Official Report 164KB pdf
National Health Service (General Medical Services) (Scotland) Amendment (No 2) Regulations 2003 (SSI 2003/310)
Although the regulations breach the 21-day rule, a letter has been attached that explains the breach. The explanation seems reasonable.
Condensed Milk and Dried Milk (Scotland) Regulations 2003 (SSI 2003/311)
Again, the regulations breach the 21-day rule.
In this case, we have received not an explanation, but an expression of regret that the regulations were not made earlier. I do not think that we can be entirely satisfied with that, particularly given that the Food Standards Agency is involved yet again. As a result, we should press for an explanation.
In principle, we should always ask for an explanation for a breach of the 21-day rule. That does not mean that will we not accept such an explanation or that we will not be charitable about it.
The regulations contain some typographical errors. We might also want to ask whether, in schedule 1 to the regulations on page 6 of the instrument, a word is missing between "7.5 per cent" and "and" in column 2 relating to item 1(c). We should clarify whether the food additives that are listed in footnote 2 on the same page are to be added to the list of designated products or to the designated products themselves.
Feeding Stuffs (Scotland) Amendment<br />(No 2) Regulations 2003 (SSI 2003/312)
The regulations breach the 21-day rule without any explanation.
We have received the same dismissive letter that simply expresses regret that the regulations could not have been introduced earlier. We cannot indicate whether we accept the FSA's reasons for the breach if it does not state any such reasons. We should make it clear to the agency in strong terms that we cannot accept such a letter.
Will the clerk confirm that we cannot write to the Food Standards Agency directly about this, and that we must do that through the Executive?
Yes. All the letters go to a central point at the Executive; they are then distributed to the addressees that are implied within them.
As long as the FSA is getting the message—that is the main thing.
There is clearly an issue around the Food Standards Agency. Did such an issue arise during the first session? Has there been a change in personnel somewhere, perhaps?
It does not seem to have arisen.
So this is a new issue, which has suddenly arisen at the beginning of this session. Is that the way it is?
Possibly.
I think that that is unacceptable.
A new group of people might be involved, and they might take a different view from—
That is why I was asking. Do we know whether there has been a change of staff?
We have changed.
I recommend that we ask why there appears to have been a change in relation to breach of the 21-day rule and so on.
Yes—there is a general question. The FSA does not seem to care, somehow.
The other issue is about transposition notes not being provided. That has cropped up about four times already. There was also the decision not to provide information because of there not being an applicable statutory condition. I presume that those points are not new, and that they must reflect previous practice. In general, the points that we are raising are not new. The 21-day rule issue might be the major point, but it would appear that there are longer-term difficulties around the level of information and the degree of co-operation that we appear to be getting from the FSA.
The clerk to the committee said that all letters that we ask to be written go to a central point, and are then sent on. Do we automatically get a copy of any response?
Yes, always.
That is fine.
Improvement and Repairs Grant (Prescribed Valuation Band) (Scotland) Order 2003 (SSI 2003/314)
There is an error in footnote (c): the proper citation of the order concerned is SI 1996/741, not SI 1996/74. We could mention that to the Executive in an informal letter.
Is that the kind of thing that the Executive can amend by an erratum note? If so, then that is what to do.
Is that agreed?