Official Report 175KB pdf
Conservation of Seals (Scotland) Order 2002 (SSI 2002/404)
Given the time, I will move straight on to the order on the conservation of seals, which we considered briefly last week under the negative procedure. There was considerable discussion last week on the policy behind the order and the procedure—or lack of procedure—associated with the order. Members should have a copy of the correspondence with the Executive, along with a cover note from the clerk outlining the procedure.
I raised the issue in the committee when we first considered the order. My main point was that I did not agree that the Parliament, through the Rural Development Committee, should be asked to implement what was in effect retrospective legislation. The minister has not addressed that point.
I agree entirely. We have two options. The first option is to submit a beefed-up report drawing attention to our concerns, but to make no further comment, on the basis that we do not wish to stand in the way of the order. The other option is for the committee to lodge a motion to annul.
When we previously considered an order with retrospective effect, our decision not to object came down to the fact that if we had objected, we could have impinged on people's income. That is not the case in respect of this order. I would like to hear what other members have to say on the matter. At some stage, the committee should take a stand on retrospective legislation that comes before us in this way. I am not happy with that practice.
One of the concerns that was expressed at our previous meeting was that the upshot is that we are dealing with retrospective legislation that could prejudice the interests of individuals who may commit a crime without knowing about that crime. That is because the order provides for the creation of a crime. In response to that point, the minister says:
I do not disagree, but I am worried about pressure of time. The order has to be reported on by 7 October.
Could we ask the minister to withdraw the order and to resubmit it with a different commencement date?
Although I believe that no one could be arrested for committing a crime under the order because it was not laid and did not go through the parliamentary procedures properly, I am concerned about delaying it. We should be careful about doing that because the disease that is sweeping through the seal population is serious. If we were to delay the order, we could put the seal population at risk.
That is not the position as far as I understand it. The order has Executive authority: the law is already in place but is subject to the approval of the Rural Development Committee—that is what is meant by retrospective legislation. I am not happy to put my signature to retrospective legislation when there was no need for it to be retrospective in the first place. The Executive could have laid an order with a commencement date that would have been subject to our approval. We are being asked to rubber-stamp the order, in the same way that we have been asked to rubber-stamp a number of pieces of subordinate legislation. I was reluctant to do so on those occasions, but if we had taken a stand previously, farmers would have lost badly needed income. That situation does not arise in this case.
I accept that point, but the Executive says:
Why are we being asked to approve the order retrospectively? The Executive has yet to justify the retrospective nature of that approval.
Are members of the view that we should write back to the Executive to seek further clarification of those matters, on the grounds that we are unhappy with the robustness—if I may put it that way—of its reply to our original letter? Do members think that, if necessary, we should ask the Executive to delay commencement of the order? I am reluctant to go down that route if I can avoid it.
Could you write to the minister on behalf of the committee to say that, if a similar situation arises in future, the committee will seriously consider the option of annulment?
Do you make that suggestion because, in this case, there are no financial consequences for members of the electorate or anyone else?
Yes.
Rhoda Grant said that the disease is running rampant through the seal population, but is that the case?
Cases have been reported in England. We know from past experience that once the disease takes off, it does so very quickly and can spread rapidly through the seal population. I think that that is why action has been taken so quickly.
Should we write directly to the Crown Office about that?
We should ask the minister in the first place, as he laid the order before the Parliament.
We have asked the minister that question, but he has not chosen to give us a particularly strong answer, other than to say:
In that case, it might be best to write to the Crown Office.
From what members have said, I think that we are considering writing a strongly worded letter that outlines our very real concerns about the order. The letter would also point out what would happen if such circumstances were to arise again. We need to make the important point about financial consequences, as on previous occasions we have had to pass such instruments on, because people's pockets would have been hit had we not done so. Therefore, we will say that the committee would be minded to block similar statutory instruments in future, so long as there were no financial consequences for anyone. In addition, we will write to the Crown Office to seek its guidance. Given those criteria, we are prepared to make no recommendation to the Parliament on this occasion. Do members agree?
I want to make two points. First, I am not sure of the argument about grey seals in the Moray firth being shot because people did not know whether they were grey or common seals. It is quite easy to spot the difference between grey and common seals. By the way, I am not suggesting that there should be a mass slaughter of seals—I am saying only that I do not think that those are good grounds for including grey seals in the order. Secondly, have we been given any information about the source of the outbreak? The letter says that 18,000 seals died in northern Europe, of which only 1,300 died around the Scottish coast. It was thought that many of those seals had been washed up from Ireland. My point is that, even during the last outbreak, the disease does not appear to have been a big problem in Scotland. Do we know what causes the disease? Could it be that seal populations are not being managed properly?
Those are perfectly relevant, valid questions, but they are wider than we are able to go in this debate. We have to deal with a specific statutory instrument that the Executive is seeking to introduce.
I propose that we take the action that you outlined in your summary.
Are members content for the committee to take that course of action?
On that basis, we make no recommendation to Parliament on the Conservation of Seals (Scotland) Order 2002.
Meeting continued in private until 15:57.
Previous
Cairngorms National Park