Ministerial Responsibilities
As members will be aware from the papers that were circulated, I have received correspondence from Robin Harper on the change in ministerial portfolios.
It would be appropriate for the committee at least to make some observations about our relationship to the new set-up and for me to express my concerns.
I feel deeply that we should have had a dedicated environment minister from the start. The fact that Sarah Boyack, as Minister for Transport and the Environment, did not have a junior minister was not the best of starts. Despite that, she did extremely well.
The move that gave Sam Galbraith responsibility for the environment with a junior minister, although he had other responsibilities too, was at least some progress. However, I have grave concerns about the new set-up. My comments are not meant to be any reflection on Ross Finnie's commitment to his job, which is absolute. Irrespective of the current grave problems that are faced in agriculture, to combine environment and agriculture responsibilities is, if you like, to have prosecuting and defending counsel doing the same job. Agriculture is, and will be for a considerable time, a major polluter of the rural environment. To have one person in charge of both environment and agriculture—and now, I believe, water—is an unconscionable way to proceed. That is not a rational way to look after Scotland's environment and to arrange ministerial responsibilities.
Obviously, for individual ministers, there are issues about work loads. Those aside, the potential conflict of interest that arises from the amalgamation of rural development with environment and water responsibilities gives me the greatest concern. It has been well known for years that there has been a drive at Westminster to separate the environment—or indeed consumer protection—from issues that are dealt with by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.
In this case, we seem to be moving in a direction that is against the natural trend. We have real problems in various areas; for example, we must tackle such issues as salmon fishing and the potential pollution of our lochs, and organophosphates and the conflict between the farmers' needs and the impact on wildlife. Indeed, that latter problem touches on a number of areas such as raptors and hedgerows.
The issue of genetically modified foods is already in Ross Finnie's basket. I have always been concerned at the way that he has pushed that matter with his agricultural and rural development hat on, while there has been no one to champion the environmental aspects. However, wider issues of conflict are bound to crop up soon. For example, the common agricultural policy review and the common fisheries policy review are both under way in Europe at the same time as meetings of working groups such as the European Union high-level working party on environment and development, which officials are required to attend to deal with environmental issues. The question is, does the Minister for Transport and Planning or Ross Finnie, with his general responsibility for the environment, attend those meetings? Furthermore, who chooses which officials beneath the ministers should attend?
Is it within the committee's remit to write to the Executive asking it to review its decision? The difficulty that we will face in interrelating with the ministers can be overcome, as it is an administrative matter, but we must resolve the real issue of conflict of interests.
I share some of Robin Harper's concerns. I have always felt that the ideal link was between the transport and environment portfolios, which after all is this committee's area of responsibility. However, we must be careful not to overstate potential conflicts of interest; such conflicts have existed in the way that portfolios were set up in the past. For example, transport companies are just as much polluters as those who are involved in agriculture. Furthermore, in Westminster, we have the Department for Environment, Transport and the Regions. It is the minister's job to balance such portfolios.
Environmental issues figure largely in many different areas for which the Executive is responsible and must be taken into account in any industrial, transport and agricultural policy. Ministers must ensure that any environmental concerns or requirements are given due consideration.
That said, we could seek further clarification from the Executive about individual ministers' specific responsibilities. As the committee is responsible for issues ranging from transport and planning to the environment and renewable energy, we need to find out which minister is responsible for which area. However, it is not our role to comment directly on how the Executive splits the various portfolios.
I agree with many of Bristow Muldoon's comments. Obviously, there was room for conflict when transport and the environment were in the same department, but creating a separate department for the environment would make it seem as though it was separate from other developments. Environmental concerns should be totally cross-cutting, particularly in rural development, with all the moves that are being made towards eco-farming, eco-tourism and cultural tourism. In addition, the new CAP seems to be moving away from traditional support for traditional farming towards support for environmental projects. As a result, there is a strong link between rural development and the environment, and I am not unhappy that those portfolios have been merged.
Potential conflicts of interest exist. There could have been a conflict between transport and the environment, but when Sarah Boyack had both portfolios, she dealt with the development department on transport and planning issues and the environment department—which is part of the Scottish Executive rural affairs department—on environmental matters. With Ross Finnie's new portfolio, he is dealing with different divisions within the one department. As a result, the minister faces the difficult task of separating out the two sets of interests and resolving any conflict.
Bringing together environment and rural development is neither the best nor the most natural combination of ministries. It is quite remarkable to think that just a month ago, four ministers were dealing with rural development and the environment; now we have only two. Those matters seem to rise and fall like some kind of soufflé.
I agree that it is up to Henry McLeish to balance his ministerial team and allocate responsibilities, but we are entitled to our opinion, which is implicit in the fact that even when the transport and the environment portfolios were separated at first, no member of the committee suggested that we should have a separate transport committee and environment committee. However, the whole idea behind subject committees in the Parliament was to shadow ministerial briefs. We have chosen to keep the committee remit intact and I assume that we will defend it, which implies that our view of the situation is different from Henry McLeish's. In the unlikely circumstance that I were ever the First Minister, I would consider transport and the environment a better marrying of portfolios than environment and rural development.
Robin Harper made a valid point. Part of the reason for Sarah Boyack coming in for a lot of criticism was because she was a minister on her own in charge of everything. Now she has much less than her initial brief and a junior minister to share the work load, which is a remarkable reworking of circumstances. I rather suspect that, if she had had a junior minister in the first place, many of the criticisms of overload and overwork would not have been made and the whole episode would have been more of a success story for everyone. Although I think that the Executive has got it wrong, I do not know what else we can do but pass an opinion.
Before I invite Robin Harper to sum up, I will try to bring together some of the committee's views. We can make our views on the matter known to the First Minister, but obviously we have no jurisdiction over how he allocates portfolios. As Bristow Muldoon pointed out, we must establish our position in relation to specific aspects of each portfolio, because we must ensure that we are content with the information that we have already gleaned on issues such as the sustainable energy policy and the water portfolio.
I share members' concerns that there are potential conflicts in bringing environment and rural development together, although such conflicts existed when one minister was in charge of transport and the environment. That said, since the committee was formed, we have always felt that there was a balance to the transport and environment portfolios that we could work with. We always felt that the then Transport and the Environment Minister, who was doing a sterling job, required support. As a result, we might now have lost some focus on the environment. Although different channels of conflict have been opened up, we must ensure that our views reflect the fact that conflicts existed before. Both the Parliament and committee members have also expressed a short-term concern about work load.
We should take a fairly light touch in any correspondence with the First Minister, as it is his job to allocate responsibilities, but we should state that we are all in favour of the committee's integrity with regard to transport and the environment. We want to reduce the risk of any possible conflicts, and I am sure that the First Minister can address those himself. Finally, we can express our concerns about loss of focus, potential conflicts and work load. As long as we do that in a proper manner, I hope for a positive response from the First Minister. I have tried to include the various views that have been expressed. We must remember our position as a committee and Mr McLeish's position as First Minister and respect both those roles.
I will have one last bite of the cherry.
The points that were made by Maureen Macmillan and Bristow Muldoon underlined the argument for a dedicated environment minister; they did not do anything to weaken it.
On the move to more ecologically friendly ways of managing our countryside through the CAP, what Maureen Macmillan said was based on hope rather than on the current situation.
My final point, which has been echoed in many of the letters and phone calls that I have received, concerns access to ministers. When Ross Finnie is in charge of agriculture, rural affairs, environment and water, how will people from outside have access to him? The queue at his door will stretch halfway down the corridor.
Ross Finnie has a deputy minister.
So there will be two queues.
I am less inclined to the view that Robin Harper expressed in his final point than to what was said previously. Every minister suffers from that problem in some shape or form, whether they have a single brief with multifarious aspects underneath it or the more widely spread brief that some ministers have now.
I think that that final point would weaken our argument. I seek guidance from the committee, but I think that if we stick to the issues that we discussed previously, we will cover more succinctly the points that members have raised.
The approach that the convener has outlined gives us a constructive way forward that would allow us to put on record, sensitively, the committee's feelings on the matter. That is what we need to do. We can record in correspondence with the First Minister that, as the convener outlined, there are concerns; I could use different language, but I am trying to be careful. As the Transport and the Environment Committee, it is our responsibility—in fact, our duty—to do just that.
If members are content, I suggest that I prepare a draft, e-mail it round to get members' comments, then send off the letter. I will do that to a strict timetable to ensure that we are able to have input. Robin Harper wrote to me almost immediately that the new ministerial responsibilities were announced, but unfortunately, because of the way that business had been organised, I had to wait until today to get the matter on our agenda.
I hope that we can reflect the committee's views appropriately and we will proceed on that basis.