Official Report 219KB pdf
Agricultural Holdings (Fees) Scotland Order 2004 (SSI 2004/496)<br />Agricultural Holdings (Forms) Scotland Order 2004 (SSI 2004/497)
Control of Volatile Organic Compounds (Petrol Vapour Recovery) (Scotland) Regulations 2004 (SSI 2004/512)<br />Water Environment (Register of<br />Protected Areas) (Scotland) Regulations 2004 (SSI 2004/516)
We might get through item 2 before the Minister for Environment and Rural Development arrives; we will see how we get on. We have four instruments to consider under the negative procedure. The Subordinate Legislation Committee has considered all the instruments and has commented only on the Agricultural Holdings (Forms) Scotland Order 2004—members have an extract of its 43rd report. I take it that it has no comments on the others. Do members have comments on the instruments?
On the Control of Volatile Organic Compounds (Petrol Vapour Recovery) (Scotland) Regulations 2004, it seems to me that if the Executive is looking for a derogation for small petrol stations, the owners of which have known since 1996 that they would have to comply with the legislation, it is opening the stable door after the horse has been shod. If people have taken steps to comply with the regulations, but we are saying at the last minute that they do not have to, that defeats the object of the exercise. Were the people who would be affected by the derogation made aware of it in time to benefit from it? Things were done late in the day. Owners of small petrol stations knew from 1996 that they would be required to comply, so they might well have taken steps to do so; yet at the end of the period in which they were required to comply, we are saying, "You've got a derogation, so you're okay, chaps."
We cannot answer that specific question. We are considering the instruments under the negative procedure. I suggest that we write to the minister to ask that question.
I presume that the matter has been consulted on, so that people are aware that the derogation is likely. However, if someone is told within days of their having to comply that they do not need to, that is a bit late.
The paperwork includes a final regulatory impact assessment, so I presume that previous assessments were made. I imagine that the process was lengthy. We will ask the question. Mark Brough says that we can return to the regulations on 12 January if members would like a delay to wait for an answer.
A delay is not needed, because we want the derogation to come into force. However, if it comes into force after people have complied, that is a bit late.
We will not return to the regulations, but we will ask the question of the minister. I was struck by the figures, which concentrate the mind on the need to address the ozone issue. In huge parts of south-east England the levels for vegetation and, to a lesser extent, for human health are exceeded.
Members indicated agreement.
I would also like to raise part II of the schedule to the regulations, which refers to
No one else has detailed questions for the Executive and, from reading members' body language, I do not think that anyone has problems with SSI 2004/496 or SSI 2004/497, which are the two negative instruments dealing with agricultural holdings, so we have nothing to recommend on them. We are also happy to let through the Control of Volatile Organic Compounds (Petrol Vapour Recovery) (Scotland) Regulations 2004. We would like to bring the Water Environment (Register of Protected Areas) (Scotland) Regulations 2004 back to the committee on 12 January. It would be super if the clerks could note that.
Meeting suspended.
On resuming—