Official Report 276KB pdf
Meat (Official Control Charges) (Scotland) (No 2) Regulations 2007 (SSI 2007/538)
Good morning. I welcome members to the second meeting in 2008 of the Health and Sport Committee. I remind all members to ensure that their mobile phones are switched off. No apologies have been received.
The Subordinate Legislation Committee has raised some interesting points. I have not sought advice on annulling the instrument, because I think that the issues can be dealt with. It might be helpful if, for the record, the representatives of the Food Standards Agency could indicate when the agency will be able, with the assistance of the Government, to make the necessary changes to overcome the deficiencies that have been pointed out by the Subordinate Legislation Committee.
A further set of regulations is out to consultation and we are looking to make adjustments in line with the SLC's comments as soon as possible.
That is helpful.
That answer might have superseded my comment. The conversion rate that is used is the one in the official published bulletin. Is that rate published annually, in September, or is it published quarterly? How will the exchange rate work? It will be quite bureaucratic and complicated if there is a different exchange rate every few months.
I understand that the Official Journal of the European Union is published weekly, but the convention has been to take the published rate on the first working day in September each year and to use that rate for the next calendar year.
Will that put us in conflict with the European Union if the exchange rate changes in such a way that the charges fall below the minimum charges that the EU stipulates?
The regulations continue the system that has been in place for many years. The EU regulation does not specify the method of calculation as the previous directive did. However, the agency has notified the Commission of the approach and, to date, has not received any comments on it.
So you assume that, because no comments have been received, the Commission is comfortable with the current arrangement and that it can continue.
That is our understanding.
My only other comment is that it is interesting that, at a time when we are trying to control inflation, the charges are increasing by between 2.8 and 3.1 per cent. I simply make that comment for the record.
I raised the matter last week, so for the public record I ask Mr Hendry to give an explanation in relation to the points that the Subordinate Legislation Committee raised. It stated:
The agency accepts that we could improve the drafting. We will try to do that in the next set of regulations, which we aim to produce around the end of March. We will take the points on board.
The point was made last week by a member of the committee that the definitions in the regulations follow the definitions in previous instruments. What has changed that has led to a lack of clarity and will therefore affect the operation of the regulations? What needs to be corrected? I am not entirely clear about that.
The regulations retain the current charging approach in Scotland. What has changed is that European regulation EC/882/2004 introduced terms, including "land mammals", that were not in the previous directive. We are trying to accommodate the terms in the EU regulation within the current charging structure.
So there is a difference between the EU definitions and the definitions that have long been used in this country. Is that where the lack of clarity or the confusion has come from?
It is a question of trying to accommodate the new terms. This is the first time that they have appeared.
Convener, that is not what the Subordinate Legislation Committee said. The terms "poultry" and "land mammals" are used in the body of the regulations and the definitions in the 2004 regulations are ascribed to those, but unfortunately schedule 2 to the regulations, which sets out the charges, subdivides poultry into turkeys et cetera; it also subdivides land mammals. The Subordinate Legislation Committee's point is that, although the schedule is perfectly clear, someone who was so minded could say, "Wait a minute. The heading ‘poultry' has had ascribed to it a meaning that includes turkeys et cetera." The Subordinate Legislation Committee said that there could be confusion.
Do you wish to respond, Mr Hendry?
I have no further comments on that.
I have not gone into the matter in detail, as other members have done, but are you telling me that forthcoming regulations will clarify the confusion?
Yes.
So two sets of regulations will coexist: one with confusion and one, we trust, without confusion.
No. The next set of regulations will replace the current instrument.
And that will come to this committee. We will be back again with turkeys and poultry.
It is small turkeys.
Thank you, Ian.
Infant Formula and Follow-on Formula (Scotland) Regulations 2007 (SSI 2007/549)
This set of regulations implements directive 2006/141/EC, on infant formula and follow-on formula, and amending directive 1999/21/EC and Council directive 92/52/EEC, on infant formula and follow-on formula intended for export to third countries.
The wording in the Subordinate Legislation Committee's report is similar to that in its report on the previous instrument. It says that the drafting of provisions could have been clearer and that there is an instance of defective drafting that might affect the operation of the regulations. I have not fully read every word, but I would like an assurance that the matters have been or are being addressed, in order that the regulations can be effectively implemented.
We have tried, through our responses, to show that we are addressing all the concerns that were raised by the Subordinate Legislation Committee. On the error notice, we have said that we will rectify that as soon as possible. We have addressed most of the concerns that were raised.
Do the committee agree to make no recommendations in relation to these regulations?
We will suspend briefly to allow our next witnesses to come in.
Meeting suspended.
On resuming—