Skip to main content
Loading…
Chamber and committees

Environment and Rural Development Committee, 28 Jun 2006

Meeting date: Wednesday, June 28, 2006


Contents


Proposed Aquaculture and Fisheries Bill

The Convener:

Agenda item 3 concerns the proposed aquaculture and fisheries bill. We are nearing the end of the parliamentary term and we understand that the bill is likely to be introduced tomorrow. The Parliamentary Bureau will not be able to refer the bill formally to a lead committee until after the summer recess but, given the nature of the bill, we expect to be designated as lead committee for stage 1. The clerks have suggested that we issue a general call for evidence now, so that people have the whole summer recess to read the bill and to make comments. That is longer than normal, but it would be healthy to issue the call now and we have the opportunity to do it. Should the bill come to this committee, I propose that we attempt to take evidence over a series of five meetings from late September. That would give the clerks time to process all the comments and have a paper on the consideration of witnesses ready for the start of next term.

Do members have any comments?

That sounds perfectly sensible.

The Convener:

The only other thing to suggest is that we receive a briefing from Executive officials before we get into the oral evidence programme. Sometimes we have such briefings in private; sometimes we have them in public. I have discussed the matter with the clerks and we have concluded that it would probably be preferable to do the briefing in public because there are quite a few background issues to the bill—what is in it and what is not in it. It would be useful to have on record at the start of the process the thought that has gone into the construction of the bill.

I am happy with that.

Are colleagues happy with that?

Members indicated agreement.

The Convener:

We shall come back with a detailed set of witnesses at our next meeting in September. That will give us time to see who has given evidence and who the key players are. I suggest that we consider that report in private at that meeting, as is common when we debate who we want to come before us. Are colleagues happy about that?

Members indicated agreement.

Meeting continued in private until 12:28.