Tuberculosis (Scotland) Order 2023 (SSI 2023/93)
The next agenda item is consideration of two negative Scottish statutory instruments. I will start by asking for comments on the Tuberculosis (Scotland) Order 2023.
When I was reading the papers on the TB order, the changes and the policy objectives within it, I was happy with most of it—I know that industry is happy with most of it—but something is niggling at me. I do not feel comfortable with one of the aspects: the 95 per cent reduction in compensation. I am minded to lodge a motion to annul but would like to find a solution to this, if possible.
09:45My argument around this is based on the responses to the consultation. I know that a number of stakeholders who represent farmers were included in the consultation, but I would like to understand the views of a wider group of people who will be affected by the order. In Scotland, we are not currently affected, as such, by bovine TB. However, if we were to be, this could have a devastating impact on farmers who are already going through a lot of hardship. We should try to find some sort of solution by ensuring that we understand a little bit more about this specific aspect—on which, in fact, the response was not conclusive.
Okay. Thank you. Do any other members want to come in?
Certainly, I have concerns about the number of contributors to the consultation. It seems to have been quite low, given what, I would suggest, are quite far-reaching changes in the regulations.
We do have an opportunity. The timescales are very tight, but we have up to 17 May for a motion to annul to be moved. That gives us the opportunity to write with some of the questions that you raise and, potentially, to ask a minister or some officials to our meeting next Wednesday to explore this a little bit further before we take a decision on how to move forward.
Is everybody agreed that we will write to request that a minister or an official attend to answer some of those questions at the meeting next week?
I am not here as often as Karen Adam is, so I would like to clarify: do we need a minister or do we need an official, if it is really just to clarify the information so that we can proceed and make a better-informed decision?
Ideally, we would have a minister or a cabinet secretary, because some of the decisions may be political and officials will just state the position. Ideally, therefore, the best solution would be to have the cabinet secretary, but, failing that, I think that officials would go some way to answering the questions.
It is a bit unfair if it is just an official, because, if anything quasi-political came up, they would be in an invidious position. It is up to the Government to send somebody—if not a cabinet secretary, a minister, and if they are accompanied by officials, that is all good and well.
I am not quite sure where the politics would come in. The country is generally agreed that we are TB free, though there may be issues with certain reactors. As long as we just want clarification of the purpose behind the order and to know that everything has been looked at, I am not sure that there is anything political to worry about.
Obviously, we are referring to politics with a small “p”, and a decision to reduce compensation by 95 per cent or 45 per cent would be made by a minister or cabinet secretary rather than a civil servant. Rather than an action based purely on scientific evidence, it is a decision that a minister would make.
Convener, I welcome your understanding of this and the understanding of my colleagues. Your suggestion is great. We must make sure that we get that information, whether from a minister or otherwise. The biggest point is the urgency of this, and we, as a committee, have the opportunity to consider the matter.
I have no idea what the ministers’ diaries are like. I agree that, ideally, it would be a minister, but we really should keep our minds open to the possibility that it would be an official at this very short notice, given the fact that much of what we are looking for is technical information.
I agree. Are we all content that we will write with some questions and invite, preferably, a minister or cabinet secretary to attend the meeting next week? If they cannot do so, we will seek to invite an official.
We had better send a note of what was said in private. A note saying that queries have been raised could usefully be sent in advance to the Government, if appropriate, and circulated to the committee.
It is a matter for the Government to decide. Committees have priority, and there may have to be—I say this with inverted commas around it—a “political decision” at the end of the evidence session about what they do or do not do with the regulation. Therefore, I am not happy that it would be just an official.
I was not party to the original discussion, although I listened to it, or to the queries that were raised by members around this table. Perhaps they could be circulated and sent to the Government in a letter saying, “These are the problems that we have. It will be a brief session, but we would like clarity,” and so on.
We are all in agreement. There is no doubt that, ultimately, it is down to cabinet secretaries and ministers to make the decisions on legislation, and they are best placed to answer questions on why certain decisions are being taken. The meeting would be in public, but my feeling is that everybody agrees that we should write to ask for a minister or a cabinet secretary to attend. Failing that, an official could answer some of the questions. Would that be okay?
Members indicated agreement.
Bee Diseases and Pests Control (Scotland) (Amendment) Order 2023 (SSI 2023/114)
Are there any comments on the Bee Diseases and Pests Control (Scotland) (Amendment) Order 2023?
We all agree on the importance of protecting native bee populations, but I would have liked a bit more clarity in the policy objectives. They state:
“this instrument is considered to be a more effective tool”.
I would like a bit more understanding of the reasoning behind that. They also reference enforcement by “authorised persons”. I would like a bit more detail on who those authorised persons might be.
Okay. Thank you. Are there any other comments?
We have more time on the bee legislation, so, if members are in agreement, we will write to the Governement with the queries that Beatrice Wishart has raised. I hope that we will get a response, and we can then revisit the SSI at a future meeting. Is that agreed?
Members indicated agreement.
I will briefly suspend the meeting to allow for the arrival of witnesses.
09:52 Meeting suspended.Next
Salmon Farming