Subordinate Legislation Committee

Meeting date: Tuesday, January 24, 2012

Official Report 322KB pdf

---

Instruments subject to Negative Procedure

---

Specified Products from China (Restriction on First Placing on the Market) (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 2012 (SSI 2012/3)

We move to agenda item 3. There has been a failure to lay the regulations at least 28 days before they come into force, as required by section 28(2) of the Interpretation and Legislative Reform (Scotland) Act 2010. Are we content to draw the regulations to the Parliament’s attention under reporting ground (j)?

Members indicated agreement.

In doing so, are we content to find the explanation provided by the Food Standards Agency for that failure to be acceptable, as urgent action was required to implement by 12 January 2012 an emergency European Union food and feed safety measure that was published on 23 December 2011?

Members indicated agreement.

Can we also note that the regulations were brought into force before they were laid and ask our officials to explore with Scottish Government officials options for avoiding that happening again?

Members indicated agreement.

---

National Health Service (Travelling Expenses and Remission Charges) (Scotland) (No 2) Amendment Regulations 2011 (SSI 2011/449)

---

Sea Fish (Prohibited Methods of Fishing) (Firth of Clyde) Order 2012 (SSI 2012/4)

---

Fodder Plant Seed (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 2012 (SSI 2012/5)

---

Conservation of Salmon (River Annan Salmon Fishery District) (Scotland) Regulations 2012 (SSI 2012/6)

Although no points were raised on the instruments, we note, first, that the transposition of the directive that SSI 2012/5 implements is slightly late, as it should have been dealt with by 30 November 2011. Secondly, as the Fodder Plant Seed (Scotland) Regulations 2005 (SSI 2005/329) have now been amended eight times, can we encourage the Scottish Government to consolidate them at the next legislative opportunity?

Members indicated agreement.

I know that it is difficult, but is there any notional limit on the number of times that we should go through instruments before the Government has a look at the whole thing?

We have discussed the subject informally and elsewhere. One of the issues about consolidation, though not in this case, is that the eighth amendment might be just like the seventh, the sixth, the fifth and so on down to the first, because one number has been changed eight times, in which case it would not be possible to consolidate it, because you would have in front of you the finished article.

Equally, the instrument may have been substantially rewritten eight times and may have become impenetrable after the fourth amendment, never mind the eighth. Although we probably need to ask the general question every time just to get the Government to think about it, the answer will depend on where on the spectrum the instrument is. Unless we are prepared to do the work to explore that, which I suggest that we probably should not do, it is impossible to know where the right answer lies.

Okay, thank you.

Is the committee otherwise content with the instruments?

Members indicated agreement.