Subordinate Legislation
Good morning. I welcome committee members, witnesses and members of the press and public. We have received apologies from Alasdair Morrison and Roseanna Cunningham. Jim Mather is here as a substitute for Roseanna Cunningham—I welcome him to his first meeting of the committee. I remind people to turn off their mobile phones.
We move swiftly to agenda item 1, which is subordinate legislation. We have two statutory instruments before us, both of which are to be considered under the affirmative procedure. Copies of both instruments have been circulated to members: they are the Nitrate Vulnerable Zones (Grants) (Scotland) Amendment Scheme 2003 and the Mink Keeping (Scotland) Order 2003. I welcome the Deputy Minister for Environment and Rural Development, Allan Wilson, and his officials.
Under the affirmative procedure, the Parliament must approve the instruments before they come into force. There are two motions before us, both of which are in the name of the Minister for Environment and Rural Development, Ross Finnie, and which invite the committee to recommend to Parliament that the instruments be approved. As the instruments deal with different matters, I propose that we deal with them separately. Before we debate the motion on each instrument, while the officials are at the table with the minister we will have a session to clarify any technical matters or to explain details. As members know, the officials cannot participate in the debates on the motions.
Nitrate Vulnerable Zones (Grants) (Scotland) Amendment Scheme 2003<br />(SSI 2003/518)
The Subordinate Legislation Committee reported on SSI 2003/518 in its 12th report and raised a point about state aid for environmental protection. The relevant extract from the report has been circulated to members. I invite the minister to make his opening remarks on the instrument, during which he may wish to address the Subordinate Legislation Committee's point.
I welcome the opportunity to introduce to the committee the Nitrate Vulnerable Zones (Grants) (Scotland) Amendment Scheme 2003, which amends the nitrate vulnerable zones grants scheme proper. The amendments are required as a condition of the state aid rules. Some members were present when I discussed the NVZ grants scheme with the then Transport and the Environment Committee, but I will give some background.
The scheme delivers on a commitment that was given by ministers in March 2000 by offering a 40 per cent grant to farmers in areas that are designated as nitrate vulnerable zones. It is a capital grant scheme and is designed to assist farmers with meeting the close period requirements of the action programme for NVZs. NVZ designations and the action programme stem from the 1991 European Commission nitrates directive, which aimed to reduce water pollution that is caused by nitrates from agricultural sources.
One of the most significant aspects of the compulsory action programme is that, during close periods, organic manures and slurries cannot be spread on agricultural land. Therefore, a farmer in an NVZ needs sufficient storage for manure and slurry to comply with that requirement. As members can imagine, the cost of provision of that storage can vary considerably depending on the facility that is required, but it is likely to involve a significant capital outlay for most farm businesses that are required to make the change.
As I said, the amendment measures that we are considering stem from the need to ensure that the scheme complies with the state aid rules. When I introduced the NVZ grant scheme at the then Transport and the Environment Committee in February, I said that I believed that the scheme would comply with those rules. We did not want to hold up the scheme's introduction as a not-dissimilar scheme had been in place in England and Wales since 1996.
However, at that juncture we made it clear that no decisions would be taken on applications until clearance had been received from the European Union. Over the past few months, through correspondence the Commission has sought assurance about administrative functions relating to the scheme. At a meeting with officials in July, it expressed concerns about the length of time over which the scheme would run.
The Scottish NVZ grant scheme allowed farmers a five-year period during which they could apply for grant assistance. During the negotiations, it became clear that the Commission would not approve the scheme unless Scottish ministers agreed to reduce the time for completion of the capital works. The assurance that was sought and given was that the scheme would be amended to require all improvement works to be completed by 31 October 2005. On that basis, state aid approval was granted in September.
The crux of the amendments in the instrument that is before us is the bringing forward of the closure date by which works must be completed and the undertaking to that effect that applicants for grants are required to provide. That provision is related directly to the assurance that we have given to the Commission, which I mentioned previously. Most of the other measures in the instrument follow on from the introduction of the new date, which is the critical factor in securing state aid approval.
Members may have concerns about the impact that the amended provision will have on farmers who have already applied for grants. I assure the committee that the Scottish Executive Environment and Rural Affairs Department has kept them up to date on developments. As an interim measure, arrangements were put in place for urgent works authority to be given to any applicants who felt that they could not delay commencement of their works until state aid approval came through. All applicants who were in that position were notified individually when EC approval was granted. They were also asked to provide further information relating to their farming experience and the economic viability of their holdings—additional conditions that were attached to the state aid approval.
I do not expect that bringing forward the closure date will have an impact on current applications. Guidance on the scheme indicates that applicants will normally be expected to claim their grant assistance over an 18-month period from the date on which their application is formally approved. Farmers who did not apply for grant in the first tranche will have to do so within the constraints of the time limits that we are now setting.
Those are fairly minor amendments to what is an important grant scheme, especially for the 12,000 or 13,000 farmers whom it affects. I know that it is sometimes tempting to criticise the Commission, but I can understand its unease about the relatively long time scale of the original scheme. Under that scheme, in some cases farmers might not have completed their grant-aided works until 2010, but would have been able to comply with the mandatory requirements of the NVZ action programme during that period, which would have obvious environmental implications. I know that the committee agrees that environmental pollution is an important enough issue to warrant restriction of the time scales in this instance.
The amendments that are before the committee address the Commission's concerns about time scales; the scheme will now have the full approval of the Commission. I commend the instrument to the committee.
Thank you. I invite members to ask questions and to raise issues for clarification.
We will not debate the instrument at great length, so I seek answers to my questions at this point. Like the minister, I am content that it is necessary that the instrument be approved, but there are a couple of issues that I would like to have clarified.
First, I could probably have done more research on the funding streams that the money associated with the scheme follows. Will the minister reassure me that the fact that the scheme is being brought forward will not have a direct impact on the funding of the Scottish Executive Environment and Rural Affairs Department over the two-year period into which the scheme has been compressed? If all the work that should have been done can be brought forward into that period, it will cost more to finance it.
Secondly, will the minister or his officials give the committee an estimate of how much of the work will be brought forward and how much might not be done at all? Do you expect the entire scheme to be compressed or will the total amount of work be reduced as a result of compressing the scheme?
Those questions cover my concerns. I understand why the minister has had to introduce the instrument, but it is always a disappointment when time scales are compressed. Is the time scale that has been allocated for completion of the scheme adequate to achieve its original aims? Has the time scale been compressed too much?
I will address the first point about the financing of the scheme before I ask Frances Reid to address some of the related issues about applications. The amounts that we allocated originally to the NVZ grant scheme were £6.8 million in the current financial year; £4.8 million in the next financial year; and £5.8 million in the following year, which is 2005-06.
One can imagine that it is unlikely that the sums that were allocated for this financial year will be met and that, likewise, there might be pressure at the tail end. However, by truncating the time scale over which the applications are required to be submitted, processed, approved and implemented, I imagine that the total allocated sums will be taken up in full, although that will depend on the level of application for the grant. There is no intention on our part to take account of the truncated time scale over which grant applications will be submitted and approved by reducing the sums that have been allocated.
In large part, the answer to the second part of the question is dependent on the level of applications that we receive. We are confident of our ability to process the applications in the truncated time scale. The onus is now on individual farmers to submit proposals rather than to wait, as they might have done, for a couple of years before so doing.
Frances Reid (Scottish Executive Environment and Rural Affairs Department):
We have not had a high level of uptake of grant in the first round. The estimates were really guesstimates and we have no feel for how many people will need improved or replacement storage. It is up to farmers to apply within the tighter time scales. We feel that there will be enough money in the scheme; although the scheme is to close earlier, we will be able to pay farmers after the closing date. However, there is much work to be done before that date.
If the scheme had been over the original five-year period, we might have had underspends and people might have delayed making applications until the nearer the end of the period. We have a substantial amount of money in the scheme and I feel fairly confident that we will be able to meet all aspirations.
You have answered my question partially, but have also indicated that you will be partially unable to answer it. Do you have any idea about the likely level of uptake? What is the total number of applications that you expect to be made? From what you said, it does not seem that a lot of the applications that are lying on the table are waiting for state aid approval.
Perhaps I should give an outline of what has happened to date, although it is not possible to extrapolate from that what will happen in the next tranche of applications. The situation at the moment is that 39 applications were received by the closing date of 30 June. By area office, they are: 16 from Inverurie; seven from Perth; five from Gala; and 11 from Dumfries. If nothing else, there is a fair geographical spread.
In the light of state aid approval having been granted, one would expect the process to pick up speed. There is now no obstacle to the grants being paid. Although people might to date have been proceeding on a fairly speculative basis, subject to the committee's approval, after today one would expect that there would be no more speculation about state aid approval.
Is there any indication that truncating the scheme might affect the practicalities of getting the work done? I do not know how many people supply slurry tanks or whether there is any likelihood that there will in the industry be pressure to supply the physical infrastructure.
That is difficult to judge, because we do not know what uptake will be. It would probably have been preferable to have a longer period, but that was not an option as far as the Commission was concerned, so our hands were tied.
How are farmers being notified about that? Are they notified individually?
Yes.
So everybody in an NVZ will have had individual notification that they are now eligible to apply and that there is state aid.
Everybody was notified originally; they were all told about it. We put out a press release when we got the state aid approval, and we told the National Farmers Union in Scotland, which also put out a press release. We will be announcing a fresh tranche before the end of the year, so it will be up to applicants to apply during the next tranche. The union will probably press its members to take up that option.
Are you highlighting to people the fact that the time is now shorter than was originally envisaged?
Yes. That was clarified in the press release.
As there are no other questions, I invite the minister to move motion S2M-607, in the name of Ross Finnie, on the Nitrate Vulnerable Zones (Grants) (Scotland) Amendment Scheme 2003 (SSI 2003/518).
Motion moved,
That the Environment and Rural Development Committee recommends that the Nitrate Vulnerable Zones (Grants) (Scotland) Amendment Scheme 2003 (SSI 2003/518) be approved.—[Allan Wilson.]
Would you like to make any opening remarks to introduce the debate, or do you feel that everything has been adequately covered?
I think that we have covered everything.
I invite contributions from members.
I would like to make a general statement. The instrument indicates the importance of tackling EU legislation in a timeous manner, but the fact that we are dealing with a 1991 directive says it all. That is not the fault of the Scottish Parliament, I hasten to add.
That is a well-made point.
The question is, that motion S2M-607, in the name of Ross Finnie, be agreed to.
Motion agreed to.
That the Environment and Rural Development Committee recommends that the Nitrate Vulnerable Zones (Grants) (Scotland) Amendment Scheme 2003 (SSI 2003/518) be approved.
Excellent. We shall pass that on to Parliament.
Mink Keeping (Scotland) Order 2003<br />(SSI 2003/528)
We now come to the Mink Keeping (Scotland) Order 2003. The Subordinate Legislation Committee has considered the instrument and has nothing to report. I therefore invite the Deputy Minister for Environment and Rural Development to make opening remarks before we move on to points of clarification and information.
The purpose of the Mink Keeping (Scotland) Order 2003 is not to introduce new legislation but simply to continue existing legislation—the Mink Keeping (Scotland) Order 2000, which will cease to have effect on 1 January 2004.
It may be helpful if I set out the background to mink keeping legislation in general. As members know, mink have been kept in Britain for their fur since the late 1920s. Escapes from mink farms led to the current feral population, with mink recorded as breeding in the wild in the late 1950s. In 1995, it was estimated that there were 52,000 feral mink in Scotland. As everybody here will know, mink are semi-aquatic carnivorous mammals which, in the wild, are a pest and pose a threat to wildfowl, seabird colonies and vulnerable mammals such as water voles. They also predate on farmed fish and small livestock such as poultry. Restrictions on the keeping of mink were first introduced in 1962 to prevent further escapes adding to the existing feral population. Between 1965 and 1970, a feral mink eradication campaign was mounted by the agriculture departments. Total eradication has proven not to be possible and that campaign was abandoned.
There are currently two pieces of legislation controlling the keeping of mink: the Mink (Keeping) Regulations 1975 and the Mink Keeping (Scotland) Order 2000, to which I referred and which the 2003 order is intended to replace. Both instruments were made under the Destructive Imported Animals Act 1932 and are intended to ensure that mink are kept in secure conditions. The 1975 regulations prescribe the manner in which mink are kept in Britain and the precautions that are to be taken to prevent their escape. They also prescribe the form of the licence that is to be granted to persons who keep mink and the level of the licence fee. The 1975 regulations are not under consideration today.
The Mink Keeping (Scotland) Order 2003 prohibits the keeping of mink in some parts of Scotland and ensures that mink may be kept only under licence in the remainder of Scotland. The order prohibits absolutely mink keeping on any Scottish offshore island other than the island of Arran—which, for the order's purposes, includes Holy Island—and it prohibits mink keeping in Caithness and Sutherland. That means that mink may be kept in other parts of Scotland only under a licence that is granted under the 1932 act.
Section 3 of the 1932 act provides that licences may be issued to keep mink for commercial reasons. Members who were present in the previous parliamentary session will know that since the beginning of 2003, when the Fur Farming (Prohibition) (Scotland) Act 2002 came into effect, the keeping of animals solely for their fur has been banned, so licences under section 3 can no longer be granted to keep mink for fur farming. At present, no other commercial use has been identified for keeping mink. However, section 8 of the 1932 act permits the issue of special licences to keep mink for exhibition, scientific research or other exceptional purposes. SEERAD currently issues only one such licence annually, at a cost of £60, to keep mink for exhibition purposes. The fee is set at that level to cover the cost of inspecting the premises before reissuing the licence.
Mink keeping orders are made for a fixed period, as the 1932 act does not contain a provision to revoke such orders. If the Mink Keeping (Scotland) Order 2000 is not renewed, the keeping of mink and the conditions in which they are kept will be deregulated. The consequence would be that any person could keep mink at any location for any purpose other than fur farming, and in any conditions.
The 2000 order requires to be renewed to continue Scottish ministers' power to ensure that any mink that are legally kept are retained under stringent security to prevent their escape into the wild, which would add to the significant feral population or, worse, spread feral mink into areas that are free of them. Failure to renew the order would lead to deregulation of mink keeping, which would not be good.
I thank the deputy minister for that statement, which was extremely clear. That was a useful history of mink in Scotland.
I wonder to whom the solitary person who has the licence exhibits his mink.
Why is the legislation not being tidied? Why does an order not ban mink keeping throughout Scotland? It is strange that mink cannot be kept in Caithness or Sutherland, but can be kept in Ross-shire, from where they could run over the hill. That is not logical. I understand that two bits of legislation are involved, but is the Executive considering tidying the law? Perhaps once this man has retired from exhibiting mink—
The exhibitor might be a woman.
I am sure that it is a man. Once he has retired, could we not have a total ban in Scotland?
I understand that mink exhibiting takes place in Cumbernauld, of all places. I have always had my worries about Cumbernauld.
To be serious, I understand the point that is being made. There are several anomalies, not least in my constituency; Arran is excluded from the island-wide ban simply because of the preponderance of feral mink there, yet Cumbrae down the road is included. We have discussed the matter with Scottish Natural Heritage. To an extent, it is a question of supply and demand. We are continuing the existing provision.
There would obviously be financial and other implications in extending current provisions for eradication programmes. If, like the rest of the Highlands, Caithness and Sutherland are free of mink—as we believe they are—it is important that we keep them that way. Mink are already a serious problem in other parts of Scotland. However, extending the provision would be problematic and would require separate legislation. It would also require separate consideration—this is not simply a question of moving swiftly from one position to another.
Most of my points have been made, but I echo Maureen Macmillan's wish that the minister consider further legislation. One part of the mainland is obviously easily accessible from another.
I have learned about this issue only comparatively recently and it is quite extraordinary that Caithness and Sutherland should be free of mink when we consider how prevalent they are in other parts of the mainland. I am not sure why that is the case; Scottish Natural Heritage might be able to enlighten us.
We will not ask SNH that question today, although the point certainly stands out.
As members have no further questions, we can move to the formal debate. I invite the deputy minister to move the motion.
Motion moved,
That the Environment and Rural Development Committee recommends that the Mink Keeping (Scotland) Order 2003 (SSI 2003/528) be approved.—[Allan Wilson.]
Motion agreed to.
We will report our decisions on both statutory instruments to the Parliament. I thank the deputy minister and his officials for attending.
Meeting suspended.
On resuming—