Official Report 86KB pdf
Members should have a copy of the clerk's briefing paper on the approach to stage 1 of the bill. I suggest that we work our way through the paper as efficiently as we can. The first point is on the schedule for our meetings. The plan is that we make our report to Parliament in, roughly, the first week of February 2003. Do members agree that we should meet weekly to achieve that?
When will we meet weekly?
That is the next point that we need to discuss. We need to find a slot that is suitable for the majority of members. The clerk suggests Tuesday afternoons, which certainly suits me. However, John Farquhar Munro is on the Rural Development Committee, which meets on Tuesday afternoons.
Yes, the Rural Development Committee meets for extended periods on a Tuesday. However, I do not think that this committee has much option, because we will run into difficulties whatever day we choose to meet. I suggest that the clerk slot in the meetings to make the best possible use of the time. I will try to attend them.
The difficulty about having our meetings on Wednesday mornings is that three members of this committee are on the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee.
In that case, Tuesday afternoons are the least-worst option and I think that we will agree to meet then. If necessary, John Farquhar Munro will need a substitute for meetings of the Rural Development Committee.
Yes.
Could the timing of the Tuesday meetings take account of the fact that the Labour group meeting takes place on a Tuesday over lunch? Two o'clock would be a good time for this committee to meet.
Two o'clock would be fine. We will need to discuss certain arrangements later, but I think that the intention will be that we have a legal briefing in advance of the formal meeting in the same way as the Subordinate Legislation Committee operates. I suspect that the formal meetings will be short, because most of the work will be done during the legal briefing. We aim to schedule the meetings for perhaps 3 pm, with a half-hour legal briefing from 2.30 pm. We will let the clerk work out the detailed arrangements. However, we aim to work on that basis and will start doing so on the first Tuesday that we are back in January.
That would not help me at this stage.
Agreed.
We could write to the Lord Advocate and ask him whether he wants to come to the meeting to make any points.
I expect that we will need him to respond to certain things that we are told by other people, but I do not need him right now.
We will not, at this stage, call the Lord Advocate, but we will bear in mind the possibility that we might have to call him at a later stage. Are members content to liaise with officials about the bill's detail?
The next question is whether we want to seek oral evidence from external parties. The clerk sent out a press release some weeks ago to various interested bodies asking them whether they wished to give evidence, but there has been no response.
Paragraph 6 of the briefing paper lists the usual suspects. However, it struck me that people such as adjoining proprietors might have an interest and that organisations such as the National Farmers Union of Scotland should be dunted—I am sure that the NFUS has other things on its agenda at the moment. However, I suspect that the Scottish Anglers National Association might want to cover the bill. I would be particularly interested in hearing from people who net salmon. I am not sure whether a body speaks for them. If SANA does so, that is fine; otherwise, we could try to identify which body speaks for salmon netters.
The clerk advises that there is such a body.
The Salmon Net Fishing Association of Scotland represents salmon netters.
Was that body one of the ones to which we wrote?
No, although the press release was posted on the website, so everyone has access to it. However, I will flag up the matter with the NFUS and the Salmon Net Fishing Association of Scotland.
Do we wish to invite those bodies to give oral evidence, or do members think that it is sufficient just to ask them to give written evidence?
I would certainly be interested in hearing what the people with net fishing interests have to say. I do not know what other members think.
I would just like to make a general point about my difficulty with knowing how to answer those questions. Salmon fishing and the law of salmon fishing is a world of which I know nothing. I have read the recommendations of the Scottish Law Commission. I take it that we have to decide whether the recommendations are okay—whether the bill repeals things that should not be repealed or whether there are things that should be repealed that are being re-enacted. There is also the technical aspect, with which Iain Jamieson will help us. We have to decide whether there are mistakes in the bill, such as wrong footnotes, wrong references or wrong derivations. As for decisions on whether the legislation with which the bill deals has to be re-enacted, until somebody tells me otherwise, I am content with what the Scottish Law Commission has recommended.
The point about a consolidation bill is that we are not supposed to look at the policy behind the consolidation.
I do not mean the policy so much, but we are entitled to ask, "Have things been re-enacted that should not have been re-enacted?" and, vice versa, "Have things been repealed that should have remained?" We can obviously take evidence on that. Until people tell us that that is the position, I do not have any personal view on the matter.
I understand that. The Scottish Law Commission's proposals, which are incorporated in the bill, have been extensively consulted on.
That seems fine to me.
I think that the point that you are making is that we should not encourage evidence.
I am happy to welcome evidence, but it has to be from people who look at the bill and say, "No, we've a problem with this. We want to tell you what our problem is." I would not know to ask for a problem. I do not know whether that makes sense.
I am happy to take that steer from our deputy convener. Let us see what the written evidence is. If issues arise from it, we can reconsider.
Is that agreed?
The next question is whether we agree to have informal briefing sessions with the legal adviser prior to formal meetings of the committee. Do members agree to do that for half an hour before each meeting, if the legal adviser feels that that is sufficient time in which to brief members?
Can we get some indication as to how likely it is that we will get information early enough? The Subordinate Legislation Committee is probably a bad example, as that committee's legal adviser has such a burden that we usually get legal briefs the evening before. Is that likely to be the timetable for this committee?
We will try to obtain written legal briefings for members at least two days before the meeting.
That is ideal. I am obliged.
The legal adviser tells me that we could have information a week before each meeting, which would be very helpful and would give us a chance to look at things properly.
Does Iain Jamieson think that there is any difficulty in letting us have a full brief of everything that he thinks is not right?
There is no difficulty at all.
Before we even get to the evidence, perhaps we could cut to the chase and start with that. At our first meeting, Iain Jamieson could tell us everything that he thinks is wrong with the bill—major things or minor things. Once we have fixed that, there may be nothing else to fix.
The bill is a fairly hefty piece of legislation and a lot of work will be involved in going through it. I am not sure whether the legal adviser's work load would allow him to give us a full brief on day one. He may want to stage it over a number of weeks.
I think that I will stage it.
We have not yet seen the amount of work that may be involved. Rather than tackling everything on day one, we will need to go through the bill part by part.
I do not even know whether there is a lot of work in it, in that sense. One can have a big document with not much work in it, but there is obviously quite a lot in the bill.
Given the size of the bill, we will need to split consideration over at least two meetings. At the first meeting, we will consider part 1 and at the second meeting we will focus on the remainder of the bill. As we are meeting weekly, that will give us the opportunity to flag up outstanding issues with the Executive in writing after each meeting. When we get to the third meeting, we can perhaps call witnesses and officials to speak to the bill, before moving on to discuss a stage 1 report. Is that agreed?
Apart from taking evidence from the people who have a direct interest in salmon and freshwater fisheries, we should also consider taking evidence from groups that represent angling associations, so that we have the other side of the equation.
We have already written to those groups asking whether they wish to submit evidence. If they submit written evidence, we will consider whether we should take oral evidence.
Meeting closed at 11:20.
Previous
Item in Private