Rural Affairs Committee, 12 Dec 2000

Meeting date: Tuesday, December 12, 2000

Official Report 247KB pdf

---

Protection of Wild Mammals (Scotland) Bill

We move briskly to the second item on today's agenda—the Protection of Wild Mammals (Scotland) Bill. Have members read the paper that has been circulated?

As all members of the committee are here—not everyone attended the meeting that was held on 8 December—I am not sure whether a majority of the committee wants to proceed in the way that has been suggested. I do not think that a majority of members sees the need to invite the minister to give evidence—even evidence of a factual nature. That would prolong the process. Would it be appropriate to ask members whether a majority wishes to go down that route? I do not think that there is such a majority.

On a point of order, convener. Was not that decision taken by the committee already?

In effect, the committee took that decision.

Could the committee take a new decision today?

No—tough luck.

I am asking the convener whether we can take a new decision.

On a point of order, convener. We all accept that when the committee takes a decision, that decision is taken. At our previous meeting, we took decisions properly and those decisions cannot be overturned. We should proceed to implement those decisions and discuss the implementation of decisions that the committee has taken already. It would raise rather serious implications about the way in which committees operate if a different decision is taken on this matter of principle. I hope that such implications will not need to be considered.

It is appropriate for all members of the committee to have an opportunity to voice their views on the matter. It might be Fergus Ewing's view that that would be inappropriate, but that is not my view. Rather than proceeding to take further evidence from the minister, it would be more appropriate to see whether the majority of members of the committee wish to go down that route. That is all I am asking for.

I am concerned about the usefulness of the minister giving evidence to the committee. It has been made quite plain that the Executive has no official position on the bill because it is a member's bill. My concern is simply about the usefulness of the minister as a material witness in relation to gathering evidence for the bill and, in that respect, I agree with Mike Rumbles.

I would usually support Fergus Ewing's contention that the committee should not rescind a decision that it has made. However, there will always be a rolling procedural issue on how committees should handle business. There are different types of decisions that committees might reach, such as how they structure business procedurally. Other decisions are not time bound or made once and for all.

Before the Friday meeting, I was not aware that there would be a request that the minister be asked.

Convener, I am concerned that we are slipping into discussing this. Rather than doing that, which is precisely what Mike Rumbles wants us to do, can we have a decision on whether it is appropriate for us to discuss this again? I feel that the matter was discussed at a committee meeting, the committee came to an agreement, end of story.

Taking into account the standing orders and your role as convener, what is your view on reopening this or any other decision? This is a serious matter of principle. I have a range of reasons, which I would be happy to go over again, for wanting the Executive to come to the committee, not least the fact that it is involved from a financial point of view. However, I do not want to revisit that, because, on a point of order, I do not think that we should.

I support Duncan Hamilton's comments. This is a decision for the convener and the convener alone. The decision should be divorced from politics. If it is not, it could in future allow one member to look around, see that a full complement of members was present, and decide that it was time to revisit an issue that he was unhappy with. On a point of principle, the convener has to take a decision that is divorced from politics—and do so now, I would suggest.

Convener, if you decide that we can rescind a decision that was made at a properly constituted meeting of this committee, the corollary would be that, every time a decision was taken that the Executive did not like, it could simply arrange for the matter to be reviewed at the next meeting of the committee. If you decide that we can reopen matters that were properly decided last Friday in Dumfries by the members who were there, it will have serious implications for every future decision, of every committee, that the Executive may dislike. That would be a serious erosion of the powers of the Opposition.

Fergus Ewing is not correct. If, at the next meeting, a motion were to be moved that we should reconsider any amendment that we had already considered, that would be entirely inappropriate. If, however, committee members want to raise an issue about the way in which we conduct our business from meeting to meeting on matters that we are dealing with over a period of time, that is entirely within our powers. Types of decisions differ. On formal decisions on amendments, Fergus is quite right: they cannot be revisited. Decisions on how we handle our business are in a quite different category. I would have thought that it was up to the committee to give its views on that at any time.

I made it clear on Friday that the only thing that I, at a pinch, could agree to would be to question the minister on matters of fact and not of opinion. That was not put to a vote, but to suggest that there was unanimous agreement that the minister should be quizzed on her opinions on the bill is erroneous. I think that I made that view clear, and that Rhoda Grant did as well.

I agree with Des McNulty. Nobody is suggesting rescinding a committee vote. This matter concerns only business and procedure, and my point is that we do not conduct our business in this way.

With the greatest respect, if we go down the route that you suggest, it will lead to the destruction of the committees as they are properly constituted.

That is silly.

It is not silly, if you will listen. As Fergus Ewing says, because of the balance on committees, an advantage of our work is that it has not been party political.

And who is making it so?

With respect, you are. Think about the principles. If, with an in-built majority of members from Executive parties, a committee revisits decisions that are awkward for the Executive, the effectiveness of that committee is undermined.

I have not discussed this matter with the Executive. We are talking about a committee decision and about what members of the committee feel.

And the committee took a decision.

No, it did not. That is the point.

What does the minute of Friday's meeting say?

This is the Official Report, rather than the minute, which I do not have in front of me. The agreement was to

"ask Richard Davies to make the appropriate contact and so reopen discussions to ensure that the minister can give evidence at the additional session."—[Official Report, Rural Affairs Committee, 8 December 2000; c 1527.]

What is the problem with that?

I do not think that it is appropriate.

Do you recognise that it was agreed?

No, I do not agree. Let us differentiate the points. When the committee makes a decision and takes a vote—

What is that?

That is a selection from the Official Report.

To suggest that we need to have a vote in order to take a decision—if that is what Mike Rumbles is saying—would mean that we would have to force it to a vote every time.

Mike Rumbles was not at the meeting, but I was. We had a discussion, a consensus emerged and the convener summed up that consensus. The convener has just read out the section of the meeting in which he said that the decision of the committee is that the minister will be called to give evidence. That was a result of the convener weighing up the consensus of the discussion.

If we go down the route that Mike Rumbles suggests, when Opposition MSPs on a committee want to push an issue, they will have to force it to a vote every time. Would that not disrupt and destroy the way in which the parliamentary committees are supposed to operate? This afternoon, political points were made but there was fair, if lively, argument. If we have to force everything to a vote or else we can turn up at the next meeting and tear up every decision that we make, that would be a retrograde step. That would be a matter of concern for every member of the Parliament.

Nobody is suggesting that we push things to a vote every time. All that we are saying is that we have a business programme in front of us and that we should revisit the way in which we do our business. Nothing will be gained from inviting the minister to give evidence.

In your opinion.

Exactly. That is my opinion.

It is a point of principle and it is up to the convener to make a decision, divorcing the issue from its politics. Given Mike Rumbles's opening comments that he looks around and sees a full committee so we should revisit the issue, it is clearly a point of principle. The convener and no one else in the committee should take a decision on that.

I will sum up my views as they were expressed at last week's meeting. I believe that it is reasonable for the committee—if the committee wishes—to seek evidence from the minister, strictly on the practical effects of the activities of the Executive in relation to the issues covered by the bill. We must not stray into matters of opinion. As far as I am concerned, those are the terms on which we agreed to seek the attendance of the minister at last week's meeting.

In that case, convener, are you prepared to rule members out of order if they ask questions of opinion?

Yes. I made it clear at last week's meeting that that would be my intention.

What is the point of the session?

We are not going to revisit the whole argument, are we?

No, we are not.

Convener, you said "if the committee wishes" and I do not think that the committee wishes to go down that route. The convener is duty-bound to ask the members of the committee if they want to go down that route.

Convener, I suggest that you pass the copy of the Official Report that is in front of you to Mike Rumbles so that he can read why we reached that conclusion.

Do not be silly.

As convener, it is my job to ensure that the committee maintains a degree of consensus. Although it has been suggested that, as convener, I should put my foot down and say that the decision apparently taken last week should stand, if we cannot establish a consensus that reflects the consensus that was reached last week, I would rather put it to a vote.

In that case I would like to register my objection to the fact that you are taking that course of action, convener.

I add my objections.

What are members' views?

Does the committee wish to invite the minister? It is only my personal view, but I hope that we will not proceed down that route, because it extends the whole process.

Richard Davies suggested that the question of the minister's attendance at committee be reopened.

I find the question difficult. I was at another meeting on Friday, and could not attend the committee's meeting, so I have only bits and pieces of information. If a decision has been made, it seems strange to revisit it. However, I do not have a copy of that decision. I do not know whether it would be more appropriate to put the issue on the agenda for the next meeting. A vote has been suggested. I do not know what I want to vote on, because people are talking about what happened at a meeting that I did not attend and about the report of that meeting, which I have not read. I do not want to participate in the matter.

I find myself in great difficulty, like many members. I was present at the late time at which we discussed the issue and I believe that a decision was taken to invite the minister. I believe that the request for the decision was dealt with on a party political basis, but the decision was taken. My concern is with the relevance of the witness, which, with the benefit of hindsight, is not great at this stage in the debate.

I resent any suggestion that I can be got at by the Executive over a difficult question. I have no difficulty with putting the minister on the spot at an appropriate time. I accept Duncan Hamilton's point that an issue of principle is involved and that it is important that we get the decision right. I do not want to underplay that, but the issue is difficult for members who were not present, especially if they have not read the Official Report. I am not convinced that a vote now is the right way of resolving the dispute, but I have great reservations about the minister's validity as a witness at this stage.

May I make a suggestion? The committee is meeting later this week to consider timetabling arrangements and future business informally. If we cannot resolve the issue then, perhaps we should put it on the agenda for next week's meeting. The question is one about the timetabling of evidence.

I oppose that suggestion, because it is important that all conversations about the issue are on public record.

A point of principle is involved, and I agree with Alex Fergusson. I am the first to grill ministers when I think that they need grilling. However, I do not understand why the SNP has politicised the issue and wants to bring the minister before the committee.

The decision was reached by consensus.

I do not understand the reasons. They are irrelevant. The impression has been given that the committee wants the minister to give evidence. I am not sure whether the committee does want that, and that is all that I was asking.

I will make one positively final comment, because the debate is dragging on. It is clear that Mike Rumbles has not read the Official Report from last week. That is the crux of the matter. He sits there, saying that he does not know why we have invited the minister, when the reasons are all in the report. A consensual decision was taken after some committee members expressed concerns. Other members took on board those concerns, and the committee reached a consensual decision. Mike Rumbles has not read the Official Report, so we are having a vacuous debate.

I understood that Mike Rumbles was present at Friday's meeting.

Not at that stage.

Had he gone by then?

My position is similar to Alex Fergusson's. I agreed to the suggestion only on the proviso that the questions would be on facts, not opinions. I have a feeling that some members wanted to ask about opinions rather than facts. I did not oppose the idea, but, like Alex, I am uncertain about what members would gain from the minister's evidence that they could not gain from written questions to an official. The minister will be able to answer only questions of fact.

I would like to place one comment on the record. Mike Rumbles has persisted with the suggestion that some members wish to politicise the issue.

I was not the first to raise it.

Nevertheless, you repeated it. As members know, I felt it relevant to ask the Executive's view on the bill.

But you cannot ask—

May I finish, Elaine?

We are talking about what I said at the previous meeting, and I regret the fact that we have had to reopen the issue. At that meeting, I said that, in my opinion, the Executive should have a view on all reforms of the law. It is not slow about expressing its views. The Executive's counterparts in Westminster recently announced measures in the Queen's speech. It seemed surprising that the politicians in charge of Government should not have a view about Mr Watson's bill.

As a member, I would like to ask the minister what her views are. I put forward that argument at the previous meeting and the reason that I am repeating it now—although I can see that Elaine Murray is not happy about it—is quite simple. At the end of the day, the convener proposed a compromise. The compromise that he proposed was that the evidence would be restricted, as Dr Murray has said, to the Executive's practices on land and estates that it owns or for which it is responsible—practices that it presumably approves of, because it permits and is responsible for them.

The convener proposed that as a compromise. We would be asking not about questions of opinion but about questions of fact. I want to place on record the fact that Richard Lochhead and I, who were at that meeting, accepted that compromise. We did not push it to a vote, although that was obviously an option that was open to us. We accepted the convener's proposal as a compromise. As Dr Murray herself has said, she understood that our decision was that evidence would be taken from the minister, but that it would be so restricted.

That decision was taken; Elaine Murray has said that it was taken. We have compromised; Elaine has compromised. Surely we can proceed on the basis that we agreed at the previous meeting. I hope that, in reprising the argument for Alex Fergusson's benefit, he sees where I was coming from at that meeting and where I would like to go, albeit restricted in the scope of the evidence that we would be entitled to expect the minister to give when she appears before us.

Would members be content to make a simple decision on whether the question of the minister's attendance at the committee be reopened?

I am not sure that we should take a vote. Unfortunately, I was not at the meeting, but the decision has been taken. It is there in black and white and I am prepared to abide by that decision. If we put it to a vote, we could be putting ourselves in a very difficult position, not at this meeting but at subsequent meetings.

Does that meet with the approval of members?

Since I started this, let me just say that, in my view, it is a complete waste of time to call the minister to give evidence. We have wasted enough time on the bill already.

What Fergus Ewing does not realise is that the Scottish Government is not like the Government in London, which is a different Administration. We have a coalition arrangement between two political parties in Scotland, and the English bill has been proposed by a different political party. I thought that Fergus's political perspective would allow him to appreciate that. The committee has spent long enough taking evidence on the issue and we should have moved more quickly than we have done.

I wanted to put that on record. Having listened to the views of other members, I shall now withdraw the objection that I raised earlier.

If we agree to go ahead with an evidence session with the minister, that is a reasonable decision for the committee to take. However, I profoundly disagree with the interpretation of committee procedure propounded by Fergus Ewing. It is always open to committees to take a view on how they want to conduct their business. It is not the case that committees should be bound by an opportunistic process if that is how things turn out. It is always open to a properly constituted committee to decide how it will conduct its business and to revise its decisions as it sees fit. That is quite different from the formal decision-making process, such as we had earlier this afternoon when we were conducting stage 2 proceedings.

I disagree with one element of what Mike Rumbles has said. We have spent quite a lot of time listening to evidence on the bill, but there are two further pieces of information that I would certainly like to ask the clerk to get hold of for us. The first is any information that the committee can get about the proposed legislation south of the border, which is something that will obviously be of interest to us, even if it does not bear directly on what we are doing.

The second thing that would be of particular interest to us is any information about the licensing regimes in countries such as Denmark and Sweden, which face similar issues. We have tended to look at this almost entirely within a confined Scottish-UK context. It might be useful to ask the Scottish Parliament information centre to do some research or take a witness from either Denmark or Sweden to find out about their regimes.

We are straying into another area.

I am just raising the issue. If we are going to have another session—

I am sorry to interrupt, but I must ask the committee whether it agrees that we have agreed not to reopen the issue that we discussed on Friday. Is that agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

We have a paper that raises some ideas and Des McNulty has presented some additional ideas. Last week, the notion was floated that there was a need for an additional evidence session. We must consider whom we would like to invite to give evidence in that session. Several suggestions have been made, including the RSPB, the National Trust for Scotland and the Forestry Commission. At this point we must consider those suggestions.

Can we ask for written submissions?

We can choose to do that.

That would enable us to decide whether we need to hear further oral evidence from those organisations.

I remember that Rhoda Grant raised the same point on Friday. I was labouring under the view that Rhoda's suggestion had already been agreed as had the decision to take evidence from those bodies. I do not want to prompt an encore, but I must say that I thought that we had agreed all that last Friday.

We asked the clerks to trawl through the evidence that had been taken in previous weeks and come up with a list of organisations to allow us to consider whether we wanted oral or written evidence from those groups.

I had a representation from the Scottish Campaign Against Hunting with Dogs, which felt that, on Friday, we had neglected to take economic evidence from a party of the opposite view. I had not been aware that there was someone with a different point of view on the economic arguments. We should give the other side of the argument the opportunity to put forward its case.

Who was that other party?

I cannot remember the name of the gentleman.

Was it Bill Swann?

No, it was someone else, an academic.

I sent a copy of the e-mail from the SCAHD to the clerk.

I do not wish to labour the point, but we seem to go on and on adding more people to the list of those giving oral evidence. If we thought about it, I am sure that we could come up with a stream of people to give evidence. I make a plea to the committee to try to tighten it up and move to a conclusion sooner rather than later.

I agree with Mike Rumbles on that. We should move to a speedy conclusion. However, last week we took evidence from only one side of the argument. Everybody that we interviewed on the economic arguments came from the same position. In the interests of fairness, we should allow the other side to put its economic case.

I understand where Dr Murray is coming from.

I support Elaine Murray's point. We do not want things to drag on too long, but it is important that we have a balance of evidence. We have agreed, if I dare use that word, that we will have at least one more session of oral evidence.

What have we agreed—at least one more or just one more?

This might be the appropriate point for me to reiterate my interest in hearing evidence or receiving information about the regimes in one or two comparable countries.

Would it be appropriate for us to act quickly to seek written submissions from all the sources of the suggestions that were given to us today, including those listed on the paper in front of us, which have been trawled up through previous discussion?

I am as loth as anybody else to add to the list—

But?

But, while an enormous amount has been said in the evidence that we have heard so far—from both sides, it is fair to say—on the conservation aspect of the bill and on the effect on the biodiversity in upland and moorland Scotland, we have not, in my opinion, heard from an expert in conservation.

If we were to ask for written submissions, I would like to seek one from somebody whom some of us heard the other day, Ronnie Rose, a conservationist of European renown. He is currently based in Eskdalemuir—I cannot remember what his official position is, but Elaine Murray will know. If we are simply seeking written submissions, I seek the committee's permission for the clerk to ask for a written submission from the aforementioned gentleman.

Are there any more suggestions before I attempt to sum this up?

Could I make a suggestion?

Yes.

Thank you. I suggest, then, that the suggestions made previously by various members—that we should request written evidence from a number of bodies now and then supplement that with oral evidence—be taken forward.

I agree with Elaine Murray, who suggested that we should hear from the economic body that would perhaps put the other point of view, although I am not quite sure that the Macaulay Land Use Research Institute would necessarily consider that it was in the position to take one stance or another. I suppose that that is a separate issue. The Borders Foundation for Rural Sustainability would certainly be on one side of the argument. I agree that we should always hear the other point of view, and it is important for this committee to be seen, when history is written, to have done that throughout conduct of our proceedings.

I suggest that we take evidence from the bodies that are listed on the paper. They include RSPB Scotland, which, as a conservation body, is on one side of the issue, and which is also a landowner. It will be interesting to find out what a conservation body does with regard to fox control. The National Trust for Scotland is also a conservation body: I would like to know how conservation bodies grapple with the issues of fox control and predation. There are also Scottish Natural Heritage and the Forestry Commission.

The evidence of all those organisations could be taken in a group of three, or in a group of three and a group of two, and the evidence from the economic person suggested by Dr Murray could be taken with the evidence from the expert suggested by Alex Fergusson. If we plan that now, it would provide us with a day of evidence. We would then be left with one session of an hour or so with the Deputy Minister for Rural Development at the end of proceedings.

I thought that we were inviting the minister to give factual evidence to us, as she is, as it were, a representative of a landowner. As Fergus Ewing has just suggested, SNH and the Forestry Commission, who look after such matters, could give us that factual evidence. I repeat for the record that, if Fergus wants us to do that—

Is that a broken record or just a record?

Duncan Hamilton should try not to be so rude.

On what basis are we asking the minister? I am afraid that I am still at a loss as to the purpose of inviting her.

Would the committee agree to do something similar to our taking of written evidence on the Salmon Conservation (Scotland) Bill, which we were discussing earlier today: to approach all individuals who have been mentioned in the paper in front of us or in today's discussion for further written evidence, the nature of which is specific to today's discussion, and to inform those people of a date on which we may wish to take oral evidence from a selection of them, asking them if they will be available on that date?

Members indicated agreement.

We will need to inform them of a suitable date. Richard Davies suggested to me earlier that Tuesday 23 January might be a possibility. Would that be an appropriate day on which to hold a further oral evidence session?

What is on our agenda before then?

Only one meeting is scheduled before then, although the paper suggests that we should meet on 9 January to discuss the issues that have been raised. In effect, that will be a first attempt to order the issues in the Protection of Wild Mammals (Scotland) Bill.

What has happened to the meeting on 16 January?

We are scheduled to meet on 16 January, but Richard Davies thought that it would be difficult to organise the evidence session by then.

With the Christmas holidays approaching, to ensure that the organisations have time to send us all the information that we want and to circulate that to members, I thought that it would be better to leave the evidence session until 23 January.

That is sensible.

The suggestion in the paper is that we meet on Tuesday 9 January to consider the evidence that has been gathered and identify issues that we will raise with the minister.

Fergus Ewing is shaking his head.

Fergus is not keen. You are not going away for a couple of weeks, are you, Fergus?

I am going to have a very short holiday. I do not know what the purpose is of the pre-meeting that is proposed. I am quite sure that we can all formulate our own questions from time to time.

At last I agree with Fergus Ewing. The tone of questioning to the minister has been determined. I am sure that we can all make up our questions within the parameters that we have set.

Given that there is obviously a body of opinion forming on this matter, I put it to the committee that we should not meet on 9 January.

Members indicated agreement.

I remind members that amendments for the second day of stage 2 of the Salmon Conservation (Scotland) Bill should be lodged by 4 o'clock on Friday.

Meeting closed at 16:07.