Subordinate Legislation
We now move on to item 2. I welcome Ross Finnie, the Minister for Rural Development, and Mike Watson and Martin Prentice, who are his officials. They are here to deal with the Code of Recommendations for the Welfare of Livestock: Sheep (SSI 2001/58). The statutory instrument and a note from the rural affairs department were circulated to members on 18 January. The Subordinate Legislation Committee considered the instrument on 23 January and had no comments to pass on to the lead committee. The instrument will be dealt with by the affirmative procedure, under which the minister will propose a motion for its acceptance and the committee will consider it.
Initially, we will deal with the instrument on a consultative basis with the officials. We can then consider the minister's explanation and ask questions of the minister and the officials. I will then ask the minister formally to propose the motion for consideration. I invite the minister and his officials to explain the instrument.
The sheep welfare code was drawn up in 1990, since when there have been many changes in the industry. The Farm Animal Welfare Council has produced a report on the welfare of sheep, which the Executive has welcomed. We recognise that it is time for the code to be updated. Members will be aware that welfare codes are made under section 3(1) of the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1968.
Codes exist to help stockmen care for animals and are a positive force for improving the welfare of live animals. If a livestock keeper is prosecuted for causing unnecessary pain or distress, a breach of the code can be produced in evidence and may be regarded by the court as tending to establish guilt. The codes have influence and are not just cosmetic. The new sheep code gives farmers useful advice on how to ensure that their animals' ethological needs are met, in accordance with the guiding principles that underlie the directive.
The law states that stock keepers must have access to welfare codes and be familiar with their provisions. Therefore, employers must ensure that staff receive guidance on them. We will send all sheep farmers in Scotland a copy of the code so that they and all their staff have access to it. Unlike the current sheep code, the revised one will apply only in Scotland. Similar codes are being produced in England, Wales and Northern Ireland.
The code contains detailed advice on important matters such as the prevention of disease, the construction of buildings and the provision of food, water and bedding. I hope that the committee will agree that the format of the revised code is far more user-friendly than that of any of its predecessors. Following the recommendations by the Farm Animal Welfare Council, we have included boxes throughout the document that highlight, alongside advice, the relevant legal requirements. Thus, we are putting all sheep welfare information into one place, which will make it easier for farmers to follow the code. That should be a positive help to the industry in relation to some of its problems. For example, following the code's advice will help to reduce the incidence of sheep scab, which is a cause of major concern in the industry.
The sheep welfare code is the first of a series of codes that will be updated in this way. The next one that I hope to introduce for Parliament's approval is a broiler welfare code, which is currently in preparation.
I hope that I have given the committee some of the background thinking to the code and displayed our commitment to the code and its implementation. I believe that the code and the recently introduced Welfare of Farmed Animals (Scotland) Regulations 2000 are welcome steps to improve farm animal welfare and ensure the application of consistent standards throughout the European Union—for which our farmers have argued strongly. The revised code delivers on those uniform standards and deals with concerns about farm animal welfare, which we are committed to addressing.
We will be happy to answer members' questions on the code.
Thank you, minister. Do members wish to raise any points or questions about the instrument? The committee has one sheep expert.
Perhaps I should respond, as a former sheep farmer—I stress the word "former". I do not disagree with anything that you said, minister. Not many sheep farmers would disagree with anything that you said, because everybody's primary concern is ensuring that stock are reared in the most healthy and welfare-friendly way.
I hope that the code does not add to the bureaucracy and form filling that our farmers must already undertake, but I am slightly concerned that it might. For instance, I read that
"A written health and welfare programme for all animals should be prepared for each flock."
As you are well aware, a careful veterinary record must already be kept of all veterinary procedures that have been carried out. Other records also have to be kept. I wonder whether the new requirement is a slightly unnecessary layer of book filling.
If you read that section of the code from the beginning, I think that you will find that it is for advice only.
I accept that. That is fine, but I think that it is a pity when people say that a code is for advice only, so they need not bother about it. It would also be a pity if the code contained some useful or advantageous information that people did not bother about because it involved yet another task that they could not be bothered to do. However, I have no questions about the overall aims of the code and I do not think that anyone in the industry would either.
The one important thing is that the code brings together several existing regulations in one volume. To that extent, it represents a reduction in the administrative burden of finding the relevant provisions on maintaining flocks.
As there are no further questions, I ask the Minister for Rural Development to move motion S1M-1599 formally.
Motion moved,
That the Rural Development Committee recommends that the Code of Recommendations for the Welfare of Livestock: Sheep (SSI 2001/58) be approved.—[Ross Finnie.]
Motion agreed to.
We now move to item 3 on the agenda, which is the Agricultural Business Development Scheme (Scotland) Regulations 2000 (SSI 2000/448), which will be dealt with under the negative procedure. The regulations were laid before Parliament on 21 December. We have been designated the lead committee. The instrument was circulated to members on 9 January, and we discussed it at last week's meeting. The Official Report of that meeting was published this morning, and members may wish to refer to it.
As I said, the regulations are subject to the negative procedure, which means that the Parliament has the power to annul them by resolution within 40 days, excluding recess. Therefore, the time limit for parliamentary action expires on 16 February.
The Subordinate Legislation Committee considered the regulations and members should have copies of its report. Fergus Ewing has lodged a motion to annul the instrument. The Minister for Rural Development is here to participate in the debate on that motion, but he will not be entitled to vote on it, should a vote be necessary.
At our meeting on 30 January, we heard explanations from officials and discussed the order in some detail and the committee decided that further examination of the regulations was necessary. Therefore, I do not intend to allow time to take further evidence from officials. We will move straight to the motion. I will invite Fergus Ewing to speak in support of and move his motion. Following that, the minister will have the opportunity to reply. As other business on today's agenda will take a bit of time, I will consider shortening the debate from the maximum of 90 minutes that standing orders allow.
After the minister has replied to the motion, I will open the debate up to committee members who wish to comment on it. I will close the debate by inviting the minister to reply to the debate and asking the mover of the motion to wind up.
I hope that members will bear with me, as I am recovering from a cold. I may croak, but with any luck I will not croak out before the end of the meeting.
I am grateful that the minister has appeared today. I must explain that the sole purpose of the motion is to ensure that we have effective, not defective, regulation. For that to happen, a defect that I believe was identified during the evidence-taking session last week must be corrected. If it is not, unfortunately that defect may prevent thousands of farmers and crofters in the Highlands from benefiting from the scheme. I believe that none of us would wish that to happen. Were I of the view that there is any other way of dealing with the matter procedurally, I would have availed myself of such a procedural opportunity.
On a point of order, convener. As I understand it, another procedure was open to Fergus Ewing to bring the minister before the committee, but the convener had already agreed to add the motion to the agenda for today's meeting. Therefore, the motion and the debate are facile in the extreme and a complete waste of time. I expect that Fergus will withdraw the motion. I ask him to do that right now. The motion has angered many farmers. Is this a pretend debate or a real debate?
That is not a point of order; that is hot air.
I think that those comments went beyond being a point of order. Within the procedures that are available to members, Fergus Ewing is acting within his rights. As such, he has the opportunity to lodge the motion.
Thank you, convener.
The predecessor of the agricultural business development scheme was the agricultural business improvement scheme. All members will remember the unfortunate history of that scheme, whose funds were massively oversubscribed after the rules were relaxed on 31 March 1999. According to the Auditor General's report, 3,793 of the 9,422 applications for the scheme were rejected. My understanding is that 3,362 were rejected largely or solely because of a lack of funds, as the scheme was cash limited.
Following that experience, I made representations to the minister on 16 December 1999, on 5 February 2000 and in November 2000. I proposed that an effective replacement scheme be established. Under that scheme, the ABIS losers could have become son-of-ABIS winners. The minister made it clear in broad terms that he would not wish the losers under the previous scheme to be excluded from the new scheme, although I accept that the new scheme is for slightly different purposes.
There are 3,793 losers from the ABIS scheme and many of the purposes of the new scheme are the same as those of the previous scheme—notably restructuring and diversification into areas such as tourism. Unless the instrument for the new scheme is amended, many of those 3,793 losers under ABIS will, because of an error in draftsmanship—a clerical error and nothing else—inevitably lose out. I am sure that no one would wish that to happen.
At last week's meeting, I raised with Jim Stephen, a civil servant who was kind enough to give evidence, the technical defect that I had identified. I had had the relevant papers over the weekend. I suppose that, in an ideal world, it would have been better if I had been able to give notice of the question on Monday morning, because I appreciate that facing questions from former lawyers and other MSPs is not easy.
I will rehearse the question that I put last week. I drew attention to paragraph 5(2)(g), which states:
"confirmation that public funding towards the cost of the measure has not been sought otherwise than under these Regulations and that it is not intended to seek such funding."
I said:
"That means that people who had already applied for a diversification scheme under ABIS would be ineligible for consideration under the new scheme. Do you agree with that interpretation?"—[Official Report, Rural Development Committee, 30 January 2001; c 1662.]
Jim Stephen replied, "No." He went on to explain that the purpose of the subparagraph was to rule out double funding. That is entirely acceptable—no one would argue otherwise. I then suggested that I disagreed with that interpretation and adhered to my interpretation. Because I disagreed with the evidence we received, which was given in good faith, I felt it necessary to avail myself of the only procedural option available to ensure that there was a debate at which the Minister for Rural Development was present.
Mr Rumbles made the point that the minister had agreed to come to the committee. I accept that, but my point is that in procedural terms the only avenue that is open to a committee if it feels that there is a major defect in an instrument is to go down the annulment route—the nuclear option. I did not wish—no one would wish—to press that button. Indeed, I never had any intention of doing so; I merely wished to correct a fundamental defect.
On a point of order, convener. Fergus Ewing has again suggested that he has no intention of pressing his motion. Is this appropriate action when he has said that he has no wish to go down this route?
To have this debate, it is necessary, first, for Fergus Ewing to speak to his motion, which he is doing, and, secondly, formally to move his motion, which I hope he will do at the end of his speech. We will then hear the minister's reply and there will be an opportunity for committee members to comment. At the end of that debate, Fergus Ewing is free to press his motion, or not.
On a point of order, convener. Will there be an opportunity to debate this issue after this process has been gone through? Questions have arisen that I would like answers to. I would also like guidance from the minister.
I can assure you that the issues surrounding ABIS remain on the agenda queue for the committee and anything that it is reasonably worth placing on the agenda will be placed on it.
But we need some answers today.
The opportunity to get answers today is afforded by this debate.
Convener, I hope that I get time added for stoppages.
The fact that there has been an error with serious consequences was underscored when I communicated with the National Farmers Union of Scotland, which may not have originally understood the point that I made at last week's meeting. The Official Report was only published today—obviously, official reporters cannot be everywhere. The NFUS was kind enough to e-mail me:
"thank you for picking up on the minor but very significant drafting error within the ABDS statutory instrument, without which this scheme would have been approved with a major flaw in it . . . The Union was deeply involved in the formulation of the new ABDS, and we were committed to making sure those applicants who were turned down under ABIS were able to apply for ABDS and our understanding is that this is also the intention of the Executive. That is clearly not reflected in section 5(2)(g)."
I see that Mike Rumbles is taking a very close interest in this document.
You are not reading it all out.
I am not; but you are welcome to a copy.
Thank you.
Part of the e-mail is confidential. I hope that Mike Rumbles will respect that, as I have.
I read out that e-mail because it is fair to say that although the NFUS was closely involved, it was not aware of this defect. Now that it is aware of it, it shares my interpretation. My aim today is to ensure that the error is corrected. I understand informally that the Executive may be disposed to acknowledge that there has been a clerical error that needs to be corrected. If my information is correct, I will be delighted to withdraw the motion. I wish that a procedure to amend statutory instruments was open to MSPs. If there were, I would have resorted to it.
I wish to address another relevant matter, which is that despite the fact that I sought no publicity whatsoever about this matter last week, I was contacted by a senior journalist of The Press and Journal last Wednesday, who said that the Executive had put out a statement that a decision had been taken to cancel a meeting of the project assessment committee, which was due to have met last Friday. I do not know why that decision was taken. I invite the minister to say why it was taken, because it was unnecessary and unhelpful.
I notice that despite the fact that this instrument became law on 29 January and was first studied by us at our meeting on 30 January, the explanatory booklet explaining the rules of the scheme, which uses the wording of the regulation, is dated 30 October. I appreciate that there are technical reasons, because of the lack of European Union approval of the regulation until December, for not bringing forward this statutory instrument, but the point is that the administrative arrangements proceeded on the basis that this programme would go ahead.
I understand that a huge volume of applications has already been processed—perhaps up to a value of more than £1 million; I have no way of knowing—and that many of the people who have submitted applications, which have been processed on the assumption that the programme will be approved, are deeply disappointed that there has been a delay. I do not know why the project assessment committee meeting was cancelled. It could have gone ahead, just as the administrative arrangements for the scheme went ahead. I am interested to hear from the minister why he felt it necessary to take this step, simply because a member of the SNP lodged a motion in Parliament. I have not noted that the Executive is inclined to take such draconian steps simply because the SNP lodges a motion. I can recall no precedent for that.
In conclusion, I hope that I have made clear why I lodged this motion. I wish that it were possible to pursue this matter in a different way. I look forward to hearing the minister's response. I urge him to announce that there will be a meeting of the project assessment committee as soon as possible. I would have thought that it would be possible to convene such a meeting within a few days, so that the people who are seeking to diversify and restructure their businesses do not have to contend with a delay. I hope that the Executive will acknowledge that, in this instance, a mistake was made—a genuinely innocent one—and that it will now be corrected, so that we can have an effective, not defective, scheme.
I move,
That the Rural Development Committee recommends that nothing further be done under the Agricultural Business Development Scheme (Scotland) Regulations 2000 (SSI 2000/448).
I invite Ross Finnie to respond to the motion.
I can speak only for myself, although I hope that the generality of what I am about to say applies across the board. If a committee has serious concerns about an Executive proposal it is considering and, as Fergus Ewing said, it believes that an instrument has been rendered defective, it would be sad indeed if the Executive did not take seriously a committee's request that a minister come and give an explanation or acknowledge that an amendment has to be made. The first intimation that I received was that that was precisely what your committee was seeking.
It seems to me that, in some quarters, it is felt that the nuclear option—that phrase has been used—has to be taken. That seems to elevate the matter to a different plane and I do not necessarily regard that as helpful. If you come to me and point out that you have grave reservations about the effectiveness of an instrument, it seems to me that my duty as a minister, irrespective of procedure, is to respond to your points. That is what the Executive ought to do. If the matter has been elevated to annulment, it would seem quite improper for me not to have even a short delay in the process assessment committee, to allow this matter to be properly resolved. The helpful thing would be for me to address the issue at hand.
Much reference has been made to regulation 5(2)(g). Curiously, and I hope Mr Ewing will not shout at me, I do not agree that he is in the right part of the regulations. I read them extraordinarily carefully and I think that what is wrong is regulation 6(3)(e). I put it to members that regulation 5(2)(g) is, in fact, a method of extracting disclosure of whether someone has applied for a grant in another place—and I am not talking just about ABIS, but about any grant. In the regulation, it is important that people are not actively seeking grants elsewhere and will not benefit from such grants.
In so far as regulation 5(2)(g) is a disclosure requirement, I do not think that it is as flawed as regulation 6(3)(e). Further reading shows that the latter is much more flawed. Regulation 6(3) starts with:
"The Scottish Ministers shall not approve an application".
That depends on the nature of the disclosure. However, regulation 6(3)(e) clearly does not meet my policy requirements and certainly does not meet the requirements of Fergus Ewing and other members of this committee—that any person who has applied to another source but either cannot or will not receive help from that source should not be debarred from receiving a grant under these regulations.
There is a "not" in regulation 5(2)(g) that leads to a double negative effect, but there is nothing wrong with the eliciting of disclosure and that will not be a barrier leading to people being debarred. That happens in regulation 6. Therefore, my proposal—which I make in a positive vein, convener—is to try to make regulation 5(2)(g) clearer. This goes beyond ABIS and I am a bit concerned about people applying for other sources of public funding.
I will explain how I intend to deal with this procedurally in a moment, but an instrument is about to come before this committee in which I will seek to amend regulation 5(2)(g) by substituting text in order, first, to seek confirmation and disclosure as to what public funding, if any, towards the cost of the measure individuals have sought in ways other than through the regulations and, secondly, to seek confirmation that those same individuals will not be seeking funding from any other source. We would therefore have full disclosure—confirmation that the individuals have not received other funding and that they will not be seeking any other funding.
In regulation 6(3)(e), it has to be clear that the requirement that no other public funding has been sought shall not apply where that funding has been sought, but not obtained, for a measure for which ABDS grant is sought. Fergus Ewing and I are making the same point. Fergus is talking about regulation 5, but I feel that the error arises in regulation 6.
I will repeat those points, but I want to be sure that members understand our position. Within the next seven to 10 days, we will introduce regulations for the Highlands and Islands processing and marketing grant scheme. I propose that the amendments that I have just described be incorporated in those regulations. We will then write to the Presiding Officer to indicate that those amendments, and those amendments alone, would not be subject to the normal 21-day rule. They would therefore come into immediate effect, allowing us to clarify the intention of the regulations that we are discussing today and to proceed as soon as possible. That would still allow the committee to give proper consideration to the Highlands and Islands instruments within the normal period.
Would it help committee members if I repeated my proposal?
Could we have it in black and white?
At regulation 5(2)(g), we would first seek confirmation—because there is a requirement for disclosure—about what public funding, if any, has been sought towards the cost of the measure in ways other than under these regulations. Secondly, we would seek confirmation that it was not intended to seek such other funding.
Having dealt with disclosure, we would then address what is perhaps a more fundamental issue. In regulation 6(3), I propose to add a new subparagraph to make it clear that the requirement in regulation 6(3)(e) that no other public funding has been sought shall not apply where public funding has been sought, but not obtained, for a measure for which the ABDS grant is sought.
As I said, for speed, I propose to introduce those amendments as part of the regulations for the Highlands and Islands processing and marketing grant scheme and to intimate to the Presiding Officer that those amendments would take immediate effect, whereas the rest of the regulations would be subject to the 21-day rule.
The minister has an appointment at 3 o'clock; it would be courteous of the committee to ensure that he gets away in plenty of time. However, members have an opportunity to contribute. Mike Rumbles, would you like to come in?
I most certainly would like to come in. This whole debate has been completely unnecessary. The procedure that Fergus Ewing has instigated has been completely unnecessary. In his opening statement, he talked about pressing the nuclear button. In my view, he has no intention of doing so. He is using this debate for—I have to say this—publicity purposes.
Fergus Ewing was very selective in his earlier quote from the e-mail from the National Farmers Union of Scotland, which I peered over his shoulder to read and which, as members saw, he offered to me. I want to read a selection from it, because what Fergus Ewing read does not chime with the reaction of the NFUS to Fergus's outrageous behaviour on this occasion.
On a point of order. I have no objection whatever if Mr Rumbles wants to take up his time on this material. However, I was asked to treat one or two paragraphs from the e-mail in confidence. I have respected that and I trust that Mr Rumbles will also do so.
Of course I will. I assume that anything in the e-mail that is confidential will be marked and I will respect that. Fergus Ewing has already marked the areas that he wanted to read out. There is one sentence that, I think, gives the flavour of the NFUS's position when Fergus Ewing lodged his motion. One has only to read the NFUS's press release to know that. However, the e-mail that Fergus Ewing read out earlier says:
"My concern"—
that is, the concern of the NFUS—
"is that any further delay at this point would cause greater uncertainty and delay grants—something farmers could certainly do without after their experience of the previous scheme!"
I want to place that on record, because that is the position of the NFUS.
Jamie Stone cannot be here today, unfortunately. However, he has asked me to bring his views to the committee's attention. He also feels that Fergus Ewing has got us into an unnecessary procedure. He has been inundated with representations, some of which I have before me, and Fergus Ewing is more than happy to use this—
Will Mike Rumbles let me make a comment at this point?
No—Richard will get a moment to come in shortly. I was most careful not to interrupt.
I always let you intervene, Mike.
I assume that Richard Lochhead will be able to come in later, convener.
Mike Rumbles is on a roll, Richard—you should not disrupt him.
To return to the main point, Fergus Ewing has got it wrong. He has thrown confusion into the issue. Farmers' genuine concerns have been stirred up by Fergus's procedure. If members of the committee recall what happened last week, I also had concerns about the regulations and I raised them with the civil servants.
I took advice from the convener and that same advice was available to Fergus Ewing: that we could have asked the Minister for Rural Development to come to this meeting—as he has done—and that we could have had a wider debate on the issues that concern us. A number of issues that relate to the regulations are of concern, not only those that have been highlighted by Fergus. It is wrong of him to have used the procedure that he has used. It is my belief that he has no intention of pressing his motion to a vote. He knows the damage that his action is doing to the farming industry in the Highlands and Islands and I am surprised at his behaviour. He has proceeded with what he himself referred to as the use of the nuclear button.
I will now turn to the issue that I hope the minister will address in closing—the appeals mechanism. I raised that matter last week, and it is what I really want to discuss. There is genuine concern about it. Unlike Fergus Ewing, I did not want even to give the impression that I wanted to hold up the entire business scheme for farmers in the Highlands and Islands. However, there are genuine concerns about the inclusion of an appeals mechanism, particularly given that the decisions that will be made by the rural affairs department will be discretionary. The point is that the decisions are not mandatory.
I would be satisfied—as would other people, I think—were the minister at least to state that somebody outside the formal decision-making process in the department will consider someone's appeal, even if he cannot say that there will be a formal appeals mechanism. I think that that would satisfy the requirements of the European convention on human rights and help the rural affairs department. It would help the farmers. I therefore hope that the minister can comment on the feasibility of that suggestion.
I would like clarification of a few points. One is really a matter for this committee. We will normally receive a Scottish statutory instrument before it appears on our committee papers. I understood that that was because, if there were a problem with the SSI, we would have time to call the minister to a meeting for a discussion about it. That has not happened in this case, and we need to highlight the fact that it needs to take place, so that we never get ourselves into this terrible situation again.
Last week, Jim Stephen gave clarification on the issue. He was quite plain in saying that people who made applications under ABIS would not be disallowed from applying to the ABDS. What is the statutory implication of such comments being made by civil servants to a committee? Are they binding? Can we accept their word? I was happy to accept Jim Stephen's word when he spoke to us on 30 January, which is why I am distressed about the position in which we find ourselves.
I want also to mention some of the effects that will arise. There is confusion among applicants. People have approached me, saying that they are aware that they are not allowed to apply to the ABDS if they have applied to ABIS. People are saying that not because of the nature of the new scheme, but because of the publicity that there has been. I am extremely concerned about that. We need some publicity to say that that is not the case—that, in fact, people who applied under ABIS may apply under the ABDS.
I am also concerned about when the allocations that were to have been made on Friday will be made available. I understand that many of the people who are involved applied for funding for diversification into tourism, for example. If that funding or the agreement to allocate that funding is not forthcoming in the very near future, those people will miss out on the tourist season, which could have a huge consequence for people whose livelihoods are at stake. I do not think that I am overstating that point.
We need first to deal with the issues that brought us to the current situation, but we must look beyond that and ensure that the problems that have occurred are being dealt with quickly and that people do not suffer as a result.
Do you wish to comment, Richard?
Since you have given me the opportunity, convener, yes.
You were waving earlier. I presumed that that meant that you wished to comment.
I wanted merely to tell the minister that I welcome the concessions that he has made today. Will he acknowledge that he introduced the amendments that he is now proposing only because Fergus Ewing brought the issue to the fore, and that we would not otherwise have amendments to improve the regulations before us today?
I also ask for the minister's advice on the best procedure for the committee to follow, given that our only option is to move a motion for annulment. Is he satisfied that the current legislative process is proper? Should not there be a third option for the committee to use to avoid Fergus Ewing or other members having to lodge such motions and to avoid similar problems arising again? I have done so previously although, for some strange reason, it was not the subject of criticism by Mike Rumbles. I presume that he will never lodge a motion for annulment, because he disagrees with that procedure.
The minister may wish to comment on that in a few moments, but it is very much a question of parliamentary procedure.
If members refer back to the Official Report of last week's meeting, they will find that Rhoda Grant suggested:
"We could make those points and ask the minister to consider amending the regulations under the appropriate provision."
That is what the minister has done. The convener then said:
"I propose to continue this discussion next week. That gives us an opportunity for further correspondence with the relevant officials and the minister."—[Official Report, Rural Development Committee, 30 January 2001; c 1662-63.]
That action was in train anyway, without the motion having been lodged.
There was no option—good will was being relied upon.
I am a new member of this committee; I was not present last week because of very personal circumstances. However, I must say that some of the arguments that I have heard would be stronger if people had paid attention to the issues that surrounded previous arguments on ABIS. I wonder why Mike Rumbles, who is now saying that he wants to have a discussion about the appeals system, last year voted in the chamber against a motion on ABIS that covered the issue of the appeals system. Many of my constituents have suffered from the consequences.
I point out to members who are complaining about the adverse publicity about the development scheme that MSPs have a serious duty to explain the technicalities and difficulties to people who approach them about the matter. From a procedural point of view, I have no doubt that the issue had to be brought to the fore. I am grateful for the fact that the minister has accepted the flaws in the procedure and I welcome the points that he has made today.
I want to ask the minister about the disclosure procedure to which he referred, under regulation 5(2)(g). How will that procedure be accessed? Will information have to go to a project assessment committee? Will it come from the local enterprise companies? Will it come from civil servants in the Scotland Office—the former Scottish Office—or from the Scottish Executive rural affairs department? What will the legal implications of accessing the disclosure be? It sounds fine, but I want to know what will happen, particularly as I have dealt with many people who find that in accessing information, it seems to get lost in the recesses of filing cabinets and computers—which are known to go down on a regular basis.
On a constituency point, the minister referred, in connection with the Highlands and Islands, to a statutory instrument that is to be implemented immediately. Will it include the whole of Moray, only part of which is in the Highlands and Islands Enterprise area? What can I tell the people in the part of my constituency that is outwith the Highlands and Islands Enterprise area who are awaiting a decision?
I want to place on record my disappointment at today's process. Following Fergus Ewing's actions last week, convener, you advised that you would put this item on the agenda; it is down there in black and white and Fergus knew about it. However, today we have had a formal debate, which means, for instance, that we cannot question the minister. That would have been a far more effective approach. The minister was more than willing to attend such a session, during which we could have addressed many issues. Instead, all we have had is a very formalised debate. Members must realise that, as Fergus pointed out, the annulment process is the nuclear option and should be used only when there is no other course of action. At such times, we must work closely with the minister, as is his wish. It brings the committee into disrepute if we go off on such a tangent.
I did not intend to speak in this debate, because I think that the minister will want to reply to the points that have been raised. However, this afternoon's debate has unhelpfully deteriorated into a party political squabbling session instead of addressing the issue at hand. As a new member of the committee, I am surprised that we have taken up more time with opportunities for individual committee members to run with agendas that are more suited to their local press releases than we have with getting results for the people who need them. I suggest that we hear from the minister and move on with the committee's business.
Indeed. That is exactly what we will do now.
Although it is tempting, I will not get into the particular procedural issues. If the committee convener invites me in writing to attend a meeting to discuss a matter of substance, as a minister I have some obligation to respond properly to such a request. The phrase "nuclear option" has been used, but, although I will not get into the debate, it would be regrettable if members felt that such an option was absolutely necessary. I repeat that if I, as Minister for Rural Development, receive a letter from the convener that raises matters of substance, I have an obligation to attend the committee and address those matters. No doubt the clerk has noted the other procedural questions and will know exactly where to find the answers to them.
I will take in reverse order the points that were raised. When I said that I proposed to introduce amendments that would have immediate effect, I should have made it clear that the only element that will have immediate effect will be my amendments; the full 21-days procedure will apply to the rest of the statutory instrument. I do not want to obviate discussion on a matter for which Margaret Ewing clearly has a serious local interest. If she does not mind, we should defer things until that time.
On the issue of disclosure, that requirement is an obligation on the individual who makes the application. Regulation 5(2) of the instrument makes it quite clear that an application must be made in writing by an individual who will reasonably include information on previous applications. We will not be delving into the back rooms and vaults of Highlands and Islands Enterprise, local authorities or otherwise. This represents a simple obligation on the applicant to disclose information on other applications that he or she has made to any other public sources of funding.
On Rhoda Grant's points, I think that we were looking at the wrong paragraph of the regulation, which perhaps meant that the right response was not provided. I am fairly clear that her point might have referred to regulation 5, which I now think we could tidy up. I have no hesitation in saying that the situation is regrettable.
If the committee is minded to approve the instrument this afternoon, we will certainly issue positive news releases in the right places to ensure that applicants come forward. I will then move to reconvene the project assessment committee so that I am seen not to be acting wilfully against any committee or presenting any impediments.
As for Mike Rumbles's point, although I do not want to get into a legal argument at this rather late stage in the afternoon, I think that we have to use the phrase "appeals procedure" with some caution. I am sure that Mr Ewing would carefully remind me that, particularly in view of the European convention on human rights, describing a mechanism as an appeals procedure means that there must be some ultimate form of judicial access. That is somewhat burdensome. Perhaps the early stages of the process were not emphasised. Applicants can always write to the project assessment committee if they are unhappy. It is also standard practice in my department that, if someone complains about the way in which an application has been processed by an official, a different member of staff will address that complaint. That brings some objectivity to the early stages of assessment. Furthermore, as the minister, I can always be invited to review a misstatement of fact or a misjudgment.
If somebody feels that they have been misdirected in any scheme in which the Executive—or the project assessment committee—exercises a degree of discretion, they must have recourse to some form of judicial review. However, there are many procedures to be exhausted before that point is reached. As I have said, an applicant can deal with a different official, with the minister, or with the project assessment committee if there are concerns about how the scheme is being administered. I hope that I have answered the questions that have been raised.
Thank you. I invite Fergus Ewing to close the debate.
I thank the minister for his remarks. I agree that I was wrong in not spotting that there are two errors, rather than one. However, they are essentially the same error, which had to be corrected. If it had not been, thousands of farmers would have been excluded from the scheme—an aim that none of us ever supported. I welcome the concessions that have been made, which came about because the annulment procedure was used. However, I would have preferred a specific remedy whereby members could propose an amendment to statutory instruments instead of having to use the nuclear deterrent.
Rhoda Grant made the important point that the ABIS losers should be made aware of the fact that the law is being changed to correct the mistake—that is a matter for the minister. However, given that the Scottish Executive rural affairs department has records of each of the 3,700 farmers who were unsuccessful in applying for ABIS, it might be worth considering sending each of them a letter to dispel any confusion that might arise. I noticed that the minister did not explain why the project assessment committee meeting was cancelled; that cancellation was neither necessary nor helpful. Furthermore, the minister did not state when the project assessment committee meeting will go ahead. However, I hope that it will go ahead as quickly as possible. I seek to withdraw my motion, on the basis of the assurances that have been given.
Surprise, surprise.
Motion, by agreement, withdrawn.
I thank the minister and his officials for dealing with this matter today.
There appears to be a move afoot to have a two-minute break before we continue with item 4. I therefore propose an adjournment of two minutes.
Meeting adjourned.
On resuming—
I reconvene the meeting, after the longest two minutes in history. Let us move directly to item 4 on the agenda, which we agreed previously to consider in public.