S.I. 2003/3241: memorandum from
the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
Plant Protection Products Regulations 2003 (S.I. 2003/3241)
1. The Plant Protection Products Regulations 2003
revoke and consolidate with modifications in relation to England
and Wales the Plant Protection Products Regulations 1995. They
continue to implement Council Directive 91/414.
2. At the time they were made, the 1995 Regulations
were reported by the Committee (Session 1994 - 5, 19th
Report) as requiring elucidation in four respects. The purpose
of this memorandum is to assist the Committee in its consideration
of the 2003 Regulations by addressing the points which were raised
at the time the 1995 Regulations were made.
3. The first issue raised in 1995 related to the
provision in regulation 8(1). This allowed the Minister to grant
an emergency approval " if such a measure appears necessary
because of an unforseeable danger". The Committee was unclear
how this provision could be used since it appeared to require
the Ministers to foresee an unforeseeable danger. The reason
the provision had been drafted in that way was because it reflected
the wording of Article 8(4) of the Directive. We have avoided
this problem in regulation 8(1) of the new Regulations by providing
the Secretary of State with a power to address "a danger
falling within Article 8(4)" of the Directive.
4. The second issue raised by the Committee was the
failure to make specific provision in regulation 13 to allow an
approval holder to make representations before an approval is
revoked and to require the Minister to give reasons for his decision.
At the time, the Ministry explained that the absence of specific
provisions in no way prejudiced the approval holder since the
general principles of administrative law would apply. For the
avoidance of doubt, however, we have made specific provision to
allow the approval holder to make representations and to require
the Secretary of State to give reasons for her decision in paragraphs
(9) and (10) of regulation 13 of the new Regulations.
5. The third issue raised by the Committee related
to the drafting of regulation 21(2) which made it an offence for
a person to cause or permit another person to make a statement
which "he" knows to be false in a material particular.
The Committee felt it was not clear to whom "he" referred
and thus which of the two persons was required to have the guilty
knowledge. This problem has been dealt with in regulation 21(2)
of the new Regulations by using the term "former" instead
of "he" thus making it clear which person is required
to have the guilty knowledge.
6. The final provision which the Committee thought
required elucidation in 1995 was the provision in paragraph 6
of Schedule 2 (now schedule 3) empowering the Minister (now Secretary
of State) to require additional phrases to be marked on packaging.
It was not clear to the Committee how this requirement was to
be made known to those to whom it applied.
7. At the time, the Ministry explained to the Committee
that the requirement would be made known to those affected in
two ways. There would be a notice in the Pesticides Register.
In addition, the Pesticides Safety Directorate (on behalf of
the Secretary of State) would write to all those affected either
by way of an individual letter sent to specific approval holders
or, if a large number of approval were affected, by means of a
letter to all approval holders. Any required phrases of general
application would also be set out in the COPR (Control of Pesticides
Regulations) Handbook, which is produced and distributed jointly
by the Pesticides Safety Directorate and the Health and Safety
Executive.
8. The procedures outlined above remain those by
which the requirement to mark additional phrases on packaging
would be made known to those to whom it applied.
10 December 2003
S.I. 2003/3241: further memorandum
from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
1. In its letter of 13 January, the Committee has
requested that the Department submit a memorandum on the following
points:
In regulation 27:
(1) should not the reference to Schedule 3
in paragraph (1) be to Schedule 4?
(2) explain the inclusion of paragraph (4).
2. The Committee is correct to suggest that the reference
in paragraph (1) of regulation 27 to Schedule 3 should in fact
be a reference to Schedule 4. The Regulations will be amended
as soon as practical to correct this error.
3. Paragraph (4) was included to provide definitions
of certain terms which are used in Schedule 4. As the Schedule
itself contains a definition provision, paragraph (4) is redundant,
and in any event should not have been used to define terms which
do not appear in the regulation itself. It will be deleted when
the Regulations are amended.
4. In accordance with required practice, copies of
the amending instrument will be made available free of charge.
5. This memorandum has been agreed with the National
Assembly for Wales.
19 January 2004
