Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment Committee

Meeting date: Wednesday, June 5, 2013

Official Report 413KB pdf

---

Annual Report

Agenda item 3 is consideration of our annual report for the parliamentary year 11 May 2012 to 10 May 2013. I refer members to the paper provided, which I intend to go through page by page.

Are there any comments or suggested alterations on page 1 of the draft annual report, which contains the introduction and refers to legislation with which we have dealt?

As members know, we are still in public so, if anyone has any comments, they will be on the record. That is why members are all so quiet.

I do not have a problem with the content, but I just wondered whether the word “twitter” should have a capital T.

Those are the kinds of questions that we should be asking. I think that it should have a capital T.

There is some more about legislation and subordinate legislation on page 2, followed by inquiries and evidence-taking sessions, which spill over on to page 3.

I have a comment on paragraph 16, at the bottom of page 2. I reported back to the committee on my visit, so it would be useful to add, “and reported several points to the committee”.

We can frame that accordingly.

At the bottom of page 3, and continuing on page 4, is a list of the petitions that we have looked at, some of which are open and one of which was closed.

On page 4, are members happy with what is said about engagement and innovation and about equalities?

I wonder to what extent our responsibilities as a committee in relation to the nine protected characteristics are clearly identified in the report. We discussed them in relation to the budget, but to what extent are they identified in relation to our brief for rural Scotland?

Can you suggest where something could possibly be inserted?

I just wonder whether there might be some identification of issues that have come up in relation to the characteristics. If we mentioned things that have arisen during the year, that would make our report a little more robust.

Can we think of any practical examples?

If we consider some of the protected characteristics—such as disability, age and gender—it might help other committee members to think about how we have looked at those issues, which we have a responsibility to do.

Nobody else is saying anything, although they are welcome to.

I absolutely understand where Claudia Beamish is coming from, but in such a report, and given the committee’s remit and the obligations that we have to fulfil, attention should be drawn only if we significantly fail to pay due attention to something that is in our remit, rather than highlighting every example of where we do not fail. Given that we are expected to comply with all the equality measures, it should be taken as read that we do so, unless somebody wishes to point out an instance in which we have not done so. I would find it more helpful if we took that approach, rather than highlighting compliance with the measures. The report should be left the way it is. I am open to argument, but that is where I come from.

I understand what Alex Fergusson says but, as there is an obligation on us, I do not agree that our compliance should just be taken as read. The committee needs to check whether it has looked at the nine protected characteristics, because we have an obligation under the Equality Act 2010.

The annual report is about what we have done, so we should not look to add to it unless there is something very significant to add. I take Alex Fergusson’s point. If we felt that we had been negligent, I am sure that we would be able to bring that up. We are trying to ensure that we perform correctly on equalities and, if we have not done so, members should draw that to our attention at the appropriate time.

I tend to agree with Alex Fergusson. If we look through the whole report, including the good work done by Mr Hume on our behalf—I am sure that he is not listening to me—we can see that it has been an exciting year, given all the bills that we have considered and the visits that we have made. Unfortunately, I could not do some of the visits, although I went on the first one.

I take Claudia Beamish’s point, but I would like her to highlight exactly what she wants added to the report. It is an excellent report, which shows how well the committee has worked in the past year. I compliment you, convener, on your stewardship, and my fellow members on the work that they have done.

That is kind of you.

We cannot add to the report unless we have specific examples of what Claudia Beamish mentioned in relation to the nine protected characteristics, so we should leave it as it is at the moment. We should bear it in mind for the future that, when we come to the annual report, we should say what we have done. There has been no instance in the past year when we have raised an issue that would have breached our equalities obligations. If members are aware of any such instances, members should bring them up as we go along, so that they can be noted.

On a completely different point, my arithmetic might be wrong, but paragraph 30 on page 5 states:

“The Committee met 33 times during the Parliamentary year. Of these meetings, 2 were ... in private and 21 were partly in private.”

Twenty-one plus two makes 23, so there must be some mistake.

The rest of the meetings were totally in public.

Okay. Maybe that should be highlighted.

We can get that spelled out clearly.

If members have no other comments on pages 4 and 5, do we agree to the draft annual report, as slightly amended?

Members indicated agreement.

11:56 Meeting continued in private until 12:24.