Work Programme
We move on to item 7. I regret that members received only yesterday the paper in my name on the work programme. Members are indicating that they have had a chance to glimpse at the paper.
Essentially, the heavier-printed sections of the paper are the recommendations. I will briefly take members through them. In paragraph 3, I recommend
"that the Rural Development Committee agrees to make integrated rural development central to its work in 2002. There are two ways in which this theme may be pursued: firstly, it will help the Committee prioritise those subjects which have the greatest long term impact on rural communities; and secondly it may form the basis of a significant inquiry in its own right."
Paragraph 6 makes the suggestion that
"A report should initially be prepared for the Committee's work programme reporters, with a view to the Committee being able to spend time in December considering the options to include:
relevant projects that it may be useful to visit in 2002, and
lines of inquiry for the Committee to consider on pursuing the theme",
which is the theme of integrated rural development. The other option to be considered is
"methods of pursuing the theme (for example: site visits, commissioned research project, civic participation work, etc.)".
Paragraph 9 concerns closer working relations with other committees, communities and institutions:
"I recommend that work programme reporters should consider the mechanisms that might be used to enable the committee to have closer contacts with rural communities, other Committees of the Parliament and the European Community."
That would be a huge commitment, which would require some discussion.
Under other commitments, I have suggested that the committee should agree
"to consider the Land Reform Bill after completing work on the Protection of Wild Mammals (Scotland) Bill and the Fur Farming Bill."
I understand that the fur farming bill will be introduced at some stage, but that it should not take up a huge amount of our work load.
Under secondary legislation, I ask that the committee agrees
"that I should seek the endorsement of the Conveners' Liaison Group and the consent of the Parliamentary Bureau to hold a meeting for this purpose in the Loch Lomond area and to visit the Cairngorms area before that National Park designation order is brought before us."
The organisation of the meeting in the Loch Lomond area must be done quickly, because our bid must be submitted by Thursday.
I absolutely agree with your suggestion that we hold a meeting in the Loch Lomond and the Trossachs area, but I would not like us simply to visit the Cairngorms without holding a meeting. We should not treat the one differently from the other. We should have a meeting in the Cairngorms area whenever we can.
Should we meet in the Cairngorms before the designation order is laid?
Yes. The time scale would be good.
I am not against that. We could possibly leave that bid for the CLG's next bidding round, which will be in January. It is highly unlikely that we will get there before January. I am happy with your suggestion. Are members that way inclined?
Would it be useful to hold the meeting in the Cairngorms after the draft designation order is laid, so that we could take evidence from the local community before making our recommendation on the draft order?
I am in broad agreement with Rhoda Grant and Mike Rumbles. The committee should treat both areas in the same way. We are quite a way down the road on the proposed boundaries of the Cairngorms national park. I am concerned that if we wait until January before making a bid to the conveners group, nothing much will happen until it is too late. It is difficult for the clerks to organise such meetings, so cannot we submit a bid now to get the principle agreed and leave the details to be sorted out later?
If members are happy, there is nothing to prevent our submitting a bid for two meetings, one in each national park area. I had been a bit concerned that bids had to be submitted for the quarter to which they referred, but apparently that is not the case. Bids can be carried over from one quarter to the next. If the committee is happy, we will proceed on that basis.
Members indicated agreement.
Paragraph 15 of the paper gives a list of our existing reporters. Richard Lochhead and I were appointed reporters on petition PE138, on Scottish quality beef and lamb assurance. It is probably fair to say that we have not managed to progress matters hugely, although matters have moved on. We will return to that subject in a minute. Elaine Murray, Mike Rumbles and Fergus Ewing and I are grouped as reporters to consider the details of future work programmes. Richard Lochhead is the reporter on the meat inspection service. Rhoda Grant is to monitor progress on amnesic shellfish poisoning.
One of the things that we would like to have much more time to deal with but do not is sea cage fish farming. Members will be aware that the Transport and the Environment Committee has decided to hold a rolling inquiry to monitor and review the work of the Executive in that area. In view of our interest in the area and the lack of time in which to deal with it, I suggest that we appoint a reporter or two to monitor the progress that is being made. Perhaps, however, the committee feels that that would be a waste of time.
It is a sensible idea. Having at least one reporter would be useful and I nominate John Farquhar Munro.
Are you happy with that, John?
Yes.
Are members happy with having John Farquhar Munro as the reporter to the Transport and the Environment Committee?
Members indicated agreement.
We look forward to regular and enlightening reports from you, John.
I am asking the committee to endorse the approach to the future work programme as set out in this paper, which says that we will inquire into integrated rural development as a longer-term priority—when we were on our away day, we all agreed that we want to examine that—consider land reform subject to legislative commitments; follow the work programme for the remainder of 2001, which is described in detail and includes meetings and fact-finding visits outwith Edinburgh; and follow the work programme for 2002-03, which is described in outline.
I broadly support the paper. It is unfortunate that the committee's work programme is almost entirely dominated by pieces of legislation, most notably Mike Watson's Protection of Wild Mammals (Scotland) Bill, which has taken up a tremendous amount of time even though the public feel strongly that we should be considering items of greater priority to Scotland. However, we have a job to do and we must do it.
The paper suggests that we make integrated rural development central to our work. That is a phrase that can mean almost anything one wishes it to mean and it does not significantly aid us in trying to establish a work programme. I would like to establish that, if we agree this paper, it will not preclude our considering important matters that might arise from time to time and which are of concern to a great many people in rural Scotland. If particular problems arise, such as those relating to less-favoured areas payments, forestry policy or salmon farming, I hope that we will not be prevented from dealing with them simply because we have chosen to pursue a general theme of integrated rural development.
Had I thought that that were the case, I can assure Mr Ewing that I would not have allowed my name to be put to the paper: we cannot close ourselves off to issues such as those.
At the risk of causing everyone to reject the paper—because, as you said earlier, convener, everyone disagrees with me—I think that the convener has produced an excellent paper and I fully support it.
I knew that that would have an effect on your further deliberations, Mike. Thank you for your support.
We must remember the commitment that we made at our away day, which is that we want to be proactive rather than reactive.
Do we agree to use the paper as a basis for future consideration?
Members indicated agreement.