Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee

Meeting date: Wednesday, June 15, 2016

Official Report 336KB pdf

---

Work Programme

The final agenda item is consideration of the committee’s approach to the development of its work programme.

Members will see from the papers provided that it is proposed that we invite Fergus Ewing, the Cabinet Secretary for Rural Economy and Connectivity, to give evidence on 29 June on the issues relevant to his portfolio and the committee’s remit. We have had an informal briefing from the Scottish Parliament information centre in advance of that meeting. It appears that responsibility for certain major transport projects, such as the Forth replacement crossing, will be the responsibility of Keith Brown, the Cabinet Secretary for Economy, Jobs and Fair Work, as opposed to Mr Ewing. Given the recent announcement that the completion of the Forth replacement crossing is to be delayed, the committee may therefore wish to consider inviting Keith Brown to give evidence on 29 June as well.

It is proposed that we hold a business planning meeting towards the end of the summer recess, to allow detailed discussion of our approach, priorities and work programme.

To help inform that approach, I would like to hold a brief discussion with members on 29 June, after we have taken evidence from the cabinet secretaries, to obtain their individual views on the areas of work that they would like the committee to pursue.

I invite comments on those proposals.

I do not think that there is any point in us wasting Mr Brown’s time. We heard a statement from him recently and were assured that there would be updates.

Apart from that point, I think that the planned approach is appropriate.

I disagree. The Forth replacement crossing is one of the biggest infrastructure projects that are going on. If we are to have responsibility for transport, we should start as we mean to go on and at least get an update before the summer recess. There will then be two months in which we will not be able to ask questions on the issue. It would be a good idea to have the cabinet secretary here.

I am relatively neutral on the subject of the bridge, which will still be delivered a month ahead of the planned schedule. However, members may wish to hear from Keith Brown.

More fundamentally, I support the proposed approach to developing a work programme: it makes sense. I urge the clerks to communicate with all members individually about the date for the committee’s planning day because—speaking personally—the diary is filling up. I have two away days in the last week of recess before we come back, which I suspect is the week that will be considered. I see that I will not be alone in that regard, from looking round the table. It is important, even though we do not know what we are going to do.

I suggest that we consider—but not necessarily decide, today—linking the away day to a visit that is relevant to the business of the committee. This is not meant to be an exhaustive list of suggestions, but there could be a visit to a farm or rural business. There is quite a range of options, and I have no fixed views on the matter. A day spent sitting in a darkened room might to some extent be lightened if we were to touch the real world as well, if we can.

I absolutely share that opinion—we need to get the date in the diary sooner rather than later. I also share the opinion that we need to make sure that the location is an equitable travel distance for all of us so that we make sure that it is relatively easy to attend. To see something that would be of interest to us all would also be very useful.

I agree with Rhoda Grant; I would like Keith Brown to come to the committee. The Forth replacement crossing is an important issue. It is the biggest transport project in Scotland and there are lots of questions that we need to ask. I certainly have a lot of questions.

From a personal point of view, I agree with Stewart Stevenson—I have booked holidays for the last 10 days of August and so I will not be around then.

Excellent!

Okay—we will start as we mean to go on, Stewart. [Laughter.]

That was “Excellent!” because you were telling us in advance—nothing else.

Oh, really? [Laughter.]

It is important that we hear all of our ideas, as well as what the ministers might say. I presume that we can ask the ministers anything that we want.

Yes.

Do you want us to raise our ideas in a fortnight’s time rather than today?

My idea was to spend some time with each of you and the clerks to find out what issues you would like to raise, so that I am fully aware of them, and then to make them known to the rest of the committee.

That is fine. On transport, I would like to hear from Keith Brown not just about the Forth replacement crossing but about other transport projects.

We can ask him about all his responsibilities.

Although I live in the city, I like going out of the city and have a lot of road and rail issues—for example, rail links—that I could raise with him. I see the subject as being wider than just the bridge.

If we are having the away day during recess, I am, as someone who lives in the central belt, happy to spend two or three days going to a more remote place. We should get out of the central belt and the away day would be an opportunity to do so, if we have it during recess.

The point is taken.

I agree with much of what has been said. It is important that we get Keith Brown in front of the committee. We need answers on the important issue of the rail link from Aberdeen to Edinburgh, as well as on the bridge.

Fergus Ewing also needs to speak to us; we need an update on common agricultural policy payments.

I also think that it is a good idea to get out and about. Much of what has been suggested is the correct way forward. I agree that we need to get our thoughts to the clerk of the committee, then we can move forward.

10:15  

Richard Lyle?

I thought that you were going down the line.

No one else caught my eye. If anyone wants to speak, they will catch my eye.

Okay.

I agree with John Mason: we should ask Keith Brown to come along to talk about the bridge. I have another major infrastructure situation with the M8 and M74 in my constituency. I have quite a number of questions that I would like to ask with regard to that.

Perfect. That is within Keith Brown’s responsibility, so that will be fine.

I am thinking about declarations of interests. I suppose that it is relevant that I am now Fergus Ewing’s parliamentary liaison officer.

In my area we have major connectivity issues that need to be looked at, involving roads, rail and broadband—everything that a rural area needs help with. I urge the committee to explore that.

Thank you.

I echo what Emma Harper said. It may be helpful to define what areas the committee will cover specifically. Connectivity is about more than just broadband, roads and rail. It is also about ferries and could encompass a wide range of subject matters, and so for that reason it may encroach on the areas of a wide range of ministers and cabinet secretaries. Mapping the committee’s areas of responsibility to the relevant ministers would be a nice exercise. Each of us will have interests in one or more of those areas. I would find it very helpful if we could define the committee’s objectives for the session.

For the avoidance of doubt, convener, of course I am not suggesting that the largest infrastructure project should not be the subject of detailed scrutiny by the committee. I was suggesting that I doubt that we would learn terribly much, given that our next meeting will take place only a fortnight after we hear a full ministerial statement. It is important that we hear from Keith Brown. As John Mason is, I am keen that we focus on rail and its opportunities and, in particular, on the limitations of its infrastructure, as Peter Chapman alluded to. We should also focus on our ferry infrastructure.

I broadly agree with everything that has been said. We all have different interests, which is what makes this committee so interesting. We definitely need to define the role and remit of what we are responsible for. Our remit will cross over different ministers, and there will also be some crossover with other committees. We need to discuss how we will interact and work with those other committees.

I agree that the committee’s remit could be so big that we could be completely lost in it. There is a good opportunity for the clerks to get together and draw up a map of all our responsibilities. At a later date, the committee should consider where we interact with other committees and consider whether we could do some joint working with them to ensure that areas that are relevant to us and them are covered. We could legitimately ask the clerks to do that for us.

I very much take the points that you have all made about getting out, early planning and ensuring that we take note of everyone’s interests. They will be on the work agenda and the clerking team and I will be in touch to try to make that work for everyone.

I think that there is broad agreement that it would be appropriate to call both cabinet secretaries to the next committees meeting, to answer questions in relation to the Forth bridge infrastructure project and any other questions that we want to raise, including questions of Fergus Ewing about farm payments and any other business.

Do we agree to do that?

Members indicated agreement.

Given that members might want to raise an issue about a specific patch of road, rail line or bridge, and that the meeting is in two weeks’ time, is there a process for the submission of questions in advance to the ministers, so that they have time to research adequately and respond?

I can help you slightly with that. My understanding is that the clerks will help with questions on topical issues but that our questions should not be limited to those ones. Members of the committee can ask any question that they think is important and relevant.

This might be obvious but, if you want an answer on an issue that is relatively local, it might be helpful if the minister were made aware that the issue will be raised. However, I think that that is a matter between the member and the minister rather than being an issue for the committee.

I would say only that I think that we will be short of time on that day, and that we should concentrate on the bigger issues. However, members will determine what the big issues are.

Given that we have decided to invite two cabinet secretaries to our meeting and that if it is possible for them to come we will, I presume, have two separate question-and-answer sessions, will we be considering an earlier start than usual?

We still have to find out when the cabinet secretaries are available. Once we know that, we will get back to members with more on times. I should say that we also want to have a pre-meeting before we speak to them.

That concludes today's business. I look forward to seeing you all at the next meeting on 29 June.

Meeting closed at 10:22.