Official Report 163KB pdf
We have a full turnout of the new committee, which brings us to item 1 of the agenda. I welcome our new members—Mary Mulligan, Margaret Ewing, Cathy Jamieson and Jamie Stone—and invite them to make any declarations of interests that they think are relevant to the committee.
I continue to serve as a member of the Westminster European Scrutiny Committee. As part of our agenda today involves European matters, I thought that I should make clear my membership of that committee. I resigned from the committee last July, but my resignation has not been accepted so far, because a replacement cannot be found. I do not know whether that is flattery or a comment on Westminster's procedures.
I do not have any registrable interests, but it is important for members to note that, as a Labour and Co-operative member, I have links with the Co-operative movement and that the Co-operative Wholesale Society has extensive farming interests throughout the UK.
Apart from certain dairy interests, I have an interest in a small amount of land. Farming crosses my bows slightly, via my mother.
It is worth putting on record that I have no registrable interests to declare at this meeting.
Thank you.
It has pretty much ground to a halt. Our last meeting was postponed pending the outcome of the Office of Fair Trading report. The OFT has reported, but I have been given no further information about if or how the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee wishes to proceed.
Do members think that it is necessary to replace those two reporters at this stage?
We should use this opportunity to replace them.
As a point of information, I used to be on the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee. The inquiry was at the stage where a certain amount of evidence had been taken in private by a group of reporters from that committee. The inquiry has not ceased; rather, some dialogue took place between the convener, a representative of each of the political parties and the retailers. At some point, the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee will take up the inquiry again, so it will probably be worth while having reporters available.
In that case, we will appoint replacements for those positions, which were filled by an SNP member and a Liberal Democrat member. It would be appropriate for us to replace them with representatives of the same parties. Are there any nominations?
I will quickly nominate Jamie Stone.
I will also be quick: I nominate Fergus Ewing.
Do those nominations meet with the committee's agreement?
Jamie Stone and Fergus Ewing will take over those reporters' roles.
The petition has lurched from one position to another and has been difficult to deal with. We were meant to meet Helen Eadie from the Transport and the Environment Committee, but every time we arranged to do so, another report was due to enter the public eye or a meeting was due to take place between the Scottish Homing Union and Scottish Natural Heritage. To be frank, we did not get anywhere. However, the issue has not gone away, so it would be appropriate to appoint another reporter, in the hope that we can make progress.
We must replace Cathy Peattie, as she has moved on. As members are aware, we try to maintain party balance and, for that reason, it would be appropriate to replace Cathy with a member of the Labour group. Are there any nominations?
I will replace Cathy Peattie.
Not a nomination but a volunteer—Dr Elaine Murray has volunteered to take on that role. Are members agreed?
Section 9.4 of the MSPs' code of conduct states that all draft committee reports should be kept confidential to members of the committee only, unless the committee specifies otherwise. Would the committee be happy for former members of the committee, who have taken an active part in preparing reports that are yet to be completed and published, to be given the opportunity to comment on draft reports at the appropriate time?
Will those members also be restricted in the comments that they may make on confidential matters?
Yes. They would be restricted to receiving confidential written draft reports and making written comments on those reports for consideration by the committee.
The subject of substitutes has been in the air recently. Do we have any idea of the timetable for the acceptance of substitutes and whether they will also be party to confidential papers?
I am not in a position to comment on that.
Would that apply to other outstanding reports, not just to the stage 1 report on the Protection of Wild Mammals (Scotland) Bill?
Indeed it would.