Official Report 122KB pdf
The next part of this agenda item is consideration of the Food Standards Act 1999 (Transitional and Consequential Provisions and Savings) (Scotland) Regulations 2000. I ask Ms Ailsa McLaggan and Mr David Cassidy from the Solicitors Office of the Scottish Executive to join us.
First, I should apologise for the fact that there has been no written response to the committee's letter. As you said, there have been difficulties and the drafting solicitor is off sick today. Nevertheless, we hope that we can cover some of the committee's points.
You have said that you accept the points made in paragraphs 5 and 6. Do you mean paragraphs 5 and 6 of our letter to you of 23 March?
Yes.
Can you go through the other paragraphs? Presumably you do not believe that the points that are made there affect the validity of the instrument?
They certainly do not affect the validity of the instrument. If we were bringing forward amending provisions in relation to the Welfare of Animals (Slaughter or Killing) Regulations 1995, we would take the opportunity to tidy up some of the points that are raised in paragraphs 2, 3 and 7 of the letter. We do not feel that any amendment is necessary to deal with port health authorities, which are discussed in paragraph 4 of the letter.
When you talk about tidying up the regulations, does that mean that you agree with the points that are made in the letter?
In paragraph 2 of part IV, which deals with egg marketing regulations, it would have been tidier to have included a reference to the Scottish ministers. Similarly, in part IV of schedule 4, which deals with the Poultry Meat, Farmed Game Bird Meat and Rabbit Meat (Hygiene and Inspection) Regulations 1995, the reference should be to "it" rather than to "him".
What about paragraph 4 of the letter?
It is correct to say that there are no port health authorities in Scotland. The Food (Pistachios from Iran) (Emergency Control) Order 1997 that is being amended in schedule 7 contains a definition of a port health authority in the interpretation section of the regulations, which states that a port health authority includes a port local authority, which is the relevant term for Scotland. We think that fits in with the regulations as they are currently drafted.
Would that be mentioned in an explanatory note?
We could consider that.
I am thinking about what will happen when the regulations are referred to another committee that will not be able to have the dialogue that we are having here and that might, therefore, pick up the point about there being no port health authorities in Scotland.
If you were to tidy up the point about port health authorities including port local authorities, would you do that in an amending instrument?
I am not sure that we are in a position this morning to take a view on the need for an amendment to the reference to port health authorities. As I understand it, we are making a consequential amendment to an instrument that stands outside the principal instrument. The instrument that we are amending includes a definition of port health authority that includes port local authority, which is the relevant Scottish body. It may be that on further consideration of the matter, prompted by the committee's letter, we will take the view that clarification of that is needed. However, at the moment we regard the amendment as fine.
Would it be possible to include the definition of port health authority as including port local authority in the interpretation section of these regulations or any amending regulations?
We are dealing with an amendment that is being made in a schedule to the Food Standards Act 1999 (Transitional and Consequential Provisions and Savings) (Scotland) Regulations 2000 and that amends another instrument to which that refers. We are not dealing with the interpretation section of the substantive provisions of the amending instrument. This would be an unusual place to locate such an interpretation section.
That is accepted. If there is to be an amendment, do you have any comments on the first part of the letter? I appreciate that neither of you was involved in the drafting of this instrument and that its phrasing may to some extent be a matter of style or choice, but is it possible that in the amendment you would seek to make the language of the instrument less convoluted?
We cannot take a view on that at the moment. The amendments that we are proposing are minor and would not allow us to restructure the instrument. We note the committee's point that the language is complicated; that will be taken on board for future reference.
Are you satisfied that the instrument contains no errors other than those to which we drew your attention in our letter of 23 March?
We cannot say this morning that we are satisfied that that is the case, but we will take the opportunity to look for any other errors in the instrument.
I suggest that we allow the instrument to proceed to the lead committee with the advice that we have received and our view that some matters have been clarified. It will be for the lead committee to ascertain what amendments are made. I thank our witnesses for their attendance.