Rural Development Committee, 16 Jan 2001

Meeting date: Tuesday, January 16, 2001

Official Report 163KB pdf

---

Work Programme

Item 5 concerns the committee's work programme, on which a paper has been circulated. This item gives new members of the committee the opportunity to give us their input into the forward work programme, although we already have a fairly busy schedule ahead of us.

The legislative programme is largely outwith our control and will continue to form a substantial part of the committee's work. I would be grateful for any comments on the inquiries programme. We may also want to follow up on the land reform visit that we made last spring. Because of delays in the progress of land reform legislation, that has not been the priority that we thought it would be. In the nearer future, we will also have to focus on plans for our agriculture inquiry. Are there any general comments?

The salmon farming inquiry is supposed to be on our agenda somewhere. I would like clarification about the time scale. In the light of the recent BBC programme on the subject, which I think we all agree made a useful contribution to the debate, although some aspects of it were certainly over the top, interest in and concern about salmon farming have been heightened. I think that we should push it up our agenda as soon as possible.

The Transport and the Environment Committee will discuss the inquiry on Wednesday 24 January. It would be inappropriate for us to progress without working hand in hand with that committee. As I have said, I hope that members of the Transport and the Environment Committee will want to meet jointly with this committee to consider how to progress. I am somewhat surprised that the issue has not appeared on that committee's agenda before now, but it is sensible to work hand in hand with that committee, given that we have worked jointly until now.

As soon as possible after the Transport and the Environment Committee has considered the matter, it should come back on to our agenda.

Indeed. Do members agree that, at the next meeting of this committee after the Transport and the Environment Committee has considered the matter, the salmon farming inquiry should be on our agenda so that we can discuss how to progress jointly with members of that committee?

Could you refresh my memory—and perhaps inform the new members of the committee as well—whether the Transport and the Environment Committee agreed that an independent inquiry should be launched by the Scottish Executive. Is that what was decided?

Yes.

So why do we have to discuss it again?

Because we have not agreed formally on the recommendation.

This committee has accepted the recommendation. However, the reporters were jointly appointed by this committee and by the Transport and the Environment Committee. It is therefore necessary and courteous of us to take the opportunity to ensure that we include the views of the Transport and the Environment Committee. That committee might choose not to agree with us, but should have the opportunity to say so.

If that committee agrees with us, I suggest that we do not discuss the matter again but write to the Executive to ask that the matter be given a high priority. We do not need to meet simply to make that decision. If the Transport and the Environment Committee comes up with a recommendation that is totally different from ours, we should meet the members of that committee as soon as possible to decide how to progress the situation.

That is a sensible suggestion and is how I would progress the situation.

I want to talk about a slightly different subject, if I may. Although I am, as I freely admit, an outsider coming into this committee, I was thinking about the forward work programme. The issue of land reform will come before the committee eventually. That issue will hit hardest in the Highlands, although it will affect the Borders and the lowlands as well.

Some aspects of the workings of the Crofters Commission, including the right to buy and property development, have been raised with me fairly frequently—I dare say Fergus Ewing will have had the same sort of representations from crofting communities. I know that time is always an issue, but would the committee be willing at some date to consider the north again—perhaps a part of the area other than Assynt? I think that it might be useful to take evidence from the sharp end of land reform.

I fully appreciate that Alex Fergusson's part of the world and all other rural parts of Scotland have a pull on the committee, but I mentioned my proposal to the clerks several months ago, before I even dared hope that I would be a member of the committee.

It is likely that there might be some legislation concerning crofting law later in the year. Given the experience of the issues that you and Fergus Ewing have, I would be delighted if you would give me a considered recommendation that could be put to the committee.

So the ball is in our court. I am happy to do that, if I have Fergus Ewing's agreement.

I am happy with that. Rhoda Grant also has a substantial involvement in crofting matters. I should point that out in the interests of non-partisan co-operation.

My apologies, Rhoda. At least there is one gentleman on the committee, although it is not me.

I would be delighted to have input on those subjects so we can bring them before the committee for consideration.

We should speak to the Executive to find out how it thinks the legislation will progress. That would help us decide what aspects we want to examine before it comes before us. We need to make time for that before the summer.

We will get that on to the agenda at an opportune moment.

I read with interest the areas that were initially identified for inquiries. One was freight transport. There was a suggestion that it would be considered in consultation with the Transport and the Environment Committee. The issue was also linked to forestry strategy. Has that matter progressed at all? Does the committee still intend to consider it?

We have touched on the matter in the context of other issues. It is on our list of priorities.

I would like it to be on the list of priorities and I would like action to be taken on it at some point, although I appreciate the point that the committee's work load will be determined by the legislative programme.

I support that, convener. Freight and forestry is of huge significance in the south of Scotland and further afield. It is a relevant issue.

I would like to know how many bills we are likely to work on in the raft of land reform legislation proposals that will arrive in the spring. Can you give us an idea?

If I gave you a piece of string you could measure it.

As we are all aware, there is a land reform programme and several bills will be introduced as part of that. As yet, we have no idea whether the Rural Development Committee will be the lead committee on any of those bills. That decision will not be taken until the bills are introduced. We do not know what the time scale will be, given that certain items in the programme have slipped considerably. Although we can consider the list of possibilities and make projections, it is clear that some matters are rather further behind schedule than we would like.

Convener, you will represent the Rural Development Committee at the Parliamentary Bureau when the committee's legislative programme and time scales are discussed. As we do not know exactly what those proposals are, when you go into negotiations with the bureau, will you make it clear that we would like to have proper scrutiny of the legislation?

The National Parks (Scotland) Bill and the Salmon Conservation (Scotland) Bill were rushed through—both the committee and the Executive accept that. We should put down a marker to say that we do not want to handle the bills that will be introduced as part of the land reform programme in the same way.

I take those remarks to heart.

We must also consider the launch of the report into employment patterns in rural Scotland, which we have been working on for some time. As a result of exchanges of the final draft—on which we have received no comments—we can move towards publication. That should take 10 to 14 days to complete.

I suggest that we have a press launch and that we request committee time in the chamber for a debate.

I have had a marker down for committee time in the chamber for some time. I requested that three months ago, before I knew when we would publish the report.

We have launched reports in different ways in the past. We had a press conference—I am not sure that that was much of a success—and a more successful launch at which we invited spokesmen from each party to talk to the press individually. Richard Lochhead and Mike Rumbles were involved in that. Did you find that a more satisfactory way in which to launch a report?

I have mixed views on the matter. The whole committee—with the exception of the new members—has been involved in the issue and I would not want to exclude those who have made some contribution.

The whole committee could attend the launch, with a few members as key speakers.

We could organise a small event—with coffee and sandwiches to encourage the press to attend—attended by past and present committee members. The press could see the report and ask us questions on a relatively informal basis.

We could put out a press release with a comment from each party. That could go along with a photocall.

Yes. I have been reminded that we should also invite Mark Shucksmith to the event. Are we content to move along with that?

Members indicated agreement.

The time scale for that is between 10 and 14 days. We will provide an exact date at the earliest possible convenience.

Other issues that I have on my list to address include the preparatory work on the budget. We seem to have finished that only recently, but the time has come for us to begin considering it again. Would it be appropriate to ask the clerk to produce a paper on how the committee might approach the budget process in the coming year, given that we have had one or two problems and contentious issues on it before?

Members indicated agreement.

May was initially suggested as a deadline for that work, but the clerk has gone a bit quiet about that. An early paper on that will help us to decide how we want to proceed.

Also on our agenda is consideration of the document "Rural Scotland: A New Approach". I have suggested to members that I would like to invite the minister to the committee to discuss that document, perhaps allowing us some input and giving us the benefit of his thinking on it at this stage.

We should also ask the minister why the name of this committee has changed.

You are welcome to do so.

That meeting may provide the opportunity for us to discuss with the Minister for Rural Development—as he now is—the issues that are being dealt with by the cross-cutting Executive committee on rural development, which we know exists and meets but which does not have the close relationship with the work of this committee that other aspects of rural development work have. I would like to ask the minister one or two questions about that part of his role. A tentative date of late March has been suggested for that meeting. Is that agreed?

Members indicated agreement.