Official Report 245KB pdf
Sheep and Goats (Identification and Traceability) (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 2007 (SSI 2007/559)<br />Foot-and-Mouth Disease (Export Restrictions) (Scotland) (No 2) Regulations 2007 (SSI 2007/562)
Under agenda item 4 we have two Scottish statutory instruments to consider, which are subject to the negative procedure. No member has raised any points on either SSI and no motions to annul have been lodged. However, I am conscious that Peter Peacock flagged up a concern about sheep tagging, which we noted under the previous agenda item. I presume that he does not wish to raise his concern in the context of SSI 2007/559.
As John Scott suggested, I suspect that the matter has gone beyond the point of recovery. However, it is probably worth noting the impact that sheep tagging might have on the industry. I know that people are deeply concerned about it, particularly given the current cost structure of the industry, the value of stock and so on. It is something that the industry will, I suspect, find very difficult to cope with. That said, it is not clear to me that there is an alternative course open to us.
I would, regrettably, agree—not because Peter Peacock raised the issue but because it is a matter of huge regret that we have reached this stage. Perhaps we should have opposed the SSI, but, like Peter, I do not believe that there is an alternative. Essentially, the derogation has been abused by the UK Government, and that is why the legislation is being forced on us now. There is no question but that costs are underestimated in the regulatory impact assessment, and there is, in particular, the hassle factor of double tagging sheep—especially on a day such as today, when people cannot get their fingers to work in the cold. It is hugely impractical for the structure of the Scottish sheep industry, but I do not know what the alternative is.
I suggest that we defer our decision on SSI 2007/559 and, in the interim, ask the Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs and the Environment to give us a note on the costings. We will say that we are challenging the costs and that we are interested to know whether there has been any real impact—although there has, obviously, been a regulatory impact assessment.
Yes, that would be helpful.
I wonder whether it would be sufficient to flag up the fact that we are not just nodding through the SSI, even though we probably do not have an alternative in the end.
Extraordinarily, when I was involved with the National Farmers Union of Scotland 10 years ago, I made representations in Brussels against such tagging to the then EU Commissioner on the subject—a Mr Pipliakos, I think. The Scottish sheep farming industry has tried to oppose this for the past 15 years, but we are stuck with it now. It might be even more helpful if the cabinet secretary could come and tell us why there is no alternative.
We can ask the cabinet secretary to explain that, but I also ask those members who are better placed to know whether it would be worth writing to the NFUS in order to ask the organisation about the expected financial burdens and how they might differ from what is being officially suggested. I do not know, but it might be quite useful for us to get that information. Are we agreed?
Could we therefore agree that we defer consideration—sorry, does Des McNulty have a question?
I have one further question. I am looking at section 2.3 in the regulatory impact assessment document—
Is this on SSI 2007/559?
Yes. It is about the shift from movement tags to a UK tag.
Which paragraph are you looking at?
I am looking at paragraphs 2.3.2 and 2.3.3, on pages 2 and 3 of the RIA document. I am interested to know whether it is possible in the risk assessment context, and perhaps also in the context of tagging regulations, to have a specifically Scottish tag as opposed to a UK tag.
"It's our sheep", you mean.
We are supposed to tag sheep with the letters "UK", according to the legislation, with which I do not have a problem, but there is an issue about tracking the origins of animals—which improves their marketability—and whether, in that context, and also in the context of the concerns raised in paragraphs 2.3.2 and 2.3.3, there is an opportunity to have a specifically Scottish system. Perhaps our sheep could all be stamped with a saltire. I do not know about that—
Tartan tags?
I am just raising the matter as a possibility—if we are questioning the minister, perhaps that is a question that we could ask him.
If we are writing to the cabinet secretary, does the committee agree that we will include that suggestion and question as well?
And because of the points raised at paragraphs 2.3.7 and 2.3.8—
I am really glad that everybody indicated in advance that this was going to be such an issue.
I apologise, but we need to address the issue at our next meeting because it is urgent—if the system is to go ahead, the SSI indicates that it will go ahead in mid-January. That is why we need to address it at the next meeting if we possibly can.
We will be within the time limits that are laid down if we get answers back by our next meeting. Because of the timescales involved, we can defer consideration of the matter only for a short time. The regulations come into force on 18 January.
It might be useful to have a five-minute suspension before we begin item 5. I suspend the meeting and ask everyone to be back by 11.21.
Meeting suspended.
On resuming—