Official Report 147KB pdf
Item 4 on the agenda is future business. If Richard Lochhead wants to raise anything, he can put his hand up now.
I want to repeat the comments that I made during the private session. During the first few months of the committee I have become concerned that the committee is in danger of becoming a rural affairs fire brigade—called out to deal with every crisis in related industries on a week-by-week basis and with inadequate notice. I would like the convener and the clerk to consider how the agenda of the committee might be controlled to prevent accumulation of items at short notice. That accumulation makes it difficult for the committee to follow a structured approach to its major inquiries into employment in the rural communities, agriculture and its contribution to rural development and the other areas of fisheries and forestry that we intend to examine.
I understand and agree with many of the points that you have made, Lewis, but I believe that this committee has to be in direct contact with interested groups from rural Scotland and that we have become an alternative means of contacting the Parliament for those groups. We should encourage that.
The public is confused about the role of the committee and the role of the Executive. People seem to think that the committee can solve their problems and that we have a cheque book. Some of us were saying, in private conversation, that if we had had a cheque book at last week's meeting with the pig farmers, we would have been signing cheques to alleviate the problems. However that is not our role—it is the Executive's. Our role is—as you said, convener—to develop policies, to conduct inquiries and to act as a point of contact between rural Scotland and the Parliament. We should try not to exacerbate the confusion.
At the close of the private session, I mentioned that I wanted to talk about the pig industry. I feel as if I have been ambushed, but I will recover from that.
When we met the pig farmers, they concentrated on state aid. At the pig breakfast last week, Mr Finnie said that he had spoken with EU representatives and had tried to obtain permission for distribution of state aid. He said that if he drew a blank on that he would not be able to get aid for the farmers. We either believe what he says or we do not, but I am inclined to believe him, because he would not have said such a thing if he had not gone to Europe to make inquiries.
Did the minister say that?
I am certain that he said that at the pig breakfast last week.
He never said that.
He used words to that effect.
I would like to clarify this, convener. To my recollection the minister—I will stand corrected if anyone wishes to intervene—said that it would be very difficult to get state aid distributed by permission of the European Commission. We do not know whether that is possible. All we know is that it might be very difficult and that, to me, suggests that it is not impossible. The statement is vague, however. What the industry wants is a black-and-white statement on whether there is, under European rules, a legal possibility of state aid being offered to assist the industry in covering the BSE tax.
The minister expressed a view that state aid would not be considered and that the industry would not be eligible. The industry is looking for assistance. Whether it would be helpful at this point to seek a clear statement is a tactical matter. If the black-and-white statement says that it is a question of state aid and that nothing can be done, that is clearly not helpful.
The Press and Journal carried a good article at the weekend—unfortunately it was in the farming pages. Unless one is a farmer, and already knows the information, one will tend not to read the farming pages. We really want such articles to be on the front pages.
I happen to know that 78 per cent of The Press and Journal's readers read the farming pages.
I disagree with that.
It appears that one of our number has rehashed the item and had it press-released in his own name on the front page today.
I agree with a great deal of what Lewis Macdonald has just said, but the other day the pig farming lobby made it very obvious to us that they do not have much time left. I have no reason—none of us has—to disbelieve that. The pig industry in Scotland will not survive for long—it is as simple as that. I am not convinced—on this I agree with Richard Lochhead—that the minister said that he was turned down when seeking assistance for the pig industry from Europe.
We are talking not about getting aid from Europe in this case, but about getting permission from Europe to provide aid.
I stand corrected.
Although I am confident that Ross Finnie's statement at the pig breakfast was accurate, his words were carefully chosen. I, too, have doubts about whether an approach was made for a judgment on whether assistance to the pig industry would constitute illegal state aid. I am therefore sympathetic to the idea that we need a straight answer to a straight question.
Because I had problems getting to Edinburgh from far afield for quarter to 8 in the morning, I do not know what Ross Finnie said at the pig breakfast and cannot pass comment on what was said. It might be that there is some confusion and that a more specific question would elicit a clearer response from the minister.
We must keep in mind that the pig industry is in an incredibly precarious situation. Lewis Macdonald suggested that, if the straight answer to the straight question is negative, that could damage the industry. Having spoken to a number of farmers, including one in Easter Ross with whom I spent a lot of time yesterday, I disagree. Those farmers' view is that if nothing is to be done for the pig industry, those who are involved in it will need to initiate a controlled collapse now, because there is no point continuing under current market conditions. The farmers need to minimise their losses. A straight answer to a straight question, whatever the answer happens to be, will therefore give them a direction.
I echo that sentiment. A lot of pig processing takes place in the Aberdeen area, so I am aware of the situation. Scheduling a discussion for four or five weeks from now would not be particularly useful. If you, as convener, were to write to the minister to ask him a direct question, you should get a reply that could be used in whatever way is most helpful.
Should that letter be written in the name of the committee?
Yes.
I concur with that. It is exactly what I was going to propose. However, we should also consider the other issues that face the industry. Those issues are well documented and have been aired in Parliament. Most members of the committee, and the clerks, were at last week's informal briefing from the pig industry and at previous briefings. Would it be useful for the clerks to produce a list of recommendations, based on the other concerns that were mentioned, that we could consider at our first meeting after the new year?
Many such concerns were mentioned at the informal briefing last week and were not minuted. The clerks were present, but in an informal capacity.
The alternative would be to conduct an investigation, and there might not be time in our agenda for that. I suggest that the clerks compile a list of the main issues, such as labelling, that are on parliamentary records, or were discussed in formal or informal briefings. If they can collate them, we can consider those matters at our next meeting. That should not take too long.
What would be the committee's purpose in considering those issues?
The committee would be able to keep those items on its agenda and give views on them.
We might wish to consider what other action we could take to support the industry further.
At this stage, the issue might be far enough up the political agenda to be driven by the whole parliamentary structure. I would be glad to have this on the agenda at the next committee meeting, so that we can review progress. Tracey Hawe has rough notes on the general views that have been expressed—those notes can be used to put together a report.
Rural affairs fire brigade or not, I would welcome that on the agenda for our next meeting—I will bring my hard hat.
We will put the item on the agenda and include a report that will be put together from the notes available. I will write in the name of the committee to the minister, asking for clarification on whether support for the pig industry would constitute illegal state aid. Are there any other comments on that?
Could you indicate in that letter to the minister that we are considering this as a matter of urgency and that we seek an urgent response?
Yes.
I am not going to make one of my cracks about the grass-fed beef again. The hunting bill is down for discussion by this committee—is it certain that that bill will come to us?
There is a question mark about that—it is up to the Parliament.
Even if we were not the lead committee, it is extremely likely that we would like to become involved in scrutiny of that bill.
It would be appropriate.
The issues that appear on the graph with a question mark are conjectural. However, the graph mentions the inquiry into the impact of employment change, which is at a more advanced stage, and the agriculture inquiry, which we have begun to discuss. Richard Davies has said that there might be room for another inquiry at the end of the year. He suggested that that would be an ideal time to consider the problems associated with the deep-sea fishing industry, given that that is the lead-up to the negotiations that usually take place in December. It also falls roughly two years before the complete renegotiation of the common fisheries policy. We might wish, therefore, to use that opportunity to consider in greater depth what is going on in the fishing industry.
I agree—it would be a good time for us to consider not only what will happen in 2002 with the renegotiation of common fisheries policy, but the wider question of this country's fisheries strategy in the next century.
That almost mirrors our experience with agriculture; we began with a few fire-fighting operations but we need now to consider something more structured. I know that we have put the cart before the horse on a number of occasions, but we are getting there.
I welcome the proposal as a structure within which the committee can work. I have experience from the Audit Committee of dealing with parts of a bill over the past couple of months and I am aware that it is very difficult to do that alongside another half a dozen agenda items. The fact that we might soon have bills before us re-emphasises the point that structure is required.
I know that, at times, the length of our agendas is shocking, but it is in the nature of the committee's work that there will be a number of small agenda items, such as statutory instruments or other papers that we need to consider. Our experience at the previous full meeting—at which we discussed one subject for two hours and then got through the rest of the agenda in about thirty minutes—indicated that such small agenda items need not take much time, provided that we have all read the papers and know what we are talking about. It is a matter of approving papers as they pass by us.
Is housing in rural areas included in the inquiry into employment?
Yes. That is because the headings on the left-hand side of the page are the original headings for which we voted. We agreed to include housing in rural areas in the top item.
Am I right in thinking that the whole issue was to be tied into an examination of rural poverty? It is important to say that the emphasis will be on rural poverty.
Although employment has taken precedence, the issue of rural poverty is still covered.
Can we have a short interim report on anything that has come up on housing, bearing in mind that we will discuss that in the new year? Wendy Alexander said in her statement that Parliament would debate housing.
Preparations to appoint an adviser for this report are at a fairly advanced stage. When an adviser is in place, we can easily push housing up his agenda to fit in with our time scale.
It might be useful to have a report that will inform the debate on housing in rural areas, so that that subject does not get lost.
When is the subject likely to come up?
I am not sure. As far as I can remember, Wendy Alexander said that it would be in the new year.
We can certainly prioritise issues. We hope that the longer investigation will be able to produce interim reports at various stages so that we can keep the public—as well as other members of the Parliament—fully informed about progress, and that it will produce a final rounding-up report.
No.
A number of other issues that were not among our priorities but have been covered in some way are listed in the documents.
Can we have some guidance on whether there are items that are listed for discussion that will not be covered by one of the three inquiries or by one of the bills that are detailed on the sheet? Some are obviously not directly involved, but might be covered in part.
This list contains all the subjects that were thrown up in the committee's initial discussion. Many of those will be covered in part by action that we are likely to take, and some will be covered in full. That is a good indication that the original polling threw up the issues that are likely to be the committee's priorities. It remains my priority that the committee should never miss an opportunity to include something that is completely different, if that is appropriate. Part of the purpose of today's discussion is to ensure that we have a rough idea of how and on which issues we want to proceed, from the huge range of issues that we must cover.
Would that meeting be with both ministers from the department?
Yes. We also need to have a slightly more formal session to plan forthcoming business so that we can establish a structure. We should, perhaps, leave that until after we have spoken to the minister.
Would it be possible for you to produce a draft proposal that ties matters to dates fairly specifically, and which gives us a fairly clear indication of what will be dealt with and when?
Richard Davies, Richard Walsh and I visited London to meet the chairman of the Agriculture Committee at Westminster. We also sat in on one of that committee's meetings. Our impression was that that committee has a more relaxed attitude towards business than we do and that, as a result, it is able to put together formal inquiries that last for a considerable length of time.
Is it confirmed that we will consider the forest strategy on 18 January?
That depends on whether we get it in time. We expect to get the strategy in January, but I do not know whether we will get it in time for that meeting; it might have to wait until the next one.
As members have no further points to raise, I close this meeting and thank members for their assistance.
Meeting closed at 16:30.
Previous
Agriculture Inquiry