European and External Relations Committee, 28 Sep 2004

Meeting date: Tuesday, September 28, 2004

Official Report 248KB pdf

---

Deputy Convener's Report

Item 6 is consideration of what would normally be described as the convener's report, which has been formulated as the deputy convener's report in the absence of a convener during the past two weeks.

There are two items in the report. First, members will recall that we have raised issues with the Food Standards Agency Scotland on a number of occasions. We have received a response from the minister and it is for members to decide how to progress the matter.

Will you mention the second item? We can then discuss the issues.

Okay. The second item relates to the biofuels directive. The committee has a responsibility to check whether European legislation is correctly transposed by the Scottish Executive. We also consider whether such legislation should be transposed on a UK basis or requires a particularly Scottish response.

We have received a letter from Ross Finnie about the biofuels directive, which refers to

"a proposed target that biofuels should form 0.3% of all fuel sales by volume by 31 December 2005".

The target appears to comply with the terms of the directive, but it is for the committee to decide whether it is appropriate that Scotland should implement the directive in the same way as the rest of the UK does. No doubt members want to express views on the matter.

On the food supplements issue, the penultimate paragraph of Malcolm Chisholm's letter sums up the situation. I have sympathy with the minister's position. He says:

"it would not be appropriate for a Minister to seek to intervene in the independent process of scientific risk assessment that EFSA is currently undertaking"—

that is, provided that he is satisfied that the scientific process is rigorous. The minister makes the point that the FSA argues strongly for a balance between the setting of maximum safe limits and the imposition of unnecessary limits on consumer choice. The minister and the FSA are clearly trying to strike that balance and it would be inappropriate for the minister to intervene in the European Food Safety Authority's work.

My concern is that scientists in the UK have in the past reached different conclusions on the matter from scientists elsewhere. As Keith Raffan said, I understand that the minister does not want to become involved in an argument with the scientists whom he employs. However, those scientists went along with the limits that were considered safe in the past, but now we have to listen to scientists from elsewhere. Why are the limits no longer considered safe? Is there evidence that they are not safe? The minister has a role to play in establishing that. Before he takes a view on the matter, he should be convinced that the EFSA is right and that our scientists have been wrong.

We have been round that course already. It is obvious that it is most appropriate to leave it to the scientists to find a conclusive position on the issue. In any case, I suppose that the matter would be better dealt with by the Health Committee.

The biofuels directive should probably be considered by the Local Government and Transport Committee. I do not know whether the 0.3 per cent figure represents a lot of fuel—perhaps it is a lot. It would be interesting to know how the Scottish component of the UK target will be achieved and how much fuel the figure represents. Will the fuel be manufactured in Scotland or elsewhere? How will Scotland's part in the policy be achieved? Perhaps we could set a target that is a little more ambitious than 0.3 per cent.

I have a comment on the dossier preparation costs, which was one of the substantial points that petitioners raised at an early stage. The minister's letter states that discussions at a meeting on 14 October 2003

"suggested dossier preparation costs for many of the ‘missing' substances would be significantly lower than previously estimated."

It is important to put that on the public record because it was one of the petitioners' original areas of concern.

I note that the minister's letter also states:

"The European Food Safety Authority is continuing the work on safe upper levels for intakes of vitamins".

Our committee has done a substantial amount of work on the instrument, but my understanding is that the instrument would go back to the Health Committee and, if there were remaining concerns, it would be for that committee to take them up.

I will draw the discussion to a close. The first point falls into the category of the difficult matters involving scientific advice. The issue is whether to follow such advice or to question it. I understand Phil Gallie's position. Within the current policy framework, the FSA was established to give an independent imprimatur to issues. The committee's consensus is to accept that and to recognise that, if any new information arises, we can reflect on it in due course.

On the second point, John Home Robertson asked for further information on the detail of the target. We will secure that information and report to the committee on it in due course.