Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee, 28 Jun 2000

Meeting date: Wednesday, June 28, 2000

Official Report 137KB pdf

---

Petitions

We now move on to petitions. The first petition, PE199, has been submitted by Scotland's Tomatoes Ltd. The petition has been referred to us by the Public Petitions Committee and its purpose is to encourage supermarkets in Scotland to stock Scottish tomatoes.

Members have received an unsolicited note from Safeway, which sets out the origin of the tomatoes that it purchases. We also received an e-mail yesterday, which it would be appropriate for me to read out for the benefit of members. The e-mail is from Mr Patrick Browne of the Scottish Retail Consortium. He writes:

"I believe that the Enterprise Committee is due to discuss a petition tomorrow from Scotland's Tomatoes calling on Scottish supermarkets to stock more of their products.

Whilst not wishing to pre-empt any discussion which the Committee may have, I felt that further information from our food retail members may be of use.

Scotland's Tomatoes' output is sold exclusively through a company called Caledonian Produce. I believe that Caledonian Produce currently has contracts with three major food retailers, as well as a number of local co-operatives.

Having spoken to another of our food retailer members they indicated that they did business with Caledonian Produce in 1997 but that in 1998 the company declined to supply them with their products. The company has not approached them since that point.

As you will be aware food retailers are keen to develop their business with Scottish suppliers. Safeway are currently seeking to expand their Scottish sourced products by 10% to an annual spend of £660 million. Sainsbury's are also looking to increase Scottish sourced products by 10% over the next two years. From discussions with Tesco they would also be keen to develop their food offering from Scotland and would welcome these discussions with suppliers.

I would hope that this information is of use, but if the committee would like to write to our members raising this issue then I am sure they will respond as positively as they can."

It is recommended that we write to supermarket chains to establish the current situation. Do members have any comments?

That is a sensible suggestion. The e-mail suggests that there may have been a problem with the supply. It would be worth while to find out the view of supermarkets on the situation.

The e-mail states that, in 1998, Caledonian Produce

"declined to supply them with their products."

Should a copy of the e-mail be sent to the petitioners and to that company, for their response? I suspect that there might be more background to this matter than we know. The papers that we have received state clearly that Scottish consumers in 1999 could not buy Scottish tomatoes in the Scottish stores of Tesco or Sainsbury's, and could do so only intermittently in Safeway and the Co-op. I wonder whether supply negotiations were responsible for that, and whether we should find out a bit more before forming an opinion.

All that we propose to do today is to write to supermarket chains. If we also want to write to Scotland's Tomatoes, highlighting the issues that have been raised by the Scottish Retail Consortium, we can do that. Are we agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

I am prepared to come up with an opinion: Scottish tomatoes are the best that you can get.

Thank you, Miss Goldie. I shall elicit your views on the berry industry, which is rather significant in my constituency.

We have agreed to write to the supermarket chains and we will also write to Scottish Tomatoes Ltd and Caledonian Produce with the views of the Scottish Retail Consortium.

Petition PE178 is from the British Aggregates Association. It relates to the application of an aggregates tax, which is a reserved matter. Members will recall that we considered this petition on 31 May. At that meeting, we agreed to obtain the opinions of the Transport and the Environment Committee, the Rural Affairs Committee and the European Committee on the issues involved. The European Committee has no views to offer, and it is fair to say that the other two committees are rather bogged down in legislation and have not had the opportunity to consider the petition. It has come back to us because the time limit for us to respond to the Public Petitions Committee is upon us. I open up the issue for discussion.

The petitioners want the Parliament to investigate the implications for the Scottish economy of the proposed aggregates tax, which, I understand, is to come into force from April 2002. The petitioners are concerned about the effect of the new tax on aggregate extraction of £1.60 per tonne on quarry operators in Scotland, as that would lead to an increase of 40 per cent per tonne in comparison with an increase of 16 per cent for operators in the south of England.

I have had lengthy correspondence with the British Aggregates Association and with representatives of small quarry operators in Scotland, of which there are a great number. I understand that many other bodies, such as local authorities—particularly Highland Council—have expressed concerns about the extremely substantial impact of the tax on jobs in rural areas where there may not be immediate alternative employment opportunities.

Although it is obvious that the aggregates tax is a reserved matter, its impact, which we should investigate, will affect many devolved issues. I propose that an appropriate way in which to investigate the matter is to hold a one-day inquiry, once our inquiry on the new economy is completed. We should take evidence from appropriate bodies, including the petitioners, the Executive and other interested parties, so that we can do what the petitioners have asked us to do on this important matter. That is the very least that we could do in order to do justice to this serious topic.

I should declare an interest. I went to see Mr Durward at his quarry in Lanarkshire to try to get a better understanding of the situation. I was the beneficiary of a cup of coffee and a jar of honey—I disclose that fact to the public.

The visit was immensely instructive. The proposed imposition of the tax is a matter of concern to the Scottish economy. I believe that, unlike the situation south of the border, approximately 70 per cent of quarry operators in Scotland are privately owned. It seems clear to me that we may be presenting our quarry operators in Scotland with the real risk of losing competitiveness in what is already a very competitive industry.

I totally agree with Fergus Ewing that many quarries are located in the rural areas of Scotland, where jobs are of particular significance. In certain communities, the quarry may be the principal employer. It is difficult for the committee to come to a useful conclusion without the opportunity of hearing more evidence. I support Fergus's suggestion that we should set aside a half-day for an inquiry into this situation.

I suggested a whole day for an inquiry.

I am perfectly content with a whole day.

I understand that the Transport and the Environment Committee will be busy with stage 1 consideration of the Transport (Scotland) Bill, but I am a little disappointed that other committees did not find time to examine the matter, especially since the Rural Affairs Committee has had two meetings since we finished consideration of the National Parks (Scotland) Bill. I am puzzled that there has been a refusal even to examine the petition when there were two committee meetings at which it could have been considered.

We can only report what has happened elsewhere.

The petition addresses the potential impact on the Scottish economy of the aggregates tax. It might be worth examining whether there would be an impact on the Scottish economy—adverse or otherwise—as a result of that tax.

The committee has decided to take evidence on fuel price differentials and now we are about to decide to do something about the aggregates tax. That will finish the year for us in terms of our work programme. We will be occupied until November or Christmas and we are adding to our work programme willy-nilly. I thought that we had established a principle that we would consider issues that we had selected from a list. It is not a pick-and-mix. We should continue with the method of establishing in our work programme what issues we will take evidence on. If we seize opportunities at individual meetings to make a case for new issues we will lose our focus and our control over our work programme.

We have made decisions on the new economy inquiry. We also decided that we must allow a proper amount of time for consideration of the student finance legislation that will come almost immediately after the new economy inquiry report. There are timetabling issues that we have to wrestle with if we want to pursue Fergus Ewing's suggestion.

Do members wish to record support in principle for Fergus Ewing's proposal, but at the same time acknowledge that the committee must resolve timetabling issues in the autumn?

I may not have made my point very well. A couple of weeks ago, we selected our priorities from a list. Aggregates was not on that list, but now it is being pushed to the top. How did we get into that situation?

We must acknowledge that during the committee's work we might have to be flexible. The point is that the legislation will affect Scotland from April 2002. If the committee is to be responsible in discharging its duties we must be able to deal with matters that are significant to the Scottish economy and we must do so meaningfully. I understand what Duncan McNeil says—we must work within the constraints of our timetable—but it should not be impossible for us to depart from any list of work when other issues arise.

Only a couple of weeks ago, Annabel Goldie was arguing strongly for different priorities.

The committee has limited time. The convener has acknowledged that by saying that if we recognise in principle the case for giving the petitioners a fair hearing, we are doing our duty. The petition was not before the committee when we decided to investigate other matters. I hope that the committee can agree in a non-partisan way that we should examine the matter. The convener has acknowledged that consideration of the issue is subject to the committee's timetabling problems being resolved. I would be extremely unhappy if the committee could not give a hearing to an industry that believes that it faces many redundancies and closures in parts of Scotland that are already hard pressed.

I sympathise with Fergus Ewing, but I am concerned that we have had to put back our deliberations on the lifelong learning review. There are many moves in the Executive relating to lifelong learning, so it is crucial that we keep to our timetable for lifelong learning. The committee is called the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee. I am concerned that we keep shifting back the second part of our remit. I take on board Duncan McNeil's point.

I support Duncan McNeil's comments. This is just one issue—others are likely to come up. In future, there might be strong agreement that we should consider a matter, but I am not sure that this is that matter. Marilyn Livingstone's point about lifelong learning is valid.

I do not think that anyone disagrees that the new aggregates tax might have a significant impact on the Scottish economy, but the tax is a reserved matter. Perhaps there are other people who might more appropriately examine the issue.

If we are to have any meaning as a committee, we should not dismiss lightly the potential loss of 2,600 jobs in the rural economy. If we cannot find time for a day out of our schedule in the next six months or year, we are failing the economy of Scotland. With respect, I suggest that we have spent nearly two hours this morning discussing the meaning of two words in a report. Some members may feel that that was extremely significant. We were discussing a report to the Transport and the Environment Committee from the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee.

Can I stop you there, Nick. That discussion was in private.

Indeed, and I respect that. The allocation of our time should be discussed at another meeting. I feel that my priorities, those of Scotland and of the rural economy are not being reflected.

A more general issue arises as a consequence of our discussion. As Elaine Murray said, the petition has been circulating around the committees; it has been to the Transport and the Environment Committee, the Rural Affairs Committee and the European Committee. I assume that we are the appropriate committee to discuss the issues that are raised in it. Has there been any discussion in the conveners liaison group on how committees should deal with petitions that relate primarily to reserved matters? Some of the petitions that are submitted to the Parliament will deal with reserved matters. Is there any general guidance on that?

No guidance about how to discuss such issues has been laid down. We must respect reserved and devolved areas. Furthermore, we should consider how, as a committee, we can use our time most productively.

I hear what members have said about the need to carry out a lifelong learning inquiry. I remind members that a few weeks ago we had a work programme discussion and those who argued for such an inquiry could not sustain a majority. We decided on a particular inquiry programme. I hope that there will be support in the committee for our pursuing a lifelong learning inquiry when we consider those issues later.

Many petitions come from members of the public who want to raise certain issues with the parliamentary committees. We must take those petitions seriously and ensure that the representations that we receive are properly investigated. However, we must do that within the context of our agreed work programme. That is why I said that we can agree in principle that we want to consider the issue further, but that we must do it in the context of the work programme that we have already set. On that basis, I am sure that the clerks can bring us some proposals on how our work programme might pan out from September. We can reflect on this morning's discussion.

We have work programme discussions for a purpose—to ensure that we are working to certain themes. From time to time, petitions or other issues will come forward, such as our next agenda item, which will take up time on our agenda. We will give our support in principle to Fergus Ewing's proposal, but it will have to come back for timetabling in the autumn.