-Ramsay
TC (Tracy)
From:
Anderson A (Ann)
Sent:
12 March 1999 12:08
To:
Walford IN (Ian)
aga03103.doc
Ann Anderson
PS/J R Wildgoose
Ext 46160
\ .
.J
(~
.
-I-
1
---------------------------------------------------------·---------------6159~
6638
John Elvidge Esq
Cabinet Office
70 Whitehall
LONDON
SW1A 2NN
12 March 1999
)
(
Dear John
FOOD STANDARDS
BILL:
LEGISLATION
We spoke about the timing of the introduction
and second reading of the above Bill at
Westminster-
and interactions with the timing of the debate in the Scottish Parliament,
which we deem necessary to seek the Parliament's
agreement to proceeding
as currently
proposed.
We recognise of course that the timing of Bill introduction and second reading is for the
business managers - but our planning assumptions for working purposes are that the Bill will
be introduced
at Westminster -in week commencing 24 May with second reading in week
commencing 7 June. I have now been ad~sed by the Executive Secretariat here that it is too
G;~g,:
optimistic to schedule a debate in the Scottish Parliament before the end of May: a debate in
the first week of June (say 2 or 3 June) is more realistic.
On this timing, the Parliament
would have the published Bill available before its debate - which gives them a concrete
proposal on which to base their views.
We could of course be criticised if the debate took-
place shortly before introduction at Westminster when the MSPs would not have the printed
bill available.
On the other hand it would be helpful if, on introduction, the UK Government
could make it clear that the remaining stages would be put on hold ifMSPs
were to withhold
consent of the Bill.
So on balance, the timings we are working -with remain acceptable
from a devolution
standpoint.
These are of course provisional timings for working purposes.
I cannot, at this
juncture, guarantee an early June date for a debate in the Scottish Parliament;
much depends
upon the outcome of the Election ie whether the new Scottish Executive is. fonned qwckly,
and of course also on the views of the business managers in Edinburgh after the Election.
AGA03103
1.
___ .. "
~qll~ly-w_e_.9!W1J.()tI!1)t()JIl~tic.mly-~~1JID~-1:h,:lt
Jhe.. S.QQtti~hJ~arJiamc:mLwi1LsigILUp_
to_the
~ _._
proposals - although we are working hard in the consultation now ongoing to build support
---forthem:--Wecontinuetobelievethatthe
bestchan~e-for theproposed-UKi1asedpolicy
to -be----------
-
-
u_
-
achieved is through the current FS Bill at Westminster
this session.
If, however,
the
Parliament does not sign up, we will then have to agree with the Scottish Executive, and with
Whitehall, how to proceed.
I will be working up some thoughts on this in the next month or
so on a contingency basis.
But none of this affects the timing points noted above;
if the
Scottish Parliament is opposed, we will need to think again - wherever we are in the process.
Finally, my understanding
is that colleagues are continuing to consider precisely how the
constitutional convention relating to legislation at Westminster in devolved areas might work.
Robert Gordon will be writing to you shortly with some Scottish Office views.
:
I hope the above is helpful in setting out our thinking on timing and devolution aspects in
relation to the proposed Bill.
Copies of this letter go to Alice Perkins, Richard Carden, GeoffreyPodger
and to members of
MISC02.
Yours sincerely
J R WILDGOOSE
AGA03103
2.
.!!2,pers
DA (David)
From:
Walford IN (Ian)
Sent:
11 March 199909;35
To:
Rogers DA (David)
Cc:
Gordon RSB (Robert); Grice PE (Paul); Hislop E (Elizabeth); Ewing JA (John)
Sii6ject:
. FW: Food Standards-Bift;-f)ebaWi/TScottish
Parttc3ment
Importance:
High
David (copy to Robert, John, Paul)
We spoke about the draft Wildgoose-Elvidge
letter. I have now spoken to Jim Wildgoose. I have passed on
a number of comments on the draft. In particular I have asked him to include a sentence which says in tenns
that if the FSA Bill is introduced at Westminster before the debate on consent in the SP it should be made
clear at that point by the UK Government that it would only proceed to subsequent stages if the SP consent.
I have also asked him to inc~ude a sentence indicating that Robert is about to write to Elvidge about the
J!P:~era1workings of the constitutional convention.
The letter which you are preparing for Robert's signature
'3then
cross-refer to Jim's letter (which will issue today).
{~
,
\'-
IAN WALFORD
i.----Orir~
Message-----
2 items:
AGA02803 is the covering minute 1page
AGA02703 is the draft letter to Elvidge 2 pages
Jim is looking for comments by· lunchtime tomorrow (11 March) Thanks
aga02803.doc
ago027D3.doc
.
Ann Anderson
PS/J R Wildgoose
Ext 46160
Jim is in London won't be back until tomorrow.
1
Mr Ewing
Copy to:
PSI AEFD
MJ: Gordon
Mr Cameron
Mr Grice
Mrs Munro
Mr Walford
Mr Lindsay
Mrs Macdonald
Mrs McA1lan
Mr Campbell
FOOD STANDARDS
BILL:
DEBATE IN SCOTTISH
PARLIAMENT
1.
We spoke on this subject - following your minute of 24 February responding to my·
minute of22 February to Mr Grice.
2.
I have also been speaking to John Elvidge in Cabinet Office about timings for the
debate - and indeed timing for introduction of the Bill and second reading at Westminster.
I
agreed to write to him on this subject and I attach a draft which I plan to send tomOlTOW
(11 March).
The terms of the letter very much picks up the thinking in our telephone
conversation.
I would be grateful for your comments - and those of copy addressees by
lunchtime
tomorrow.
3.
John Elvidge indicated to me that the business managers
at Westminster
will be
meeting on Monday evening (15 March) to consider forward planning for the session - and
by implication the possible scheduling of the FS Bill.
He also reported that No.10 see the
Bill as important - and essentially top of the list of those not yet allocated time.
He
suggested to me that a letter at official level, to register our thoughts with the business
mangers, would be more productive than a Ministerial letter which would be higher profile
and which might be interpreted (by No.1 0) as holding up the Bill due to devolution.
Once the
letter is cleared, however, I intend to put a short note to Ministers to inform them that I h~ve
written.
J R WILDGOOSE
10 March 1999
AEFD Division A
Room 352
Pentland House
Ext 46159
AGA02803
6-1-59-
6638
John Elvidge Esq
Cabinet Office
70 Whitehall
LONDON
SW1A 2NN
March 1999
c,
Dear John
FOOD STANDARDS BILL: LEGISLATION
We spoke about the timing of the introduction
and second reading of the above Bill at
Westminster - and interactions with the timing of the debate. in the Scottish Parliament to
seek their agreement to proceeding as currently propos~<i.
Our planning assumptions at present are that the Bill will be introduced at Westminster on
28 May with second reading on 7 June.
I had originally planned that the debate in the
Scottish Parliament would be scheduled in the last week of May - ideally before 28 May.
I
have now been advised by Constitution Group here that this proposed timing is optimistic and
that a debate in the first week of June is more realistic.
At first sight, this would appear to throw out the planned timings at Westminster.
In point of
fact, however, I now think that we could proceed as planned at Westminster-
with the
Scottish Parliament debate early in June (say 2 or 3 June), with the planned date for second
reading at Westminster (7 June) retained.
On this timing, the Scottish Parliament would have
the published Bill available for its debate - and we could argue ~at this gives them a
concrete proposal on which to base their views.
(We could of course be criticised if the
Scottish Parliament debate took place shortly before introduction at Westminster when the
MSPs would not have the printed bill available).
AGA02703
1.
---
...- ----SQ-On-balance,..lhe-phmned timings we are working with remain acceptable from a devolution
standpoint.
These are of course planned timings for working .purposes.
I cannot, at this
juncture, guarantee an early June date for a debate in the Scottish Parliament;
much depends
upon the outcome of the Election ie whether the new Scottish Executive is formed quickly,
and of course also on the views of the business managers in Edinburgh after the Election.
Equally, we cannot automatically assume that the Scottish Parliament will sign up to the
I
proposals - although we are working hard in the consultation now ongoing to build support
for them. If there is no agreement, then we will have to agree with the Scottish Executive,
(
'-
and with Whitehall, how to proceed.
I will be w~rkin~ up. s~me thoughts on this in the next
month or so on a contingency basis. But none of this affects the timing points noted above;
if the Scottish Parliament does not sign up, we need to think again - wherever we are in the
process.
Finally, my understanding is that the precise terms of the constitutional convention relating to
legislation at Westminster
in deyolved areas, is still under consideration.
My working
assumption in the context of the Food Standards Bill is that we would invite the Scottish
Parliament's
agreement on two issues - the policy of a single UK Agency and primary
legislation to set up the Agency being at Westminster.
I hope the above is helpful in setting out our thinking on timing and devolution aspects in
relation to the proposed Bill.
Copies of this letter go to Alice Perkins, Richard Carden, Geoffrey Podger and to members of
MISC02.
Yours sincerely
J R WlLDGOOSE
AGA02703
2.
Document Outline
