Rural Affairs Committee, 14 Nov 2000

Meeting date: Tuesday, November 14, 2000

Official Report 319KB pdf

---

Subordinate Legislation

The first item on the agenda is subordinate legislation. We must consider three negative instruments: the Agricultural Subsidies (Appeals) (Scotland) Regulations 2000 (SSI 2000/347), the Brucellosis (Scotland) Regulations 2000 (SSI 2000/364) and the Enzootic Bovine Leukosis (Scotland) Regulations 2000 (SSI 2000/365).

I remind members of the fact that I am in receipt of agricultural subsidy, as is recorded in the "Register of Members' Interests". Do other members have any interests to declare?

Although I am still recorded as a farmer in the "Register of Members' Interests", I am no longer in receipt of agricultural subsidy—unfortunately.

It might be appropriate to mention that I claim agricultural subsidies under the hill livestock compensatory allowance scheme and the less favoured area scheme.

The first instrument is the Agricultural Subsidies (Appeals) (Scotland) Regulations 2000. I understand that Fergus Ewing was party to the discussions that took place in framing the Subordinate Legislation Committee report on those regulations.

In this case, my presence on the Subordinate Legislation Committee is an example of serendipity. I know that the farming community has long awaited regulations to deal with the problems that have arisen in the integrated administration and control system, under which many farmers and crofters felt that they were being treated worse than criminals. Therefore the appeals process is welcome.

The substantive point that arose from the regulations was that the appeal in the first process must be made no later than 60 days following the date of the decision that is being appealed. The rules do not include any requirement for notification. I would not be surprised if problems and arguments arose about when the 60 days begins. However, I appreciate that the only action open to us would be to annul the instrument, which would not be appropriate. I simply take this opportunity to draw attention to the fact that the 60 days begins from the date of the decision, rather than the date on which the crofter or farmer finds out about the decision. I hope that that will be more widely publicised in the farming community.

Are there any other comments on the instrument?

Will people be informed automatically of the appeals procedure when they are given a decision?

I know that the form relating to the appeals procedure has already been sent out to farmers in Scotland. People are aware that such a procedure is in place.

I have a similar point to that made by Fergus Ewing in that I would not want to annul the instrument. However, it is regrettable that the minister's advisers felt unable to include a retrospective element in the regulations. It is distinctly possible that some farmers will be fined a considerable amount of money for a perceived offence that was committed last year or the year before, whereas a farmer in a similar situation may have a successful appeal next year and therefore be unaffected financially by any decision on subsidies. That is an unfortunate situation but it should not stop the regulations going through.

Is the committee content with the regulations and do we agree to draw no matters to the attention of Parliament in our report?

Members indicated agreement.

The other two instruments are the Brucellosis (Scotland) Regulations 2000 and the Enzootic Bovine Leukosis (Scotland) Regulations 2000. They are straightforward and the Subordinate Legislation Committee has made no comments on them. Is the committee content with the regulations and do we agree to make no recommendations to the Parliament?

Members indicated agreement.