Subordinate Legislation
Plant Health Fees (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 2005 (SSI 2005/555)
For agenda item 3, we have three instruments to consider under the negative resolution procedure. The Subordinate Legislation Committee has considered all the instruments and has made no comment on any of them. I invite members to comment on or to ask questions on the instruments.
I have a few questions on the Plant Health Fees (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 2005, but I am not sure what I should do because there are no Executive officials here to whom to put my questions.
If they are relatively minor comments or questions of clarification, we can put them to the minister in writing and ask for a response. If they are substantive policy questions that would leave you unhappy about agreeing to the instrument, we can put the matter on our next agenda. It is possible to log questions today and to get a response next week, if they are significant.
I will outline my questions and you can advise me, convener.
Paragraph 7 of the Executive note on the regulations states:
"A fundamental principle of Scottish Executive accounting procedure and practice is that fees and charges should be set … on the basis of full cost recovery."
It seems that the licences have been processed below full cost recovery until now, or perhaps until last year—I am not sure about that—and that therefore, the Executive is not meeting that accounting principle.
Under paragraph 2.5 of the regulatory impact assessment, we are told that
"for the 2004-05 financial year there was a disparity in relation to the cost of issuing licences, which were processed at below full cost recovery."
Did that happen last year just because of the licences that were issued for genetically modified crops, and was it a one-off? What will the costs be next year? If the Executive is to implement the option—which seems to have been chosen from three—to increase the fees by a certain amount, will it have to keep coming back to Parliament to do that? Is there another mechanism to deal with that?
I am concerned that it is mainly publicly funded bodies that are being charged for the licences. Is the Executive giving public money with one hand and taking it away with the other? Does that make accounting sense?
Furthermore, paragraph 10 of the Executive note, which deals with impact, says:
"The option should meet full cost recovery for plant health import licensing and should ensure that SEERAD continues to have co-operation with applicants regarding notification of imports."
I have some concerns about illegal importing and so on. If the costs are put up by too much, people might not be inclined to notify SEERAD about imports.
I will be guided by members, but I think that we could seek comments and responses from the minister on those questions in time for next week's meeting. Given that no one else around the table can deal with the questions, that might be the best way to proceed. Do members agree?
Members indicated agreement.
We will leave the instrument on the table and come back to it next week, when we will have to make a decision on it.
Less Favoured Area Support Scheme (Scotland) Regulations 2005 (SSI 2005/569)
I have a question about the Less Favoured Area Support Scheme (Scotland) Regulations 2005. Can I ask it now?
Yes.
Having considered the correspondence from the minister regarding the way in which the scheme works, I have two questions. I accept that people with key interests will continue to be represented through the stakeholder group, but what weight is to be placed on the views of the different people who are represented? Will the views of big farmers be given greater weight than those of crofters?
I cannot tell whether what is being done at the present time meets the needs of less favoured areas. While we are preparing for the next stage of LFAS, it would be a good for us to find out whether that is in any way a part of the minister's thinking.
When the payments are made, will they be made public in the name of each person who receives a payment? The instrument suggests that information about the payments will be presented in terms of parishes. Previously, we have been able to see a map that shows how many payments have been made in each parish, but I want to know whether we will see the actual amounts that are paid to individuals whose applications are successful.
I appreciate where Rob Gibson is coming from in terms of interest groups and stakeholders. As a member of the Scottish Crofting Foundation, I obviously want that organisation's voice to be heard clearly.
One of the problems that the Executive faces is that 85 per cent of agricultural land in Scotland is classified as being less favoured. There are at least three members here from the Highlands and, if there is to be a reclassification, I do not think that we will end up with 85 per cent of Scotland's land being classified as less favoured. However, that is an argument that we cannot have here.
On publication of the names of recipients of the LFAS payments, the Executive should follow the good practice that has been established at Westminster by Margaret Beckett and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and publish the sums and the names of those who have received them.
Are members keen to have the decision on the instrument delayed until next week, or do you merely want the responses to the questions to be with us for next week?
I would like to see the responses next week.
We have time to delay our decision until next week. Do members agree to that?
Members indicated agreement.
Sea Fishing (Enforcement of Community Control Measures) (Scotland)<br />Amendment Order 2005 (SSI 2005/552)
No one has asked about the Sea Fishing (Enforcement of Community Control Measures) (Scotland) Amendment Order 2005 (SSI 2005/552). Can I clarify that we are content with the order and that we have no recommendation to make to Parliament?
Members indicated agreement.
Thanks very much.
Meeting closed at 12:49.