Official Report 238KB pdf
Item 5 on the agenda concerns our work programme. Three of the four work programme reporters met last week. Members should have received a paper in my name—it is the pink paper entitled "Work Programme: Early 2002".
This may be an appropriate opportunity to raise foot-and-mouth, especially following the evidence that we took from officials last week. I do not know what other members feel, but I believe that we did not have time to reflect on what we heard from the officials. I would like the Minister for Environment and Rural Development to appear before the committee so that we can discuss with him the 21-day proposal, which is causing so much concern. I know that, following representations from constituents, many members of the committee are concerned about the proposal. We should discuss our concerns directly with the minister before the end of January, which is the deadline for making a decision on whether the temporary regulation should become permanent.
The impression that we were given last week was that the end of January was a decisive date with regard to the 21-day rule. My concern is how we would fit the minister into our timetable, given that we are pretty busy in those three weeks. How do other members feel on the subject?
I feel quite strongly that we should do as Richard Lochhead suggests. The issue concerns many people in farming communities throughout Scotland and the minister should come before us to account for himself.
A Scottish statutory instrument will have to be laid to implement any regulation. Would not that be a more appropriate time to have the minister appear before us?
I see what you mean, but we are trying to influence the content of the SSI. It would surely be possible to meet the minister for 40 minutes at the end of one of our meetings
I agree with Richard Lochhead. If we wait for the SSI to be laid, we will have no opportunity to influence what is in it.
I understand from the Executive's written evidence—members may correct me if I am mistaken—that the chief veterinary officer, Leslie Gardner, anticipates that the rule will remain in place until the outcome of the inquiries, which is expected to be in the autumn. That would be a serious situation. The only possibility that Mr Gardner talked about was that a separate regime might be introduced for various types of livestock, such as cattle, but even then, the situation is unclear.
There seems to be a little bit of confusion. Earlier, the convener said that he thought that an SSI would be laid. However, when I questioned the civil servants last week about the legal authority for maintaining the 21-day rule, they referred to the general provisions of the Animal Health Act 1981—that can be checked in the Official Report. I was disturbed by that because, while everyone accepts that emergency situations require emergency measures, it seems that there is a reluctance to ease up the emergency measures. It is important that we have an opportunity to ask for clarification.
I think that we should ask the minister to come and give evidence. Perhaps we could also ask a Government scientist or even an independent scientist to come. We must consider alternatives to the 21-day rule, such as keeping animals in quarantine, away from other animals. Such biosecurity measures would not affect the movement of other animals on a farm. We must build a case. There is little point in our saying that we want rid of the 21-day rule full stop. We need to consider other options that provide the same security as the 21-day rule, without the inconvenience to farmers.
Thank you.
I want to comment on the work programme.
Can we lay this topic to rest before we begin another? If we are going to influence the decision, we must debate the subject before the instrument is laid.
Which instrument are you talking about?
Sorry, you said that there was not going to be an order. Anyway, if we wish to influence the decision that is to be taken on the 21-day rule, we must consider the matter before the end of January. I suggest that we invite the minister to the meeting on 15 January and explore the regulation, which has raised many concerns.
If the minister declines to accept the invitation that we issued to him earlier to withdraw the inshore ban on cockle fishing, we should ask him to speak on that topic, too. If he is determined to proceed, there is a strong feeling that he must have a better scientific basis. Perhaps it would be appropriate to give the minister notice that if he is not inclined to accept our unanimous invitation, we would like him to address that issue at the committee meeting on 15 January.
I presume that that would be in order, on the ground that if the minister chose not to accept our invitation to withdraw the order, someone would lodge a motion to annul it, in which case he would have to come and explain it. That would not be difficult.
On 15 January we are taking evidence on the community right to buy in relation to the Land Reform (Scotland) Bill. That is a hugely important issue. We are also considering the budget adviser and a programme of visits. We are now asking the minister to give evidence on the 21-day rule and the cockle fishing industry.
I appreciate what you are saying, but where else can we fit it in? We have a busy schedule.
We have made an assumption that it is important to see the minister before the end of January. I question that. I do not see the time barrier on the 21-day rule being the end of January. Perhaps members could clarify that.
We have already agreed the situation. I am sure that the Official Report of last week's meeting will show that considerable importance was given to the end of January in relation to the 21-day rule.
I am just asking why.
Perhaps we can find out whether an instrument will be introduced in that time scale and when we need to speak to the minister to influence the decision. At the meeting of 29 January we will consider an outline report on land reform and we might have more time to give better consideration to the matter at that meeting, if the time scale allows.
We will try to find out whether we can do that by the end of the week. Do members agree that, if time allows, we will consider this business on 29 January, but that, if time does not allow, we will consider it on 15 January?
The issue of liberalising movements on farms is pretty urgent. We want to give as much time as possible to getting an Executive response following our meeting with the minister. In the spring, farmers will once again want to move stock around. We should avoid even a fortnight's delay if we can reasonably do so.
How much time would that leave us to consider the important issues of the community right to buy and land reform legislation? I am concerned. We decided originally to take evidence in three sessions, to emphasise how important it is for the committee to address those issues. Every time we decide on a work programme, members raise an issue that is important to them. All the issues are important, but we will not get another shot at the ones that I have mentioned, whereas we will get another shot at addressing the 21-day rule.
The crux of the matter is that we must ensure that we will get another go at addressing the 21-day rule and that we will be influential in the decision making. I suggest that we ask the clerks to determine whether our feelings can be taken into account if we take evidence on 29 January, or whether we will have to take evidence on 15 January to be able to influence the Executive's decision. I appreciate what members have said. I would have preferred there to be no items of business apart from the land reform evidence for the first three meetings in January, as it is crucial to the people of Scotland that we make a proper job of that inquiry. I ask members to leave it to the clerks to determine the time schedule.
I agree with Mike Rumbles that the land reform inquiry is important, but the 21-day rule issue is urgent.
Are members content with my suggestion?
I am concerned that neither this committee nor the Justice 2 Committee is taking evidence on land reform from witnesses from any estates, whether publicly owned, community owned or privately owned. That is ridiculous. Those are the people who will be affected most. It is extraordinary that this committee and the Justice 2 Committee have not considered that they should take such evidence.
Perhaps I can assist Jamie McGrigor. The Justice 2 Committee will take representations from the Scottish Landowners Federation and we will view two publicly owned estates.
Some people may consider that that is enough, but I do not.
I have great sympathy with what you are saying. We agreed to the list of witnesses last week. Members may receive information from other organisations and the whole procedure is open to written evidence. Given our tight time schedule—
That is another point. The schedule is far too tight on an issue that is of such importance.
I have sympathy with what you are saying, but it is not up to me to determine the schedule. We have been given that schedule and we must act within it.
Can I raise a point of protest about that?
You have done exactly that by saying what you said.
Will we take evidence from someone from a private estate?
No. We agreed that last week.
If we are not, why not?
We agreed that last week.
In that case, may I again protest?
You have just done so.
For the second time.
We will go away on 21 January. I seek confirmation that we have reached agreement to visit a farm near Aberfoyle belonging to one Fergus Wood, who may be known to some members, in connection with the access rights area of land reform. Are members content with that location?
We drew up a list of witnesses last week. I understand that a gentleman from Grantown-on-Spey, Mr Jack, has since been invited to attend. Is he coming himself? I understand that he might have support with him, but that the attendance of the other people has been refused.
I was not aware that there had been refusal of any persons to accompany Mr Jack. I would hope that Mr Jack could have someone with him who could also contribute. I do not think that it would take up more time were someone else to attend. I know that the local councillor involved, Angus Gordon—whom John Farquhar Munro also knows, I believe—is familiar with the issues and has had a long association with Hamish Jack and has supported the case that Mr Jack and his colleagues are arguing. His experience on Highland Council over the years makes him well able to make an extremely useful contribution to the discussion, as John Farquhar Munro will know better than I do.
The last thing that I want to be in this evidence-gathering exercise is exclusive, but I am aware that if everyone who comes along to the meeting brings two other people with them, we will have a much larger number of witnesses. However, I would be sympathetic to the suggestion made and to the Scottish Landowners Federation's bringing an estate owner with them, if members feel that that would help balance the evidence. I am slightly uneasy about everybody having two witnesses with them, however. That would give us 12 witnesses instead of six, which we had agreed was a reasonable number.
Convener—
But convener—
Hold on—I call Alasdair Morrison.
I appreciate the fact that Jamie McGrigor is genuinely exercised about the non-presence at the meeting of a private estate owner. If the SLF or Mr McGrigor himself were to identify an appropriate estate owner, I would be relaxed about that. I do not see why the arguments being promulgated by the SLF could not be reinforced by such a person if the approach suggested by the convener is adopted.
Thank you for that. That was helpful. Are members content with that?
I agree with the proposal.
I am glad that Jamie McGrigor and Alasdair Morrison, of all the committee members, have reached agreement on that. That is splendid.