Rural Affairs Committee, 01 Feb 2000

Meeting date: Tuesday, February 1, 2000

Official Report 168KB pdf

---

Future Business

The next agenda item covers a couple of matters that were brought to my attention by members of the committee, whom I now invite to speak to the issues that they raised.

May I make a comment before you do that? I know that I risk upsetting whoever put matters such as rural post offices on the agenda, but at the weekend I waded through the subjects that were on the agenda only to discover this morning that the agenda had been changed.

We discussed rural post offices in the chamber last week. The issue concerns employment and communities throughout rural Scotland. Our final agenda item addresses changing employment patterns in rural communities.

We come to a committee meeting and find that extra items such as the pig industry and rural post offices have been added to the agenda. While such issues are deserving, we should keep our focus and address issues in the wider strategic context. We should examine rural post offices as part of our investigation into rural employment. It is a mistake to highlight issues separately. Cathy Peattie's point resonates with me—I am fed up with firefighting when we should be considering what the committee can do effectively.

Irene McGugan will speak on rural post offices.

I am sorry, Irene; I did not realise that you put that matter on the agenda.

You will not be sorry once you have heard what I say. The timing of the appearance of rural post offices on the agenda was not under my control. It was put on the agenda to highlight an important issue and to seek the committee's permission to have it included in our wide-ranging investigation, so that it was not forgotten. We had a short debate on rural post offices, which did not address all the problems that many members feel exist in their constituencies around rural Scotland. The recommendation is simply that we deal with the matter in a strategic way, as part of the major investigation, not that we have a long discussion on it today.

The topics were put on the agenda to give members the opportunity to speak briefly on them to the committee. We are not trying to force anything on to the longer-term agenda; if we introduce the subjects in this way, the committee can consider the possibility of including them.

I will give you an example of why I think that we should not operate in this way. I met the Dee District Salmon Fishery Board in Aberdeenshire, which is worried about the impact of many things, but particularly about employment. Salmon fishing is a major industry, which employs 400 people up and down Deeside, and which is often forgotten. My advice to Andrew Bradford, the chair of the board, was that he write to the convener to ask that salmon fishing be included in our review of employment patterns. The committee should operate by feeding information to the convener. What is to stop me getting salmon fishing put on the agenda next week, so that I can speak about it?

I agree with Mike Rumbles; it is important that we examine strategic effects. There may be areas of the review of employment patterns and agriculture that we have not yet considered. If we do not have that review, we could miss a lot of important evidence. We must allow space to discuss subjects such as the rural post offices, but we must also recognise that there is an overall strategy into which any discussion should fit.

We have had this discussion so many times that I feel as if I am experiencing groundhog day. If I recollect correctly, we have agreed on several occasions that we have no objection to issues being added to the agenda for the committee to discuss. That is why we are here—to respond to situations as they arise. Clearly, we want to focus on our long-term agenda, but I do not see any conflict.

Richard's recollection of previous discussions is different from mine. I recollect not that we had agreed that we could take anything we fancied whenever we fancied it, but that we would ask the convener to try hard to keep the agenda under control—precisely to prevent this kind of sprouting of a thousand blossoms.

Adding items raises difficulties. First, Mike Rumbles highlighted the fact that members will come cold to agenda items of which we have had little notice. None of us will want that to happen with important items. Secondly, adding items will deflect us from the main items on our programme. We will be discussing the wider programme in a moment. It will be a heavy programme, because of the legislation that is expected this year. We have been able to indulge ourselves a little in recent months, but over the course of this year we will find that it is not possible to take late agenda items if we are to do justice to the legislation.

Lewis got in just before me to comment on what Richard said. I agree with what Lewis said, with one caveat: we do not want to block off any real, emergency, last-minute matters. The issue of rural post offices, although important, did not arise just yesterday; the same goes for food labelling requirements and so on. Nobody is suggesting that members of the committee can never get something on to the agenda at the last minute. However, what Lewis and I—and, I think, other members—are saying is that we should stick to what we agreed before. We need a focus. Lewis is absolutely right, and I accept his interpretation of what we agreed.

First, a discussion on rural post offices is not on the agenda. All that is on the agenda is the question whether we should have a discussion on them on the agenda at some time in the future. The difference between those two is not subtle.

Secondly, as Mike Rumbles rightly said, we must have a slot on the agenda into which we can decide to bring a subject forward for discussion; the only way to decide what should fill that slot is by using members' judgment. Members must decide what is important and what is not. If they can then get the rest of the committee to agree, that is fine and well, but that should not take up an inordinate amount of time. If everybody speaks only once, surely we can decide quickly whether we want to put something on the agenda for the future.

I propose to give the two members the opportunity to say a few words on the subject that is dear to their heart and that they want to appear on the agenda.

The issue of rural post offices has had a high profile recently. It has been the subject of newspaper campaigns, two debates in Westminster last month, two motions in this Parliament, and a member's debate last week. The threat is serious. As many as a quarter of Scotland's rural sub-post offices are under threat because of the Government proposal to pay benefits not in cash but by automated credit transfer directly into people's bank accounts.

A number of issues arise from that proposal. Low-income families are disadvantaged, as they may not be able to access bank accounts; the lack of benefits business has a serious effect on rural sub-post masters; and, if many such post offices close, something is lost that has been of social benefit to the community. There is also the issue of the new structure for post office users' councils, which will soon come into effect.

In spite of the fact that we had a debate last week, the issue will continue to be discussed as we move towards 2003 and full implementation, or not, of the proposal. We want to ensure that the issue does not get lost, and that rural Scotland knows that we are aware of it as a big issue that has much to do with the sustainability of rural communities. If we agree to include the matter in our wide-ranging investigation, that will go some way towards dealing with the problem.

This matter is likely to be a significant part of the on-going investigation into the broader issues.

The other item on the agenda is John Munro's point on meat labelling, which came about following an incident that occurred yesterday morning.

I am indebted to you, convener, for including this item on today's agenda.

The Rural Affairs Committee has responsibility for many areas, not least agriculture. We have been shouting from the rooftops, over the past two or three months, that we should support our farming industry. I know that the convener has lodged a motion about bringing commodities into the country—particularly in the meat trade—that cannot be identified easily.

Last week, at one of the main shops in Inverness, a neighbour of mine purchased and took home what he thought was a nice-looking piece of chilled beef. Lo and behold, when he started to unpack it he discovered a small label that identified the product as having been produced in Botswana. That was not evident when he bought it, and he was quite annoyed. He landed at my door with the packaging and the label, and I tried to calm him. I reassured him that we would take the issue up.

I do not know what other members feel, but I think that the Rural Affairs Committee is the appropriate committee in which to deal with such an issue. We cannot stop the importing of beef or meat products, as that would be contrary to fair play and justice, but we can reiterate the fact that the product on sale should be identified by its source and country of origin. That is a reasonable suggestion.

It is difficult to comment on apocryphal stories. Has John Munro brought the label with him?

I do not have it here.

We saw it yesterday.

Apart from asking for bigger labels from Botswana, I do not know what we can do. John Munro's option is to take the matter up with the minister and ask whether labelling of that size—in relation to whatever size the meat was—is within the regulations. He might pursue the matter in that way, as nothing in what he said makes me think that there is a problem. There was a label on the product. I do not know whether the gentleman was short-sighted, or whether he looked at the label properly. We cannot mount an investigation on the strength of one story. I am pleased that there was a label on the product—that is a step forward.

One of the messages that pig farmers were sending to us concerned labelling and marketing. In any agricultural strategy, that is a prime area in which we should make recommendations. This is a case in point—we could discuss what labels are like. My local Co-op labels its produce as Scottish beef, and we should advocate that people shop in supermarkets that do that. We can all come up with stories, but labelling and agriculture must be discussed as part of an overall strategy so that we can make recommendations to ensure that produce is correctly labelled. John Munro's point is important, but it must be considered as part of a wider strategy.

I was going to make a similar point. Labelling comes under the umbrella of support for agriculture and we should consider it as part of that inquiry rather than as an issue on its own.

First, according to news reports, Tony Blair said this morning that new labelling guidance will be introduced in England and Wales in any case. Clearly, that will have an impact on Scotland; we must consider that.

Secondly, rumour has it that a member of this committee is intent on introducing a bill on this very subject, which will presumably come before this committee for consideration. At that point, we will be obliged to consider the ups and downs and the details of labelling.

Many wider issues are connected to labelling, especially the country of origin. I recently investigated the potential for a member's bill on country-of-origin labelling, and I was surprised to read in the press that our convener is considering that route. Would you like to comment on that, convener? Has there been any guidance for committee conveners on introducing members' bills that are relevant to their committees?

There is no such guidance, as far as I am aware. My bill adds to the continuing debate; it is mobile at the moment and further news is coming in as we speak. I have no desire to use this committee to promote my own ends, but I am happy to answer any questions about the bill.

I am not a member of this committee, but I think that it is a good idea.

Do you mean that labelling is a good idea?

Would it be appropriate for us to suggest that, in the first instance, the specific incident that John Munro brought to our attention today might be dealt with by writing to the minister and, perhaps, to the manager of the supermarket where the meat was sold?

That is a consumer issue.

As Alasdair Morgan said, this is a constituency matter and it would therefore be appropriate for John Munro to take up the issue as he sees fit. It is not a matter for the committee.

Quite right.

Before we move on, I would like the committee to focus on what is going on. Alasdair Morgan said that he thought that everyone should have the right to bring up issues such as those that have been raised today and that that would not take long. Do members have any idea how much time the committee has just spent considering this item? It has been 20 minutes.

We can conduct our business in two ways. Either the convener has a strategic view on how we put down the agenda, or every member can bring up new items at the very last minute—remember that today's agenda came out just this morning and I was working from the previous one over the weekend. There are many issues that I would like to raise. Either we do it one way or we do it the other. Many committee members have expressed the view that I am expressing now. Good and worthy as all the individual items may be, I am getting a little bit fed up with this system. It is not the way in which we should operate. We will have real problems if we continue to go down this route. What are your intentions in setting the agenda for future meetings, convener?

Before you respond to that question, convener, I would like to remind members that, at our meeting with ministers yesterday, we saw the illustrative draft of the work that the committee might undertake this year. In the course of that discussion, ministers and civil servants made a number of points that I think we must consider in deciding how we allocate our time.

One of the points that we need to consider is the number of members' bills, plus one Executive bill, that will come before us in the course of this year. Secondly, we will be involved to a degree in land reform legislation this year and in future years. Thirdly, a question was raised about the timing of our fisheries inquiry, and I think that it is serious enough to merit some discussion. Is it appropriate to discuss that today, or should we set aside time on our next agenda to examine properly the whole year, agree the structure of the year and then seek to stick to that?

If you do not mind, Lewis, I will deal with the items as they are written down in front of me.

On Mike Rumbles's question about future business, I am keen to avoid a situation in which it is impossible for any member to ask for an item to be put on this committee's agenda. The discussion that has taken place today should be taken to heart by me and by other committee members, who realise that, if we treat that as a privilege, it should not be abused.

Without doubt, there are issues that members will wish to bring to this committee's attention at short notice, and I do not propose to deny them that opportunity. However, I have taken on board the points that have been raised, and if there is an issue which a member does not believe is of burning importance but which he or she wishes to bring to my attention, I would be delighted to discuss it with any member, to decide how it can be fed into our future business appropriately.

I accept the points made, with the one proviso that I wish this committee to remain open to specific points if they are relevant at a specific time. If we accept that slight degree of flexibility, I am pleased to proceed in the way that the committee has discussed today.

The issues that Lewis Macdonald raised are those which we have discussed for a planning meeting. For some time, we have said that it would be useful to get together for a short, defined time, such as three quarters of an hour, to discuss the planning of our business programme. Is there a time between now and the next meeting when we could get together for a short time?

Richard Davies suggested earlier today that we might be able to spare 30 or 45 minutes over a Thursday lunch time, when everybody is around, to deal with a strict agenda. Could we meet next Thursday, before the next scheduled meeting of this committee, or on the subsequent one?

What about Thursday 3 February?

That is Thursday of this week. I suggest 1.30 until 2.15, in order for everybody to be in time to get to the chamber for question time. We will check to see if a room is available for that.

Will it be an informal meeting?

I suspect that it will be less than informal—it will be quite rushed. It will simply be an opportunity for us to discuss how we wish to schedule the business that is before us.

It was quite clear from the programme that we looked at yesterday, convener, that, apart from not having any summer holidays, which are clearly written off now, we will not be able to deal with the volume of work before us if we meet every fortnight, but may need to meet more regularly. That at least seems to be the case for later in the year, as we come to consider legislation, given the time scale that some other committees have for their business. Would it be possible to get some idea of alternative slots in case we have to start meeting every week?

We will ask Richard Davies to find out about that.

Our diary is pretty full. All the committees meet regularly and we have been asked to encourage committees not to programme extra meetings during the next few months.

Committee room 5 is available for next Thursday. It is close to the building's front door, so we will be able to get out in a hurry. We will have a short briefing session, rather than a formal meeting. It has been suggested that we have a meeting to deal with the petitions from the National Farmers Union. If we do not do that, we could deal with them at the next meeting, along with that day's business.

I suggest that 29 February would be the best day for that. It looks like we will have a lot of subordinate legislation to deal with at the next meeting on 15 February. By 29 February, we should have got the views of the other committees that are considering the petitions.

What does the committee think about that suggestion?

I think that the Equal Opportunities Committee is due to meet in Stirling on that day.

That is a problem. Another problem might be to do with the petition relating to agrimoney compensation for dairy farmers. Is there a time constraint on applications for agrimoney?

I should point out that we are not the primary committee for that petition.

The European Committee is.

If we meet on 29 February, we will have time to put together the background information that we need and to hear from other committees that are considering the petitions.

We will clear the agenda for the meeting on 29 February, as far as possible, and use most of the time to deal with the petitions.

It has been agreed that we will deal with the next item on the agenda in private.

Meeting continued in private until 16:00.