The Sheep Carcase (Classification and Price Reporting) (England) Regulations 2025
Write the words of this act the way you think they should read. Solon shows your change as a redline against the published text and pins it to that exact text, so it can never be applied to wording you did not see.
Change 1
Schedule 2 Authorisation test process for automated classification methods and minimum requirements for test results
Regulation 19 Part 1 Authorisation Test Process 1 An automated classification method which has been submitted for authorisation must be tested in the classification of a sample of at least 1200 carcases, each of which must also be visually classified by every member of a panel which has been convened for this purpose by the Secretary of State. 2 The panel convened by the Secretary of State for the authorisation test must be composed of an uneven number of at least five experts in classification of carcases of sheep. 3 During the test process the members of the panel must use the subdivisions of classes of conformation and fat cover referred to in regulation 5(3). 4 The members of the panel must work independently and anonymously of each other. 5 The Secretary of State must also nominate a coordinator of the authorisation test process, who must— (a) not be part of the panel; (b) maintain independence with regard to the panel; and (c) in the opinion of the Secretary of State, have satisfactory technical knowledge to carry out this role. 6 The coordinator nominated under paragraph 5 must— (a) monitor the work of the panel convened under paragraph 1; (b) ensure that each panel member carries out the visual classifications of the carcases independently and anonymously from the other panel members; (c) verify that each carcase classified is— (i) obtained from a sheep aged less than 12 months at the time of slaughter; and (ii) presented in the same way as all other carcases used in the test process, that being in accordance with the requirements of regulation 7; (d) collect— (i) the classification results of the members of the panel; and (ii) the classification results obtained by using the automated classification method, for each carcase; (e) ensure that, during the entire duration of the authorisation test, the classification results obtained by using the automated classification method are not available to any member of the panel or to any other interested party; (f) make a decision whether, for objective reasons they must specify, any carcases should be excluded from the sample to be used for the analysis; (g) ensure that the analysis sample includes a spread of carcases which is representative of the variety of sheep slaughtered in regulated slaughterhouses; (h) send the results to the Secretary of State and the data analyst-statistician nominated under paragraph 7; and (i) send to the Secretary of State a report on how the test was conducted, including information on how the carcases were presented during the test process. 7 The Secretary of State must nominate an independent data analyst-statistician for each test, who must— (a) analyse the results of the test collected by the coordinator to determine the accuracy of the automated classification method in accordance with Part 2 of this Schedule; and (b) communicate the results of the analysis conducted under sub-paragraph (a) to the Secretary of State. Part 2 Minimum requirements for test results 8 If the automated classification method fails to generate any classification result for 5% or more of the carcases within the test sample, it must be considered to have failed the authorisation test process. 9 If paragraph 8 does not apply, the accuracy of the automated classification method must be assessed according to the following paragraphs in this Part. 10 For each carcase within the test sample, the median of the visual results of all the members of the panel must be considered as the correct classification result for that carcase. 11 Results generated by the automated classification method must, for each carcase, be compared to the correct classification result. 12 The accuracy of the automated classification method must be established by allocating points to each classification result generated by that method, based on its degree of deviation from the correct classification result for both conformation and fat cover in accordance with Table 1 below. Table 1 Deviation from correct classification result | Conformation | Fat cover No deviation | 10 | 10 Deviation of 1 class subdivision (up or down) | 6 | 9 Deviation of 2 class subdivisions (up or down) | -9 | 0 Deviation of 3 class subdivisions (up or down) | -27 | -13 Deviation of more than 3 class subdivisions (up or down) | -48 | -30 13 To pass the authorisation test, the automated classification method must achieve at least 60% of the maximum number of points under Table 1 for both conformation and fat cover. 14 In addition to the requirement under paragraph 13, the classifications by the automated classification method must be within the limits specified in Table 2 below. Table 2 Conformation | Fat cover Bias | ± 0.30 | ± 0.60 Slope of the regression line | 1 ± 0.15 | 1 ± 0.30
Schedule 2 Authorisation test process for automated classification methods and minimum requirements for test results
Regulation 19 Part 1 Authorisation Test Process 1 An automated classification method which has been submitted for authorisation must be tested in the classification of a sample of at least 1200 carcases, each of which must also be visually classified by every member of a panel which has been convened for this purpose by the Secretary of State. 2 The panel convened by the Secretary of State for the authorisation test must be composed of an uneven number of at least five experts in classification of carcases of sheep. 3 During the test process the members of the panel must use the subdivisions of classes of conformation and fat cover referred to in regulation 5(3). 4 The members of the panel must work independently and anonymously of each other. 5 The Secretary of State must also nominate a coordinator of the authorisation test process, who must— (a) not be part of the panel; (b) maintain independence with regard to the panel; and (c) in the opinion of the Secretary of State, have satisfactory technical knowledge to carry out this role. 6 The coordinator nominated under paragraph 5 must— (a) monitor the work of the panel convened under paragraph 1; (b) ensure that each panel member carries out the visual classifications of the carcases independently and anonymously from the other panel members; (c) verify that each carcase classified is— (i) obtained from a sheep aged less than 12 months at the time of slaughter; and (ii) presented in the same way as all other carcases used in the test process, that being in accordance with the requirements of regulation 7; (d) collect— (i) the classification results of the members of the panel; and (ii) the classification results obtained by using the automated classification method, for each carcase; (e) ensure that, during the entire duration of the authorisation test, the classification results obtained by using the automated classification method are not available to any member of the panel or to any other interested party; (f) make a decision whether, for objective reasons they must specify, any carcases should be excluded from the sample to be used for the analysis; (g) ensure that the analysis sample includes a spread of carcases which is representative of the variety of sheep slaughtered in regulated slaughterhouses; (h) send the results to the Secretary of State and the data analyst-statistician nominated under paragraph 7; and (i) send to the Secretary of State a report on how the test was conducted, including information on how the carcases were presented during the test process. 7 The Secretary of State must nominate an independent data analyst-statistician for each test, who must— (a) analyse the results of the test collected by the coordinator to determine the accuracy of the automated classification method in accordance with Part 2 of this Schedule; and (b) communicate the results of the analysis conducted under sub-paragraph (a) to the Secretary of State. Part 2 Minimum requirements for test results 8 If the automated classification method fails to generate any classification result for 5% or more of the carcases within the test sample, it must be considered to have failed the authorisation test process. 9 If paragraph 8 does not apply, the accuracy of the automated classification method must be assessed according to the following paragraphs in this Part. 10 For each carcase within the test sample, the median of the visual results of all the members of the panel must be considered as the correct classification result for that carcase. 11 Results generated by the automated classification method must, for each carcase, be compared to the correct classification result. 12 The accuracy of the automated classification method must be established by allocating points to each classification result generated by that method, based on its degree of deviation from the correct classification result for both conformation and fat cover in accordance with Table 1 below. Table 1 Deviation from correct classification result | Conformation | Fat cover No deviation | 10 | 10 Deviation of 1 class subdivision (up or down) | 6 | 9 Deviation of 2 class subdivisions (up or down) | -9 | 0 Deviation of 3 class subdivisions (up or down) | -27 | -13 Deviation of more than 3 class subdivisions (up or down) | -48 | -30 13 To pass the authorisation test, the automated classification method must achieve at least 60% of the maximum number of points under Table 1 for both conformation and fat cover. 14 In addition to the requirement under paragraph 13, the classifications by the automated classification method must be within the limits specified in Table 2 below. Table 2 Conformation | Fat cover Bias | ± 0.30 | ± 0.60 Slope of the regression line | 1 ± 0.15 | 1 ± 0.30
One line that says what changes, such as "Halve the dog tax".
Who it helps, what it costs, what it fixes. It is what persuades people to support it.
A proposal here is not law. Support on Solon is evidence that people want the change; the official route says what it takes to make it law.
Sign in to file your proposal. What you have written stays on this page.
Sign in to file itThink it through
Ask what your change would do, who would gain and who would bear a cost, and where something like it is already law. The assistant reads your draft as it stands, cites the law and the studies it finds, and takes no side. What you file stays yours.