Environment and Rural Development Committee, 28 Jun 2005

Meeting date: Tuesday, June 28, 2005

Official Report 256KB pdf

---

Subordinate Legislation

Agenda item 4 is consideration of nine items of subordinate legislation under the negative procedure. I ask that not too many members leave the meeting, otherwise we will be inquorate.

The Subordinate Legislation Committee has considered all nine instruments and has passed on some comments. I propose to work through them in order because, having had a close look at them, I have a few comments to make, too.

---

Air Quality Limit Values (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 2005<br />(SSI 2005/300)<br />Loch Crinan Scallops Several Fishery Order 2005 (SSI 2005/304)

---

Nitrate (Public Participation etc) (Scotland) Regulations 2005 (SSI 2005/305)

The first three instruments seem to be utterly straightforward and desirable. Are members happy to make no comment on them?

Members indicated agreement.

---

Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (Variation of Schedule) (Scotland) Order 2005 (SSI 2005/308)<br />Genetically Modified Organisms (Transboundary Movements) (Scotland) Regulations 2005 (SSI 2005/316)

---

Financial Assistance for Environmental Purposes (Scotland) Order 2005<br />(SSI 2005/324)

Having read through these three instruments, I have a couple of comments about the transparency of the process. However, I say to any member who is deeply unhappy with them that they have been laid and will come into force in July.

The Subordinate Legislation Committee highlighted the lack of an Executive note to explain the policy behind the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (Variation of Schedule) (Scotland) Order 2005. I agree with its comment; although the order is clear about which plants are included, its overall purpose is unclear.

On the Genetically Modified Organisms (Transboundary Movements) (Scotland) Regulations 2005, although we are told that there was a consultation, we have not been given the results of it. As for the Financial Assistance for Environmental Purposes (Scotland) Order 2005, although it looks like an excellent scheme that might address some of the biomass and bioenergy issues that we have repeatedly raised, we are not told about the extent of it, the money that will be available, who will be covered or how it will operate.

My suggestion is that we ask the minister for further information on the three instruments and delay formal consideration of them until our first meeting in September.

I was going to raise the same points as you raised, convener, on the bioenergy infrastructure schemes. I add to the list of requests—for information on the criteria and the available budget—a request for information on the timescale for the introduction of the scheme.

Okay, we will ask for that.

The Genetically Modified Organisms (Transboundary Movements) (Scotland) Regulations 2005 are fine as far as I can see but I wonder how they will affect situations such as the recent example of GM-tainted maize that was imported from the United States for more than four years because there was a problem with tracing it—it got mixed up with other maize in Britain. I presume that the rules will be tightened up, but I would like to ask the minister about that. I have more details about the issue.

Okay, we will add that to the list of questions.

I endorse Rob Gibson's comments. It would be good to have an update from the minister about whether the Executive is consulting on co-existence and liability, which are at the heart of the regulations. A bit of context would be useful.

The Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (Variation of Schedule) (Scotland) Order 2005 resulted from our discussions on non-native invasive species at stage 2 of the Nature Conservation (Scotland) Bill. It is not obvious from the order that it is a result of those recommendations and discussions, but it is obvious to me, because I lodged an amendment on the issue at stage 2. As the Subordinate Legislation Committee has said, it would be useful to have such information attached to the documents.

My final point is about the sheer volume of SSIs—we have nine this week. It would be beneficial if we slowed down the process to enable proper scrutiny. Certainly, leaving some of the instruments until after the recess will give us time to investigate the issues in a little more detail. At present, we consider new instruments almost every week.

The Subordinate Legislation Committee is considering that issue. We tend to deal with many different statutory instruments because we cover the environment and rural portfolios. I hope that we will feed in our thoughts to the Subordinate Legislation Committee's deliberations.

The lack of an Executive note is bad process, especially given that not only committee members examine instruments and wonder what they are about. Explanatory notes should be produced as a matter of course when instruments come before the committee.

Do members agree to my suggestion to delay formal consideration of the three instruments until our first meeting in September?

Members indicated agreement.

---

Prevention and Monitoring of Cetacean Bycatch (Scotland) Order 2005<br />(SSI 2005/330)<br />Plant Protection Products (Scotland) Regulations 2005 (SSI 2005/331)

---

Eggs (Marketing Standards) (Enforcement) (Scotland) Regulations 2005 (SSI 2005/332)

We have received comments from the Subordinate Legislation Committee on all of the final three instruments. The Prevention and Monitoring of Cetacean Bycatch (Scotland) Order 2005 was transposed late, but only by a month, so that is not a huge issue for us. On the Eggs (Marketing Standards) (Enforcement) (Scotland) Regulations 2005, the comment was that a cross-reference needed to be corrected, which the Executive has accepted, so that will be dealt with.

Are members happy to make no formal recommendation to Parliament on the instruments?

Members indicated agreement.

I have a comment on the Eggs (Marketing Standards) (Enforcement) (Scotland) Regulations 2005. People can buy eggs in boxes that say that the eggs are organic or free range. The boxes are also supposed to say whether the eggs have been laid by hens in cages, but that does not happen yet. I wonder when that will happen and whether that is part of the regulations.

I cannot comment on that, but we will find out. Do you object to the regulations?

No, I just wanted to make that remark, because the boxes should indicate what kind of hens laid the eggs.

Clearly, some producers do that, but we will check whether they are required to do so.

We move to agenda item 5. I am afraid that I must ask the members of the public and press to clear the room. At the start of our meeting, we agreed to go into private to discuss potential witnesses for our consideration in the autumn of the proposed poly bags legislation. We will discuss the matter in private because we will mention names of members of the public and businesses. I thank everybody for attending—I am sorry to have to move you on.

Meeting continued in private until 16:23.