Official Report 143KB pdf
Shetland Islands Regulated Fishery (Scotland) Variation Order 2004 (SSI 2004/1)<br />Ura Firth, Shetland Scallops Several Fishery Order 2004 (SSI 2004/5)
Item 3 is on Executive responses. We asked last week about regulatory impact assessments in relation to these two fishery orders—I think that Stewart Maxwell raised the matter. The Executive has acknowledged its error of not recording where RIAs could be obtained, and it is taking remedial action. I suggest that we simply report on the orders to the lead committee and Parliament. Is that agreed?
Meat Products (Scotland) Regulations 2004 (SSI 2004/6)
We had a number of questions about the regulations. The first related to the definition of "free circulation", and to whether the reference to "Article 23" should be to "Article 24". There is some debate about which it should be. I suggest that we report our discussion on the matter to the lead committee and Parliament.
Our second question was whether the reference in regulation 5(3) to paragraph (2) of the same regulation was correct. Furthermore, the Food Standards Agency Scotland conceded that paragraph (1) is defective to the extent that we had pointed out. I suggest that we report those matters to the lead committee and Parliament. Is that agreed?
Our third question was on a bigger issue, to do with regulation 9(1)(g). A full explanation is outlined in our legal advice. Our question was why that provision had not been modified in the same way as the equivalent English regulations. The legal advisers think that the Scottish drafting is superior. We should draw the attention of the lead committee and Parliament to the information that we got back from the agency. Is that agreed?
Our fourth question was on regulation 9 having a paragraph (1) but no subsequent paragraphs. That typographical error has been conceded; we can simply report that.
I would like to commend the Food Standards Agency on its explanation. It is very clear now how the figure can come to 120 per cent. If the agency's explanation had been included in the first place, we would have understood the figure better. However, it is clear now.
We will pass that on.
Could we clarify that Stewart Maxwell is registering 120 per cent satisfaction with the agency's response?
I am sure that he is.
Our seventh question was on the absence of a transposition note. I am afraid that it was sent in error—not directly by the committee, but by the clerks, I think. We are sorry about that. However, I gather that the legal advisers were interested to note that the regulations required to be notified to the Commission under the technical standards directive, which the explanatory note indicates has been done. The adviser was pleased about that. If we all agree, we will report all that to the lead committee and Parliament.
Infant Formula and Follow-on Formula Amendment (Scotland) Regulations 2004 (SSI 2004/7)<br />Processed Cereal-based Foods and Baby Foods for Infants and Young Children (Scotland) Regulations 2004 (SSI 2004/8)
Members will recall that our first question to the Food Standards Agency on these regulations was in connection with the same matter that we raised in relation to regulation 9(1)(g) of the Meat Products (Scotland) Regulations 2004 (SSI 2004/6). We will refer all our comments to the lead committee and Parliament.
On the absence of transposition notes, I assume that we wish to be strong on this point: we think that it really is necessary to include transposition notes in this case. If they are included for the equivalent English regulations, why should they not be included to assist us here?
Previous
Delegated Powers Scrutiny