Official Report 279KB pdf
Less Favoured Area Support Scheme (Scotland) Regulations 2007 (SSI 2007/439)
The cabinet secretary has responded to my letter about the breaching of the 21-day rule. I note that the Subordinate Legislation Committee has expressed similar concerns. Are members satisfied with the explanation, or do they want to pursue it further?
I am not satisfied with the explanation. The cabinet secretary's letter says:
Perhaps surprisingly, I take a less harsh view of the minister's explanation. This year, the minister and his officials have had their hands full with foot-and-mouth disease and the threat of bluetongue disease. Members have seen all the instruments that have had to be laid before the committee as a result of FMD—I am sure that Karen Gillon is aware of them. It will have taken time and effort on the part of the same officials, as I understand it, to prepare those instruments. Like Karen Gillon, I hope that the minister will be able to do better in another year, given the disapproval of the committee thus far regarding the way in which the matter has been handled this year. However, I believe that his explanation is, if anything, understated.
I disagree with John Scott and—I am afraid to say it—I agree with Karen Gillon. The minister says:
In fairness to the cabinet secretary, the regulations have been late every year for—
But it has taken four months.
I will ask the clerks to go back over the past eight years and look at the timescales according to which we and our predecessor committees have had to deal with the same regulations every year. We can then say to the cabinet secretary that, although we have his letter, he must recognise the reality that the committee has had to deal with over the past eight years. There seems to be a presumption that the Government can lay the regulations late; that needs to be addressed.
I would like to make a quick additional point. I absolutely take the points that John Scott makes about foot-and-mouth disease. None of us underestimates the impact of that. However, I would be grateful if, in your letter to the cabinet secretary, you could ask him to clarify what aspects of this "highly technical instrument" have changed since this "highly technical instrument" was introduced in Parliament last year and have required the officials to spend such a long time on the instrument.
I do not quite understand the minister's explanation of its being a "technical" instrument. It is no easier to deal with a technical instrument whether it is early or late. I would like to know whether there are any timescale factors, in terms of permissions or arrangements that need to be made, that make the instrument late each year—things that are to do not with the technical nature of the instrument but with the timescales that are associated with it.
You mean that there might be reasons why it is late every year.
I do not know. The cabinet secretary has not provided that information in his letter. I would be keen to know whether there are any factors other than the technicality of the instrument, such as timescales, that mean that it is late every year.
On a similar point, I would like to know the previous eight years' worth of cabinet secretaries' explanations for the lateness of the regulations. Is it the same thing that keeps them from being published on time each year?
I suggest that, if it is the same thing, the issue is for the officials rather than whoever happens to be the titular head of the department. If that is the case, we need to be aware why that is the case and it needs to be gotten on top of. Allowing the matter to go every year without addressing it does not help.
I agree, but I think that we cannot allow the submission that we have received from RSPB Scotland to go without comment. I would be grateful for your guidance on when you think that comment would be appropriate.
All members have a copy of the submission, and any member can raise the issue.
I will raise it briefly. It appears from the map—if the map is accurate—that the least favoured areas—
It is not a public paper yet because we received it so late.
Okay. We have in front of us a map from RSPB Scotland that suggests—I am not in a position to agree or disagree—that the least favoured areas of Scotland, as most of us around the table would understand them, receive least from the less favoured area support scheme. Therefore, there is some merit in the suggestion that we should consider the matter in more detail in the year ahead. Instead of considering only the statutory instrument, let us look at what the scheme does, what it is supposed to do and whether it is delivering support to those areas. We could put that in our work programme.
I suggest that we include that for discussion at our meeting on 19 December, under the heading of our future work programme. That is a helpful suggestion.
Can I just make the point, convener—
Well—
If you would rather that I did not, I will not.
It is just that, if we are going to have a longer discussion about the issue, I do not want us to get too bogged down in it now. The discussion now is about this particular statutory instrument.
There is an historical basis for the payments being made at the current levels in those areas.
Exactly.
It is still relevant today.
Does the committee agree not to make any further recommendations in relation to the regulations?
Import and Export Restrictions<br />(Foot-and-Mouth Disease) (Scotland)<br />(No 5) Regulations 2007 (SSI 2007/473)<br />Pesticides (Maximum Residue Levels<br />in Crops, Food and Feeding Stuffs) (Scotland) Amendment (No 3)<br />Regulations 2007 (SSI 2007/481)
Do members have any comments or concerns on the other two sets of regulations? No motions to annul have been lodged and no concerns have been raised in advance with the clerks. Does anybody have any comment to make on them?
No.
Are we agreed not to make any recommendations in relation to SSI 2007/473 and SSI 2007/481?
Thank you. We have now fallen eight minutes short. While we are on the general issue of subordinate legislation, before I suspend the meeting until 11.00, there is an opportunity to have a few minutes' discussion about subordinate legislation, statutory instruments and general issues to do with timescales and things. Does John Scott want to say anything while we are still on this agenda item?
No. Not at the moment.
Is there anything that anybody else wants to raise at this point, before I suspend the meeting until 11.00?
No.
Meeting suspended.
On resuming—
Previous
Ticks and Tick-borne DiseasesNext
Fisheries Council