Work Programme
The purpose of this agenda item is to follow up the discussion that took place at our away day on 14 August and formally to agree the committee's work programme for the next year or so. Members have a note of the issues that were discussed at the away day. The paper contains other points about our future workload, which are up for discussion.
Sarah Boyack was unable to attend the away day, so she has had no opportunity to express a view. With the committee's indulgence, I will allow her to comment first, so that her contribution can be recorded.
Thank you. It is obvious from the paper that the committee had a good discussion at its away day. It is interesting how different strands have emerged.
I strongly support the committee's agreement to give priority to flooding and flood management, which is important. The one issue that I would add to the scoping discussion that members had at the away day is coastal flood management. I am aware of the issue because sea level rises came up in the climate change study that was conducted by the committee in the previous session. I know from past experience as a town planner about the impact of sea level rises, particularly in the Clyde and Forth estuaries. We are not geared up for them in respect of legislation, financial support or policy, which is why we need to do work on flooding. The problem goes back to the 1960s, and it would be good to take a fresh look at it. I would add that issue to the committee's agenda.
I was disappointed that two issues that I raised previously and which were mentioned in submissions from organisations and members of the public are not on our agenda. First, eight others suggested that we should pick up the issue of local food. I noticed that two local authorities, the Scottish Agricultural Organisation Society, the Scottish Rural Property and Business Association and WWF Scotland raised the issue, so there is a degree of support for work to be done on it. Secondly, I noticed that one authority, the British Horse Society, the Loch Tay Association and Ramblers Scotland raised concerns about the implementation of the access code. I log those as issues that I would like the committee to consider at some point in the year, but I take the committee's point that it cannot do everything. That is a reasonable conclusion, which I cannot dispute. I would have raised those three issues had I been at the away day.
At the committee's first meeting, the use of reporters was discussed. Is that a way to pick up additional issues throughout the year? I would lobby for us to consider land reform and local food. There is some support outside the committee for them to be considered, and initially there was interest on the committee in doing so. I strongly support the work that the committee has done and I agree with the outline work programme that the convener has produced as a suggested way forward. I have outlined my minor suggested amendments.
Thank you.
Of course, at the away day we discussed both food policy and land reform. If I am not misrepresenting the discussion on food policy, it was decided that because there was relatively broad agreement across the board on taking the issue forward, and given that a number of groups were pursuing parallel courses of interest, it would probably be surplus to requirements for us to conduct a major inquiry at this stage, although that is not ruled out for specific aspects of food policy at a future date. John Scott, who is one of the members interested in food policy, may wish to contribute at some point, but not just yet.
There was also a brief discussion on land reform. It was felt that it could be premature to launch major post-legislative scrutiny, but we did not rule it out and we said that we would want to come back to it. We are thinking of it being a fairly major piece of work.
We made a strong distinction between major pieces of work and smaller pieces of work. We discussed the possibility of having much smaller-scale investigations, perhaps over one or two meetings. Three specific issues that may be handled in such a way were raised and are noted in the work programme paper: the role of the Crown Estate, the applicability of the Scottish index of multiple deprivation to rural areas, and ticks and tick-borne diseases. We did not make a decision about priorities or timing, but noted that those three issues are amenable to shorter-scale consideration by the committee.
I anticipate that members will wish to raise similar issues that could be addressed in the same way—I have one myself and I know that at least one other member also wishes to contribute one. I will not ask for additions to that list at the moment, but I advise that the best thing to do is immediately to notify the clerks of such issues, because we intend to have regular update discussions on the work programme in the months ahead. We will return to this topic, because we will want to adjust our work programme. Emergency issues might also arise, for which we will want to find time.
I think that I speak for the committee when I say that we take on board the suggestion about coastal flooding. I also have a point about the flooding inquiry. I am sorry that I am speaking for such a long time, but we need to address a process issue: members might be aware that the Executive has called a major flooding summit for next Monday, 10 September. As the Executive is moving quickly on the matter, the committee could issue a call for evidence today. However, as we are not fully aware of where the Executive is going with flooding, that might be a little premature. It might be wise for us to defer that call until our next meeting. What the Executive says or does not say might allow us to clarify more usefully how we want to focus our inquiry or, indeed, whether we wish to invert the order of the inquiries and start with rural housing as opposed to flooding. I throw out those issues to the committee.
I am aware that I have spoken for longer than a convener should in such circumstances, but background issues needed to be on the record. John Scott wishes to speak, followed by Peter Peacock. I invite other members to indicate whether they wish to speak.
I will endeavour to be as brief as I can. I agree absolutely with Sarah Boyack's point on coastal flooding management and, indeed, I believed that it would be part of our remit. However, I am apprehensive that there will be so much duplication between us and the Executive. I do not know what the answer is, but I am slightly apprehensive that we will ask the same witnesses and experts to do the same thing and that our inquiries will probably run in parallel. At least, that is my concern.
Sarah Boyack spoke about the promotion of local food. My view—which I believe others support—is that the development of local food is not a problem and it is already happening. Multistranded approaches are being developed by people with different ideas, which is incredibly positive. I am content with the current situation. I regard the development of local food production as a baton for people to take up and run with positively. The committee should use its time to prioritise problem areas for the wider population of rural Scotland.
My final point is about the Scottish Agricultural Wages Board. Although we did not put it in the paper from our away day because it did not find favour with many members during our discussions, the board's lack of support for the industry is a genuine problem. The industry is not trying to do down its agricultural workforce. I have been a long-term supporter of the board, until recently. Now that there is a minimum wage, however, I no longer see a need for the board. I mention that as a matter to which we might return in due course.
I assumed that that matter would be subsumed into the agricultural regulation inquiry. I might be wrong, but it was my assumption that we would examine it.
In that case, I am happy—I had not thought of that.
We had a useful discussion at our away day in Dunkeld. There was not much disagreement about the proposed work programme, which is always beneficial.
Flooding is such a big issue for Scotland that we must give it some attention, notwithstanding what the Executive is doing. I hope to pop in to the flooding summit meeting next week; I think that you hope to do that, too, convener. The summit is the start of an Executive process, but Parliament has a role in exposing and airing the issues in public in a way that the Executive would find it difficult to do. The summit could not compare with an inquiry by this committee over several months.
We need to expose to public scrutiny people's experiences of flooding throughout Scotland and what is happening to our climate by way of rainfall changes, so that people understand the issue better. At another level, we also need to expose how well regulation and current legislation is working, and how our local authorities and others perform on flood management. We must consider a range of issues. For example, is the current budget for flood protection measures adequate?
Flooding affects all parts of Scotland. I reflected yesterday on a report on my own area in the Highlands and Islands. There have been major flooding incidents on the east coast in the past couple of years—and before—in Inverness, Elgin, Rothes and Forres. East Sutherland has also been badly affected by flooding incidents, as has Easter Ross and the Black Isle. There was also a major flooding incident in Dingwall about a year ago. On the west coast, the community of Coull, next to Fort William, has been affected by coastal and other forms of flooding. In the north, Thurso has been affected by flooding, as has Kirkwall in the Orkney Islands.
Many communities out there have a lot of experience of flooding and they are anxious and fearful about what might happen in the future. Because of the weather that we have had this summer, the water table in Scotland is extremely high, as everybody knows, which means that the potential for flooding this winter will probably be even greater than normal, because the land cannot cope with much more water, given how much is already in it.
For all those reasons, we should give attention to the issue of flooding. I have no problem with your suggestion, convener, about deciding on the fine detail of our call for evidence once we see what the Executive is focusing on. However, we should not be put off doing our job as a Parliament in scrutinising and exposing to public glare the important issues.
I will pick up quickly on some other points. On the Crown Estate, I wonder whether it would be worth while taking evidence in the near future, from one or two people at the most. I alluded previously to the report that was commissioned by the local authorities in the Highlands and Islands and by Highlands and Islands Enterprise, which are serious organisations. The issue of the Crown Estate will rattle around out there and it will come to ministers. We should inform ourselves about the issues involved.
Pages 5 and 6 of our work programme paper legitimately list agencies that are of relevance to our potential work. However, the Crown Estate is not listed, although it is relevant to our work. We should find out a bit more about it, but that would not require a big inquiry at this stage. We should just inform ourselves, then decide what we want to do.
Paragraph 12 of our work programme paper is about fishing, and the clerks have recorded that we could hear evidence from the Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs and the Environment—I agree with that—and perhaps from others. However, I would definitely like to hear evidence from others. Prior to hearing from the minister, we need to hear evidence about fishing stocks and the science involved. I hope that we can firm up slightly the proposal in paragraph 12.
Following on from what Sarah Boyack said about coastal management, in paragraph 18 we should add to the list of bullet points the need to examine water catchment management. We must consider how changes that take place upstream in the water, hills and uplands can affect flooding and flood management. Finally, I hope that we can add to the bullet points in paragraph 20 a specific point about planning guidance and its impact on rural housing.
Subject to what I have said, I think that we have a good work programme. I hope that, for the reasons that I have set out, we can proceed with flooding as a major theme.
I have a final thought, which is on green spaces in an urban context. We have a rural focus in this committee, but we are also an environment committee in the wider sense. We need to keep sight of and at some point address issues around green spaces in urban Scotland.
Are you suggesting that as a subject for one of the smaller-scale investigations?
Perhaps we can inform ourselves at some point about the issues involved. I am not making a specific proposal for an inquiry.
I can advise you that we are aware of the report on the Crown Estate and have formally asked for copies of it for the committee. Once we receive it, we can decide whether we want to examine the issue more closely.
Paragraph 12 in our paper relates to the fisheries council. I think that I am right in saying that we have pencilled in two meetings on that, so it would be possible to do what you suggest.
I was not suggesting that we should not do a flooding inquiry; I was merely saying that, given that it looks as if the Executive will take a fair bit of action on flooding, we could start the rural housing inquiry now and begin the flooding inquiry in November/December—in other words, we could invert the proposed order of those inquiries. That is as far as I was going; I was not saying that we should not do the flooding inquiry. It would be equally valid to wait until the next committee meeting to make a final, more focused decision.
Just for the record, I support doing the inquiry into flooding, ahead of the inquiry into rural housing.
I support what Peter Peacock said about the Crown Estate, which is often missed off lists and has been missed off our list of inquiry topics. We must ensure that we examine the issue.
Examining green spaces in urban areas is a good idea, and we should do it.
None of us is short of good ideas. I have one of my own. Now that the waste electrical and electronic equipment directive is in force, I have become aware of issues to do with its practical implementation that have arisen in my constituency. Our difficulty is not coming up with good ideas; it is prioritising them and working out the best way to proceed with them. I remind committee members that this year we have a big opportunity in that we have the space and time in our work programme to examine a variety of topics. Not all the work that we do has to take the form of a nine-month or a 12-month inquiry. We have had a useful discussion of subject matter.
I want to pick up on Sarah Boyack's comment on the use of reporters. We discussed a variety of working methods at the away day and we anticipate using all the potential methods, including the use of reporters, as and when appropriate. That will be for the committee to decide as we discuss specific issues.
Our predecessor committee did not use reporters at all over the past four years. In the Parliament's first four-year session, the Transport and the Environment Committee used reporters to investigate subjects such as Caledonian MacBrayne. Given that it looks as if, in the short term, we will not have an Executive bill to deal with, it would be a good idea to consider a different hierarchy for approaching issues. As well as holding major inquiries, we can use reporters and hold evidence sessions. We should think about the use of reporters when we finally approve our work programme in a few weeks' time.
I do not know whether now is the appropriate time to raise the matter, but it would be helpful if we could get on with appointing a budget adviser for when we conduct our scrutiny of the budget.
We will discuss that, but at the moment we are just talking about the subject options.
I should flag up that rural housing involves overlapping remits. The Conveners Group away day was on Monday but, unfortunately, the convener of the other committee concerned was not there, so I was not able to have a conversation about our intentions. We will need to have such a conversation, although it will not preclude our doing an inquiry on rural housing. Such conversations will be necessary because a number of the issues that we want to tackle might form part of the remits of other committees.
Do members agree to the work priorities for the remainder of the current parliamentary year as laid out in our paper, which include three major inquiries?
Members indicated agreement.
We must agree a remit and programme for the conduct of our first inquiry, which we have agreed will be on flooding. I suggest that we should have a scoping paper prepared for the next meeting, which should take on board current Executive initiatives. That will give us a much clearer idea of how the Executive is approaching the arguments and how it intends to handle matters, which will help us to ensure that, although some of our discussions may take place in parallel, we do not end up simply doing the same work side by side.
If you were thinking that the flooding and rural housing inquiries might be switched round, should we not get scoping papers prepared on both topics? Otherwise—if we do decide to switch them—we would need to delay by another meeting.
No—we have just agreed that we are sticking with that order: flooding, then housing.
Sorry—I misunderstood.
We have agreed that we will go ahead with a flooding inquiry first. We will have to get a scoping paper for our meeting on 19 September.
Having said that, with the committee's agreement, we will begin preparatory work on the rural housing inquiry so that, when we come to make the formal call for evidence at the end of the year, we can take an informed view. We will return to general work programme and review issues on a regular basis.
The scrutiny of relevant annual reports is covered in paragraphs 24 to 29 of the work programme paper. I invite members to consider whether they wish to make that a specific agenda item when annual reports by relevant non-departmental public bodies and Executive agencies are published. Do we want that to be an item on our agenda, or do committee members wish simply to be alerted when annual reports are published? I am in the hands of the committee. Members might feel that the annual reports of some bodies ought to be placed on our agenda automatically, whereas others do not require to be. It is not an all-or-nothing approach. Some organisations might fall into one category; others might fall into the other.
Might it be possible to leave it for now but, if a member wishes to raise an issue regarding a report, they can ask to have it put on the agenda?
Are we content with that approach? We should clear our approaches to such matters now, so that we do not get ourselves into difficulties as we go along.
Petitions are not mentioned in the work programme paper, but I invite members' views on how we should consider them; should we include petitions on our agendas periodically—for example, quarterly—rather than whenever they are referred? I have experience of the former way of doing it, which works extremely well. Some committees have moved to that system. I strongly recommend that approach, but I am in the committee's hands.
Members indicated agreement.
We will deal with petitions on a grouped basis and the relevant meetings will have a long petitions item on the agenda.
Mike Rumbles asked about a budget adviser. I seek views on whether the committee should appoint a budget adviser. The Finance Committee assumes that subject committees that scrutinise big-spending departments will appoint advisers. It does not expect every subject committee to have a budget adviser, but it strongly encourages such an approach as it wishes to achieve greater co-ordination in committees' work on the budget.
I can also advise members that the Finance Committee hopes and recommends that committees will mainstream financial scrutiny in their round-the-year inquiries. That would be a new thing for committees, which have generally concentrated their inquiries on policy issues. There are therefore questions about the budget advice that we might require throughout the year. We will perhaps need to come back to that.
It is for us to decide whether to appoint a budget adviser for this year. I understand that five committees have already agreed to appoint budget advisers. The only other committee that has not yet done so is the Local Government and Communities Committee, although it might have done so by now.
Yes.
We do not know for certain—that committee has not yet made a formal decision on the matter.
I seek an indication rather than a vote, but are members generally in favour of appointing a budget adviser?
Members indicated agreement.
In that case, we need clarity on what we envisage the role would be and what expertise is considered to be most important. For example, would we prefer someone with a public finance or accountancy background or somebody with a working familiarity with the relevant sector, in the way that there are health economists? Such a person would perhaps be better than those who are more generally financially qualified.
I was on the Rural Development Committee in the first session of Parliament and I am now on the equivalent committee in the third session. In those days, we had a real problem with the cross-cutting nature of the department, because the figures were all over the place. We need an adviser who has expertise in pulling together the different strands of the budget. I do not have anybody in mind, but it would be good if the clerks could find somebody with that ability who knows something about rural affairs. We do not simply need a person who is good at finance; we need someone who knows the subject.
They should also know about the support systems that are involved in the rural affairs budget.
I am advised by the clerk that the Finance Committee's adviser, Professor David Bell from the University of Stirling, can provide general economic expertise, so we might be better to focus on a subject expert. Do members agree that we should go for someone who has subject familiarity rather than simply financial knowledge?
Absolutely.
In my experience, few people can marry policy awareness with financial skill, but that is what we really need. The budget exercise is technical, so we need somebody who can strip out the figures.
I know that it is a tall order.
It is difficult, but there must be people who fit. I presume that the Finance Committee has a list of advisers who might be available.
There is an adviser database to which we can refer, although I am not sure whether it will throw up enough names to allow us to make an informed choice.
I agree that we need to have somebody who understands rural affairs and the rural economy, but with the qualification that they must also be able to count.
There are health economists, which is the kind of person we need. We need a rural economist, if we can find such a person.
We need to have a discussion about structuring our budget scrutiny. Two specific ideas were proposed at the committee's away day: Mike Rumbles raised issues about the scrutiny of the budget that was announced towards the end of May 2007—he believes that he has identified a missing £400-and-something million—and, secondly, that we examine the new entrants scheme. However, we should do a bit more than that, as that would be an extremely narrow approach, so we need to have a brief discussion about a further focus for the budget scrutiny, as that will help us when it comes to finding a budget adviser. Do members have any comments on that? If not, those two issues will be taken on board and we will end up making up something behind the scenes.
I have a point about the difficulty of complying with the desire that we mainstream budgetary considerations into our work. If we are expected to do that, we may need an adviser more regularly. From my experience, committees tend to develop familiarity with and, one hopes, respect for one person, or perhaps two people. If we are to mainstream budgetary considerations into our work, perhaps we should incorporate that into the job specification in case we need to call on an adviser.
The first I heard of the mainstreaming notion was at the Conveners Group away day on Monday. I think that conveners will have to discuss the matter further, for the reason that you give, which was immediately identified as an issue on Monday. If we are to mainstream budgetary considerations, we must have budget advice all year round, which has implications for committee budgets. We must proceed on the basis of this year's budget scrutiny, but mainstreaming must be addressed.
Mike Rumbles was right when he talked about what we should consider as part of our budget scrutiny. If we stick to the two issues that have been identified, our focus will be quite narrow. We should consider the issue from the outside, given that organisations comment on the budget and how departments work. There are two key areas. First, what discretion is there in the system for ministers—as opposed to what ministers must do? Also, given this committee's business, what discretion exists around European funding and how does that relate to domestic funding? That is a crucial area that we need to understand.
Secondly, we need to understand more about the nature of the total spend. How much is underspent each year, and how much is potentially available for a variety of uses? We should consider the overall pattern of spending, whether the department targets spending effectively, and what discretion ministers have.
That is useful. The approach would give the committee a clearer basis for approaching financial scrutiny all year round.
I have never been involved in budget scrutiny, so my points might be way off the ball. I suggest two areas of interest. If we are to examine flooding, we should consider current commitments and expenditure on flooding—I do not know whether there are current budgetary commitments in that regard.
That issue will be subsumed into our inquiry into flooding rather than included in separate budget scrutiny, although we could flag it up in our budget scrutiny. You have given us a prime example of how we can mainstream financial scrutiny into a year-round inquiry.
That is fine, then. The other issue that I wanted to raise is equality in rural housing, which could be included in our inquiry into rural housing, on the same basis.
Yes. I am not sure whether we have identified two extra strands for our budget scrutiny. We are talking about quite broad consideration of the budget, so we will not necessarily seek an adviser who has expertise in agriculture. We need someone who can stand back and consider the budget headings in several areas—in effect, a rural affairs economist. We need flexibility across the board.
Our discussion has been helpful in enabling us to arrive at such decisions. We have agreed to try to find a budget adviser who will assist us on the basis that we have discussed.
What is the process for appointing a budget adviser? Will the clerks draw up a shortlist and check people's availability? Will we choose our adviser?
There is a process. We will work with the Scottish Parliament information centre, which has a role in the process. There is a database of people who put their names forward as prospective advisers, but we can look more broadly and base our search on the indications that the committee has given. We will try to identify suitable names as quickly as possible. The committee must then endorse an appointment.
We will try to expedite the process.
I thank everyone who contributed to the away day. Members who attended will remember that we received presentations from a number of people, who took time to speak to us and help to inform our work during the coming year. We are extremely grateful.
On the scrutiny of annual reports from NDPBs, I reiterate that we can exclude some reports, which will fall into the remit of other committees. For example, we do not expect to scrutinise reports from Audit Scotland—the Audit Committee will do that—or to carry out overall scrutiny of European Union matters, although we will do work on individual EU issues. EU scrutiny is undergoing changes because of recent changes to how committees operate. We will have access to a European officer and regular Euro-bulletins will be provided—as of this month, I think—which will flag up various matters. A process is proposed, which is similar to the petitions process, whereby the clerks will prepare relevant updates quarterly. The aim is to raise issues at an early stage so that we do not find that we know nothing about a matter until it appears in the form of a directive—which has, unfortunately, happened in the past.
We have agreed a forward work programme. If members are happy, we will proceed on that basis. I remind members that the work programme will reappear on the agenda fairly regularly, so we will come back to it and adjust it as needs must.
The committee's next meeting will take place on Wednesday 19 September at 10 am.
Meeting closed at 11:46.