Official Report 147KB pdf
Several points have been raised on the order. On the whole, the committee and the Parliament have been very sympathetic to the Executive over the problems that it faces in respect of regulations concerning foot-and-mouth disease. The committee may therefore be prepared to accept the explanation for the absence of an Executive note. I believe that it was agreed that notes would be provided if necessary. The absence of a note may inconvenience the committee's legal adviser, but—if we are generous—we should admit that sometimes circumstances are such that an Executive note may not be provided. In this case, there were time pressures. I am sure that the Executive realises that we would prefer a note, but we will not push it any further on that.
Members indicated agreement.
There is also a question of discrimination. Depending on when people applied, different levels of compensation were paid. It is argued that, at the outset, an artificially high value was put on stock that had to be destroyed, but that that value was readjusted. Therefore, there was less compensation for those who were compensated under the permanent and adjusted figure and it appears that there was some discrimination; on the other hand, under the European convention on human rights, if compensation is objectively justified and proportionate, the Executive will not be held guilty of any breach.
When the foot-and-mouth outbreak was at its peak, individual assessments of animals could have added further delays to slaughtering. The situation is now far more under control and it is far more practical and reasonable to introduce individual assessments.
I agree, but that does not change the fact that some farmers who are getting less will feel discriminated against. They may not have been discriminated against legally, but they may feel much worse off than they would have been if they had received compensation earlier.
The committee can sympathise with the farmers, but cannot do much more than that.
I am not suggesting that it can.
The lead committee can take other decisions. Our recommendation is that, as far as the regulations and their application is concerned—
The noise that members can hear is a water bottle falling and not a weapon being thrown.
They all say that, as Gordon Jackson would tell members.
Members indicated agreement.
There is a question about the steps that have been taken to ensure that those affected were made aware of the order, which came into force on 30 August 2001. Again, I am inclined to say that, because of the pressure of circumstances, we should not judge the Executive too harshly, but the committee may feel differently. The 21-day rule was breached, but we should give the Executive leeway for the same reasons as on the previous matter. I have been corrected—the 21-day rule did not apply.
The committee should draw the instrument to Parliament's attention as it required further explanation by the Executive. The committee should also draw Parliament's attention to the fact that article 2(6) is defectively drafted, as the Executive has acknowledged. That is regrettable, but it does not hold anything up.
I was stumbling towards that recommendation.