Official Report 275KB pdf
Extraction Solvents in Food Amendment (Scotland) Regulations 2011 (SSI 2011/306)
As members will note from the legal brief, the regulations were not laid before the Scottish Parliament at least 28 days before they came into force as required by section 28(2) of the Interpretation and Legislative Reform (Scotland) Act 2010. Given that breach, does the committee agree to draw the regulations to the Parliament’s attention on reporting ground (j)?
As for the explanation for the breach of section 28(2), the committee may wish to consider whether the breach could have been avoided had there been better planning of the regulations, especially if we take into account the fact that directive 2010/59/EU, which the regulations implement, was published in the Official Journal of the European Union at the end of August 2010 and that the period of May to June 2011 was chosen for a Scottish consultation on the draft regulation. With those points in mind, does the committee also agree to draw to the lead committee’s attention the Government’s explanation for the breach of the 28-day rule? Do members have any other thoughts or do we want to let the matter rest for a while?
This seems to be a recurring theme, convener. It should come as no surprise that the Parliament goes into recess. Notwithstanding that fact, due provision must be made to stay within the rules. We should reinforce the point because this is not the first time that this problem has arisen.
I agree with Mike MacKenzie. I should say, though, that he is not picking up something that has just happened in the first weeks of this new parliamentary session; this lack of planning has been a problem for years and is certainly a real problem for the subject committees that have to deal with it. There are times when a committee needs to assert itself and say—in the politest and most proper way, of course—that matters should be better handled in future, and this might well be one of those times.
If it wishes, the committee is in a position to agree that we do not regard the explanation as acceptable and to impress on the Government that, as we have said before, the rule is there for a very good reason and should be observed. It is as simple as that. The good news is that the summer recess is getting further away and that this particular explanation will disappear, but I get the impression that there is a laxness out there that we might have to fight.
Notwithstanding recesses, we are talking about the implementation of the law. If the bits do not fit together, we have a position that may not be serious but is challenging.
There will be.
For example, the directive that the regulations implement was published in August 2010, although it did not go to all the member states then. Was there a chart saying that it would affect Scotland and did the Government track what happened to it?
I think that, in the reply that the Government provided to the Presiding Officer, it commented on unawareness of the directive’s expected date. However, in principle, directives are tracked.
I must say that some part of a conversation that I had in the previous session—forgive me, but I forget where—pointed out that the Scottish Government does not always get direct access to such information, so it depends on somebody in the British Government thinking to point such matters out.
Should we not ask for that information? As I say, there are hundreds of directives, but might we suggest to the London Government that there should be some process for directives that would affect us?
I suggest a way forward: could we ask the Government and the Food Standards Agency, which is responsible for the relevant directive in this case, what the mechanism for advising them of such matters is so that, if they feel that it is defective, they have the opportunity to report that to us?
Thank you, that would be helpful.
Do we agree that the Government’s explanation is not acceptable under the circumstances, that we will report accordingly and that we will ensure that the Government understands that?
Inshore Fishing (Prohibition of Fishing for Cockles) (Solway Firth) (Scotland) Order 2011 (SSI 2011/319)
Members will note from the legal brief that the order was not laid before the Scottish Parliament at least 28 days before it came into force, as required by section 28(2) of the Interpretation and Legislative Reform (Scotland) Act 2010. Given the breach of section 28(2), does the committee agree to draw the order to the Parliament’s attention on reporting ground (j)?
Once again, the committee is happy—well, perhaps not happy, but content—to do so.
I am more minded to accept it, given that the Government at least provided an explanation and an apology, in stark contrast to the previous instrument, on which it essentially held up its hands and said that it was guilty. It has at least made an effort to explain the situation.
Is everyone so minded?
The legal brief also highlights the point that, although the accompanying documents indicate that the order is to be a temporary measure, nothing in the order itself achieves that policy objective. Does the committee agree to draw that point to the attention of the lead committee?
Curators ad Litem and Reporting Officers (Panels) and the Panels of Persons to Safeguard the Interests of Children (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 2011 (SSI 2011/320)
Road Traffic (Permitted Parking Area and Special Parking Area (City of Edinburgh) Designation Amendment Order 2011 (SSI 2011/323)
Bananas (Enforcement of Quality Standards) (Scotland) Regulations 2011 (SSI 2011/325)
Bee Diseases and Pests Control (Scotland) Amendment Order 2011 (SSI 2011/326)