Rural Affairs Committee, 05 Sep 2000

Meeting date: Tuesday, September 5, 2000

Official Report 139KB pdf

---

Protection of Wild Mammals (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1

Item 2 on the agenda is the Protection of Wild Mammals (Scotland) Bill. We have in front of us some of the written evidence that has been submitted to the committee in the form of letters and presentations. There are 3,080 items in the bundle that we have before us. Those are not the only items that have been submitted; they are those which have been catalogued and listed so far. There are 700 items remaining, which have yet to be catalogued, and that will be done in the not-too-distant future.

We also have before us a substantial bundle of evidence that has been copied for members to read. Members should have a paper with my name on, which covers the position as it stands and makes a suggestion—at item 5—that, in view of the quantity of written material that we have before us, we might consider making no decision immediately on the way in which we want to proceed. We could take two weeks to read and digest the evidence that has been presented to us, after which we could consider in detail how we want to proceed towards the preparation of a stage 1 report on this issue.

Are there any comments on that paper or on anything else that might be relevant?

I have always said that this committee should give due weight to all the evidence that has been presented to us. I am on record as saying that, and I have always felt that. However, having seen much of the written evidence that has been forwarded to us by the clerks and having read the bill and considered its general principles as presented to us and not as they might be amended, I think that, with due respect to Mike Watson, who has lodged the bill, it is not competent in its present form.

The bill is not competent because it is illiberal and it does not hit the targets that Mike Watson said it would hit when he presented the bill to us in April. It hits many more targets than was intended. Considering the evidence that we have received would be a waste of the committee's time, given that it is clear that the bill is not competent. Rather than put consideration back two weeks, as you suggest in your paper, convener, the bill is so badly structured that we should move straight to setting a date for reaching our conclusions on the evidence. The bill is so bad that any further oral evidence would be a complete waste of our time. Rather than postpone this further, we should set a date when we can produce a report to recommend to the Parliament not to approve the bill.

I am more inclined to go along with the convener's suggestion that we spend more time considering the evidence that has been submitted to us. I have been reading the tome of documents and was halfway through section O when the train pulled into the station this morning, which means that I have yet to read about a quarter of the written evidence. Many organisations have put a lot of work into compiling evidence. I would like to have the opportunity to read through and cogitate on it before we decide how to progress.

I support your recommendation, convener. As Mike Rumbles suggests, it is not a case of our taking extra evidence. We are not deciding either to waste or to usefully employ anyone's time by bringing them in front of the committee. However, certain members have indicated that they want to spend more time considering the evidence that has already been submitted. It would be discourteous to the people who have submitted evidence if committee members do not have enough time to weigh the arguments from both sides. For the sake of a fortnight, we should support the convener's recommendation.

I also support the recommendation. The use of the word "illiberal" by Mike Rumbles is entirely subjective. He is entitled to that point of view, but it is not a waste of the committee's time to consider more than 3,000 submissions. Surely we are here to consider the submissions and, as Alasdair Morgan said, we should have the courtesy to do so.

As I am sure you will be aware, I agree with much of what Mike Rumbles says. When Mike Watson originally put his bill to the committee I invited him to withdraw it, very much on the grounds that Mike Rumbles has just stated. That invitation has not yet been taken up, and I do not suppose that it will be at this stage.

However, Mike Rumbles said, quite rightly, that people have gone to a lot of trouble. We have always said—and I agree—that we must give as much weight as possible to everybody's evidence. Some 4,000 people have taken the trouble, uninvited, to write in on the issue. It is incumbent on the committee to give that evidence as much respect as we can. For that reason I agree that we should give the matter a fortnight's grace. We have had the papers in our hands for only eight or nine days. It is right that we should have another fortnight to study them properly.

If there are no further comments, and considering the views that have been expressed, I propose, as the paper suggests, that we take a fortnight, during which committee members will have the opportunity to read in detail the written submissions that have been copied to them. They will also have available to them a summary of the contents of the 3,080 items that are before us, in addition to the 700 that are still to be processed. The originals of those documents will be made available in the Scottish Parliament information centre, so that at any time anyone can see or use them. We will discuss all the issues surrounding the bill at the committee meeting in two weeks' time and decide at that point how we wish to proceed.

Do members agree?

Members indicated agreement.