Rural Development Committee,

Meeting date: Tuesday, May 8, 2001

Official Report 247KB pdf

---

Work Programme

Item 5 on the agenda is our work programme. The aim is to agree how we will use the remaining weeks before the summer recess, which had been set aside for stage 2 of the Protection of Wild Mammals (Scotland) Bill and discussions on the fur farming bill and land reform, all of which have been delayed as a result of the foot-and-mouth crisis.

First, I seek agreement to the idea that, instead of bringing the work programme regularly to the full committee, we move to a system of appointing reporters. The purpose of that would be to appoint a reporter from the Labour party and a reporter from the Liberal Democrats so that a group of four—including me and Fergus Ewing—can deal with the day-to-day management of the long-term work programme. Do members agree to that proposal?

Members indicated agreement.

We need to appoint people. I have spoken provisionally to Elaine Murray and George Lyon. I ask them whether they would be content to act as reporters.

Dr Murray indicated agreement.

George Lyon indicated agreement.

Are members content that Fergus Ewing and I should act as representatives of the other parties?

Members indicated agreement.

I ask that you bring any decisions back to the committee for agreement.

The idea is that the sub-group will submit papers to the committee.

Will the principle of meeting fortnightly be at the heart of the discussions?

It most likely will be.

The clerk's paper also suggests that the group of reporters submit to the committee a paper on the long-term work programme. It suggests a deadline of 19 June so that we can act on it. Do members agree to that proposal?

Members indicated agreement.

I also ask the committee to agree the proposed dates and outline content of the final three meetings of the committee in the current term. The Scottish Parliament information centre briefing on the agriculture inquiry is shown in brackets as it will take place on 26 June only if the committee has no other urgent business on that day—if the briefing does not take place then, it will be added to the previous week's agenda.

I note that the two-weekly programme that we have set out would mean that we had a meeting on 5 June. Members may wish to avoid that date. I have asked the clerks to ensure that no business is scheduled for that day that cannot be moved to 12 June, should we decide that to be appropriate.

I suggest that it is appropriate.

Are we content to decide now that the meeting that would have been on 5 June should take place on 12 June to fit the programme?

Members indicated agreement.

I ask the committee to agree which petitions we will deal with at that meeting. A table should have been circulated to members. We have various outstanding petitions to deal with.

Which table are you referring to?

The table of petitions.

That was not clear.

Various petitions remain outstanding, particularly petition PE8.

My understanding was that Maureen Macmillan had been appointed by the Transport and the Environment Committee to do some further work on that petition.

I am told that there will be a report at the end of May. We may have something to consider at that point.

We also have petition PE138, on power for Scottish Quality Beef Lamb Assurance. I cannot remember the details of that one.

I suggest that we consider those petitions at the next available opportunity and with benefit of all the papers so that we can give them some serious thought.

Are we happy to place those petitions on the agenda for 12 June?

Members indicated agreement.

Papers will be circulated in advance.

Fergus Ewing suggested that issues may arise from the aggregates tax petition, which was not referred to this committee. Would you like the committee to consider that petition, Fergus?

I would certainly like the petitioners to have the opportunity of a hearing. Despite the fact that the petition highlights the serious ramifications on the rural economy of the aggregates tax, it has not yet been given a proper hearing. That may take an hour or so. I feel strongly that, unless the situation is ameliorated, the introduction of the aggregates tax next April will have a severe impact on the rural economy. The Highland Council has already made substantive representations on it. The tax would impact on jobs and the cost of aggregates to local authorities and it would increase the traffic on the roads.

The petitioners also moot the possibility that there would be a differential impact in Scotland. Because the price of aggregates here is around half the cost elsewhere and the proposed tax is a flat-rate one, it would effectively hit Scotland twice as harshly as, say, the south-east of England. In addition, the petitioners argue that small quarries would be forced to close, leaving larger quarries open and incurring a massive increase in road traffic, with more heavy lorries using our already inadequate rural road network.

I mention the petition because the petitioners have not been given the opportunity of a hearing. I thought it only fair to canvass these issues.

On a point of order, convener. Fergus Ewing is going on at length, but is it appropriate and within standing orders for the committee to deal with a petition that was not referred to it?

It is an issue that Fergus Ewing asked to be considered for future agendas.

We could all talk about particular issues that we want to address and people whom we would like to invite to the committee. I have suggested items for future agendas that do not even appear on this list. Any of us could suggest 20 different issues to address. I do not think that it is appropriate for members to speak in support of petitions that have not been referred to us.

The issue is reserved to Westminster. We are just about to have a general election, in which all parties have candidates standing for Scottish seats. Therefore, the petition would be more appropriately directed to our colleagues at Westminster. There are sufficient matters that fall within the devolved competence of the Parliament for us to consider, without spending time considering issues that should be considered elsewhere.

Westminster may not be relevant to Scotland after June 7.

In your dreams.

That returns us to the crucial issue of our forward work programme. I understand that we have decided that the paper on our priorities will return to the committee for discussion. Can we agree that that is what will happen, as you suggested, convener, and as the committee agreed?

Are we content that the committee should not consider the petition until it has been referred to us?

It could be discussed as part of our forward work programme, and we could decide whether it will be part of that programme.

I thought that that is what we were doing.

Are we content to proceed on that basis?

Members indicated agreement.

Fergus Ewing left the room and missed the committee's decision on our forward work programme.

We have scheduled consideration of the European Committee's common fisheries policy inquiry paper for 22 May. Are we content with that?

Members indicated agreement.

What about the draft Scottish statutory instrument on technical conservation measures, which has not yet arrived? Will we have it by then?

We hope to be able to deal with the SSI on the fisheries technical conservation measures on that day.

What day are we talking about?

It would be 22 May. If that SSI is available, would we want to invite someone to give evidence on technical conservation measures in advance of our dealing with it?

I recommend that we do so, as technical conservation measures are a very technical issue.

I query whether the committee is competent to deal with that issue, given the arguments that we have had today. Would we not bring a political perspective to it?

Who would we invite to give evidence? Are we content to ask the Executive to provide someone to give us evidence on the SSI—no specific names, just an appropriate authority?

Is there not a case for asking for the minister? The SSI is extremely important to the Executive's fisheries policy, and the main argument to support the Executive's decision was that technical conservation measures would be adequate. Should not we take evidence from the minister?

This will be a negative instrument, and on such matters it is normal practice to invite people to give technical evidence. It is not a policy issue.

I therefore suggest that we ask for some technical expertise.

Is that agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

Why not invite representatives of the industry as well?

We simply need someone to explain the instrument to us before we approve it. We may want to look into technical conservation issues in the longer term, but in consideration of the statutory instrument our priority must be to ensure that we understand the technical measures that it proposes. This is a technical rather than a policy issue.

Would it not be possible to have the industry along as well? The industry can give a response that is born of experience of how the technical measures operate in practice. The industry has opined on the issues—especially on the millimetres gauge—over the past few days. I would like to hear its technical expertise and evidence at the earliest possible opportunity. That would not detain us unduly.

I am slightly concerned that we give a misleading impression by acting as if the statutory instrument that we are talking about is up for debate. It is not. Unless we move for annulment, it would be inappropriate to deal with it at this stage, as any committee member can push to have the issue on the agenda in the longer term.

I suggest that we invite the Executive to send along someone to explain the technicalities of the instrument.

I thought that we had agreed to that.

Are we still in public session?

Yes.

Have we not put our forward programme aside? Basically, the committee is housekeeping. I am thinking of official report staff.

We are approaching the end of the meeting.

I accept that we have given responsibility to members to come back with a forward work programme, but I hope that we will find some time to discuss Scottish Natural Heritage's "Protecting and Promoting Scotland's Freshwater Fisheries: a review" and the Executive's response to it. I want the part that was missed out to be noted again. That is important in light of some of the answers given by the Minister for Environment and Rural Development today about the future of the timber industry in Scotland. Issues arise that would bear closer scrutiny in a future inquiry.

I support Cathy Jamieson's last comment. The paper industry is an issue that could be selected for a future agenda. We could combine discussion of the paper industry and the timber industry in one session.

The committee has limited scope for any additional work in late May and June. Are members content to take any proposals for further committee work and to consider them for the longer term?

Members indicated agreement.

Fergus Ewing suggested that at some point we might consider dealing with a number of issues at a meeting outside Edinburgh—perhaps in the north. Are members content to leave that issue to the reporters group for further consideration?

Subject to whatever we agree the forward work programme is.

Indeed—that is why it is pointless going into greater detail at this stage. Are members content that the issue should be considered by the reporters group?

Members indicated agreement.

Are we now in private session?

I am discussing why we need to go into private session.

I want to raise an issue in private session, as I said earlier.

Are we content to move into private session?

Members indicated agreement.

Meeting continued in private until 16:41.