Official Report 252KB pdf
Agenda item 5 is a discussion of the committee's forward work programme. The committee held an away day last Tuesday, following which the clerk has produced a note, which has been circulated. There are four key areas on which the committee must make decisions. The first two involve issues that would form the basis of inquiries; they are whether to hold, in the early autumn, a round-table discussion on food policy, and whether to invite the Auditor General for Scotland to give evidence on his report on sustainable waste management. The third area is whether we should reconsider our previous decision to conduct an inquiry into agricultural regulation and support, and the fourth area is to discuss making a visit to Brussels to meet key stakeholders at European level—I should say that that would not be likely to happen until next spring.
I am disappointed to hear that fellow members of the committee have suggested that we do not need to conduct the inquiry into agricultural regulation, which we had agreed to conduct. More than £400 million of European money is spent in that regard in Scotland every year, and I think that we should have a better handle on that. The visit to Brussels would go hand in glove with that inquiry. I cannot understand why we would go to Brussels if we dropped our inquiry into agricultural regulation.
In fairness, the decision about agricultural regulation and support was guided by the discussion that we had at the away day, and involves a deferral rather than an abandonment of the inquiry. We were not linking the inquiry to the Brussels meeting; we were thinking about the relationship that the committee has to the amount of stuff that comes from the European Union, from the point of view that we should have a better understanding of how to input to European work at a much earlier stage. This committee, like other committees, struggles massively with that issue.
The paper captures our discussions very well, and I agree with the priorities that are being recommended. That said, it is not possible for the paper to cover everything that was discussed. In that regard, it is important to note, in approving the paper, that we were not able to accommodate other issues, such as the need to review the land reform legislation, which remains on the agenda, and sea angling. We also need to examine the rural development programme—which connects to what Mike Rumbles was saying—once it has had time to bed in. That programme is a huge part of Government activity in this area.
At the away day, there was a general feeling that, if the committee did not address issues relating to food security, that would be a fairly big failure on our part. It was felt that, at the moment, the issue was a more pressing concern than it was thought to be when we discussed our work programme last summer. That is evidence of the speed with which the environment is changing in respect of food security.
I respect the views of other members of the committee. However, if the inquiry has been postponed, rather than abandoned, it would make sense to tie the European visit into an inquiry into that area—whenever we come to it—because of all the issues that come out of Europe in the area of agricultural regulation.
The Brussels visit that is proposed in the paper is slightly wider than that. There is nothing to prevent us from going to Brussels again in the context of a future inquiry. We did not see the visit as necessarily being a one-off.
But, since we have not been there yet, we are unlikely to get another bite of the cherry.
I do not think that that is necessarily the case.
I am generally content with the paper. However, as I was not able to attend the away day in the summer, I am slightly confused about what the agricultural regulation inquiry was going to be concerned with anyway. The subject is exceptionally broad, and I am not clear about what the inquiry was going to examine.
Another important issue is the introduction of the one-stop shop idea. It might be useful to examine that in a year's time, to see whether it is working properly.
Yes.
I agree with virtually everything that Karen Gillon has said. The paper is very good, and correctly captures the spirit of the away day.
Does the committee agree to reconsider our previous decision to conduct an inquiry into agricultural regulation and support at this point in the committee's proceedings?
Do we agree to hold a round-table evidence session to discuss food policy during the early part of the autumn? The aim of the session would be to help us to scope out an inquiry. In asking for that agreement, I also ask the committee to agree to delegate authority to me to finalise the list of participants. In doing so, I will have regard to the names that were mentioned at the away day and further suggestions from members.
Do we agree to invite the Auditor General to give evidence to the committee in the autumn on the 2007 Audit Scotland report on sustainable waste management? The report has been out for a while, but that discussion would help our consideration of whether to conduct an inquiry into waste management. Do I have that agreement?
Do we agree to visit Brussels to meet key stakeholders at a European level? The visit would take place after the European Parliament had risen but before the European election campaign, as there would be a minimum amount of distractions in that window of opportunity.
What is the purpose of the visit?
The purpose of the visit is to connect directly to those commissioners who have responsibility for the areas that our remit covers, and to explore with them, among other things, ways in which this committee could make a much earlier and more direct input into the process than it can at the moment, so that our contribution can be more effective. I do not think that any Scottish Parliament committee has yet managed to get on top of that issue, and we would like to ensure that this committee examines the way in which it works with regard to Europe.
We would also like to get an understanding of the current thinking in Europe on the direction of travel in the period after 2013, in terms of agricultural relations—
And regulations.
Indeed. However, we have the regulations that we have. We need to start looking at—and trying to influence—what we will have after 2013. That is why the committee should be connecting with officials in Europe and with commissioners.
It seems to be a wasted opportunity.
Do we agree to the suggestion?
No.
We will need to take a vote. Do we agree to seek approval for a fact-finding visit to Brussels?
For
The result of the division is: For 6, Against 1, Abstentions 0.
Meeting continued in private until 12:21.
Previous
Rural Housing Inquiry