Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment Committee

Meeting date: Wednesday, April 2, 2014

Official Report 294KB pdf

---

Subordinate Legislation

---

Brucellosis (Scotland) Amendment Order 2014 (SSI 2014/63)

---

Brucellosis (Scotland) Amendment (No 2) Order 2014 (SSI 2014/72)

---

CRC Energy Efficiency Scheme (Amendment) Order 2014 (SI 2014/502)

Good morning and welcome to the 10th meeting in 2014 of the Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment Committee, which is our last before the Easter recess. I remind everyone to switch off their mobile phones, as they can affect the sound system.

I understand that, subject to parliamentary approval, this will be Richard Lyle’s last meeting with the committee, so I want to thank him for all his hard work with the committee and wish him all the best.

Thank you, convener. It has certainly been an enjoyable time and I wish you well. I know that the committee has worked well in the past and will tackle all the issues well in the future.

Agenda item 1 is subordinate legislation. We have three negative instruments to consider: two on brucellosis and one on the CRC energy efficiency scheme amendment. Members should note that no motion to annul has been received on any of the instruments. I refer members to the paper and ask for any comments.

I have a question about timing. Would it not be possible to get instruments before the committee earlier, particularly when they are on an issue such as brucellosis?

There are issues with the timing of subordinate legislation scrutiny.

Speaking for the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee, I can say that we, too, would like to see instruments much earlier. We will deal with them and pass them to the right committee as soon as we can. I note that the legislation on brucellosis is already in force. In many ways, that is undesirable, but it makes a point about negative instruments, which is that, because they do not have to be consulted on before they are laid, they allow things to be done very quickly. That is the advantage of the negative instrument, but it means that we have to consider legislation that is already in force.

Okay. This is not something that we would want to slow down; it is a very important piece of work on brucellosis.

I absolutely agree that we would not want to slow it down. However, a stranger looking at our processes from the outside might find it slightly odd that we are looking at an order that came into force yesterday. There is also the fact that the penalty specified in it was wrong in the first place and had to be reduced from six months to a term “not exceeding three months”. It is a bit messy. It is worth putting that on the record, because this could be tidied up.

To extend the story, it is worth making the point that the first of the orders before the committee was erroneously drawn up. Everybody accepts that a mistake was made and it has been put right, so the order before us today is the corrected version. Mistakes do happen, I am afraid.

Thank you for your comments. They are noted and on the record. Our clerking teams bring the negative instruments before committees as quickly as humanly possible, so we look to the system itself to change; we are not pointing in any way at our own officers. It is at a different level that processes need to move more quickly.

My apologies for coming in late. My point concerns the CRC Energy Efficiency Scheme (Amendment) Order 2014. The impact assessment states that the amendment means a “small” change. I would be concerned if the change is any more than small, because it is about the quality of air for people and also about reductions in energy savings. I want to put on record that the committee should voice concern if the change is more than small.

Do you want the committee to find out what the definition of “small” is in this case?

I did not make the time—although there was not much time—to find out exactly what 0.3MtCO2 is. It might be helpful to know what the small difference is. I would not want to see this happening more and more.

We have a watching brief on this issue. I note the member’s interest in the matter and I think that we could find out from officials in the Government exactly what that means.

At the top of page 3, the note on the instruments says:

“Brucellosis is a disease of cattle”.

My father suffered from brucellosis most of his life, so it can, obviously, be passed on to humans. It might be worth noting that at this stage.

Indeed. I think that saying that it is a disease that originates in cattle is probably a more specific form of words, but I am not here to correct how these notes are written.

Is the committee agreed that it does not wish to make any recommendations on the instruments?

Members indicated agreement.