Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee

Meeting date: Wednesday, June 20, 2018

Official Report 758KB pdf

---

Subordinate Legislation

---

Tuberculosis (Miscellaneous Amendments) (Scotland) Order 2018 (SSI 2018/164)

We move on to item 5. Before we consider the Scottish statutory instruments on our agenda, I invite members to declare interests. I declare that I have an interest in a farming partnership.

I, too, have an interest in a farming partnership.

I have a small registered agricultural holding.

Okay.

The Tuberculosis (Miscellaneous Amendments) (Scotland) Order 2018, which relates to tuberculosis control measures for bovine animals, is not subject to parliamentary procedure, so the committee would not ordinarily be required to consider it. However, the committee has been advised that NFU Scotland and the Scottish Beef Association have concerns about the policy intentions behind the instrument. The NFUS also raised with the committee concerns that its submission to the Scottish Government on the SSI appears not to have been taken into account.

The Scottish Government wrote to the committee only this morning to acknowledge that technical issues had led to two submissions—those from the NFUS and the British Veterinary Association—not being received and therefore not being taken into account. Based on the information that we have, that means that three submissions were not taken into account. In the circumstances, the Scottish Government has decided to revoke the instrument, to consider the policy issues that have been raised by the NFUS and in the other submissions that were not considered, and to lay a new order at a later date. Does anyone want to comment?

It is disappointing that this has happened, but I think that the Government’s response, in revoking the order, is the correct one. The Government failed to recognise receipt of three submissions about the order from important stakeholders, and I think that we need to consider whether there is a wider, systemic problem that might affect other policy areas in the Government. We should communicate with the Government on the need for it to assure us that there is no such systemic problem or that it is fixing the problem, so that we and other committees do not find ourselves in this position in the future.

I accept that mistakes have been made and that it is important that people have a chance to comment on the order. I agree that revocation is the right procedure.

I hope that a new order is laid in the very near future, because it is important that procedures are tightened up so that we protect Scotland’s precious TB-free status. The instrument is about tightening up the rules and dealing with compensation. I would love a new instrument to be laid as soon as possible.

I strongly urge the Scottish Government to ensure that its consultation process is as robust as possible. The feedback from the NFUS and the Scottish Beef Association is that their submissions were not taken into account, and the views of other third parties and stakeholders might not have been taken into account. I make a friendly appeal to the relevant directorate to ensure that the consultation process on such important matters is as inclusive, transparent and robust as possible.

Members have been given copies of the letter that the convener received this morning—20 June. It is from a civil servant, who says:

“Accordingly, I can confirm that at the earliest opportunity we will bring forward a further Instrument to revoke the Tuberculosis (Miscellaneous Amendments) (Scotland) Order 2018. The Scottish Government will seek to introduce a new Order”.

That might be the case, but in my view this letter should have come from the cabinet secretary responsible, and I am surprised that that did not happen. The effect is the same, but I think that it is important that we write to the cabinet secretary and not to civil servants.

The two points that I intended to make have been covered. One is about the process and ensuring that what has happened is just a blip. The other is the point that Mr Chapman made about Scotland’s TB-free status, which is important and should give a sense of urgency to the situation.

I would not, however, want it to be thought that the committee endorses the position of any of the organisations that made a submission. The Scottish Beef Association’s position is that there should be no limit on compensation, which is not something to which I would agree.

I take on board the points that members have made, but I take from the letter that the clerk of our committee was in contact with the agriculture and rural economy directorate. The response has come from Sheila Voas, who is the chief veterinary officer for Scotland. I am sure that the cabinet secretary will consider the issue and resolve the situation.

What is coming out of our discussion clearly is that the committee identified a few problems with the process and the Government is responding entirely correctly by revoking the instrument and laying a new one.

I take John Finnie’s point entirely. It is not for the committee to endorse any of the comments in the submissions that were not taken account of. However, it is for the committee to say that those submissions should be considered. As Stewart Stevenson has indicated, the committee has the right to find out why the submissions were not considered. They are from three of the big stakeholders, so it is important that we make sure that they are not missed. I am sure that people who want to make comments on the instrument will now get a chance to feed those in to the Government.

I also take Peter Chapman’s point that Scotland has been TB free since 2009, and John Finnie’s point that we do not want to allow TB in. It is important that whatever we do does not allow that.

Bearing all that in mind, I suggest that the committee write to the cabinet secretary to welcome the action that the Government is taking, to note our concern regarding how the submissions were missed, and to ask him to explain to the committee why that happened and to introduce a revised SSI as soon as possible to protect Scotland’s status.

This has proved just how valuable are the committees and the work that is done to make sure that legislation is scrutinised.

With the committee’s approval, I propose to do what I have suggested subsequent to the meeting. Is the committee happy for me to do so?

Members indicated agreement.

---

Marketing of Fruit Plant and Propagating Material (Fees) (Scotland) Regulations 2018 (SSI 2018/175)

---

Animal By-Products and Pet Passport Fees (Scotland) Regulations 2018 (SSI 2018/176)

---

Animal Health (Miscellaneous Fees) (Scotland) Regulations 2018 (SSI 2018/177)

---

Beef and Pig Carcase Classification (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 2018 (SSI 2018/182)

Item 6 is consideration of instruments that are subject to negative procedure. No motions to annul any of the instruments have been lodged. Does the committee agree that it does not wish to make any recommendations on the instruments?

I want to put on the record a comment about the Animal Health (Miscellaneous Fees) (Scotland) Regulations 2018. I am looking at the fees structure and there are a number of things that I welcome. There are quite a lot of fee reductions, although there are also some fee increases. I will choose, from a large portfolio, an example of a good fee reduction. The fee for approval of the first year of a scheme member’s flock or hatchery or combined flock or hatchery on one site where the inspection is carried out by a veterinary officer is coming down from £233 to £27. Obviously, such measures reduce the barriers to entry to agriculture. There are other similar reductions. I accept that it is a complex instrument, from which I am cherry picking, but it is interesting and I very much welcome it and some of the things that I see in it.

Having read all the instruments, I have to say that the pet passport fees instrument is quite complex—there is no set fee and there is a slight increase in the price for documents, but how much that will affect the passport is not reflected. There are a lot of unknowns in there which, I am sure, we have all picked up. We can note those comments.

Having heard Stewart Stevenson’s comments, does the committee agree that it does not wish to make recommendations on any of the instruments?

Members indicated agreement.

11:58 Meeting continued in private until 12:07.