Environment and Rural Development Committee, 19 Apr 2006

Meeting date: Wednesday, April 19, 2006

Official Report 360KB pdf

---

Work Programme

Agenda item 3 is consideration of our work programme. Committee members have a paper from me that outlines our existing work commitments and covers some of the issues that we need to consider between now and the end of June. I know that members have comments on some issues. I will go through the matters on which I think the committee is agreed and then come back to the one or two on which we need a little bit more discussion.

On the budget, we have no stage 1 scrutiny in the spring, because this is not a spending review year. Are members happy to consider at a future meeting options for the autumn budget scrutiny? We will need to follow up a number of issues.

Members indicated agreement.

Petition PE799 from the Community of Arran Seabed Trust on proposals for marine protection in Lamlash bay has been referred to the committee. Are colleagues happy to consider it later this term once our consideration of the Crofting Reform etc Bill is complete, and perhaps to consider it under one of the items that I will suggest on marine national parks?

Members indicated agreement.

Do members wish to follow our established practice and take oral evidence from the minister in June on the forthcoming Finnish presidency of the European Union? We might get an update at that point on avian flu. It will have been a few months since we last heard from him.

Members indicated agreement.

We must consider what follow-up work we want to do on some of the inquiries that we have completed. On the climate change inquiry, we now have the Executive's published climate change programme. It is a question of coming back to the issue and reflecting on where we might want to take it next. Rob Gibson and Mark Ruskell would like us to consider energy further. I suggest that they talk to me and the clerks and that we bring back to the committee a suggestion about how we might pursue that matter over the next few months.

I am a little bit concerned, because a majority on the committee previously expressed an interest in tackling Scotland's energy mix and, in particular, how renewables and energy efficiency sit alongside conventional generation. We flagged up some of the reports that are being prepared outside the Parliament that we wanted to look at. I would be concerned if we were to punt this vital matter into the long grass. We need to go beyond the soundbite politics of the chamber and do some work in the committee on this difficult issue. I would like us to keep it on the agenda and consider how we can continue to work on it, perhaps with the Enterprise and Culture Committee.

That is my recommendation. I have just said that we should come back to the matter, but I would like some input from members on the shape of that consideration. We do not have time to discuss that this afternoon—it is now nearly quarter to 2—which is why I am recommending that we bring it back to the committee.

I simply want to record my concerns in the Official Report. It is important that we do that.

We will bring the issue back to the committee.

On our previous inquiries on development in accessible rural areas and biomass, having checked out the availability of chamber debate slots I understand that bids have already been made for the slots in the run up to the summer recess, but we have the opportunity to put in a bid for the autumn.

Yes please.

I would have thought that we would want to take the biomass issue to the chamber.

We should bid on both issues.

There is a tactical issue about how many bids we can make that will be successful. We could bid for debates on both issues but the committee would have to express a preference.

What about bidding for a debate on the food supply chain inquiry?

We have to complete the inquiry first.

Do we have to decide on a particular topic at this point?

No.

My next point is an update on the food supply chain inquiry. We are awaiting responses from the Office of Fair Trading and the United Kingdom Minister for Competition and Consumer Affairs. We expect to receive those responses by mid May. I suggest that we come back to that inquiry once we have finished taking evidence on the Crofting Reform etc Bill and once we have received the responses that I mentioned. I am suggesting that partly because the organisations that gave evidence to the committee are wondering what has happened to the inquiry and because there is also very strong media interest, which is excellent. Are colleagues happy to return to the inquiry once we have received those responses and have dealt with the Crofting Reform etc Bill responses?

Do you think that that will happen by June?

Yes; we are quite confident that it will happen by then.

That will be very useful.

Mark Brough said that bids have already been made for the pre-summer debate slots, so we should wait to discuss the slots that we might bid for until just before the summer recess.

I have made some lengthy observations in my paper about work on sustainable development. We reported on that more than a year ago; it led to our climate change inquiry, which tested how the Executive is dealing with cross-cutting issues on sustainable development. I would like to bring back a more detailed options paper so that we can consider how we want to proceed on sustainable development.

The main area that seems to be absent from our work thus far is consideration of how the Parliament deals with sustainable development. There are issues around what the Scottish Parliament corporate body and committees are doing on sustainable development. That could be a legacy issue that goes from this committee to the next session of the Scottish Parliament. It needs a bit of work and thought. If colleagues are interested in following up the issue, we could come back to it at a future committee meeting.

Members indicated agreement.

We previously decided in principle to take evidence from the minister on the Water Environment and Water Services (Scotland) Act 2003 annual report. A copy of that report was published at the end of March and we have dealt with several statutory instruments relating to the water environment. I recommend that we take evidence on the annual report after we have dealt with the Crofting Reform etc Bill. I suggest that we seek evidence, at least in writing, from other interested parties to touch base with the different stakeholders involved and broaden out the debate. Rather than being lobbied on the day before we have that discussion, we could give people a bit more space so that they can make more considered representations that we can examine and then test with the minister. Are members happy with that suggestion?

Members indicated agreement.

I ask colleagues to suggest stakeholders that we might contact. The clerks will prepare a paper on that.

I mentioned the marine national park a few minutes ago. Colleagues will note that Scottish Natural Heritage has prepared an options paper, which the minister has put out for consultation. It might be interesting for SNH to give the committee a presentation on the options before the summer recess. The issue is kicking up a storm in different parts of the country and it would be useful for the committee to consider it.

Could we do that outwith Edinburgh in an area that will have a direct interest? Would it be possible to combine it with consideration of the petition about the west coast that we are dealing with?

We could do that, but we would have to make it absolutely clear that going to a particular area does not mean that we are making any kind of statement about whether the area is a winner or a loser. Perhaps we ought to come back to that issue.

It has been suggested that the petition on Lamlash would be an interesting model of how to deal with differing local interests and the kind of structures that would be appropriate. I ask the clerks to think about that and to come back to the committee with some options. I just wanted to add the caveat that our going to a specific area does not mean that we are saying that that area should be a national park.

It would not be significant.

Exactly. It is important to have that in the Official Report. Of course, some people might want to bid to have the committee go to their area; who knows?

We have not been to Arran.

We have not, but it has been suggested.

Finally, members are invited to consider whether to seek approval to hold an away day this year. I can tell from the body language and the yeses that I can hear that members are interested in that. There is an issue about our work planning. At the start of my report, I highlight the amount of primary legislation that we have to deal with. We have to complete consideration of the Animal Health and Welfare (Scotland) Bill and we have to take the Crofting Reform etc Bill and the proposed aquaculture and inshore fisheries bill through the process. We then have the Environmental Levy on Plastic Bags (Scotland) Bill to consider. There is a lot of primary legislation to deal with, but it would be worth having an away day at which we can consider what else we can deal with during the next year. Once we have completed our current inquiries, there should be opportunities for filling up our slots through the year, but it will take a bit of discipline.

Could we tie the away day to the Lamlash petition and the national park issue?

There would be a chance of doing that. We would have to make a bid to the Conveners Group for money and we would have to ensure that everything was well worked out and could be justified.

We could justify the suggestion by saying that we were using the time to do everything at once rather than having two different days away.

I can see that colleagues are very tempted by that idea. I will have the clerks put together a paper and come back to the committee with it before the end of term.

We must also begin to think about our legacy paper and discuss what we have learnt during the past few years that we want to pass on in 2007. Is that agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

Okay colleagues; thank you. All that will go into the Official Report for external organisations and members of the public who might be interested.

I remind members that our next meeting—the second day of evidence on the Crofting Reform etc Bill—will be on Monday 24 April in Stornoway. Papers will be hand delivered to members' parliamentary offices later today rather than being posted out. Thank you for your patience, colleagues, and your stamina.

Meeting closed at 13:52.