Official Report 137KB pdf
Members have an update on our forward work programme and an indication of the likely work of the committee in the period from November through to April 2006. I invite colleagues to note the likely time commitments for considering primary legislation. We already have an agreed timetable for the Animal Health and Welfare (Scotland) Bill and we expect the crofting reform bill in the spring.
I want to ensure that, on the crofting reform bill, we have dialogue with ministers and that the note of opinions gathered by the committee so far is given to them at an early stage. The Executive offered us the opportunity to make some input to the bill before it was referred to us, and I want us to be as effective as possible in doing that. Opinion in the country is developing and ideas for amendments are beginning to arise. I hope that our committee can reflect some of those opinions and ideas. Perhaps we should be asking the Scottish Crofting Foundation to tell us its views, once the series of meetings that are taking place at the moment is held.
That seems a sensible proposal.
Can you clarify that we will receive information from the minister following the evidence session that was held?
What we said at the time was that the clerks would bring an aide-memoire back to the committee, which we can consider then send to the minister for comment. The clerk has reminded me that we have asked the minister for some information following that meeting. That information is due by the end of this month. If we pull together all the issues before Christmas, our comments will go to the Executive in good time for it to take note of them before the proposed crofting bill comes back to us. Are colleagues agreed?
The next issue is to consider whether we wish to take oral evidence from the minister in early 2006 on priorities for the Austrian presidency of the EU. We tend to do that as standard as it keeps the committee, the public and interested parties up to speed with the Executive's perspective on the next six months of the European presidency.
The next issue is to consider whether we want to make a bid for a slot in the chamber to debate the rural development inquiry report. A formal response from the Executive is due in mid-December; whether we want to put in a bid depends on what the minister says to us. Are colleagues happy with that?
The next issue is to deal with petition PE749, from the Newcastleton community council, which is about the spreading of sewage sludge on agricultural land. The petition was referred to us recently by the Public Petitions Committee and there is extensive paperwork attached to it.
We should go for the second option. We cannot discuss the issue in a vacuum. We need to know Scottish Water's long-term strategy and discuss the petition in the light of that.
That makes sense. It would allow fairly rigorous consideration of the petition and let us pick up the strategic issues as well as the one-off issues. Are colleagues happy with that?
The last item is to consider potential inquiry topics and detailed proposals for how to pursue any agreed topics at a later date. There is a list of options in annex C to the committee paper, which follow on from our away day in the summer. The clerks have been working with the Scottish Parliament information centre and have drafted some options for us on the basis of the committee's previous discussions.
The other issue that has been on and off the books for quite a while is forestry, biomass and biofuels, which came out strongly in our climate change report as a potential economic and environmental opportunity for Scotland. The Rural Development Committee never took evidence on the forestry strategy, so we could pursue that. It would link in the rural development aspects of the committee's work as well as our environmental agenda. Might I suggest that the clerks do a bit more work for us on that, and that we consider possible terms of an inquiry?
The final topic is one that we are all keen to consider: it is two issues under the agriculture strategy. Members should note that we will deal with the levels of financial support from the Executive for the organic aid scheme before Christmas. It came up in our recent budget scrutiny that we should take formal evidence from the minister on that issue when it comes to the Parliament. We can give particular consideration to whether the subsidy levels are correct and what the industry needs. We should clarify the dates with the clerks and consider whether we could have an evidence session on that for interested parties.
The supermarkets.
The supermarkets, yes.
Rural development is central to the committee's interest. We have an interest in having debates on subjects that are hot topics, and a lot of people want to hear us comment on the impact on rural development of the supermarkets' trading practices. I look to you, convener, to find the most appropriate way in which we can do that. It is urgent, but we have a tight programme. However, much more than just the farming community is at stake.
The minister has been going into the press recently about representations he will be making to the Office of Fair Trading and the Competition Commission. There clearly are reserved issues, but there is scope for us to have an evidence session that brings up the particularly Scottish issues that are relevant to us. The clerks could help us to timetable that and to ensure that representatives of the relevant industries, producer groups and supermarkets give us evidence that we can consider before we have a session with the minister.
If all that is in the Official Report, people outside the Parliament will be able to see what our agenda is likely to be over the next few weeks and months.
Meeting continued in private until 12:15.
Previous
Subordinate Legislation