Official Report 176KB pdf
Today, we need to deal with five items of subordinate legislation, all of which must be considered under the negative procedure. The Subordinate Legislation Committee has commented only on the Control of Pollution (Silage, Slurry and Agricultural Fuel Oil) (Scotland) Regulations 2001 (SSI 2001/206). Among the papers that were sent out to members is a copy of that committee's report and the Executive's response.
I want to raise a point about the Control of Pollution (Silage, Slurry and Agricultural Fuel Oil) (Scotland) Regulations 2001. On compliance costs, the regulatory impact assessment states that the regulations will have greatest impact on livestock farms. Although I do not oppose the instrument, it would be helpful if we could have slightly more specification. I am disappointed that we have been given only a general statement. Would the Executive provide us with the information it has about the impact of the regulations?
I understand that the regulations will have greatest impact on livestock farms because they relate specifically to slurry and silage effluence, which are quite specific to livestock farms.
I understand that, but the costs that will be involved should be part of an impact assessment statement. That would allow those who will be affected by the regulations to have some idea of what the costs will be and of how those costs will be made up. Although I recognise that the regulations have the desirable aim of preventing pollution, I would feel far happier if we had a clear indication of their actual impact. Otherwise, frankly, I do not see the point of having regulatory impact assessment statements.
The date by which we have to deal with the instrument to which you draw attention makes it impossible for us to do so after the recess. Would you be content if I wrote to the minister on your behalf asking for that additional information?
That would be very helpful. Thank you.
On the point made by Fergus Ewing, there should be no impact. The new regulations make it easier for farmers to discuss with the Scottish Environment Protection Agency alterations to existing structures, which the industry is not keen to do at the moment, because it would mean losing the exemption that was created when the original regulations came into force. The new regulations are a very welcome piece of legislation and will encourage farmers to work with SEPA when they have a problem. At the moment, given the way in which the measures operate, the reverse is true.
I am happy with that conclusion but, given Fergus Ewing's concern, I think that it is perfectly reasonable to ask the minister for clarification.
I agree that that is perfectly reasonable, but I think that the answer will be that there will be no impact at all.
Are there any further comments relating to the five instruments before us? If members have nothing more to raise, are they content to deal with them together?
If there are no comments on the instruments, I will put the question. Are members content to make no recommendation in the committee's report to Parliament on the five instruments before us: the Control of Pollution (Silage, Slurry and Agricultural Fuel Oil) (Scotland) Regulations 2001 (SSI 2001/206); the Agricultural Processing and Marketing Grants (Scotland) Regulations 2001 (SSI 2001/220); the Pesticides (Maximum Residue Levels in Crops, Food and Feeding Stuffs) (Scotland) Amendment (No 2) Regulations 2001 (SSI 2001/221); the Suckler Cow Premium (Scotland) Regulations 2001 (SSI 2001/225); and the Agricultural Subsidies (Appeals) (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 2001 (SSI 2001/226)?