentiate between someone who really sees the business opportunities of recycling and someone who simply seeks to avoid the rigours and costs of waste regulation.
The subject is probably dear to all members' hearts because businesses raise it with us. I have two questions. First, do you carry out benchmarking of EU member states to find out whether a consistent approach is being taken? For example, people frequently tell us that certain things do not apply in Finland, France or the Czech Republic. Secondly, to what extent is the accusation valid that you err too much towards trying to prove the negative? After all, you cannot prove that certain waste is not harmful; all you can do is to consider evidence that it is harmful.
I suspect that the other witnesses will also have an opinion on these matters. On the first question, we carry out quite extensive benchmarking. As IMPEL is the practitioner, we meet there regularly to compare notes and swap best practice. We are also involved in several other networks that carry out similar work.
I am sorry to interrupt, but I should point out that it also has something to do with gold plating and the accusation that this is not just implementation, but implementation with bells on.
One can understand why businesses feel frustrated. For example, they might have secured funding—and even planning permission—for an innovative recycling idea, only to feel that the national environmental regulator is opposing them.
Okay. We should press on—otherwise we will do too long a shift today. We move on to the common commencement date, on which there is considerable difference of opinion.
My first question is for the Food Standards Agency. I understand that you are carrying out a review of the process. Should legislation that affects different parts of the UK have a common commencement date? I believe that SEPA's view of the matter is different to that of the FSA. Perhaps you could give us the FSA's view and tell the committee what the review is all about.
Our position is straightforward: we support common commencement dates across the UK. There would need to be a very specific set of circumstances before we could justify different policy implementation dates in different parts of the UK. After all, food hygiene is food hygiene and food safety is food safety and, by and large, there is nothing particularly Scottish, English, Welsh or Northern Irish about those issues. In the area of policy that we deal with—food hygiene and food safety—there is no real underlying reason why commencement dates should be different across the UK.
In its evidence, SEPA said that if a common commencement date were to be applied to environmental law, it
It is fair to say that SEPA's view on the matter is developing. When we were preparing for the committee, it was obvious that business felt that it would helpful to discuss the matter. We are slightly different to the FSA: the directives that we implement include dates that reflect the time at which they were published in the Official Journal of the European Communities. There is no other commonality about the dates—they could be sometime in January, 23 March or any date at all.
Christine May will ask about enforcement, which is important.
Indeed. The witnesses mentioned the enforcement concordat, which has been revised and consolidated into a single document. Are you content with how the concordat is working? Is enforcement consistent, now that there is a single document? What improvements might be made to the system? For example, should statutory powers be available for use when the voluntary code does not work properly?
Our view is fairly straightforward. We do not know how the concordat is working for other sectors and local authorities, but we find it very helpful because it sets out agreed good practice. We signed up to the concordat—in 2002, I think—and then slowly tried to work through our processes to ensure that they match it. For example, we expect our officers to provide a copy of a draft licence in order to enable people to comment before the full licence is issued. We also expect enforcement action to be discussed with a company before action is taken, unless there are pressing circumstances. The document is helpful, but we have no experience of how it works for other sectors. There is no particular need for the concordat to be put on a statutory footing, because it has been so useful to us that we have tried to implement it anyway.
What does the FSA think?
I have very little to add to what Dave Gorman said. The concordat is part of our overall enforcement regime. A framework agreement, to which local authorities work, is also in place and—fundamentally—we audit against the framework agreement. We have a number of tools that assist us in ensuring that enforcement is consistent.
Are the existing statutory powers to take action for breaches sufficient?
Largely, in our case, they are. We are asking people whether SEPA has enough tools in the toolbox, although for the vast majority of companies we have pretty draconian powers, which we are prepared to use if necessary. We will certainly take views on whether we need one or two more powers, which relate to other matters. Largely, however, we are pretty satisfied.
As part of our response to the Hampton review, we made a number of suggestions about how particular powers of enforcement might be amended. Those suggestions are still under consideration.
When will SEPA conclude its review of whether it needs more powers?
I confess that if you had asked me that question last summer I would have said that I expected the process to be concluded by now. We hope to put out a public consultation in the summer and then, depending on the extent of people's views about how effective we are, to make substantial progress on a final report by the autumn.
Thank you. Any information that you can give us would be helpful.
We do not see a need for sunset clauses. We believe that the regulations should not themselves contain a requirement that they be reviewed regularly, but that they should be reviewed as and when required, to reduce any administrative burden. I stress that there is an opportunity at any time to review how the regulations are working. That is especially important when considering the implementation of a new directive.
I believe that we said in our evidence that 10 years before a review seems a bit long. As Janice Milne has said, if after three years there has not been some sort of review, it would be sensible to have one, but 10 years feels a bit long.
The Food Standards Agency Scotland agrees that there is no role for sunset clauses in food regulation. The FSA reviews regulation primarily as a result of updates of EU legislation. The food arena also changes as technology and science evolve, so we take a more proactive role in reviewing regulation. There are certainly a couple of examples of that. Martin Reid has already mentioned butchers' licensing, but I shall ask him to illustrate the point by telling you about a case that he has been very much involved in over the past two years, which relates to shellfish biotoxins.
The point has already been made that European legislation is always there to be challenged. That is what we did when the industry approached us about how current legislation on shellfish toxins was being implemented and to ask whether we could take an alternative approach that would be less detrimental to the industry. Our point of view was that that was fine, but that the regulations had to protect public health. Working with the industry, we were able to come up with some proposals. Because the shellfish industry is an important Scottish industry, the FSA in Scotland went to Brussels, met Commission officials and discussed the possibility of a proposal being developed by the Commission to reflect our thoughts on how the matter could be handled. Ultimately, that resulted in a change to Community legislation. In effect, an addition was made to the existing directive to allow a different way of managing a specific problem associated with shellfish toxins.
As the witnesses might be aware, we have not quite covered all the areas on which we had questions. We hope that they will not mind if we write to them to get detailed information on those areas, one of which is the Subordinate Legislation Committee's role and how the committee might be improved. We also want to ask the witnesses from SEPA for more detail on the ideas on better regulation that Dave Gorman mentioned in his introductory remarks.
Meeting suspended.
On resuming—