Subordinate Legislation Committee, 21 Nov 2006

Meeting date: Tuesday, November 21, 2006

Official Report 310KB pdf

---

Executive Responses

---

Bus User Complaints Tribunal Regulations Revocation Regulations 2006 (draft)

We raised two points about the draft regulations. First, we asked for confirmation that no transitional provisions are required in relation to the tribunal's staff and the Executive said that the tribunal does not employ staff, so no transitional provisions are required. Is that okay?

Members indicated agreement.

Secondly, we asked the Executive to explain the absence of the word "Scotland" in the title. Stewart Maxwell suggested that the word "Scotland" had not been used previously and that was the case. Are we okay with that explanation?

Members indicated agreement.

I take it for granted that members are happy to draw the Executive's response to the attention of the lead committee and Parliament.

---

Waste Management Licensing Amendment (Scotland) Regulations 2006 (SSI 2006/541)

We asked the Executive what plans, if any, it has to consolidate the regulations. It said that it is examining means of improving waste regulation. Are members content to note the information and to draw it to the attention of the lead committee and Parliament?

Members indicated agreement.

---

Rice Products (Restriction on First Placing on the Market) (Scotland) Regulations 2006 (SSI 2006/542)

We asked two questions about the regulations. First, we asked the Food Standards Agency Scotland to explain the purpose of the definition of "Regulation 178/2002" in regulation 2(1). The agency agreed that the definition is superfluous and said that the provision will be removed at the next legislative opportunity. Are we content to report the instrument on the ground of defective drafting?

Members indicated agreement.

Secondly, we asked the FSA to explain the absence of a provision to deal with the disposal of material that is found to be contaminated.

I ask the committee to discuss whether it agrees to write to the FSA about, or at least to raise with the lead committee, an issue that has been brought to my attention. I understand that Friends of the Earth has taken legal proceedings against the FSA in England in relation to the equivalent English regulations. Friends of the Earth states, in an e-mail to me, that the FSA's defence against the legal proceedings is based on the fact that

"The SI implements Articles 3 and 4 of the Decision by placing a statutory duty on local food authorities to ensure that ... appropriate measures are taken to verify the absence of LL Rice 601 from the UK market and to withdraw rice from the market where it is found to be contaminated with LL Rice 601."

The e-mail goes on to say that the FSA says that

"parallel legislation has been made elsewhere in the United Kingdom".

If we consider the English and Scottish regulations on enforcement—regulation 4 in the Scottish regulations—we can see that the wording is different. I wondered whether we could ask FSA Scotland about that difference. FSA Scotland has already answered questions that we have raised, and it may well be that the other regulations that FSA Scotland mentions cover the point. However, I am not sure.

I have some questions from Friends of the Earth. I do not know whether it would be appropriate to pass them to you convener, or whether you wish me to read them into the record.

If we are going to pursue this matter, the questions should be read into the record.

In effect, it is one question broken into two parts:

"To explain clearly the reason why the Scotland Regulations do not provide for equivalent enforcement provisions to those in the English equivalent regulations, including in particular:

(i) To explain, in the light of Article 3 of the Commission Decision, the absence in the Regulations of a provision equivalent to that contained in Reg. 4(2) and 4(4)(b) of the England Regulations which would appear to impose an obligation on local food authorities to verify the absence of GM Rice in their areas.

(ii) To explain, in the light of Article 4 of the Commission Decision, the absence in the Regulations of a provision equivalent to that contained in Reg. 4(2) and 4(4)(c) of the England Regulations which would appear to impose obligation on local food authorities to secure the withdrawal of GM contaminated rice within their areas."

It would be helpful if we could raise those specific points with FSA Scotland, and pass them on to the lead committee.

Stewart has raised the issue and read those points into the record, and I do not object to the points being passed on. However, I am slightly concerned. This is an important matter, affecting consumer confidence in rice products and consumer concerns about GM products. I am not saying that this committee is being used by Friends of the Earth, but if a court case is going on between Friends of the Earth and the FSA, I am sensitive about our role and about our getting involved.

Having said that, Stewart has read the questions into the record and there is no harm in drawing the matter to the attention of FSA Scotland. However, I want to express my anxiety about the waters that we are treading into.

I accept entirely what Ken is saying, and if I thought for one second that we were being used or that we were treading into areas that we should not, I certainly would not have raised the point. That is why I made it clear where the questions came from, rather than just putting them on the record without any background.

They are only questions, but they are legitimate if what is happening elsewhere casts any doubt over the validity of the Scottish regulations. If there is a difference between the English and Scottish regulations, there may be valid questions to be asked.

I do not think that the fact that the questions come from Friends of the Earth really matters. We all receive information from outside bodies who are deeply involved in particular issues, and sometimes they point out things that we are not aware of. I hope that the committee will agree that it is reasonable to ask the questions. It may well be that FSA Scotland has reasonable answers, but we should ask the questions.

Are we agreed that we should put those questions to FSA Scotland and await a response. We have time before we go back to the lead committee and Parliament.

Members indicated agreement.

Stewart, will you forward the e-mail to the clerks afterwards?

Yes.