Official Report 163KB pdf
Everybody should have received copies of the written submissions that were solicited from several organisations. Richard Davies has prepared a paper that raises certain questions that may be pertinent to that written evidence.
The provenance of the submissions was that members suggested that the bodies that have been approached should provide written evidence to the committee before appearing before the committee. It was agreed that it would be sensible to obtain written submissions so that we could start off with a clear idea of the approach and practice of each of those bodies. Having read the submissions, I think that serious questions are unanswered and should be put to those bodies. Rather than labour the matter today, and pursue the questions that have been prepared by the clerks—who have identified many important questions—it would be sensible to hear evidence from the bodies at a future date, so that we could put the questions to them at that time.
Fergus Ewing raises the question whether we need to take further oral evidence and that demands a brief discussion. We have had comprehensive written responses and we need to progress quickly to our report. I would be interested in members' views on how we should do that.
I read the same submissions as Fergus Ewing did and came to different conclusions. To give an example, we received a letter from Stuart Housden, the director of RSPB Scotland, who says:
My conclusions are similar to those of Mike Rumbles. We are in danger of going round in circles. We are required to submit a stage 1 report and I do not feel that there is anything further that we could obtain from oral evidence that would better inform us on the general principles of the bill. We might want to revisit some of the organisations if the bill reaches stage 2 and we are considering amendments. Nothing further would be gained by hearing additional oral evidence, although a case could be made for the promoter and sponsor of the bill having a final opportunity to answer some of the points that have arisen in the course of the inquiry.
I thought that we had already had this debate and had decided to have one final session of oral evidence. Elaine Murray has voiced reservations, but has also said that there is case for taking more oral evidence.
We decided that it was necessary to seek further evidence on certain subjects that had been identified and that we would consider that evidence and decide what steps to take. We have spoken about the possibility of an additional oral evidence session. However, it is for the committee to decide whether that is necessary.
My understanding was that an additional oral evidence session would not hold up the drafting of the stage 1 report. The committee decided that extra evidence should not hold up the report and that any answers that we needed to seek at another oral evidence session could be slotted into the draft report. Has the situation changed? If, as the pink paper suggests, there are some further questions that are worth asking, why can we not go ahead with both the evidence and the draft report, without delaying anything at all?
I do not have the background knowledge on the matter that other members have. However, I have attended the committee from time to time, and it appears to me that the committee has taken a great deal of evidence. People out there are somewhat critical of the Rural Development Committee. People in my constituency have asked me why the committee is not getting on with land reform and tackling problems in agriculture, fishing and so on. There is a lack of sympathy for the committee because of the amount of time that it is spending on this matter. I do not know what the committee has done so far, but it would behove us to be rather more speedy and to get on to other things. We are being watched and people cannot understand why we are spending so much time on this issue when there are bigger problems out there.
I acknowledge that Mr Stone has attended the committee more than once, but there is a difference between being speedy and being thorough. Considering the impact that the bill will have, it would be absolutely appalling for the committee to be anything other than thorough. I contend that we have been nothing less than thorough, as we should have been.
Like Jamie Stone, I have not attended every meeting of this committee, but I have followed the debate closely by means of the evidence that has been produced and the website. A huge amount of written evidence has been received and we know what the issues are. If issues required factual clarification, we could obtain written evidence by posing specific and pertinent questions to the organisations. That might be more helpful than having another session of oral evidence, possibly delaying the drafting of the committee's report. I do not know whether the clerks would be able to produce a draft report without considering all the evidence.
I agree. I suggested that we ask for written evidence before we asked for oral evidence, and I am happy with the submissions that we have received. They were not intended to inform our questioning, but to determine whether we needed to take oral evidence from those organisations. We should now move ahead and start drafting our report.
As convener, I know that we need to move ahead briskly to the preparation and completion of our stage 1 report, and I am reluctant to take any step that might delay that. Without doubt, the written evidence that we have received raises a number of questions. Do members feel that it might be possible to obtain adequate answers to those questions through further correspondence?
That is a very good suggestion, as that would not delay the clerks in their drafting of the report. It would be wrong for the clerks to embark on drafting the report if we intended to take further, formal oral evidence.
In the timetable for consideration of the bill as it was previously discussed, had we not slotted in a period for taking evidence from these witnesses, from the promoter and the sponsor of the bill and from the minister?
We discussed that, and that session is provisionally planned for next week, although that would be relatively short notice. Those who were approached for written evidence were informed that there was a possibility that we might choose to take oral evidence on 23 January, so they were prepared for it. The minister's on-going responsibilities, of which we are all aware, have interfered with her timetable.
So is the minister not coming to the committee next week because of other commitments?
That would be the case.
What is planned for the committee next week, convener?
At the moment, we have spaces on the agenda. We have scheduled further evidence on the Protection of Wild Mammals (Scotland) Bill.
I have sympathy for what other members have said about wanting to see this through, although I share Jamie Stone's concern that many people in Scotland would like us to tackle other matters, which some may regard as of more pressing concern. Be that as it may, we have a job to do on a member's bill and we must be thorough.
I am puzzled, for two reasons. Jamie Stone's point, that some people want us to move on to a different topic, is probably true; but for every person who wants us to move on to a different topic there are probably 10 who want us to compile our report properly and not rush it through.
The fact that we scheduled time reflects proper management of the committee's time. It is not necessary to use up that time.
I cannot believe some of the phrases that I am hearing. When was the bill presented to us—back in April?
It was formally presented on 4 April.
We have been thorough in our approach to the bill. We could not accept the criticism that our investigation has not been thorough, competent and effective.
Not according to Jamie Stone. He says that the committee is having a hard time over it.
Deputy convener, would you mind not interrupting?
I cannot just sit back and take that. When we agreed to hold three themed oral evidence sessions, it was always our intention to leave room for a sweeping-up session at the end of the process. I cannot accept Mike Rumbles's assertion that that was not the case. That is what was agreed, and he knows it.
That session was held during the Dumfries meeting, was it not?
No. The Dumfries meeting was always going to be the fourth in the organised series of four themed meetings that we agreed to hold. We always allowed for an extra meeting—that is a fact. I am not arguing whether it would be a good idea to hold a further meeting, but that we always allowed for that to happen.
Why, then, did Alex Fergusson agree with me in September, when I moved that we did not need to proceed by taking oral evidence? Suddenly, he is saying that we need to take even more.
I agreed entirely with Mike Rumbles that there was enough in the written evidence without our taking oral evidence. However, the committee did not agree with that: the committee agreed to take further evidence, so let us do so.
I am coming to this debate late and I am still reading through all the written evidence. If I am to be convinced that we need another session of oral evidence, I would like to know what Fergus Ewing thinks is still missing which we can get only through oral evidence and not from a written submission, as any outstanding questions could be replied to in writing.
I do not know whether Mary Mulligan has had a chance to read the paper that the clerks prepared. I do not think that members would like me to read it out, but if she looks at it she will see that, in respect of the evidence that we have taken, there are a number of supplementary questions that the clerks have suggested to the committee. If one accepts that the clerks have done so without prompting by me or anyone else, that paper must be taken as answering her question.
I understand that Fergus Ewing is saying that there are questions outstanding. Although I appreciate that the clerk is suggesting issues, there are other members whose questions seem to have been answered satisfactorily. He still has not said why those questions have to be answered in an oral evidence session rather than just in writing.
I would like to have the chance to question witnesses who are here and to put questions orally. If Mary Mulligan's answer were pursued to its conclusion, the work of the Parliament would be done by means of written evidence. I speak as someone who has spent about 20 years taking oral evidence. The procedure of taking evidence is that it is done orally, so that all members can form a view as to the demeanour of witnesses and the reliability of the evidence that is presented.
I did not approach this issue with my mind made up. I looked for information from Fergus Ewing that would sway me in his direction. Unfortunately, the way in which he has answered has swayed me in the opposite direction. I am as open to taking oral evidence as anybody, but it has to be done for a specific reason. We do not need to take oral evidence just because an oral evidence session is in the diary.
Mary Mulligan has asked some of the questions that I was going to ask. If anything, Fergus Ewing has helped me to make my mind up. This is about a balance of written and oral evidence. As a new member of the committee, I think that if Fergus's argument is that one can judge evidence only on the basis of the demeanour of witnesses and how they present their evidence to the committee, we would have to go through the whole performance again because some of us were not here. I am prepared to take on trust the work that has been done. It is clear that a considerable amount of work has been done. The clerks have done their job by flagging up issues that should be pursued. Fergus, of all people, should know the amount of information that can be obtained by written questions, as he lodges plenty of them in the Parliament.
Fergus Ewing said that information supplied by the RSPB is incomplete. My first feeling on that is that we could ask some of the questions in writing. Is Fergus Ewing arguing that any information that the RSPB could give him on this would affect his view of the general principles of the bill? This stage is not about sifting through the minutiae; we are reporting on the general principles. We will not all hold the same opinion, but we have sufficient information to do what is required of the committee at the moment—possibly we should request a little more detail on costs and so on so that we can assess some of the other evidence that we have taken.
Having served on many committees over the years, I am listening to this discussion with great interest. There are two aspects to this matter. First, there are new members on the committee who have not had the privilege of listening to oral evidence. I was astounded to be told that the meeting in Dumfries was the final oral evidence session. There is a need for new members to listen to some of the people who are presenting oral evidence. I do not think that one session will make much difference.
We have discussed this at great length. I move that we ask for additional written evidence and take no further oral evidence.
I am struck by the new-found resistance to the taking of oral evidence since the new year. I return to the evidence, which is the substance of what we are talking about. One reason why we requested additional written evidence from these organisations is that it dawned on us a few weeks ago that we did not have input from major landowners in Scotland who perhaps encounter problems with fox control. We realised that we had to fix that omission, so we requested some written evidence.
Every time we reach the end of oral evidence, we agree to another session. If Richard Lochhead and Fergus Ewing persuaded the majority of the committee to have another oral evidence session, I am convinced that we would then be in exactly the position that we are in now. We had this debate two meetings ago. I hesitate to use the word filibustering—and I am not accusing anyone of it—but we are coming close to it. We would bring the committee into disrepute if we went down that route. Most members have indicated that they feel that we should make a decision. You should bring this matter to a close, convener.
I am content that everyone has had their say by now. We have the provision to take oral evidence next week. If we decide to take that opportunity it may ultimately result in slowing the process down. We have to decide to take oral evidence next week or that it is inappropriate to do so at this stage. Would members prefer to vote on the subject?
The question is, that we take oral evidence next week.
For
The result of the division is: For 4, Against 6, Abstentions 1.
With the caveat that further written questions are to be submitted and answers received, can I confirm that we are now at the end of the evidence session?
Yes. I assume that we are now approaching the end of the evidence procedure.
The promoter and sponsor of the bill might like to respond to the points that have been made. Perhaps we could write to Mike Watson to ask him whether, having considered the evidence before us, he wants to make any final written comments in support of the bill.
If no member wishes to comment on that, I have no objections to inviting them to come before the committee. We could fit that in on 30 January—
I think Elaine Murray was asking whether we could ask them for written evidence. They can put in writing their comments on the evidence we have taken, so that there is no need for another oral evidence session.
My motivation was more to give them the opportunity to come back to us with their arguments on any issues that were raised with us while we were taking evidence; they could do that in writing.
We should approach them and ask them to submit any comments in writing. Does that meet with the full approval of members?
If there are no further comments, that takes us to the end of item 3.
Previous
European Fisheries Negotiations