Rural Affairs, Islands and Natural Environment Committee

Meeting date: Wednesday, June 15, 2022

Official Report 684KB pdf

---

Subordinate Legislation

---

Plant Health (Fees) (Miscellaneous Amendment) (Scotland) Regulations 2022 [Draft]

---

Official Controls (Plant Health) (Frequency of Checks) Regulations 2022

Our second item of business this morning is consideration of the draft Plant Health (Fees) (Miscellaneous Amendment) (Scotland) Regulations 2022 and the consent notification for the Official Controls (Plant Health) (Frequency of Checks) Regulations 2022. I welcome to the meeting the Minister for Green Skills, Circular Economy and Biodiversity and Scottish Government officials Rachel Coutts and Caspian Richards. I invite the minister to make some opening remarks.

Thank you for making time to consider the Plant Health (Fees) (Miscellaneous Amendment) (Scotland) Regulations 2022, which is a draft Scottish statutory instrument. The regulations are being made to amend Scottish legislation in the field of plant health, particularly as it relates to fees payable by an importer of a consignment originating in a third country in respect of the physical and identity checks of plants and plant products.

The import fees are being amended as a consequence of a new Great Britain-focused risk-based frequency-of-checks regime that is being introduced across GB from 22 July 2022. The new methodology is set out in the statutory instrument PH/038. The revised fees apply to consignments of all high-risk products that are imported from all third countries as well as lower-risk regulated products from all third countries except the European Union, Liechtenstein and Switzerland.

The regulations also amend the Plant Health (Fees) (Forestry) (England and Scotland) Regulations 2015. The forestry fees regulations contain provisions relating to export certification fees for forestry products under the United Kingdom Government’s movement assistance scheme, to provide that such fees are not payable in relation to exports from Scotland to Northern Ireland in certain circumstances. The movement assistance scheme was originally scheduled to end in December 2022, but the UK Government later extended the scheme, which is now due to end in December 2023. The 2022 regulations amend the forestry fees regulations to reflect that later date. These regulations are therefore necessary and appropriate.

My officials and I are happy to take any questions.

Thank you. We have a number of questions. According to the notification, the new approach is based on the EU principles for risk-targeted inspections. Why does the Scottish Government feel that a new approach is required, and what are the deficiencies of the existing approach?

I will you give my layperson’s interpretation, and officials can come in with technical details if I miss anything. Due to Brexit, it is now necessary to do these checks on all high-risk products coming from the EU in addition to those coming from the rest of the world. Therefore, these checks aim to bring how we treat products from the EU into alignment with how we treat products from the rest of the world. Obviously, the Scottish Government did not wish for Brexit to happen or for these checks to be necessary, but it is important that we have alignment between how we handle products from the EU and how we handle products from the rest of the world. England and Wales have already put in place such a risk-based scheme.

The EU scheme, which, of course, is what would have been used to check these products as they came into the EU is also a risk-based scheme. Therefore, it is the same principle and the same structure of scheme, but we must now bring that into Scottish legislation.

What are the deficiencies in the current scheme that require you to bring in a new approach?

It is not a matter of deficiencies in the existing scheme. The EU scheme was based on risks for the EU. Now, we are bringing in this legislation at a GB level—the fees are related to Scotland, but the SI is at a GB level. Therefore, with regard to the risk assessment, although the methodology is very similar, the risks that we face in GB are different from the risks that are faced by the EU. For example, there are many citrus fruit growers in the EU. We do not grow citrus fruits in the UK, so the risk assessment on those products would be different in GB. It is not a matter of efficiencies; it is a matter of making appropriate checks for the risks that we have here.

Will the minister explain to us what the EU principles for risk-targeted inspections are and how those are reflected in the proposed new inspection regime?

Again, I will give you the layperson’s view, and officials can come in with the details. The new regime involves the same kind of risk profiling as the existing scheme. As plants come in, we have to check that they are the correct plants, as identified, that they are healthy and that they are not bringing in pathogens. Risk assessments will be based on what we grow here, what pathogens might spread in the UK and what might create risks for our crops and commercial interests. My officials might like to add some detail.

That is, basically, the assessment. The European Union approach is based on a frequency of checks at 100 per cent for goods, which can be reduced when those goods are considered a lower risk. The same principle applies to the approach that has been developed on a GB-wide basis, which—as the minister said—reflects the risks of specific goods in a GB context.

Minister, you have set out some of the reasoning, but I wonder whether you could give a practical example of the new process that we are talking about and say how the GB approach would differ from the EU approach. You have given your reasons for taking your own approach, but perhaps you could give us a real-life example.

Yes—citrus fruits are a practical example. My officials can give you more examples. We do not grow citrus fruit crops in the UK because we do not have a commercial interest in them, so importing citrus plants, for example, would not present a risk to our commercial agriculture. Those would be considered a lower-risk product, whereas products that we grow here as part of our commercial agriculture would be considered a higher risk. We do not need the same level of checks on citrus plants as a country that grows them as a commercial product.

I want to ask briefly about annex 2 to the notification, which sets out the frequency of checks. It is proposed that there will be checks at a frequency of 30 per cent for some categories. Can you explain why that is the case? What is the reasoning behind that figure?

I will need to get my officials to go into the detail of any specific figure, but the principle is that we understand the risks on the basis of where things are coming from. For example, if we were importing from a country that we know has good plant health controls and where crops such as barley are not infected by a particular pathogen, we would not do as many inspections. However, if a plant or plant material was coming from a country that we know contains that pathogen and that does not have the standards of plant health checks and inspection that we would expect, we would need to increase our inspections to ensure our biosecurity.

The subject is quite complicated, is it not? I am wondering why the frequency rate for checks has been set at 30 per cent rather than at one of the standardised rates, which were 3, 5, 10, 50 and 100 per cent. In addition, can you give some examples of any woody plants that are prohibited from coming into the country and are subject to these checks that may affect agriculture?

I will let my officials answer the second question. On the first question, as I said to Alasdair Allan, it depends on where items are coming from. If items are coming from a country that has good plant health security and that is not affected by a known pathogen, we can safely reduce the level of checks. If plant material is coming from a country where we know there is a pathogen and there is a risk to our crops, we will increase the level of checks. That allows us to be flexible and dynamic and to use our resources to prevent those higher risks.

On the second question, perhaps my officials can give some examples.

I think that we will have to offer to write to the committee with a specific example of a woody plant in that category. Basically, the principle is that plants for planting are higher-risk goods, because there is soil material involved.

That is important, because it represents a slight change.

Minister, I am not convinced by your answer to the convener’s question that we are taking a like-for-like approach that reflects how it was. I would like some reassurance on that. Do you have examples of what plants are getting into this country? People might bring something into the country in their hand luggage. Are these checks happening on lorries? Are they random checks, or are they checks on planned entries into the country? How does it work?

Again, I will give you a general overview and then officials can come in with more detail.

The statutory instrument and the fees relate only to high-risk products that are commercially imported in large quantities for business interests. One plant in a person’s hand luggage is not a high-risk product—it is low risk. Checks on low-risk products have been delayed by another 18 months. The legislation is specifically about high-risk products. It is about commercial things—imports that we know about that we can the trace through the country. It is about ensuring that they are right. We can, of course, check up to 100 per cent of them; in fact, the default fee is for a 100 per cent check. If, for example, as Caspian Richards said, there were woody products that posed a very high risk, checks of up to 100 per cent could be done, because such materials can be traced. If there is a lower risk, the number of checks can be lowered on the basis of the risk assessment.

I do not know whether my officials want to add anything to that.

09:15  

How it works is quite complex. Our model for checking sanitary and phytosanitary goods is based on the official controls regulation, which is the EU model. There is the EU model, and we now have the official controls regulation for GB. That was deficiency fixed when we left the EU. As part of the official controls regulation, competent authorities—therefore the Scottish ministers—are required to undertake risk-based checks on specific goods that are listed. There are lists of plants that must undergo checks.

How it works on the ground is that importers are required to give advance notice to the Scottish ministers that they intend to import those goods. At that point, goods will be randomly selected—or, if there is to be a 100 per cent check, all the goods will be selected—and the check will be undertaken by Government officials. That is all done electronically, and fees are paid. The frequency of the checks and the fees that we are putting in place are based on the overarching EU model, which, as the minister has said, has been adapted and tailored to a GB context.

The legislation reflects a lot of what was in the EU legislation, but it goes into a little more detail. For example, it requires the Government to publish frequency rates online. The EU model does not set that out in legislation, but that happens in practice. I am talking about some of the slight differences. It is important to remember that we are still under the EU model, but it has been tailored following requirements under the official controls regulation.

Okay. Thank you.

I want to follow up what Mr Richards said. You said that you would get back to the committee on a non-native species that is a risk to agriculture. Given all the new competences that we may have for controlling non-native species on the uplands—for example, controlling bracken with Asulam for tick populations—it is important that such products do not affect the spread of ticks, for example.

I want to clarify something. The approach is quite straightforward in that importers will notify what they are importing through paperwork and electronically. That might be a lorry full of bean seeds, which are low risk, so only 3 per cent might be checked, or Ii could be a lorry full of potatoes, 50 per cent of which might be checked, because they are higher risk. Why is it proposed that 30 per cent of some plant products in annex 2 in the minister’s letter will be checked? That is not one of the standard five frequencies, which are 3, 5, 10, 50 and 100 per cent. Why on earth will 30 per cent of some plant products be checked?

I will hand over to the officials on that one.

I do not know the answer to that question. That might be an error. We might have to clarify why the figure of 30 per cent is there or whether 30 per cent is a standard inspection frequency. We will clarify that, if that is all right, convener.

Certainly. It is strange that there are five set frequencies but some plants do not fit in with those.

Are there any other ways in which the approach to determining the frequency of checks differs from that of the EU? For example, will the default frequency in GB continue to be 100 per cent unless a commodity qualifies for the lower frequency of checks?

It is my understanding that that is the case.

Will the proposed SI continue to prescribe that commodities for which more than 1 per cent of the consignments are found to have harmful organisms are not eligible for a reduced frequency of checks?

That is my understanding.

If the GB approach is continuing to prescribe a minimum number of consignments that must have been imported into GB for a product to qualify for a reduced frequency of checks, what is that minimum number of consignments?

I do not know the answer to that.

The minimum is 40 consignments. That is a change from what it was in the EU, which was 200, but that is just to reflect the smaller market. A minimum of 40 consignments will be required for eligibility for a reduced frequency of checks.

The requirement in the EU was 200 consignments, but the SI is reducing it to 40 on the basis of the number of products that are coming in.

It is about the size of the consignments, yes.

Okay. Thank you.

Beatrice Wishart is next.

The minister has answered my questions in responding to other questions, convener, so it might be appropriate to move on.

How does the proposed SI relate to the common framework on plant health? For example, are the decision-making fora and processes established by the common framework being used for import checks on plant products, and will they be used for the annual review of the frequency of checks?

I will refer to my officials on that one.

The common framework sets out how Administrations across the UK work together on a range of plant health issues. It describes the processes that are in place to identify threats to plant health. Part of that will be the forums through which the risk-based assessments are done and then applied to the fees legislation. It is part of the overall UK-wide framework. Officials from the four Administrations make the assessments on the basis of the risks within the GB context.

The framework work informs how the SIs are designed.

It describes the process and how we work together to develop things like the legislation in common and the assessment of the risks within a GB context.

Thank you.

What is the Scottish Government’s role in the annual review of frequency rates? How will the Scottish Parliament be able to scrutinise those decisions, which will impact on imports to Scotland?

I am sure that the answer to your first question is in the frameworks that Caspian Richards has just described. Those frameworks describe how the four nations of the UK work together. I am not sure what the instrument is for parliamentary scrutiny.

Again, as the process is based on the EU model, UK plant health services in all the devolved Administrations will work together to establish those frequencies. It is not expected that there will be any parliamentary scrutiny of those frequencies, as that is exactly what happened in the EU previously. The EU had legislation and it would produce an annual notification that set out the frequencies, and the SI does the same. As this is a business-as-usual step, it is not expected that there will be any parliamentary scrutiny of the fee levels at that point.

I want to go back to Mr Richards’s response to the question about common frameworks. The notification actually states that the SI is not related to a common framework.

I am not sure about that, to be honest. There is a common framework for plant health, and that describes how the Administrations work together across the piece. I suppose that the SI is not derived from the common framework, but the common framework describes the processes through which the Administrations work together. I guess that it is complementary, from that point of view, but it is not that the common framework has produced this legislation.

It is important to say that the plant health framework has not yet been approved or scrutinised. I think that that is why it does not refer to a plant health framework. However, we are using structures that are already in place to make these decisions, which we hope will be part of the framework in the future.

That is helpful. Thank you.

Why is a reduced fee per consignment being proposed for those imports that are eligible for a reduced level of physical checks?

The fees structure is intended to cover just the costs, and, where reduced inspections are required, that means a reduced cost. The fees are not a money-making mechanism. If we have to use fewer resources doing fewer checks, we do not need to charge as much.

But the fee is per consignment—it is not an overall fee. Why would the cost per consignment be less?

That is an excellent question. If you were one of the 3 per cent chosen to have your truck full of potatoes checked, it would be unfair if you had to pay the fee, because those checks are done randomly, so the costs are spread around the sector. For each individual consignment, the cost is spread across the whole sector so that the fees are fair and the person whose individual consignment is chosen is not unfairly penalised.

Finally, going back to what might be a drafting error, it would be useful to know whether the error relating to the 30 per cent frequency is in the UK draft. Before we give consent, can you let us know how that will be addressed? Ultimately, if the legislation is passed, the 30 per cent figure will stand. How will that be rectified if that is a drafting error?

What is in the notification has been taken from information that we have received from and discussed with our colleagues in the UK Government. I would like to go back and check whether the figure of 30 per cent should be in the paragraph in the notification—I suspect that that is where the error has arisen—or whether it is a typo in the annex, which should read 50 or 100 per cent. I will confirm whether the issue is in the content of the notification or in the annex.

As there are no further questions, we will move on to consideration of the instruments. First, do members have any comments on the consent notification? If not, do we agree with the Scottish Government’s decision to consent to the provision that is set out in the notification being included in UK rather than Scottish subordinate legislation?

Members indicated agreement.

We now move to formal consideration of the motion to approve the instrument. I invite the minister to move motion S6M-04876.

Motion moved,

That the Rural Affairs, Islands and Natural Environment Committee recommends that the Plant Health (Fees) (Miscellaneous Amendment) (Scotland) Regulations 2022 [draft] be approved.—[Lorna Slater]

Motion agreed to.

Finally, is the committee content to delegate authority to me to sign off our report on our deliberations on this affirmative SSI?

Members indicated agreement.

Thank you. That completes consideration of the subordinate legislation. I thank the minister and her officials for attending today. I will suspend the meeting briefly to allow for a changeover of witnesses.

09:28 Meeting suspended.  

09:36 On resuming—