Rural Affairs and Environment Committee, 27 Jun 2007

Meeting date: Wednesday, June 27, 2007

Official Report 197KB pdf

---

Work Programme

Agenda item 2 is a brief discussion about our work programme in the light of what we have heard. We will not necessarily take final decisions today; we will discuss the issues in greater detail at our away day in the summer. I suggest that we spend until about 11:10 having a conversation about what we have heard.

In summary, it seems highly unlikely that we will have to deal with legislation in the next 12 months. If we have legislation to deal with, it is likely to be a flooding bill, but given what the cabinet secretary said I would be surprised if such a bill is introduced within the next 12 months. That gives at least some clarity on the issues that the committee might want to discuss.

The note from the clerks suggests that we consider commissioning briefings from the Scottish Parliament information centre, in preparation for the away day. Would it be helpful to commission a briefing on rural deprivation and rural housing? John Scott and I asked the cabinet secretary about the issue and I raised it at the committee's first meeting. Other issues in the list that the clerks have drawn up would require more in-depth briefings, but we might be able to get a helpful, fairly brief briefing—for want of a better description—on rural deprivation and rural housing.

The promotion of local food is on the list. At last week's meeting I mentioned organics as part of a range of environmentally friendly farming methods and food production. I take as an open door the cabinet secretary's invitation to us to make recommendations to him. I do not think that we would need much briefing on the issue; we would need to give a bit of thought to what we might suggest to him. The committee could have an early win on that.

We could do with a briefing on flood management. I have dealt with the issue a bit from the other side—as a minister—and it is complex. The issues are to do with the interrelationship of the Flood Prevention (Scotland) Act 1961 and all the subsequent legislation and with the possibility of sustainable flood management. I would appreciate a technical briefing on the matter, especially as we were again invited to tell the minister whether legislation on flooding should be introduced separately or as part of the climate change bill, in the winter of 2008.

I am not sure that this comment is terribly helpful, but it is difficult to narrow down the list because all the issues listed represent legitimate territory for inquiry. I would like information about how far we are from achieving the biodiversity targets and about the complexity of that issue.

Two issues are missing from the list. Sarah Boyack asked the cabinet secretary about plans for SNH, SEPA and a wider group of organisations—

The list includes agricultural regulation, but you are talking about environmental regulation.

Yes. It would be interesting to get a feel for the purposes of the organisations. Perhaps a briefing could include information about the Crown Estate. Mike Russell talked about organisations that have a rural character when he made his announcement, but he did not mention the Crown Estate, although it is a big part of the rural scene.

I do not know to what extent the fisheries negotiations will be part of the committee's routine business, or whether we must be deliberative in putting the issue on our agenda. Big issues are at stake; there are all sorts of scientific arguments about the state of our stocks. Richard Lochhead talked about the need to strike a balance between sustainable fisheries and a fair approach to communities. There are huge tensions in that regard.

Do we require to think about having a budget adviser to help us get behind the figures, as everyone is concerned to do? Perhaps the clerks can think about that before our away day.

It might be useful to organise that early doors.

To take a little of the burden off SPICe, it might be useful for us to make early bids for the research budget. Instructing research would allow us to begin an inquiry while we were doing something else. I am keen for us to consider that at the away day, because massive bids for the research budget will probably not be made in the early years of the session. We want to be first in.

My comment is slightly broader. I asked about the planning requirements for wind farms under Scottish planning policy 6 in relation to national parks and regional parks. It would be interesting to know what other differences in legal protection there are between national parks and regional parks. Regional parks predate national parks. I presume that, to be designated as regional parks, they had considerable significance. In what ways are national parks covered that regional parks are not?

SPICe may already have relevant information on some issues, such as the SNH and SEPA question. SPICe staff can look through their archives. As long as information is not too old, it may still be of major relevance.

I know that agricultural regulation and support is complex, but in preparation for our away day, it would help if SPICe provided a paper that outlines the main regulations that affect our agricultural sector and what support is available to it. Some elements of the sector receive major support, yet vast parts of it do not. It would be helpful to know what regulations affect the industry, what support exists, what parts of the sector are not supported and whether they manage to thrive.

There are 10 items in our paper and it seems that not much legislation will be introduced in the first year of the session. I am slightly concerned that there are hundreds of topics that we could discuss and that—with the best will in the world—we might have overlooked. Just in case there is an issue of which we have not thought, we could make it known that suggestions to the clerks or you, convener, about what we could discuss might be welcome—I say that advisedly. If such an issue became evident, you and the clerks could reach a view on it and make it a topic for discussion at the away day.

There is no harm in the committee's reaching out to tell principal organisations what we have discussed and asking whether we have overlooked something. I see no problem with that, because opportunities are available.

What Peter Peacock said about fishing is important.

In relation to the promotion of local food, I hope that the minister will update us on his negotiations with supermarkets. Pricing, to which Bill Wilson referred, is a fundamental issue, and an Office of Fair Trading investigation into supermarkets has been conducted. It is welcome that the cabinet secretary has opened up those discussions and I would like us to keep an eye on them.

It is worth our giving SPICe a stronger steer, because we have a pile of suggestions. I hope that SPICe has some of the information already and does not have to do separate research.

I endorse the comments about flood management. A properly worked-up background paper on the current legislation on and processes for flood management would be extremely useful, because no part of Scotland is not affected by flooding.

I confess that I thought that rural deprivation and rural housing would be good for pitching into the separate research budget on, because useful academic research on that might be able to run alongside what we are doing then be brought back into the committee. Going down that route might be fairer to SPICe, as such a piece of work would be likely to be big.

I take the point about the Crown Estate, which is quite a heavy hand in parts of Scotland. Perhaps we could ask SPICe to provide a briefing that combines agricultural regulation and support with the role of the Crown Estate. Information on that might already be available.

I agree. The marine bill will cover matters that relate to the Crown Estate. Even if the bill is a long way from being introduced, issues need to be considered.

Given what we have heard, if SPICe can provide a third briefing, it should probably be on food policy. I do not want to rule out work on waste management, but we have had to deal with the issue a few times during the past few years, so we are probably more au fait with it. SPICe could direct us to existing work on waste management. We probably need more of a work-up on food policy.

We have suggested commissioning three substantial SPICe papers and asking SPICe to direct us to work that has been done in the past. Rural deprivation and rural housing, which we can discuss at the away day, is a more appropriate subject on which to commission research from outside the Parliament. Are members happy with that? I do not want to overburden SPICe.

Could we have an insubstantial paper on biodiversity?

An insubstantial paper? Okay, but SPICe asked us not to commission more than two or three briefings.

A paper on biodiversity was published just after the election and a lot of good, basic information is available. Much work has been done on local food, too. For those issues, what matters is the policy angle and how we approach the policy options. For other issues that we have discussed, more research is needed. We have to tease out the different levels—

It is difficult. I do not want to overburden SPICe, but the committee must have as much information as possible. SPICe can direct us to information.

It is easy to overlook a useful note on recent developments in the committee's remit, which is included in our papers. The note in last week's papers said that SPICe has produced new briefings on international polar year and biodiversity. Some of the briefings that we want have already been produced.

I accept that, but I want to know whether we are anywhere near achieving the biodiversity targets.

Okay. What we commission will not preclude discussion of other issues at the away day, but we need more information on the substantial matters that we are likely to have to deal with or that we want to consider.

Peter Peacock talked about the budget. Richard Lochhead said that the issue is complicated, which is absolutely true—

I have heard that before.

Endlessly. Some expertise on the budget might be useful. The committee in the previous session had adviser support—I think it was to do with common agricultural policy reform or the rural development budget. It might be useful to have a budget adviser to support the committee, because the issue is so technical.

The committee that I convened previously had a budget adviser.

I do not think that the parliamentary committee with responsibility for rural affairs has ever had a budget adviser, but it might be no bad thing to seek such support this year.

I am strongly in favour of that idea—and I am particularly strongly in favour of putting in our bid early in the four-year parliamentary session, before the various pots of money start to run out. The earlier we put in bids for support, the more likely we are to get them accepted.

I think that everyone has commented who wanted to do so. Your comments will be wrapped into plans for the away day, which is likely to take place on 14 August.

May I ask about a procedural issue? I was interested in what Richard said about—

Which Richard? We have a Richard on the committee.

I apologise. I meant Richard Lochhead, but actually I think it was his official who said that waste management might be included in the climate change bill. The climate change bill could become enormous—

Yes—it could be the everything bill.

I genuinely do not know what the procedure is for negotiating with the parliamentary authorities on the division of responsibilities. Waste management is clearly within the committee's remit, although I understand why it has a climate change aspect.

My understanding is that another committee will be the lead committee on the bill. Depending on the size of the bill, I expect that that committee will want to enlist the resources, time and expertise of other committees, to feed into its work. That would be a matter for negotiation with the convener of the lead committee. If the climate change bill becomes the everything bill, I cannot imagine the convener of that committee not wanting other committees to consider some aspects of it.

I would have a slight concern if measures on flooding and waste were put into the climate change bill, as they are separate issues. Committees have considered bills with distinct parts—the issue is not insurmountable—but it makes the process more difficult. We will press for further information as early as possible. At this stage, that is the best I can say. I will raise the issues of the climate change bill at the Conveners Group. I suspect that the bill will involve more than two committees—for obvious reasons, it could involve the Local Government and Communities Committee, too.