Work Programme
Agenda item 2 is our work programme. This is our first review of the programme since it was agreed at the summer away day. Paper RAE/S3/07/10/2 sets out our progress in the various programme tasks that we undertook.
We have probably got through more than I expected, because we have managed to deal with some of the smaller issues. I was not confident at the summer away day that we would get as many of them done as we appear to have done. Of course, the Crown Estate issue became bigger than we had expected.
Members will see from the table on the back page of the briefing paper that we have committed to a lot of work for a significant amount of the available time in 2008. We will take oral evidence on flooding in January, February and March. We are doing our budget report just now. We will put out a call for written evidence on rural housing and take oral evidence on the issue in May and June. We will also deal with various other issues, including fishing. We flagged up previously that we wanted to deal with aspects of fishing early, so we have pulled back the evidence taking, particularly on scientific evidence, to June instead of doing it at the last minute in December, as we typically would.
I point out to John Scott that we will have an evidence session on ticks in May. I do not know whether the group for whom John is the reporter will be in a position to make it sensible to have an evidence session then. However, we wanted something for that time, so we pencilled in a session on ticks. We thought that it would be appropriate to discuss that issue at that time of year.
We will do the flooding report in April, following oral evidence, and we will do the rural housing report in September, following evidence. We must also kick off the agricultural regulation inquiry by putting out a call for written evidence in May; we will take oral evidence on the issue in September and October. We have yet to get to grips with the detail of the agricultural regulation inquiry.
We can put a number of ticks—[Laughter.] Sorry, what can I say?
A number of potential areas for scrutiny have been mentioned. Sarah Boyack suggested the local food issue. We chose at the away day not to proceed with it, but we might return to it. We could undertake post-legislative scrutiny of the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003, but I am not sure when the Snowie case in Stirling will be decided: it would be useful to wait for that decision before we take a further view on such scrutiny. Scrutiny of the Scottish Agricultural Wages Board could be part and parcel of the agricultural regulation inquiry.
Peter Peacock suggested that we investigate green space in urban Scotland; I do not know whether last week's debate has changed his mind about that. I suggested that we examine the application of the waste electrical and electronic equipment directive and Des McNulty raised the general issue of waste management. He also requested a sea fisheries inquiry, but I wonder whether the new way in which the committee has decided to deal with sea fisheries obviates the need for that.
The way in which we will deal with sea fisheries is in line with what I suggested, so I am happy with that.
As for the petition that is before the Public Petitions Committee on mechanical vibrations through wind turbine installations, our best bet is to wait for that committee to decide what it will do.
Our paper says that Mike Rumbles has proposed a review of wildlife crime legislation, but I have just been handed a note that says that he does not know where the quote that was attributed to him came from.
It did not come from me, anyway.
Mike Rumbles has also suggested scrutiny of the pig industry. Other topics are the less favoured area support scheme, nitrate vulnerable zones and the common agricultural policy health check.
Not too much thought is needed to realise that we will be unable to cover all those subjects, so we need to decide what we can reasonably do before the 2008 summer recess, given the time constraints to which we are subject. When we receive the evidence on ticks, that will deal with another issue that was raised at the away day.
We must decide which of the other topics are more or less important. The common agricultural policy continues to be an issue, but I am not sure how it could be incorporated into the available evidence sessions—we do not have a huge amount of time. We will take oral evidence on flooding from January to March. We do not have to confine ourselves to taking evidence purely on that, but I remind members that it is difficult to take evidence on two different matters at one meeting—it is not easy to manage. We have done it, but I do not recommend it as a standard course. What are members' views?
The big issue that is hanging over is what we do about the Crown Estate, on which we have done quite a lot of work. We need to decide our next steps on that.
I confess that when you first suggested fortnightly meetings, I wondered whether that was appropriate. With the benefit of hindsight, I see that it is entirely appropriate, because we need a bit of space between meetings to reflect on matters, to read the Official Report and to follow up questions. You have hit the right pattern of meetings, although it constrains us at one level. Our work programme is heavy. The rural housing study, the flooding inquiry and the agricultural regulation inquiry will all be heavy.
I feel strongly that we established a rapport with the Crown Estate, which is listening closely to what is being said. It is proposing various changes and has offered to come back to give evidence in a year. I think that that meets our requirements and will give the Crown Estate a chance to do some of the things that it and we suggested. We will have an opportunity to evaluate those in a year's time. I would leave it at that.
It occurred to me yesterday that Professor Shucksmith's report on crofting is missing from the list of future work. He will report around Easter, I think. We might be required to consider his report during 2008—I flag that up for people to think about.
Waste management, on which Audit Scotland has published a report, is a big issue that affects all Scotland's citizens. Local authorities' practices vary, so we should think about holding a fairly big inquiry into the matter.
I still think that it would be appropriate for the committee to consider the environment in urban Scotland and not just in rural Scotland. Notwithstanding that we had a debate last week on green space, we should consider green space in urban Scotland at some point. I am not pushing that as the top priority, but we should consider it. It would also be worth our while to consider local food. The waste electrical stuff might fit in with wider scrutiny of waste management.
Yes—some of the suggested topics can be put together.
I will be interested to hear what Mike Rumbles says about pigs. There is an issue about the pig sector in Scotland, although we might not need to hold a huge inquiry into it. I am also interested in the proposed review of wildlife crime legislation. It might be appropriate for us to consider the matter after the chief inspector of constabulary has reported on it. I am not sure that we should do so before then.
I should have said that what we need to do today is to discuss the shorter term stuff, for January to April. We have already agreed inquiries that will continue after the summer recess into late 2008.
My view is that we should have an away day in an off week before the summer recess. If we make decisions at an away day, it is useful to have at least one meeting shortly afterwards so that we can action some decisions. I propose that we hold one in early June, rather in the summer recess. That will give us the long-range discussion that will take us into 2009. Peter Peacock is right that some topics are amenable to much bigger inquiries. However, I am not sure that we are best placed to decide on those in the next seven minutes. Today, we need to think about the next three or four months. If the committee agrees to hold an away day in June, we can take the long-range decisions then.
It would be better to tackle the Crown Estate next year, after it has reported back. However, there is a danger in waiting until then: we need more information. It might not be a high priority, but in the long term we need to get some legal advice.
From what the cabinet secretary said in his letter, the Scottish Executive seems to take the view that the Crown Estate is entirely a reserved matter, but the evidence of the Highlands and Islands conveners group seemed to be that, although the organisation is a reserved matter, responsibility for the land that the commissioners administer has already been devolved. Given that there seems to be a misunderstanding, or a divergence of views, I would like the committee to receive the best available legal advice so that we can find out what the position is. The clerks could liaise with the expert Robin Callander to find out what the Crown Estate review working group thinks. We have obtained evidence from the minister, but more liaison work is probably needed before the Crown Estate reports back next year.
We have canvassed legal advice on the Crown Estate. We got into a slightly circular argument because the first response to our request was to ask in what context we wanted such advice. It was considered that such advice could not be supplied unless we were to hold an inquiry. The situation is a little bit circular—we may have to go back and have another discussion on that.
I feel strongly that we need to know what the position is before we move forward.
I turn to the short report on the pig industry, which is from a particular company in that industry. I am sorry for circulating it at such short notice, but I received it only yesterday. The Scottish pig industry, which employs 5,000 people, is in crisis. I know that many things go wrong in the agricultural sector and that some sectors talk about being in crisis when it is just a matter of proportion, but I genuinely believe that the pig industry is being hit by a big crisis. I suggest that if we want to do a short inquiry involving one or perhaps two sessions when we come back from recess, either in winter or spring, the topic must be a high-priority candidate. I would like to hear other members' comments; their support would be helpful.
I agree that waste is a big issue. We should report on it once we have got through the three big inquiries that are coming up, especially in the light of Audit Scotland's report on the subject and the European directives that relate to it.
Let me deal first with the Crown Estate. I echo what Mike Rumbles and Peter Peacock said—they did not contradict each other. It would probably be best to wait until next year, when we have taken up the Crown Estate's offer to come back and give evidence, before we do more work on it, although it would be useful not to come to that cold. Maintaining a dialogue with Robin Callander and other stakeholders might help to better inform us for when we take evidence from the Crown Estate. I do not think that a full inquiry is the way to go; I agree with what Mike Rumbles and Peter Peacock proposed.
Our work programme for the early part of next year is clear. Given that we already have quite a heavy schedule, I do not want us to encumber ourselves with too much more work. That said, we will need to leave an opening in our programme in case something interesting emerges from the crofting inquiry that we need to examine.
As regards Mike Rumbles's paper on the pig industry—
That is not a formal committee paper. As we are in public session, I point out that people who want to find that paper will not find it on the committee's web page because it is not a committee paper.
I was going to say something along those lines. It is probably right to put that on the record.
I am not concerned about our receiving information that is useful to know, but I am slightly concerned about the fact that we have received it from an on-going commercial concern. That should be noted. However, it is clear from the paper that there are issues to do with the pig industry that we might need to examine in the new year. I note that the paper says that there could be a problem before Christmas. It is a shame that the fact that we received the paper so late in the day means that we will not be able to do anything about the issue before Christmas.
Lastly, the suggestion about the away day is good. To be honest, I do not mind one way or the other what the next big inquiries will be—all the suggested subjects are good. We should leave a substantive discussion until the away day next year.
Yes, there are a number of ideas. I will mention one of mine after we have heard from John Scott.
This is rather like an echo: I agree with Peter Peacock and others about the Crown Estate—
This is a very consensual committee.
Just wait.
We have to see how the Crown Estate is getting on in a year's time. If there is an issue anywhere, it is in the marine division, and perhaps that needs to be closely monitored. That is the only possible issue, and there is a willingness to work with us and implement suggestions that we have made. We should leave that for the time being.
On land reform, I agree with the convener that we should wait until the legislation beds in and issues become clearer. I am happy to agree to an away day before the recess—that is an eminently sensible idea.
I know that I said before that we did not need an inquiry into local food. However, if we are going to discuss it, we should do so in the context of ensuring that all the initiatives and the Government's cross-cutting agenda are brought together. That relates not only to this Government but to the previous Labour Administration, which made similar proposals in May 2004, but the work did not happen. It is important that we do something to ensure that all the cross-cutting work happens.
The LFASS schemes, the nitrate vulnerable zones and the common agricultural policy health check are major issues. We have reached the position with the NVZs at which everything is almost done and dusted. The work is bedding down, and there is not much more that we can do, so I am not sure how much benefit there would be in our examining it. There has not been a satisfactory outcome, particularly for the farmers who will have to lay out the capital, but the situation is as it is.
Jamie Hepburn is right that we should not take long-term decisions about our future agenda, because something else will turn up by the middle of the summer. It is suggested in the committee papers that we could look forward to the next two years. I would leave things for now, because something else will raise its head long before then. Being committed to work now would not be sensible.
On pigs and Mike Rumbles's paper from the Grampian Country Food Group, I agree totally that there is a huge industry issue with pigs. That said, for as long as I can remember there has always been an issue with pigs. I was going to say that I would be happy to root about in that, but I probably should not put it that way. However, if the committee wants to examine the pig industry, I am happy to do that.
I will ask for contributions from Karen Gillon and Des McNulty, but then I want to wind up the discussion, because we need to get through the rest of the agenda.
I am content with the position on the Crown Estate that has been outlined by my colleague Peter Peacock, and I look forward, in the new dialogue that we have with the organisation, to discussing the management of the River Clyde and, in particular, how that will affect people in my constituency.
On agricultural regulation, I want to put down a marker on the issue of the Agricultural Wages Board. The establishment of a national minimum wage does not take away the need for such a wages board. People are paid above the national minimum wage, so there is no case for reducing their wages, which may be the consequence if we rely on the national minimum wage legislation mechanism for agricultural wages. I want to put that clear marker down, and if we want to deal with it in the agricultural regulation inquiry, we will need to be clear about the evidence that we take and the people from whom we take it.
I do not think that LFASS can be dealt with in the agricultural regulation inquiry. If we examine it, it will need to be stand alone—it will be a significant inquiry into how the current system works and whether it gets payments to those who are in less-favoured areas. That is an issue for us.
There are two issues that I think we should consider. First, I had substantial concerns about the pig industry when I read our briefings on foot-and-mouth disease. There is a case for our taking evidence—even if we can do so in only one meeting—from people in the industry and the minister, to consider what can be done to support the pig industry. That is not too much to ask. The sector has perhaps been forgotten about in Scotland, and we should try to focus on it.
Secondly, we should timetable work on waste. There are many issues to do with how we meet requirements on waste and encourage people to do their bit, as well as issues to do with the wider context. We cannot get away from the issue. We should tackle it.
I will try not to repeat what other members have said, other than to note my agreement.
On fishing, I am keen to draw comparisons between what we are trying to do and what people have done internationally. I am not sure that we can do that in a single evidence session in June. We might have to have two sessions: one on the scientific evidence and one on comparative approaches, perhaps in New Zealand, the United States or somewhere else that has been outwith our consideration.
It might be possible for the Scottish Parliament information centre to provide some of that information.
That might well be the case. I just flag up the issue.
I agree with what members have said about waste management. This point might emerge from our discussions on the budget: there is a fundamental issue about the approach to waste management, which creates an urgent need for an inquiry. I appreciate that other issues are on our agenda, but in March and April, as we come to the end of our inquiry into flooding and flood management, there might be an opportunity to start taking evidence on waste management. We should consider doing that before the summer.
I agree that we should consider local food—John Scott made that point. I am interested in how procurement processes in health boards and local authorities operate and might change. We might not take evidence, but we could ask questions and ask SPICe to do work on the procurement of local food. I am interested in that dimension.
Can we focus on what we will do in the early part of 2008? Some of the issues that you have raised must be considered over a much longer term.
Okay. My top priority is waste management, followed by greening the urban environment—I support what Peter Peacock said about that.
Okay, but I find it difficult to see how we can do a waste management inquiry in the first half of 2008. We need to think about the slightly longer term, because members are forgetting that as well as conducting an inquiry into flooding and flood management, we will have to deal with a bill on flooding. Our first year is relatively legislation-free, but that will not continue.
I want us to think about an idea that I mentioned at our away day. We are holding an inquiry into rural housing, and it would be useful to plan an arc of rural development inquiries that we will undertake during the four-year parliamentary session, so that we consider which inquiries slot together and produce a substantial body of work on rural development over the four years. However, we cannot do anything about that between now and the summer recess.
I refer members to the first bullet point of paragraph 38 of the work programme paper, which invites us to review progress on our current programme. We have done that quite well so far. We have not yet discussed the second bullet point, which concerns how we might deal with evidence, not just on the flooding inquiry but in any oral evidence sessions that we hold. At the end of each such session, we could discuss our views and impressions in private immediately following the oral evidence. That would allow the clerks to begin to draft, as they go, some of the framework for any reports that might eventuate. I have had experience of that in other committees—it works extremely well, and it cuts down on some of the time that is needed for reports at the end of the process. With members' agreement, we will do that when we take the oral evidence on flooding.
I detected no interest in pursuing the Scottish index on multiple deprivation at the moment. We have had a good discussion about the Crown Estate programme, and I propose that, at the end of next year, we take evidence from the Crown Estate. In the meantime, we will explore further the issue of the legal position of the Crown Estate and how the devolved-reserved split actually works, on which we will try to get some clearer views.
We have discussed the CAP health check—at this stage, I have not detected any overwhelming desire to do anything between now and June, but we can try to keep it in mind. We have noted the various options for inquiry topics and flagged up some new issues, and we have agreed to have an away day in June, which we will organise. In respect of the potential for one-off meetings, they might be possible—at this stage, it can only be a "might be". If we can identify some available time, we will perhaps consider one or two issues.
Does John Scott want to come in very briefly?
Sorry, I should have raised this earlier. We could consider food security in the future—at an away day or whenever. It really is an emerging issue, and as a committee that is concerned with rural development, we should have a handle on it, with regard to Scottish agriculture and the country's food production capability. If food security becomes an issue in the next three to five years, as I believe it will—it is already starting to happen—we want to have at least anticipated it, if others believe it to be important.
We can discuss that at greater length in June, when we have some background information. Mike Rumbles has made a case for having at least one session on the pig industry. The slight difficulty that I have with that is that the paper presents the issue as if it is an immediate crisis, and I do not know whether it is possible for us to fit in an evidence session before the summer recess. I do not know how members feel about that. Would it be useful?
The clerk is advising me that we could have SPICe examine the situation and see whether we can find a basis on which to proceed.
Mike, I do not want to extend this any further, as we are already running 15 minutes behind.
I just want to make a plea. If we decide that time is available to do a one-slot inquiry, the pig industry deserves examination. We could have an industry view in the first part of the session, and invite the minister in to see what action he can take—if anything—to help the situation.
What do committee members feel?
I am happy with that, as a lot of issues concerning the pig industry have been raised in my own area—there are very serious problems. In fairness, the minister has indicated in response to questions and in parliamentary debates that his officials are considering a package of support. If that is announced, it might alleviate the situation, but we can make that judgement only early in the new year. I would prepare for holding a session, but we can change that if necessary.
Okay.
I am happy for us to consider it as well. Mike Rumbles's suggestion is good. However, we must be clear that, if we invite a representative of the industry, we are not inviting an individual company but wider industry representatives.
I am not questioning the evidence, but we are talking about only one industry. Perhaps we should have SPICe provide us with a slightly broader briefing, rather than go into an inquiry based on a report from a single organisation.
That is the point that I was making about SPICe. We will also find out what the Government is doing and what its timescale is for producing a package of recommendations.
That is one potential inquiry, if we can fit it in. Is there anything else that committee members feel we should consider, if it can be fitted in, before we have an away day? I cannot see anything else that is amenable to a straightforward single meeting. I take on board John Scott's comments that events often overtake us and it is never advisable to pack the committee's workload to such a degree that we do not have the capacity to address issues as and when they arise, for example the crofting report. It is advisable for us to keep some flexibility.