Official Report 223KB pdf
Agenda item 7 is the committee's work programme. Members have received the pink paper from the clerk. I propose to work through the issues in the order in which they are listed in the paper.
Hear, hear.
At last. Did you say "revert", convener?
We tried a fortnightly schedule once, for about three weeks. I am delighted to be the bearer of good tidings.
On that note, if someone is a member of two committees that meet every week, their timetable becomes quite heavy. I certainly hope that the Rural Development Committee will be able to revert to fortnightly meetings.
We will do so for as long as we are able and for as long as our work programme permits it. There might be two exceptions to the fortnightly meeting schedule: we might need to meet weekly to accommodate consideration of the national parks affirmative order, and when we hold the away meetings that we have marked for our integrated rural development inquiry. We might need to meet between our fortnightly meetings at those times.
I agree. I would like to hear—informally, of course—from the good people who service the committee about the burden that meeting weekly as opposed to fortnightly entails for them. I have no doubt that a weekly cycle must be very demanding.
Are you suggesting that meeting fortnightly might create a bigger work burden?
No, certainly not. The fortnightly cycle is definitely the best way forward.
A fortnightly cycle will mean that, once a fortnight, the clerks will have double the amount of work. I am sure that the clerks would be happy to discuss that with you informally.
I would find it useful to have the meeting dates, so that I can knock them into my diary. In particular, it would be useful to know whether we are any closer to arranging dates for our various away meetings.
We will come to that in a minute.
There are three options for consideration of the budget and it would be useful if members would indicate which they prefer.
I am quite in favour of option C. It is better to take all the evidence at once, as members can follow their trains of thought and raise issues in line with that. Option C would also give us two meetings, although I am sure that the committee could manage to agree a report in one meeting. However, option C gives us leeway to hold two meetings, if necessary.
I see a considerable number of heads nodding in agreement around the room.
I favour calling both the minister and external witnesses to give evidence. In particular, I would like to hear from witnesses from rural local authorities, rather than from the committee's usual witnesses. We should try to call people from whom we have not previously taken evidence on the budget. Which is why I suggest that we invite rural local authorities.
I do not argue with that. It would be helpful if members could suggest witnesses whom they feel might have a relevant part to play in the process, but we probably do not need to do that today. If members would like to e-mail the clerks with suggestions, that would be very welcome.
We move on to the draft remit for the integrated rural development inquiry. Do members have any comments on the remit? If members are happy with the remit, are they also happy to issue a written call for evidence based on the remit? Unless anybody says otherwise, I will assume that the answer is yes and will continue.
Yes—that would be helpful.
We move on to dates for the meetings outwith Edinburgh. We have so far pinpointed two such meetings. The proposed dates are governed by how suitable they are for the venues to which we will go. A bit of work has been done on that. We have pencilled in 19 March as the date for the meeting in Dalry. In case members are worried, the Dalry in question is Dalry in Kirkcudbrightshire, not Dalry in Ayrshire. That issue came to light when the estimate of costs went to the conveners liaison group—I was slightly worried to find that the trip for which I had been claiming 87 miles a week was put in at 73 miles.
What was that?
The convener's domestic circumstances.
I thought that I was going to be done for fraud.
We want—in addition to a formal meeting of the committee—to carry out some fact-finding visits in Dalry. Perhaps the best way to do that, given that Dalry is a good two-hour drive from Edinburgh, would be to go to Dalry on Monday and carry out the fact-finding visits in the afternoon and early evening. We could possibly meet some people in the evening and hold the meeting on Tuesday morning until lunchtime. We will almost certainly have to have an away day—a night away—so that might be a good way of going about things. Comments are welcome.
Will that be on Monday 18?
Yes.
How many miles from Glasgow airport is Dalry?
It is probably no more than 40 miles away.
The convener's suggestion is good.
Was the suggestion that we go to Dalry on Monday night?
Yes. Incidentally, it is suggested that we follow the same formula for Fort William.
You said Fort William. Is that the preferred location or do you have some other location in mind?
Fort William is the location that has been examined. When I said Lochaber, perhaps I should have said Fort William. I apologise. Let us deal first with Dalry.
Option A in the paper would allow us to go straight from Parliament. Committee members who must travel long distances might find that option easier than having to come down on the Sunday or Monday.
I am sorry. What are you suggesting?
I am looking at option A, which mentions Friday 22 March. I assume that we are talking about Dalry?
That option is almost certainly out of the question because of the availability of accommodation in Dalry. Jake Thomas has indicated that since the paper was published the situation has moved on. We are now more or less stuck with 19 March for the visit to Dalry.
Are you suggesting going down on Monday afternoon or in the forenoon?
We will travel on Monday morning and conduct fact-finding visits in the afternoon. I know that that does not suit Richard Lochhead, but it is necessary to enable us to hold the committee meeting on Tuesday morning and return on Tuesday afternoon.
That makes eminently good sense.
Would Richard Lochhead be able to join us on Monday evening?
Probably not.
Given the fact that most of us are content with that, we will have to take that option.
You cannot keep everyone happy.
Are members content to follow a similar format on 23 April in Fort William? We will use Monday for fact finding, hold a committee meeting on Tuesday morning and return on Tuesday afternoon?
We now move on to the appointment of an adviser. First, do members feel that we should have an adviser for this exercise? If we are going to conduct an inquiry of any significance, it would probably be worth appointing an adviser.
Are we meeting now in private?
I am sorry. We should be meeting in private while we discuss this last item on the agenda.
The recommendations at the end of the paper are that we consider the matters that are outlined in the paper, that we decide whether to revert to fortnightly meetings—we have decided to do so—and that we decide on arrangements for stage 1 of the budget process, which we have done.
Today's meeting was particularly heavy; it lasted three hours.
The Public Petitions Committee has perhaps been a little bit late in getting petitions to us in the past. It has been suggested that we should set aside at every meeting a slot for petitions. Are members content with that suggestion?
There are two further points. Does the committee agree the adviser specification that is attached? Finally, do we agree that the work programme that is set out in the paper should form the basis of the committee's work programme from February to June 2002?
Meeting suspended until 16:35 and thereafter continued in private until 16:45.
Previous
Sea Cage Fish Farming