Skip to main content
Loading…
Chamber and committees

Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment Committee

Meeting date: Wednesday, November 30, 2011


Contents


Subordinate Legislation

The Convener

We move on to the consideration of three negative instruments. It might be helpful to consider the enzootic bovine leukosis regulations first, and then to look at the two vehicle disposal regulations together. I refer members to paper S4/11/13/2.

When I did my preparation, the way in which I read the documentation was that the vehicle disposal regulations were to be discussed on 7 December, but perhaps something has happened in the interim.

We will deal with that in a second, after we have dealt with the enzootic bovine leukosis regulations.


Enzootic Bovine Leukosis (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 2011 (SSI 2011/390)

If no one has any issues to raise, does the committee agree that it does not wish to make any recommendations on the regulations?

Members indicated agreement.

The regulations appear to be quite positive.

They do indeed.


Removal, Storage and Disposal of Vehicles (Prescribed Sums and Charges etc) (Scotland) Regulations 2011 (SSI 2011/394)


Police (Retention and Disposal of Motor Vehicles) (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 2011 (SSI 2011/395)

The Convener

We will now move on to deal with the issue that the deputy convener raised, which relates to the cover note for SSI 2011/394 and SSI 2011/395. We have received a letter, dated yesterday, from Richard Lochhead, the Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs and the Environment, about the regulations, copies of which I have circulated to members.

First, I invite comments from members.

Richard Lyle (Central Scotland) (SNP)

Annabelle Ewing made the point that the regulations are to be discussed on 7 December. When I looked at them, I had concerns, as a result of which I laid two motions to annul, which will be discussed on 7 December. My concerns arose from various e-mails that we received, one of which was from Mr George McPhie of George McPhie & Son.

His concerns were:

“A similar matrix has been in force in England and Wales for some years and is soon to be reviewed as it is not considered fit for purpose ...

The matrix dictates what price is to be taken for a recovery based on the weight of the vehicle and a brief description of the circumstances of the recovery. Due to the nature of vehicle recovery, each incident should be priced individually based on what is involved. The matrix falls somewhat short in this regard due to its inflexibility and in most cases will cost the customer vastly inflated prices in comparison to what would be charged for an hourly rate.”

Mr McPhie went on:

“The recovery industry is being adversely affected by Management Companies who operate the vehicle recovery schemes and take a large percentage of the ‘Specified Charges’ for doing nothing more than operating a call centre.

To my knowledge there has been no consultation in Scotland with those who the matrix will directly affect and be detrimental to in their line of business.”

Mr McPhie ended by saying:

“As a business owner in such tough economic times, I am genuinely concerned for all road users at the introduction of a pricing matrix in Scotland”—

it exists only in England at the moment.

“Whilst I may be the beneficiary of inflated costings should the matrix be implemented, I can see that its impact on my many customers would be to their severe detriment.”

Due to the e-mails that I received, I lodged two annulment motions that are to be discussed on 7 December.

I welcome the letter that we have received from Richard Lochhead, which states:

“as some key stakeholders have now highlighted some concerns regarding these I have decided that we should lay new regulations to revoke both these SSIs to prevent them coming into force. The proposed changes are not particularly urgent and I therefore think it is appropriate that we allow time for the full implications to be discussed with ... key stakeholders”.

Richard Lochhead also notes that

“some Committee members may have ... had some concerns”

about the regulations, which will now be withdrawn.

I welcome the letter, and I am sure that next week I will take the opportunity to withdraw my motions to annul. The Government has rightly looked at the matter again and decided to give it further consideration, which I welcome.

Thank you for your point of view. Other members may wish to speak before we make our decision as a committee.

I have just a brief point. I welcome the correspondence from the minister and I look forward to the whole issue being discussed with the stakeholders in due course.

The Convener

The motions have been lodged, but it is possible to withdraw them before we have a discussion next week. It is possible to ask that Richard Lyle consider his position so as to avoid our having to have the discussion next week, given what the cabinet secretary has told us. Do other members have a view?

Annabelle Ewing

I think that all committee members will have received at least some e-mails—I am not entirely sure whether I received all the submissions. The point is well made that there needs to be a proper discussion of the full implications of the measures, so I welcome the cabinet secretary’s letter of 29 November.

In light of that letter, and the fact that the cabinet secretary notes that the changes are not particularly urgent, I do not think that we need to rush to have a discussion next Wednesday. I would therefore be happy to move the issue back a bit on our agenda, so that we could perhaps assist and inform the process by taking evidence about the impact of the measures as currently drafted.

The process next week would be that the motions to annul the statutory instruments would be moved and then there would be discussion.

I thank you for your advice, convener. I will take steps tomorrow to withdraw my motions to annul.

The Convener

That would help. I ask members to agree that we accept the letter from the cabinet secretary. It will be possible to have a fairer discussion about the two instruments in due course and to take evidence on them, as has been suggested. It makes it easier if we agree now to follow that process and to thank Dick Lyle for his offer to withdraw the motions to annul. Is that agreed?

Members indicated agreement.


Spring Traps Approval (Scotland) Order 2011 (SSI 2011/393)

The order is not subject to parliamentary procedure. I refer members to the paper RACCE/S4/11/13/4. If members have no comments, I ask the committee to note the instrument. Is that agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

The Convener

The next meeting of the committee will be on 7 December. The agenda will be decided in the light of who is available and our work programme. I thank you for your efforts and the clarity of your questions to our MEP colleagues.

Meeting closed at 11:25.