Rural Development Committee, 16 Jan 2001

Meeting date: Tuesday, January 16, 2001

Official Report 163KB pdf

---

Subordinate Legislation

Two instruments are before the committee today: the Sheep and Goat Identification (Scotland) Regulations (SSI 2000/418) and the Common Agricultural Policy Support Schemes (Modulation) (Scotland) Regulations 2000 (SSI 2000/429). Both instruments are to be dealt with under negative procedure. We are required to report on them by 22 January, so this is the last opportunity for us to comment.

Members should have a copy of the regulations. The Subordinate Legislation Committee had no comment to make on the Sheep and Goat Identification (Scotland) Regulations, but on the Common Agricultural Policy Support Schemes (Modulation) (Scotland) Regulations 2000, it drew our attention to the Executive's response as providing the explanation requested and the recommendation is that we consider asking the Executive for further clarification on the status of the deductions.

Are there any comments on the Sheep and Goat Identification (Scotland) Regulations?

In my former life, as president of the Blackface Sheep Breeders Association, we were preoccupied in putting forward the desires of the industry on the compulsory identification of sheep through tagging. I have to say that the eventual outcome of this regulation, which is that you have to identify sheep when they leave the holding of their birth, was the outcome that the industry was looking for if the status quo could not be preserved. However, when it comes to the regulation there are some interesting differences, especially when compared with the regulation that was introduced south of the border.

To my mind, the differences mean that the regulation as it is applied in Scotland is considerably more bureaucratic and dictatorial than is that south of the border. For example, paragraph (5) of regulation 5 on records for specified sheepmeat producers, states:

"All records relating to sheep required by virtue of regulation 4 and this regulation shall be kept together in the form of a single document."

That regulation does not apply south of the border. I cannot for the life of me understand why it should apply in Scotland. Similarly, in paragraph (4), there is a requirement in Scotland for regulations to be retained for six years, whereas in England it is four. Again, I cannot understand why there is a difference.

Regulation 18, paragraph (2), in part V of the instrument—which does not apply to the instrument south of the border—describes the powers of the inspector. The powers that the inspector has in Scotland

"to enter at all reasonable hours any land or premises"

and the requirement for the owner of the sheep to collect and pen his sheep are somewhat draconian and unnecessary.

Having been involved in the sheep world all my life until two years ago, I know that what is a reasonable hour for a department inspector and a sheep farmer is not necessarily the same. There have been problems when counting sheep for a subsidy claim. There are huge problems if you are asked to count your sheep during lambing time; that has been happening more and more. If people are going to be asked to do the same thing in connection with this instrument, I fear that it will create more ill will between the farmer and department inspectors. I do not think that anybody wants to create more ill will.

I have great difficulties with those regulations, but I do not see what options we have other than to allow the instrument to pass. If there are options, I would be grateful if the convener could advise me what they are.

I endorse the criticisms that Alex Fergusson has made, which I had the opportunity to discuss with a number of sheep farmers in Daviot on Friday evening. They were concerned that these regulations will introduce a new layer of bureaucracy. While the purpose of traceability and origin are desirable for export purposes and for identifying produce as Scottish, there seems to be an element of gold plating—in other words, additional regulation in Scotland that is not found in England.

Given Alex Fergusson's experience and the fact that these rules have been identified as more onerous than those that are to apply south of the border, it would be useful to conduct a comparison and get an explanation from the Executive of why it has been necessary to propose regulations in Scotland that are not in the equivalent regulations that apply in England. I am sure that we all believe in removing bureaucracy and red tape where possible, rather than in creating it, which is what these regulations do.

I understand that this statutory instrument brings into force the European regulation—which we have before us—that follows council directive 92/102/EEC. The statutory instrument provides not only for powers to be granted to inspectors but, under regulation 19, covers a number of offences. Sheep farmers who breach the rules could find themselves liable to pay a fine. Article 9 of the European directive does not state that offences have to be introduced; it simply states:

"Member States shall adopt necessary administrative and/or penal measures to punish any infringement of"

the rules.

If it is not necessary to criminalise behaviour under European law, in so far as any infringement can be dealt with through administrative measures, why is the Executive providing for offences?

Perhaps I have misread or misunderstood the documents, and perhaps it is necessary under European law to create new crimes in respect of which sheep farmers and others may be accused, but if that is not necessary I think that the farming community would expect us to get to grips with this matter. I for one would be very concerned if this matter went further without additional scrutiny.

Alex Fergusson raised some interesting points, pointing out the differences relating to regulation 5: in England, the pertinent records have to be retained for four years, whereas there is a requirement to hold them for six years here. There is also the administrative difference of holding those records in a single document—which I do not think is exactly onerous. I understand that people feel that there is a problem with additional bureaucracy, but I do not think that it is worth holding up this statutory instrument for that.

I would like more information from Alex Fergusson on his more substantive point, if he would not mind. He said that the power of the inspectors here, under regulation 18(2), is different from those granted to inspectors in England. He did not explain to the committee in what way the powers are different. Could Alex enlighten us?

I will try to do so very simply if I may, convener. None of part V of the regulations exists in the equivalent English instrument. The other difference is that, under the Scottish regulations, an inspector is defined, under part I, regulation 2; he is not under the English instrument. I think that a requirement for an exact definition of who the inspectors are is a good thing, but the powers of inspectors are not laid out for Scotland as they are in the English instrument.

That is my point. Can Alex Fergusson enlighten the committee on how the statutory instrument in England would be enforceable? Surely the purpose of the instrument is one of enforcement.

My query is about the difference between the measures and about why we need such a draconian instrument here in Scotland if a less draconian one is deemed to be satisfactory elsewhere.

I am asking what—to use your terminology—the less draconian measure is. You do not seem to be aware of it.

That is why I want to ask the question—because I do not know what the reasoning is.

That is a fair point. We should ask Ross Finnie.

I am glad that you think that it is fair.

A more general issue is involved, because the committee must report by next Monday. I do not have much knowledge of sheep, so I did not spot any of the contentious issues. I know that the holiday period has just passed, but I am concerned that we received the instrument so late that we could not meet officials from the Scottish Executive rural affairs department to clarify some of the points that have been raised.

I support Dr Murray's last comments. The regulations were signed on 23 November, yet here we are in the middle of January, seeing them with only a couple of days' notice. We should take up that issue. This is not the first time that that has happened.

May I have clarification about what we can do? I gather that if we do not agree to the instrument, nothing will fill its place and there could be a problem. What options do we have?

If what Rhoda Grant says is correct and the whole system will grind to a halt if we do not pass the regulations, that will be unacceptable to the sheep trade. The export market has just begun to take off on the back of fears about BSE on the continent. Sheep prices are showing a healthy return. Nothing should be done to put that off.

I support what Elaine Murray said about timing. It is unacceptable that we cannot question anybody about the instrument.

The instrument was circulated to members in advance of the Christmas break. However, interest among representative bodies and in some sections of the agriculture press has built up over that time. That has brought the issues more to the fore. The concern has been expressed at the last minute. As Rhoda Grant and Alex Fergusson said, we have a potential problem—not passing the regulation could give rise to damaging effects on the sheep industry, which must conform with European regulations to maintain our exports. Is the committee content to approve the regulations and enter into further correspondence on the general issues that they raise about the drafting of regulations?

Alex Fergusson made a good point, which is why I pursued it. I would like to know the answers to the questions he raised about the powers of inspection. I do not want to know just about the general point on time scales. I would like the Scottish Executive to respond to Alex's questions.

With the suggested provisions for further action, is the committee content to make no recommendation in its report to Parliament on the regulations?

Members indicated agreement.

We must now consider the Common Agricultural Policy Support Schemes (Modulation) (Scotland) Regulations 2000. As I said, the Subordinate Legislation Committee's report recommended that we might wish to

"consider asking the Executive for further clarification on the status of these deductions"—

the money that is deducted through modulation. Are there any comments on that? I am content that I understand what the status of the deductions is. We have all discussed the modulation proposals on several occasions. Some of us may have offered the odd objection occasionally, but we all understand what the regulations mean.

I have a point of clarification, which concerns the plight of crofters and hill farmers in less favoured areas. Regulation 5 allows the Scottish ministers to apply the sums that are deducted by the method of modulation for the purposes of early retirement; less favoured areas and areas with environmental restrictions; agri-environment; or afforestation. They are all worthy purposes.

Since the regulations were first thought of, the deal for less favoured areas has been implemented. There is cross-party concern that that deal may cause severe hardship for many crofters and small hill farmers. Could we ask for a statement of the Executive's policy on the application of regulation 5 and of its policy and plans for which of the four areas will benefit? We need to know whether they will benefit equally or whether the Executive plans to direct the modulation moneys towards crofters and small hill farmers, as it is entitled to do under paragraph (b) and possibly also under paragraph (c).

I know that this is a complex issue, but I would certainly be interested in an early indication as to the Executive's policy thinking. I hope that the committee will be able to participate in the policy-formulation process to ensure that we can help crofters and small hill farmers in the difficult times that lie ahead.

If I remember correctly, we had a statement from the minister on this, in which he clarified his intentions. He intends to use the money that is raised for items covered by paragraphs (b), (c) and (d), but not for those covered by paragraph (a). I would certainly be interested in getting further clarification of the minister's intentions in the terms that Fergus Ewing has described.

In the light of those comments, are members content to make no recommendation on the instrument in our report to Parliament?

Members indicated agreement.