Environment and Rural Development Committee, 01 Oct 2003

Meeting date: Wednesday, October 1, 2003

Official Report 184KB pdf

---

Subordinate Legislation

---

Animal By-Products (Scotland) Regulations 2003 (SSI 2003/411)

The regulations that are before us are to be considered under the negative procedure. They have been considered by the Subordinate Legislation Committee, which has expressed concern about defective drafting. An extract from its report has been circulated to members. Do members have comments to make on the regulations?

I am not convinced that there is enough wrong with the regulations for us to do something about it. However, we should send a message to the Executive that such defective drafting needs to stop. The problem is not new; it has been going on for the past four years and we continually draw it to the Executive's attention. The stuff that is highlighted in the paper is fairly basic. If one part asks people to keep records, why does another not do so? To assume that people would know what to do is an inappropriate response. I ask the convener to write to the minister in the strongest terms to say that the problem needs to be sorted out. Such defective drafting would not be acceptable in a member's bill and it should not be acceptable in regulations that come from the Executive.

The regulations are extremely important and I am 100 per cent supportive of their continuing as law. However, I share some of Karen Gillon's concerns. Some of the matters that the Subordinate Legislation Committee has drawn to our attention are probably not significant. However, the confusion over the meaning of terms, to which that committee refers in the first part of its report, could have a significant impact on the enforcement of regulation 32—and I suspect that that confusion might be the basis for challenges at some point. For that reason, although I am happy to support the regulations because they do things that we want to see done as quickly as possible, I am keen for the convener to write to the minister to indicate that if, in the future, it becomes necessary partially to redraft the regulations and to reintroduce them, we would be delighted to support them with equal enthusiasm at that time.

I detect a consensus here. The Subordinate Legislation Committee has given this committee a clear indication that there is a policy matter for us to decide. We want to ensure that the regulations are properly enforced and deliver derogation for remote areas. It is important that that is clarified. I propose that we write to the minister to draw the matter to his attention. We should also acknowledge in our formal report to the Parliament that the Subordinate Legislation Committee has raised the issue of defective drafting. In that way we can bring the matter to the attention both of the minister and of the Parliament. That would leave the option open for ministers to ensure that guidelines on the implementation of the regulations indicate how they should be interpreted. It would also give ministers the option to come back in the future, if necessary, with further regulations subject to the negative procedure that would put the provisions into effect. That course of action allows us to flag up the issue while letting farmers across Scotland get on with implementing the regulations—which is what we all want.

We should make it explicit in anything that we say to the Executive that if a requirement is drafted that has no apparent sanction, it is completely unenforceable in law. Without a sanction, there is no way that the regulation can ever be enforced. The whole point of the instrument becomes moot. It is worth flagging that up.

That brings us back to Karen Gillon's point about the regulations on keeping records.

We need to flag up those concerns to the Executive. There is also an issue around the fact that the Subordinate Legislation Committee says that the regulations are defective but does not recommend that we decline to support them—we need to know how important the Subordinate Legislation Committee thinks the matter is.

I take on board Roseanna Cunningham's point. At the very least, we should write to the minister to express our concerns. We should also mention those concerns in our report to the Parliament, to draw them to the attention of other committees and members. Does the committee agree to that?

Members indicated agreement.

I clarify that we will also report that we are content to make no recommendation on the regulations to the Parliament. Is that agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

I remind members that our meeting next week will start at 10 am—I am sure that you are delighted about that—and that there will be no pre-briefing. We will consider three Scottish statutory instruments, a further paper on the Nature Conservation (Scotland) Bill and related petitions and the minister will attend. I remind members that we will deal with the budget as well as with the national waste plan, so we will have quite a heavy work load.

Meeting closed at 12:09.