Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee

Meeting date: Wednesday, March 3, 2021

Official Report 735KB pdf

---

Subordinate Legislation

---

Sea Fishing (EU Exit) (Scotland) (Amendment) Regulations 2021 [Draft]

---

Trade in Animals and Related Products (EU Exit) (Scotland) (Amendment) Regulations 2021 [Draft]

---

Rural Support (Controls) (Coronavirus) (Scotland) Regulations 2021 [Draft]

Item 3 is consideration of two affirmative instruments and one made affirmative instrument. The committee will take evidence on the instruments, and the motions seeking approval of them will be considered under items 4, 5 and 6.

I welcome from the Scottish Government Ben Macpherson, Minister for Rural Affairs and the Natural Environment; Lynne Stewart, head of direct payments; Andrew Crawley, lawyer; Jesus Gallego, head of agriculture and rural economy in the EU exit unit and deputy chief veterinary officer; Keith White, lawyer; Owen Griffiths, Marine Scotland legislation manager; and Lucy McMichael, lawyer. I think that Lucy has joined us; if not, she may still be having problems with her internet connection.

Minister, would you like to make a brief opening statement on the Sea Fishing (EU Exit) (Scotland) (Amendment) Regulations 2021? I will then ask members to ask any questions on those regulations.

Good morning, convener. I thank the committee for taking the time to consider these important regulations.

The Sea Fishing (EU Exit) (Scotland) (Amendment) Regulations 2021 make a technical amendment to the Sea Fishing (Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated Fishing) (Scotland) Order 2013 to reflect amendments that a UK Government statutory instrument, namely the Common Fisheries Policy (Amendment etc) Regulations 2021, has made to retained Council regulation (EC) No 1005/2008, establishing a community system to prevent, deter and eliminate illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing—that regulation is known as the IUU regulation—thereby facilitating access to the market within Great Britain of qualifying Northern Ireland goods.

The amendment is necessary to clarify that it is an offence to import fishery products into Scotland without a validated catch certificate in circumstances where such a certificate is required by virtue of article 12 of the IUU regulation. The presentation of a valid catch certificate, subject to certain exceptions, is required when fishery products are imported into Great Britain. The amendment made by the regulations reflects that it is not an offence to import fishery products into Scotland without a validated catch certificate where those fishery products constitute “qualifying Northern Ireland goods”. That term is defined in another UK Government SI—the Definition of Qualifying Northern Ireland Goods (EU Exit) Regulations 2020. The amendment that the regulations that are in front of the committee make to the 2013 order therefore facilitates unfettered market access to the GB market for certain fishery products.

Returning to the interaction with the UK SI for a moment, I am bound to inform the committee that there has been some slippage on the UK Government’s timetable. The UK SI was to have been laid last week, but unfortunately it was held over, and DEFRA does not yet have a confirmed new laying slot or date for its coming into force. It is essential for our SSI that the UK legislation is in force before 1 June, which is the coming-into-force date that we have provided for. We await further updates, but if the UK SI’s coming-into-force date is going to slip beyond 1 June, we will be forced to withdraw the instrument that is before the committee today.

That is obviously regrettable and I am sorry that I am unable to provide the committee with more certainty, but that is out of the Scottish Government’s hands. We will update the committee as soon as we have more information from the UK Government.

Thank you, minister. I have not seen any committee member indicate that they want to ask a question on those regulations, so I now ask you to make a brief opening statement on the Trade in Animals and Related Products (EU Exit) (Scotland) (Amendment) Regulations 2021. I believe that members will have some questions on those regulations.

I thank the committee for taking time to consider the Trade in Animals and Related Products (EU Exit) (Scotland) (Amendment) Regulations 2021. The purpose of the regulations is to create a power that will allow the Scottish ministers by regulation to impose special import conditions in respect of imports from third countries of products of animal origin that are intended for human consumption, having regard to the animal health situation of the third country or countries concerned. They mirror the function of the Commission under article 8(4) of Council directive 2002/99/EC and may amend, modify or revoke any retained direct minor EU legislation made under that power.

Importantly, the regulations exist solely to create the power, and further legislation will be required if we want to make use of it. Retained EU law does not otherwise contain the power to make legislation of this type, which the Commission had under the EU directive. On that basis, it is considered appropriate that ministers should have the power to deal with situations where they may want to impose special import conditions on products of animal origin from third countries because of the animal health situation there. Special import conditions could be introduced for the purpose of protecting public health or animal health on the basis of scientific evidence and risk. That approach has also been adopted by other Administrations in order to ensure a consistent GB-wide approach.

I trust that that provides members with sufficient assurance as to why the changes are being made and why the Scottish Government considers them necessary. However, my officials and I are happy to answer any questions that the committee may have.

Thank you, minister. Members have some questions on the regulations. We will start with Emma Harper.

I have previously raised issues to do with food safety and especially importation from countries outside the EU. I am concerned about, for instance, hormones and use of antibiotics. Is the purpose of an import condition only to provide an appropriate level of assurance that standards have been met, rather than to set the standards?

Shall I respond, convener?

Sorry, minister. Rather than my adding another layer of checks and balances, which stops the flow, I am happy for you to come straight in when a question is put to you.

Thank you, convener, and I thank Emma Harper for that question. Alluding to my opening statement but adding to it, I note that it could be either or both. We wish to provide assurance that standards have been met, and that is in itself a possible import condition as we may require that a particular step or measure has been taken in relation to the food product. In summary, it could be either or both.

11:00  

Thank you for that clarification. It is interesting that we have special import conditions, which might be distinct from normal or general import conditions. In the EU context, is that to add additional import requirements on the basis of risk so that we can have satisfactory assurance that standards have been met?

The special import conditions that are at issue here are ones that have been made under article 8(4) of Council directive 2002/99/EC, which I mentioned in my opening statement and which form part of retained EU law. The purpose of the regulations is to provide a way by which those conditions may be amended, modified or revoked by subordinate legislation, given that the power to make them came from a directive that does not form part of retained EU law.

The power cannot be used to amend, modify or revoke any other import conditions that form part of retained EU law. They will be based on an assessment of the specific risk that is posed by, for example, products from a certain country. They may apply in addition to or instead of the general requirements for the same products from other countries, and are better described as being more appropriate to the specific circumstances, rather than being stricter. Where the risk assessment demonstrates a reduced risk, the special import condition may revoke an unnecessary import condition—for example, after an outbreak has been controlled.

I hope that that gives Emma Harper the reassurance that she asked for.

It does. Thank you, minister.

Minister, the power exists in the context of providing additional assurance that imported products meet the EU standards. However, could the new power be used to allow the import of products that do not meet the current GB standard, as opposed to being an additional safeguard to ensure that products meet it?

The intention is to make sure that we maintain our high standards here in Scotland and in GB as a whole. Could you add a bit more detail on that point, Mr Chapman?

The concern, as I understand it, is that we may follow EU standards rather than GB standards. Would the regulations allow that? In many cases, GB standards are actually higher than EU standards, contrary to what many people would have us believe.

The power cannot be used to lower the standards that are applicable as a matter of law within Great Britain to products of animal origin for human consumption generally. It can be used only to amend, modify or revoke import conditions that are made under the powers of article 8(4) of directive 2002/99/EC.

Fair enough. You have possibly answered my final question, but I will pose it and you can agree or disagree. Can an assurance be given that the new power will not be used to relax a general import condition, but only to relax an existing special import condition?

Yes. The power may not be used to amend, modify or revoke anything other than what is already, in retained EU law, a special import condition made under article 8(4) of Council directive 2002/99/EC.

I have one question as a result of what we have heard. It is a technical question that relates to the frozen meat decision, 2005/72. That decision was made under article 8(4), which we have been talking about, but it does not refer to that. Does the Scottish Government consider that that decision is covered under article 8(4)? If so, why is that, given that the Commission decision does not appear to make that reference?

I realise that that is a technical question. It may be one for an official, rather than the minister, to answer.

I did not quite hear the beginning of Mr Stevenson’s question, but I hope that I can give the answer that he is looking for. Commission decision 2005/72 was originally made under Council directive 9465/EC. When that was repealed by directive 2004/41/EC, provision was made for it to continue in force as made under article 8(4) of council directive 2002/99/EC. I do not know whether Jesus Gallego wants to add anything on that.

Minister, you have answered the question. We do not need to pursue that further.

I have a number of fairly quick questions. First, why is the list of examples of special import conditions provided by the Scottish Government different from that provided on the European Commission’s website?

The list provided is of special import conditions that have been made under article 8(4) of Council directive 2002/99/EC and form part of retained EU law. It does not include any measures that are in place as a matter of retained EU law, but includes those that have been made under different powers and that cannot be amended, modified or revoked by that power.

Okay—thank you for that, minister. Does the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020 have a bearing on whether special import conditions imposed by the Scottish Government would be effective in relation to products of animal origin that are put on the market in Scotland after having first been imported into another part of the UK?

As you know, the Scottish Government’s position is that it maintains that the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020 is fundamentally inconsistent with devolution. Centralising control in the UK Government and the UK Parliament and cutting across devolved powers by imposing new domestic constraints means losing the benefits of variations in approach to reflect consumer preferences and health and environmental considerations in Scotland, and the advantages of high-quality regulation of meat and fish products.

The United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020 allows the lowering of standards because, under the market principles, Scotland would be compelled to accept standards set by other Administrations in the UK, regardless of the views and decisions of the Scottish Government and Scottish Parliament. Even where the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish ministers wish to maintain alignment with EU standards, the 2020 act risks undermining those devolved policy choices and, in some case, would force us to accept lower standards set elsewhere, if those lower standards were set elsewhere. It has the potential to have an effect.

I am sorry, but I did not catch the last part of that, minister.

It has the potential to have an effect.

As has been mentioned, there could be divergence. It could be that we are in line with EU standards but not necessarily in line with wider UK standards. What consultation or discussions have there been with the UK Government and with stakeholders in Scotland that might be impacted by any divergence from the standards in the rest of the UK?

At the moment, given the on-going challenge to the UK Government and the Scottish Government of aligning our regulations following EU exit with the different considerations that EU exit creates, the rationale for the legislation before us today and the process that the UK Government is also involved in is, of course, to set the legislation. Whether there is divergence is a matter to consider in due course. Of course, we would hope—we would implore—the UK Government to uphold high standards, but the challenges will come if there are divergences as a result of trade agreements or different policy decisions in different parts of the UK.

If there is divergence and the powers are used, will that require any consultation or engagement with stakeholders in Scotland that might be impacted?

In general terms, or in relation to these regulations?

In general. If the powers were to be used—obviously, there will be different ways in which they could potentially be used—would you be required or committed to engaging or discussing that with stakeholders?

I would be grateful if Jesus Gallego could come in at this point and comment on the process.

I am glad that you are bringing him in, minister, because I apparently completely mispronounced his name, which shows a complete lack of understanding of the right way of doing it. I am not going to try to correct myself, but ask that he accepts my apologies.

Of course, convener.

The power is confined to import conditions that are made following scientific advice and a risk assessment, which involve a degree of consultation on already available information and evidence, or evidence that is gathered at the time.

When the changes potentially affect food safety, Food Standards Scotland has a statutory obligation to consult anyway. When they are on purely animal health requirements, we would follow our normal parliamentary handling procedures for developing legislation, because the power does not make any immediate changes; it gives us the power only to introduce legislation later.

I add that the scope is limited to those pieces of legislation made under article 8(4) and is subject to scientific advice and risk assessment.

Thank you—that is very helpful.

As no other member wants to ask any further questions on the Trade in Animals and Related Products (EU Exit) (Scotland) (Amendment) Regulations 2021, I ask the minister to make a brief opening statement on the Rural Support (Controls) (Coronavirus) (Scotland) Regulations 202.

I thank the committee for making the time to consider these regulations today, too. The regulations were laid using powers conferred by the horizontal regulation that has been incorporated into domestic law. They will provide a necessary temporary derogation from the requirement for the verification of all eligibility conditions to be completed before scheme payments commence.

Due to the coronavirus pandemic, on-the-spot checks have been suspended. We cannot be sure when those checks will restart. The effect of the derogation is that payments to beneficiaries may be made, for the schemes covered by the derogation, after the administrative checks have been finalised. That will enable us to make payments timeously before completing physical on-the-spot checks.

Unless the regulations are approved and brought into force by 31 March, we will not be able to make our 2020 claim year voluntary coupled support payments in April and May, as scheduled.

The suspension of on-the-spot checks is adding to a backlog of inspections, creating a delay in the remainder of the inspections programme. In order to prevent that delaying payments that are due later this year, the same derogation is applied to designated direct payment schemes and the less favoured area support scheme.

For those reasons, the regulations are considered to be a necessary and justifiable response to an emergency caused by the on-going pandemic.

My focus is to continue to support our farmers and crofters to ensure that payments can continue to be made to them on time for claim years 2020 and 2021, while adhering to the coronavirus restrictions for the safety of our officials, farmers and crofters. I am happy to take any questions that the committee has.

11:15  

Thank you, minister. As no member wishes to ask a question on the regulations, we will move on to the formal consideration of the motions relating to each of these instruments.

Item 4 is consideration of motion S5M-24228, in the name of the minister. Do you wish to make any further comments, or are you happy with the comments that you have made?

I have no further comment, convener.

Motion moved,

That the Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee recommends that the Sea Fishing (EU Exit) (Scotland) (Amendment) Regulations 2021 [draft] be approved.—[Ben Macpherson]

Motion agreed to.

Item 5 is consideration of motion S5M-24226, in the name of the minister. I ask you to move and speak to the motion, if you wish to make any comments.

I simply thank members for their questions.

Motion moved,

That the Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee recommends that the Trade in Animals and Related Products (EU Exit) (Scotland) (Amendment) Regulations 2021 [draft] be approved.—[Ben Macpherson]

Motion agreed to.

Item 6 is consideration of motion S5M-24227, in the name of the minister.

Motion moved,

That the Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee recommends that the Rural Support (Controls) (Coronavirus) (Scotland) Regulations 2021 (SSI 2021/72) be approved.—[Ben Macpherson]

Motion agreed to.

That concludes our consideration of the three Scottish statutory instruments. I thank the minister and his officials for attending the committee to talk to the instruments.

I suspend the meeting until 11.25 to allow a changeover of witnesses.

11:18 Meeting suspended.  

11:25 On resuming—