Environment and Rural Development Committee, 09 Mar 2005

Meeting date: Wednesday, March 9, 2005

Official Report 121KB pdf

---

Subordinate Legislation

---

Water (Prevention of Pollution)<br />(Code of Practice) (Scotland) Order 2005 (SSI 2005/63)<br />Less Favoured Area Support Scheme (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 2005 (SSI 2005/64)

---

Possession of Pesticides (Scotland) Order 2005 (SSI 2005/66)<br />Sea Fish (Prohibited Methods of Fishing) (Firth of Clyde) Order 2005 (SSI 2005/67)

---

Potatoes Originating in the Netherlands (Notification) (Scotland) Order 2005<br />(SSI 2005/73)<br />Potatoes Originating in the Netherlands (Scotland) Revocation Regulations 2005 (SSI 2005/74)

Agenda item 2 is subordinate legislation. I hope that we will not spend as long on subordinate legislation as we did at last week's meeting, but who knows? There are six instruments to consider, which are all subject to the negative procedure—the final two in the list are new to me. The instruments were considered by the Subordinate Legislation Committee, which drew our attention in particular to the Less Favoured Area Support Scheme (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 2005 (SSI 2005/64) and the Possession of Pesticides (Scotland) Order 2005 (SSI 2005/66). Members have a note of the correspondence that the Subordinate Legislation Committee had with the Executive to chase the issues, and a private extract from that committee's draft report on the instruments. The Subordinate Legislation Committee made no comment on the other four instruments.

Do members want to comment on any of the instruments?

I would like guidance from the convener in relation to the Less Favoured Area Support Scheme (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 2005 (SSI 2005/64). The committee should be told about the minister's rationale for the structure of the regulations. Norman Leask, the director of the Scottish Crofting Foundation in Shetland, wrote a letter to the committee, which was circulated to members, which says that other countries use criteria that appear not to be applied in Scotland. For example, in Sweden and Finland, areas that suffer disadvantage as a result of short growing seasons are included in the mountain area category and awarded the highest priority. In Finland, latitude is taken into account. How does the overlap between less favoured areas and high nature value areas for farming affect the process?

According to Norman Leask, European Governments have agreed to develop

"positive management of High Nature Value farming areas by 2008."

Is the Scottish Executive Environment and Rural Affairs Department up to speed on the matter and how it affects the 2005 regulations? We should ask the minister about such matters, because the regulations raise not only technical questions that require answers, but fundamental questions, the answers to which would greatly help us to know whether we are just rubber-stamping an instrument that represents yesterday's approach to the matter.

Do members have any more questions on that issue?

Yes. The Scottish Crofting Foundation does not limit its circulars to members of this committee. Quite rightly, it circulates its concerns about any instrument or proposal to ministers, too. Although I cannot speak for SEERAD, I think that it would be highly unlikely that the SCF, in its many formal and informal conversations, had not pointed out its areas of concern to the relevant ministers.

We have discussed the less favoured area support scheme with ministers off and on for the past five years or so. There are continuing concerns in the more remote areas of the Highlands and Islands about the way in which the scheme operates. Norman Leask's letter is the latest in a series of letters that we have received on the matter. We have talked to ministers about the issues, but have not made much progress.

I remind members that Scotland's less favoured areas extend to 85 per cent of the total land area of Scotland. As a consequence, the scheme's significance is far greater than simply its application to crofting areas. I have followed the situation from before the establishment of the less favoured area support scheme, in the days of the previous hill livestock compensatory allowance.

The minister has been made to jump through hoops to achieve what we have now, therefore we have to be careful what we do with the regulations. We have to accept that the LFA support scheme is the best that the minister could achieve and preserve it as long as possible. Notwithstanding the fact that certain issues need to be dealt with on the margins of Scotland, we should not tinker with the scheme. As it appears that the changes are designed simply to ensure that the scheme conforms to the European regulations that govern it, I am content that we should make the changes at this time.

To pick up on Rob Gibson's point, we could ask the minister for more information. The statistic that leapt out at me was that 100 per cent of Luxembourg is a less favoured area. Rather than delay the progress of the statutory instrument—Alex Johnstone is right to say that it needs to be passed—it would be useful for us to get background from the minister on how he sees the scheme going forward.

Mark Brough is saying to me quietly that there will be a review of less favoured areas in 2007. It might be worth putting the issue on the agenda for the minister now, and asking for more background on how other European countries are handling the scheme. We have been lobbied by the crofters, which has been constant. Various issues came up during our inquiry on the reform of the common agricultural policy. We should capture the issues, put them to the minister, and ask him to get back to us. Are there any other concerns that members want to put on the list?

The instrument was laid before Parliament on 8 February, and the discussions in Europe to which Norman Leask referred took place on 9 February. It is important to recognise that this is a new stage in the discussions and not a criticism of the way in which ministers operate. I accept the point that we need to raise the matters in detail in the future. I was not suggesting that we interrupt the progress of the regulations.

That is helpful clarification. In letting regulations go through, there is nothing to stop us asking questions about them, which might be helpful in the future. Are members happy that we have captured their concerns and the issues that they want to put on the agenda?

The Subordinate Legislation Committee had concerns about defective drafting. Can we follow up those concerns?

I am less concerned about them, because the Subordinate Legislation Committee has done its work and pursued matters with the Executive. Our job is to examine policy, unless defective drafting would tip a statutory instrument over the edge so that it did not work. Our job is to scrutinise what subordinate legislation does.

Have those drafting issues been addressed by the Executive? I am not clear where the Subordinate Legislation Committee has got to.

If you read the paperwork, you will see that the Subordinate Legislation Committee has chased the issue back and forward, and is now broadly satisfied. It is the Subordinate Legislation Committee's job to go through the technical issues. Our job is to examine the policy overview. As long as the technical issues do not obviate our doing that, we can go ahead.

We knocked back one instrument on the basis of what the Subordinate Legislation Committee said. I think that it related to laying hens.

Yes. We required that instrument to be relaid, as it were.

I thank members for their contributions; I am glad that they are reading the statutory instruments in depth. Are there any comments on the other instruments?

I refer colleagues to the Sea Fish (Prohibited Methods of Fishing) (Firth of Clyde) Order 2005. I recognise that, on the map attached to the instrument, particular lines are drawn in set areas. Can we ask the minister why the northern boundary excludes Lamlash bay or even an area slightly further north on the Kintyre peninsula? Other issues relating to this kind of fishing in Lamlash bay have been raised in the Parliament, through the Public Petitions Committee.

I take it that you are content for the order to proceed, but that you would like more background information on Lamlash bay.

Yes.

Can you be more specific?

I will show the minister on the map.

I am content for the instrument to proceed, but I would like more information about how the areas are worked out, which would bring in the issue of Lamlash bay. The lines appear to be fairly arbitrary.

I presume that the analysis and Executive note describe in a little more depth how the geography was worked out.

I would like more detail than appears in the analysis that we have.

Members have no comments on the Potatoes Originating in the Netherlands (Notification) (Scotland) Order 2005 (SSI 2005/73) and the Potatoes Originating in the Netherlands (Scotland) Revocation Regulations 2005 (SSI 2005/74). Subject to the questions that we have agreed to put to the minister, is the committee happy for the instruments to proceed with no recommendation to the Parliament?

Members indicated agreement.