Transport and the Environment Committee, 22 Sep 1999

Meeting date: Wednesday, September 22, 1999

Official Report 222KB pdf

---

Work Programme

We are continuing the distillation process in regard to our work programme and putting some meat on what we have previously discussed. As you will all be aware, at our last meeting, we identified a number of priorities. One was telecommunications, which we have agreed to pursue. The list also included concessionary fares, further briefing in the framework for water and fuel proposals and rural petrol stations.

It has been difficult to ensure that we reflect the requirements of the committee and the desire to consider certain areas. A number of Scottish statutory instruments are coming our way. We need to bear that in mind, as consideration of such instruments is one of our roles. Petitions will come our way, too, as will matters referred to us by other committees. By the end of December, we will have draft legislative proposals for transport, national parks, land reform and the access question. Around that time, we will also have the Executive report on the strategic roads review and, probably, the outcome of the national waste strategy consultation process.

We have had to be cautious in our approach to the work programme. The draft programme that you have before you is not set in stone; it is an attempt to regulate the way we are going to work in the coming months. We will respond to matters that the committee raises.

I am happy with that.

I am happy with it, too, but I would like to know when we will be able to discuss our next round. As you all know—I have lobbied you individually—I am keen for us to get involved in the genetically modified foods debate. All day today and tomorrow, a big conference is taking place in Edinburgh, at Heriot-Watt University. Evidence is being taken from both sides and that might provide us with a good lead as to which people we want to invite to appear before the committee in order to have a balanced argument. It is a matter of enormous public concern and we should signify as soon as possible that we are prepared to take on the debate. The only person who backs me on that point is not here at the moment.

I appreciate your point and also that you made a request for that earlier. If I recollect correctly, Iain Gray took the GM issue into the health arena in the summation of the public health debate. He said that GM was, in the first instance, a question of health. However, we have not forgotten the issues that are not in the work programme. We will revisit them and discuss the way in which to slot them in. We will review our work programme on a regular basis to update and develop it.

I agree with what you are saying and I take Robin's point. We should consider GM when time allows, but we have two other issues on the list.

Do documents such as the annual reports of the Scottish Environment Protection Agency and Scottish Natural Heritage come to the committee? What are the procedures for reports that are laid before Parliament? Will a meeting with the chief executive and the chairman of those quangos be built into our programme, when those reports are presented to Parliament?

I take my advice from the clerk, who says that there is no requirement for those reports to come to the committee, but that it is our choice.

Can I make a plea that we could do that when the reports are published? I presume that publication is tied to the financial year, so we could not hear from witnesses until well into next year.

That point is valid and well made.

We have enough work to be going on with and I am pleased to see that we will be taking the issue of telecommunications further, as well as the other issues that we have prioritised.

I remind the committee that we agreed a few priority areas, including a closer examination of rural transport, and the bus industry in particular. I do not want to lose those matters at the beginning of next year. I do not want to come back to a totally new set of priorities.

I think that we are taking a bite-size approach. I take on board what Cathy has said.

Are there any other questions on the work programme?

I agree with Cathy's point. There is an issue about the way in which we handle the agenda. We spent quite a long time on two SSIs today, but there is a huge programme of other SSI matters on the horizon. Perhaps we should take them in a defined and relatively short period at the end of meetings, rather than at the start. In other words, the key priorities that we have defined should be at the top of our agenda. The mechanics of handling SSIs should be dealt with in a later part of the agenda.

I suggest that we have a routine mechanism at the start of the meeting so that if someone particularly wants to raise a matter in relation to an SSI we could increase the allocated time, but otherwise we should try to deal with SSIs in 15 minutes at the end of the meeting.

There seems to be general approval for that suggestion and I am happy to take it on board.

This morning was slightly different. We laid a marker that we wanted the matter properly dealt with and were establishing a better standard than had existed. That may settle down. I am impressed by the fact that my business manager notified me that there were five SSIs to deal with. This issue will just keep rolling.

As I suspect that not every member is all that excited about many of these instruments, perhaps it would be more appropriate to establish a sub-committee, which would take the issue out of the committee agenda. Are there any volunteers for that body? If we deal with the matter in 15 minutes at the end of the meeting, there will be a risk of people not paying attention. Traffic regulations and the Parking Attendants (Wearing of Uniforms) (City of Glasgow Parking Area) Regulations 1999 do not sound terribly exciting, but we have to discharge our duty properly.

Are you volunteering, Murray?

Not really, but somebody has to do it.

I do not agree with the idea of a sub-committee. There is merit in all of us considering the SSIs, even if briefly. Murray says that committee members will not pay much attention to the matter, but those of us who are not on that sub-committee will pay even less attention.

I share Nora's view. With respect to Murray, we can suck it and see and if there is a problem, we might revisit the option. However, Murray is right. We laid down a marker with the first two instruments by having a written briefing and presentations to the committee. I would not choose to have that mechanism at every meeting; a written briefing might be fine for most occasions. If we are discussing an area of significance, we might invite a representative from the Executive or another body to brief us. This is a fledgling committee. As we will be around for a long time, we will take Murray's view on board and, based on what happens in the next few months, we might revisit the topic.

I have lost track of things. Is Robin next to speak, then Cathy?

I just want to mention a couple of points. There was quite a lot of information to read through for this committee and, as I had a full day of commitments yesterday, I was unable to give as much attention to those papers as I would have liked. I would have asked further questions about the forestry SSI, but I needed time to consult a few people outside the chamber, particularly on the issue of acreage where there might be concern. However, I will not know about such concerns until I have collected further evidence. Can we come back to such a question and say, "After consultation over a period of weeks, we find that there is a problem that we have not spotted"?

The way around that is to require such papers to come before the committee at a specified time and to invite written questions. That kind of business has a schedule and people putting such material before us will know that they have to meet a deadline if the issue is to be discussed by a particular committee.

It would be helpful if the need for a briefing were anticipated well in advance of the designation of the lead committee. We do not need to wait a long time for Parliament to designate the committee to know that some committees will need certain information.

At the moment, our time scales for receiving information on these matters are very tight and we have expressed views about that. We could also try to second-guess what issues will come our way to ensure that we have a sufficient briefing beforehand. The point is legitimate and we will try to find sufficient time to deal with these matters.

Robin, can I suggest that we do not revisit certain topics, unless the officers can work out a mechanism of doing that? We need to deal with these issues, and once they are gone, they are gone.

Can I formally agree the work programme? It is agreed.

I forgot about invitations from certain bodies.