Official Report 840KB pdf
Public Intervention and Private Storage Aid (Amendment and Suspension) (Scotland) Regulations 2023 (SSI 2023/150)
Our next item of business is consideration of three negative Scottish statutory instruments. Do members wish to make any comments on the first instrument?
I just want to draw attention to the comments from the NFUS on this particular SSI. First of all, though, I want to confirm that we are talking about SSI 2023/150.
Yes.
I note that, according to our papers,
“NFUS acknowledged the importance of having a framework for market support during crisis situations and expressed caution regarding the potential impact of the proposed changes on stability and confidence in various sectors.”
It also stated that
“the upcoming Agriculture Bill would provide adequate powers for Scottish Ministers to intervene when necessary.”
I am not minded to lodge a motion to annul, but, once again, we find ourselves in a situation in which a considerable body that represents quite a number of farmers is sharing its sense of caution with the committee. I seek your advice on the matter, convener.
I echo Rachael Hamilton’s views. It is concerning that the NFUS has itself raised concerns. However, it believes that the proposed agriculture bill will “offer ... adequate provision” in that respect. I have to say that I am not aware of any draft agriculture bill or any provisions in it, but it would appear that the NFUS has had sight of the proposed bill to give it that comfort. It concerns me that we are potentially making a decision without knowing whether a forthcoming bill will mitigate the NFUS’s concerns.
Moreover, the policy note suggests that private intervention will cease to have effect in Scotland for a period of five years but no impact assessment has been made, because the provision is “for a temporary period”. I would have thought that five years is a fairly extended temporary period and that an impact assessment should have been carried out. Five years is a long time, and I am concerned that there is no more detail on that.
We could write to the Government today with those concerns. Are we otherwise content to agree to the instrument?
My reading of the regulations is that, if something happens, the provision can be brought back into force, and the five-year period is to allow the agriculture bill to put in place something that will take over from it. Perhaps we can ask for confirmation of that. Moreover, we should make a note to look at this issue when we come to consider the agriculture bill, to ensure that it is doing what we have assumed to be the plan.
Absolutely—particularly given that Scottish applicants could be left at a disadvantage if we did not
“mirror the rest of the UK”
in temporarily ceasing PI provisions. We certainly need to write in that respect.
The option that we have today is either to annul the instrument or to say that we are content but to write to the Scottish Government, seeking further clarity. Are we content?
Is it possible to seek clarity without moving a motion to annul? The policy note says that, if Scotland does not choose
“to mirror the rest of the UK”,
that will
“leave Scottish applicants at a disadvantage.”
Why is the NFUS not taking the same view?
Just on the practicalities, I point out that the reporting deadline is 26 June, so today is our last opportunity to deal with the instrument.
Can we write?
We can, but the instrument will come into force on 1 July.
Okay. How long have we had this instrument?
We have had it for 40 days.
Sorry, but this is the first time that I have seen it.
Are we content to write with our concerns in relation to the instrument?
I am content with that approach, and I do not sense any movement to annul the instrument. I just want a clearer idea of what the letter to the Government will say and, roughly, its tone and content.
Certainly. I think that we need clarity on why the NFUS has been given comfort that the forthcoming agriculture bill will “offer ... adequate provision” for the Scottish Government to intervene where necessary. I have not seen a draft of the agriculture bill, so I cannot have any comfort that that is the case, but the NFUS appears to have had—
It appears to have been given comfort on that point, which presumably is not the same as its having seen the bill.
There have been assurances, and I presume that they are something that the Government—or any Government—will not be able to renege on. There have obviously been discussions.
But that is not the same as having been shown the bill.
I do not think that it has seen the bill.
My point is that I have not had any comfort or assurance from anywhere that the agriculture bill will offer adequate provisions to give Scottish ministers these powers. I would find it difficult to make a decision on that, because I have had no reassurance that that will be the case. I am also concerned that there has been no risk assessment, because of the potential five-year period, which is slightly longer than I would consider to be temporary.
We can write to the Government, saying that it is our understanding that the NFUS has had comfort on this matter and asking the Government to confirm whether that is the case. I am sure that it is, otherwise the NFUS would not have said so.
Absolutely. It will be along those lines.
That is sufficient, is it not, Alasdair? I am just asking because I have to go.
It was an ideal moment to introduce controversy—we have all have to go. I am happy with the approach as long as we draw that distinction and make it clear that we are not trying to suggest that a bill has been shown to third parties.
No. It is just that the policy note says that the NFUS
“stated that the forthcoming Agriculture Bill would offer ... adequate provision”.
If the NFUS has been given reassurances, it would be good for the committee to be given them, too.
That is fine.
Is the committee content to make no recommendation on the instrument?
Members indicated agreement.
Seed (Fees) (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 2023 (SSI 2023/151)
If members have no comments to make, are we content to make no recommendation on the instrument?
Members indicated agreement.
Feed Additives (Form of Provisional Authorisations) (Cobalt (II) Compounds) (Scotland) Regulations 2023 (SSI 2023/170)
Do members have any comments to make on the instrument? It has come before us because of a failure to apply for an appropriate licence within the specified time. I was concerned that, even though it was an animal health issue, it was a decision for the Minister for Public Health and Women’s Health. However, I have been informed that such matters are dealt with by Food Standards Scotland, which sits within her portfolio.
Is everybody content to make no recommendation on the instrument?
Members indicated agreement.
That concludes our meeting in public.
12:45 Meeting continued in private until 12:48.