Work Programme and Timetable
Members will have understood, from Sarah's comments, the Executive's perspective on our work programme. We know the legislation that it is introducing. We also know the issues on which, even if there is no legislation, action is being taken, which is another important facet of the Executive's work.
Our first meeting, in June, was fairly extensive and we went through our areas of interest. It was followed by our two-day informal briefing session at which we heard presentations from a number of key organisations and people. We then had a fairly detailed discussion of the committee's priorities. I want your views on that, after which I will commission the clerks to draw up a work programme for the committee. I would like to plan the next four months or so of committee work, bearing in mind the impact on our agenda of the legislation that Sarah told us about. In that way, we will not just discuss issues; we will deal with issues and get to the meat of what this committee is about.
The five issues that we discussed at our two-day briefing meeting were: mobile phone masts; fuel; landfill tax; the bus industry—in rural areas in particular; and small to medium enterprises and the environment. From those items we could select some for early action, getting the clerks to invite people to give advice to the committee and do further research that we can then develop. I want your views on what our agenda should be.
The bus industry should be one of our key priorities. Most members of the committee have, at one time or another, expressed concern about the fact that bus services in some areas are not running as we would like them to, whereas in other areas they may be expanding. Rural areas are left with particular problems. People may raise their eyebrows and say that Fife is not really rural, but 80 per cent of Fife is a rural area.
The minister talked about quality partnerships and, possibly, quality contracts. I would like us to consider the option of franchising bus services. I see franchising as allowing us to set standards and specifications that the quality partnership would not allow us to set.
I welcome what the minister said about mobile phone masts. We need to maintain a high profile on that issue, because there is concern across Scotland about the masts.
I would like to echo what Helen said. The bus issue affects us all—although I do not know about Tavish—and cuts across all areas. I was interested to hear what Sarah said about concessionary travel for the blind. We must widen that out and examine the whole issue of concessionary travel. The differences in provision in different regions will always be a difficult issue.
We also need to move on telecommunications, where we can get an outcome. It is an on-going issue and we will need to monitor the situation, but it is a matter that should be dealt with with a fair amount of urgency.
I agree that we should continue to watch developments in telecommunications masts. I was delighted to hear that the minister will present proposals on that issue. I also look forward to an answer to my written question on the matter, which I lodged some time ago.
I have a couple of suggestions about how we might tackle the issue of buses. Rural transport and concessionary fares are critical. If we are to scrutinise the proposals properly, we need to begin to think about taking evidence from some of the user organisations, transport unions and service providers. That will give us an early indication of what the problems are so that we can avoid some of the pitfalls and ensure that we get a properly integrated transport system, which is what we all want.
Early on, I would like to see a suggested list of the people and organisations from whom we should take evidence. It may also be helpful for those of us who have not dealt with this matter to any great extent in the past to have a briefing on the operation of concessionary fares across Scotland and on the new proposals so that we can consider the issue in more detail.
I am sure that we can do that.
I am comfortable with the proposal to consider the issue of buses, especially as there are aspects of the requirements set out by the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee—on access to buses for people with disabilities and mothers with young children—that have particular implications for rural Scotland. There are issues to do with the types of bus that can be used and whether they can get on rural roads. It would be important to consider those aspects as part of an inquiry.
I also want to put down a strong marker for the issue of fuel research. We need to examine certain bits of the package being promoted by the Executive, such as investment in fuel stations and infrastructure, and their effectiveness in helping rural areas. We also need to be as proactive as possible in encouraging the Office of Fair Trading to get on and do proper work on oil companies. That should be a matter of urgency.
I am anxious that the debate on buses should not be confined to issues affecting rural areas, as there are a lot of bus transport issues in urban areas too, including the regulation and administration of subsidised services. The discussion needs to be broad and wide ranging.
There is a danger of this committee simply responding to what the Executive says. It is important that we work in parallel. On some subjects, particularly regulatory issues, it may be helpful to have briefings in anticipation of the Executive's proposals. For example, we should not wait for an announcement on the quality partnerships before we consider them. Other areas, such as the strategic roads review, can also be identified where such briefings may be helpful. I was particularly interested in the minister's statement on the regulatory framework for water, which we will need to get some kind of briefing on, as an announcement is likely in the next three or four months.
I support the arguments in favour of the topics for consideration, but we should also be prepared to anticipate announcements—developments in the regulatory framework, in particular—so that the committee is up to speed on the issues and is able to contribute to the debate, rather than respond to decisions once they are made.
It comes down to how we see the committee operating and what its role is. I think that the role is twofold: to scrutinise what the Executive is doing and to publicise what we think are the gaps. I echo what Helen, Janis and Cathy said about scrutiny.
The minister touched on bus partnerships. It is appropriate that we should be looking at that. My view is that partnership on its own is not sufficient and that we should look at contracts to tie people in, and at a variety of other factors that have been raised.
The minister talked about the Scottish Environment Protection Agency's waste recycling strategy and landfill tax. The two are interlinked; we cannot possibly deal with one without the other, given the finance that is available. All due credit to what has been done with the landfill tax income, but it is not nearly as much as could have been or should be done with the finance that is floating about.
There are two major gaps in terms of promotion. It may be that the minister has left this to her colleague in rural affairs, but we have heard nothing about GM foods. That matter is being discussed. If rural affairs is not dealing with it, we should be discussing the spectre of GM foods. I would be surprised if it has not left it to us, given that we have the power to stop the transportation of those goods, although it is debatable whether we have the power to stop people growing the crops
Helen touched briefly on transportation links, which are fundamental to our economy. It is nothing less than a scandal that from this so-called hub of a financial services city in Europe there is only one flight to London. From Ireland, there are five flights to five German cities. There is something wrong. We must consider Scottish transportation links, including ferry services and the strategic rail authority's proposed Eurostar rail links at Rosyth—questions about which the minister, understandably, did not answer. Finally, our air links lag sadly behind the Republic of Ireland and, indeed, Iceland.
If we are zeroing in on buses and bus services, should we also look at types of buses—for example, gas buses, alternative fuel buses and low-floor buses? We could also liaise with the Equal Opportunities Committee because it will be doing work on access for people with various forms of disability. Some of that work would benefit our discussion.
Thank you, Kenny, for mentioning two of the things dearest to my heart. I would like to draw the committee's attention to the fact that I have re-submitted my motion on the planting of GM crops.
The UK and Scotland are far behind on notions of the reduction and recycling of industrial and household waste. That is something, along with the landfill tax, that we should include at the earliest opportunity—in the spirit of Des's announcement that we do not have to wait for an announcement from the Executive. I realise that we are in danger of overloading ourselves with work. It may be that the next thing we need to do is prioritise the issues that we have mentioned. I would like to see a start on the two that I have mentioned.
I hope that we will not address disability only in regard to the buses; I hope that we will address it as it affects all transport modes. We should also deal with an issue that is close to your heart, convener—waste.
I think that we are back where we started—having narrowed the topics down to something that we thought was halfway manageable, we have expanded them all over again. That is mostly Kenny MacAskill's fault, of course.
We have to be realistic about what we can manage. I take Des's point that we have to improve our understanding and get up to speed on the issues that are likely to come up. That is not shadowing the Executive—it is merely putting ourselves in a position to interpret and deal with its proposals.
I was interested in Tavish's plea for us to examine the impact of fuel prices on rural communities, especially islands. Recently I received representations from an islander who made the valid point that her petrol station, the only one on the island, ran at a loss and was being subsidised by another garage business. She said that she could not afford the upgrading that was required under regulations, and that if she withdrew the service the islanders would be totally dependent on imported fuel. She also suggested that there were safety issues surrounding the transportation of fuel to the island. There is scope for examining the regulations and proposals that the Government is putting forward in this area, to determine whether the rural petrol stations scheme goes far enough.
However, I hesitate to throw anything else into the balance. We need to examine what we have come up with and identify three or four topics that we can realistically deal with, because we will have a very heavy work load once we start considering legislation. Sarah said that the first bill will come before us in mid autumn—that is not very far away.
There is a hierarchy of demands on the committee, which we will address in a work plan and discuss at the committee. Today, the five issues that were discussed at the two-day briefing have been brought to the fore, along with some additional matters. My view is that we should deal with existing demands before programming in the other activities that have been suggested. Does that sound reasonable?
I am happy with that. Given the urgency of the situation in our rural communities, Tavish's concerns should be addressed first. We can then move on.
We will come back with a work plan as soon as possible, prior to the next meeting.