We have three negative orders before us today. The first is the Transport of Animals (Cleansing and Disinfection) (Scotland) Regulations 2000 (SSI 2000/167). A number of papers have been circulated in connection with the order, including a copy of a report from the Subordinate Legislation Committee.
We have with us today Miss Nancy Logan and Mr Mike Watson of the animal health and welfare branch of the Scottish Executive rural affairs department. They, together with Steven Lindsay, from the Scottish Executive solicitors branch, will explain the order. Do the officials wish to make any comments on the order further to what is already in the notes that we have received?
No, but we are happy to answer questions.
Are you aware of the statement that was made in the report of the Subordinate Legislation Committee?
Yes.
Do you feel that the order requires clarification on that point? I am inviting you to justify it, if you feel that you can.
The order merely says that whoever is asked to remove the waste is responsible for removing it as explained in the regulations, but we do not specifically say which person should do that. That gives us the benefit of ensuring that, where a transporter uses a third party to remove the waste, it is the third party that is responsible for waste disposal in accordance with the regulations.
The document is quite clear and distinct about the proposals. I think that most operators who are currently engaged in all forms of livestock haulage are well aware of the implications of not complying with the regulations. For several years, there has been an arrangement in operation whereby hauliers were required to clean or wash down the vehicle in which the animals are being transported. I think that what you are saying is that, if a haulier hires another party to undertake the work, the responsibility for cleansing passes from the haulier to the third party. Is that right?
Yes.
I do not think that there is anything in the order that would be detrimental to the trade.
This may be a daft question, but it is fairly important to me. If there is negligence, and no one carries out the cleansing, are there any sanctions? The hauliers can claim that it is not their problem, because it is the contractors that they have engaged who have not carried out the work. That might mean that animals are travelling in hellish conditions. What sanctions can be used to prevent that?
Regulation 8 of the order, which covers criminal offences, says that anyone who fails to comply with any of the requirements becomes guilty of an offence and is punishable by a financial penalty. If you are asking whether a person can be compelled to remove matter from the lorry, that is a much more difficult point. I imagine that the courts would have considerable powers to impose sanctions on someone who continued to fail to comply. On every occasion when that person appears before the court, if it is the same mess in his lorry, he will continue to be punished until the lorry is cleaned.
This regulation is essentially a grouping together of regulations that have existed previously. We have examined similar orders in the past, and our main concern has always been to ensure that there is nothing in the order that reinterprets or adds to the orders that were in place before. Is there anything of that nature that we ought to consider in relation to this order, or is it simply a reintroduction of previous regulations?
This order just pulls everything together under one regulation covering all aspects of cleansing and disinfection of animal transport. Now, all those aspects are under one umbrella.
There is a reference to a travel distance of 50 km. Is that a new regulation? I was not aware of it before.
You are right. That is a new regulation.
I have been asked to remind members that we have the option to approve the order today, but we have time to consider it further if that is appropriate. There are one or two committee members who are not present today who might want to become involved in the debate.
I do not have any difficulty with the order. As you said, it just brings together previously existing legislation, with some minor adjustments. I have no hesitation in agreeing that we should approve it today.
I agree with John Munro. If other members of the committee are not here to discuss it, that is their decision. It was on the agenda, so it is appropriate to make a decision on it now.
Are members content with the order and, if so, do we agree that we should make no further comments on it in our report to Parliament?
The next order on the list is the Loch Moidart, North Channel, Scallop Several Fishery (Scotland) Order 2000 (SSI 2000/173). In addition to the Executive note from SERAD, members will have seen the attached chart of the area under discussion. The order confers on the Sea Fish Industry Authority the right of several fishery for scallops in part of Loch Moidart for a period of 10 years. It confers on the authority the exclusive right to deposit, propagate, fish for and take scallops within the area specified by the order.
The final order on the list is the Bovines and Bovine Products (Trade) Amendment (Scotland) Regulations 2000 (SSI 2000/184). These regulations amend the Bovines and Bovine Products (Trade) Regulations 1999, and permit the dispatch of beef on the bone from premises approved under the date-based export scheme to the domestic market.
Does this order cover exports to the UK domestic market or to the European domestic market?
It covers exports to the UK domestic market. We are unable to export beef on the bone, I am afraid.
Previous
Digital ScotlandNext
Petition