Rural Development Committee, 12 Feb 2002

Meeting date: Tuesday, February 12, 2002

Official Report 223KB pdf

---

Foot-and-mouth Disease

Agenda item 4 concerns the foot-and-mouth issue that came up at the last meeting. Unlike other members, I am at a disadvantage, because I was not in the chair at that meeting, when the committee indicated its desire to consider the evidence it was given by Ross Finnie.

As requested, members have received a briefing note from the clerks that sets out the chronology and background to the issue. Options for considering the issue further are outlined in the papers and I seek members' comments. Comments should be restricted to the content of the instrument. We could write to the minister about the procedural considerations.

Do any members wish to comment on the content of the instrument? Mike Rumbles was looking keen for a moment.

I was, until you said that our comments had to be about the content.

As the instrument was laid under the Animal Health Act 1981, it is not subject to parliamentary procedure. Considering all the other stuff that comes before the committee, which, quite frankly, is hardly controversial, I find it strange that no parliamentary scrutiny is necessary for the instrument. I am thunderstruck.

Do you want to ask for the clerk's opinion on that?

I did that last week.

In that case you have already had the clerk's opinion. I am surprised myself. Nonetheless, the instrument has apparently been run past the Executive's lawyers and they agree that that is the case.

I think we should write to the minister on two themes—the substantive measures in the statutory instrument and the procedures. We should protest about the procedures in the strongest terms because we asked the minister to come before the committee on the understanding that we would have an input into the consultation. That did not turn out to be the case. According to the briefing note from the clerks, the consultation exercise began on 22 January with a closing date of 31 January. The draft SI was sent to members on 28 January, before the consultation had closed. No changes have been made to the SI since the consultation closed. That suggests that the consultation was a bit of a sham and that many people were misled.

We should ask the minister to note our unhappiness with the procedures in this case. We should not forget the fact that we cannot amend the SI because we have no input. Parliament has no input. We cannot reject or accept it. That is crucial given the importance of the issue to the livestock industry in Scotland and the level of concern over the proposed relaxations, even though they are welcome because they are a step forward.

The second theme of the letter should relate to the substantive content of the SI, in particular the timing of the relaxations. We should ask the minister to note the views of some members of the industry on the fact that they will have to wait several months for some of the relaxations regarding sheep and cattle. We should note that, as we understand it, the statutory instrument will apply to the whole of 2002, but we would like the minister to review that at the earliest opportunity. We should emphasise the fact that we do not want the instrument to last for the whole of 2002 if the evidence suggests otherwise. I think that the minister indicated that he was aware of the point, but we should reinforce it.

I have some sympathy with the point about the procedure and we should write to the minister and express concern about not having an input to the statutory instrument. Richard Lochhead's points about the content of the statutory instrument were all made to the minister last week. It is only fair to acknowledge that the minister came and explained the standpoint. He answered the questions that Richard Lochhead put to him and that is available to read in the Official Report. However, it would be valid to write and express our concerns about the extent of our ability to scrutinise the statutory instrument.

If I had had more time in the past few days I would have read the Official Report rather more carefully than I have done. I seek guidance from committee members. Was the point put to the minister that if the instrument is still in place in autumn 2002, hill farmers will have incredible difficulty with the store sales and separating the lambs?

Yes. That point was put emphatically. Also, one of Mr Finnie's advisers seemed to concede that crofting townships might be allowed to use one field.

I read that bit. Thank you.

Having read the Official Report to confirm what was said at a long and complex evidence-taking meeting, I am convinced that the minister did not make a case statistically or epidemiologically for the necessity of three cycles of the disease to be the period that set the movement orders at 20 days. He did not produce statistics and neither Mr Finnie nor his veterinary adviser provided adequate evidence for why three cycles of the disease was a better standard—qualitatively or quantitatively—than, say, two cycles of the disease, which is what some of us were urging him to consider. That remains an important point and if we do not pursue it at this stage it may hang over the industry for years to come. There may be difficulties if that is embedded at the core of the argument. I would like to know more on that specific point because according to my reading of the Official Report, it was not addressed adequately last week.

I want to go back to the procedural point. Perhaps the clerk can give advice on this. The briefing note says:

"The Disease Control (Interim Measures) (Scotland) Order 2002 was formally laid at the Scottish Parliament on Friday 1 February 2002."

It goes on to say that the instrument is not subject to parliamentary scrutiny or committee approval. What does the fact that it was formally laid in the Scottish Parliament mean? Does it mean that the instrument was considered by the full chamber or that it was not debated at all? I really want to know.

As I understand it, the order is formally laid, but it is not then referred to a subject committee, which is the usual procedure.

So what happens to it?

It simply comes into force.

Is it put in a drawer somewhere and that is it?

The word "rubber-stamped" springs to mind.

It is clear to me that the committee feels that we should write to the minister to express our concern about the procedure relating to the instrument—however correct it might be. We should also express our concern that we have had no input to the measure, although it is a subject on which we could have been of constructive assistance.

Most members seem to feel that the minister was made aware of the issues relating to the contents of the instrument last week. Do members think that we should make no comments on the content of the instrument in the letter to the minister, but simply refer to procedural matters?

I would like the minister to provide us with further information to underpin his argument that three cycles of the disease, rather than two, are necessary to protect the industry.

I agree with Stewart Stevenson—the issue was mentioned but the statistical basis for it was not covered. The information would be helpful.

Are members happy that we ask for clarification on that issue?

Members indicated agreement.

We can say that we are sure that the minister will have noted the points that were put to him by members last week, but that we seek clarification. We can then draw his attention to the procedural difficulties that we have. Are members happy with that?

Members indicated agreement.