Official Report 83KB pdf
Instruments Subject <br />to Annulment
Shetland Islands Regulated Fishery (Scotland) Variation Order 2004 <br />(SSI 2004/1)
There are no points of substance on the order, but three issues relating to footnotes have been brought to our notice. I suggest that we convey them to the Executive by way of an informal letter.
There seems to be a slightly bigger issue, however, with the regulatory impact assessment. Do members have any suggestions about whether that should be dealt with in an informal letter or through something stronger? The RIA has not been mentioned in the explanatory note.
That is a rather unfortunate omission on the part of the Executive. If people want to go and look at the RIA, they need to know that it exists and where they can obtain it. Whether it is deliberate or accidental, we should raise formally with the Executive the fact that it has not included in the explanatory note the fact that the RIA exists and where to find it. There should not have been such an omission. If people are to follow and understand such orders, they should at least be told that the RIA exists and where it is.
Are we all agreed on that?
Ura Firth, Shetland Scallops Several Fishery Order 2004 (SSI 2004/5)
The same point about an RIA arises again in relation to this order. Is it agreed that we include that in our correspondence?
There are no further points of substance on the order, although our legal advice points out a wee typographical error in the explanatory note. We could send an informal letter about that.
Meat Products (Scotland) Regulations 2004 (SSI 2004/6)
We have three points to raise on the regulations. The first is to do with the definition of "free circulation" in regulation 2: the reference to "Article 23 of the Treaty" should read "Article 24 of the Treaty". We were informed that that should be the case following the beavering that the legal advisers did on the matter.
I have a point about regulation 9(1)(g). I have had a look at the equivalent English regulations and they are quite clear about how the regulations operate. It is strange that the Scottish regulations have omitted that section. Although the regulations might work, it would have been better if the Scottish regulations had included something similar to what is in the English regulations. There would then be no doubt about regulation 9(1)(g).
The English regulations make it clearer.
Yes.
Okay, that is fine.
I would send a formal letter. We have three orders to consider today that all fail in those specific respects. We have raised those points many times in the past and it is particularly irksome that the English regulations contain the required points, but the Scottish ones do not. Those three regulations are prime cases for our complaining formally. Perhaps I should say that we should formally raise the issue with the Executive.
It is important to remember that when we met representatives from the Executive before Christmas, we raised the issue of transposition notes. I am sure that we were told that we would get a response to our concerns about the lack of transposition notes. As far as I am aware, we have not had any response so perhaps it is time for another formal letter to remind the Executive that we are still waiting.
We should also mention that a transposition note is not included with the regulations.
Yes. I also agree with the point about the omission of the reference to a consultation requirement in the preamble.
Those two points will go into a formal letter to the Executive. Is that agreed?
I have another point to raise about schedule 2. The point has been explained to me and I know that the schedule is correct. Column 2 of the table in schedule 2, paragraph 5 on page 10 of the regulations says that the minimum meat content for corned beef, or corned whatever, should be 120 per cent. That does not seem right. I have been told that 120 per cent is the correct minimum content but that seems slightly bizarre. I am not quite sure how we can get 120 per cent minimum meat content.
I am reliably informed that the figure includes the water content.
The water disappears when the meat is cooked and the minimum meat content goes back to 100 per cent. I think that that is the way it works.
The same would be true of any other processed meat product.
It only applies when the minimum meat content is expected to be 100 per cent. In most other meat products, the meat content would be less than 100 per cent. For example, in Scotch pies, the minimum required meat content is only 10 per cent. However, I understand the confusion.
I have consulted our legal adviser, who thinks that we might be able to get a bit more background information so that we can ensure that that is correct. We will ask the Executive about that point.
I just want to satisfy my curiosity.
I thought that it was only football players who gave 120 per cent.
Before we get sidetracked into talking about football, we will move on.
Infant Formula and Follow-on Formula Amendment (Scotland) Regulations 2004 (SSI 2004/7)
The points on these regulations are similar to those already made on the meat products regulations. The point made about regulation 9(g) of the meat products regulations is similar to the point made about new regulation 23(f) of the principal regulations, which is inserted by regulation 9 of these regulations. It would have been clearer if the regulations had been made in the same way as the English version.
Processed Cereal-based Foods and Baby Foods for Infants and Young Children (Scotland) Regulations 2004 (SSI 2004/8)
The same point arises in relation to regulation 12(g) of these regulations as arises in relation to regulation 9(g) of the meat products regulations. The two general points about consultation and the transposition note also arise. Is it agreed that we will include the regulations in our letter to the Executive?
Previous
Delegated Powers Scrutiny