Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee

Meeting date: Wednesday, May 23, 2018

Official Report 507KB pdf

---

Annual Report

Item 2 is the committee’s consideration of its draft annual report. The report covers the work of the committee during the parliamentary year, from 12 May 2017 to 11 May 2018. I invite comments from members.

It is good that we are discussing our draft report in public, because we normally discuss draft reports in private. This way, the public can get an idea of what we talk about when we look at draft reports.

I will start with paragraph 3, which talks about meetings. The second sentence states:

“In general, items taken in private were to consider the Committee's work programme, approach papers and draft reports.”

I just wonder whether we could be more specific. As far as I am aware, the only items that we take in private are the committee’s work programme, approach papers and draft reports, so we could just remove the first two words of that sentence.

We have had informal meetings, but yes, I think that that is right.

Agreed.

My thanks, as ever, to our valued staff for their work on this. My point is in relation to the heading “Implications for Scotland of the UK leaving the European Union”, and my well-documented frustrations about our inability to hear from the UK Government on that. As that heading is there, I think that we should say that we remain hopeful of hearing from the UK Government, or something of that nature. I am sure that members will have a diplomatic form of wording

I think that it would be appropriate to ask the committee clerks to draft something to reflect the requests that we have made for meetings.

Thank you.

In the light of the evidence that we have just heard, we should add the word “late” before “Autumn 2018” in the last line of paragraph 31, which relates to the AWPR. That is my first point.

My second point—

Can I just comment on that? There is some dispute about that, because the cabinet secretary said that he said that, but he did not say “late” when he made his statement on 22 March. He said it today.

First, we need to look at the actual wording that the cabinet secretary used in his statement. Anything that was said today is outwith the reporting period, so—

If I may, convener, the cabinet secretary said that he had said “late” in his statement to Parliament. I am not in a position to confirm that, because I have not explored the Official Report; I am only making the point that that is what he said today.

Of course, I will check with the clerk and make sure that the report reflects what it says in the Official Report.

I do not want to make a big issue of it. Let me move on, if I may, to paragraph 49. I think that the grammar is slightly incorrect and that

“A further session on public transport representatives”

should probably read, “A further session with public transport representatives”. Is that correct? I am getting nodding heads there.

In paragraph 50, which is under the heading “Equalities”, it states:

“The Committee mainstreamed equalities issues throughout its work in the parliamentary year.”

That is correct. I am not sure that the “For example” is appropriate at the beginning of the next sentence, because I do not think that it is an example of mainstreaming—it was a very specifically focused evidence session on equalities. However, I am open to others’ views on that subject.

We will look at the wording for that.

Yes, that would be fine. Sorry—I have missed one. Paragraph 41 says:

“The Committee subsequently took from”,

and then does not say what was taken. I think that it should read “took evidence from”.

Thank you.

The Equalities and Human Rights Committee, of which I am a member, is quite adamant that human rights should be mainstreamed through the work of all the committees, so I would quite like it if we could have another heading on human rights, under the “Equalities” heading, so that we can set out how we have mainstreamed human rights through the work that we have done as well.

Yes, we will do that. Are there any other comments?

When we list the matters that the committee covers in paragraph 2, I wonder whether we could add “and infrastructure projects” after “transport”. We heard from the cabinet secretary today about a number of infrastructure projects, which I think differentiate themselves from the transport brief.

11:45  

I think that what is said in that paragraph is a formal wording that reflects the motion that Parliament passed in establishing the committee. The clerks can advise us on that.

The clerks are explaining to me that it is a reflection of our remit. It is not a formal wording, so I think that we could put “major transport infrastructure” in.

Can I clarify something? The word “transport” would cover major and minor projects, so are we saying that we should add “transport (including both minor and major projects)”? The word “transport” includes everything that we did today and everything that we covered with Humza Yousaf.

We will look at the correct wording, if you are right, to reflect the fact that it covers both major and minor infrastructure projects.

I am very relaxed about the wording; I just wanted to include the concept.

I can see some redrafting going on.

Under the heading “Inquiries”, it may be worth noting, in a similar vein, that we talked about the UK Government’s representation at evidence sessions. I wonder whether it is worth commenting in this section that we asked retailers, who are a substantial part of the salmon industry, to appear but that none of them chose to accept that invitation.

Is the committee happy to do that?

Members indicated agreement.

Paragraph 37 is headed “Review of legislation on small landholdings in Scotland”. From what I can see, nowhere in our report does it mention crofting—perhaps I am missing it. Is there a reason for that? We took a lot of evidence this year on that subject matter, but nowhere do we refer to any work that we have done on that subject. Perhaps this is a good place to include it.

I will ask the clerks to double-check that. Crofting is mentioned in paragraph 2, but I think that the evidence that we took on crofting mainly fell in the previous reporting year. If it did not, we will make sure that it is reflected in the report.

The years do tend to roll into one, convener, but thank you for clarifying that. I have a minor point about paragraph 49, which is to do with engagement and innovation. It is about one of our live streaming sessions, which was very useful. It states:

“Facebook live allowed the public to comment directly as evidence was being taken.”

I would like to change that to something along the lines of:

“Facebook live allowed the public to provide commentary via Facebook as evidence was being provided.”

In other words, the comments were not part of the formal proceedings and did not input directly into our deliberations.

I think that that is right.

My final point comes under the “Equalities” heading. Just to back up what Gail Ross was saying about how committees improve accessibility to the work that we do, I wonder whether it is worth noting that none of the committee’s public meetings was either live-subtitled or British Sign Language interpreted. However, the Official Report retrospectively provides written accounts of the meeting. There is perhaps a comment to be made about our lack of accessibility to many members of the public. That is direct feedback that I got from a session with members of that community in recent weeks.

Do other members of the committee have a view on that?

I would probably like to know more, convener; the point that Jamie Greene makes sounds perfectly valid. I think that the point being made is that there is the printed Official Report but that it is not accessible to everyone. There is subtitling, and I would want to know where the gaps are. Doing subtitling in real time would be a very substantial commitment that might not be proportionate, and I would like to understand what the real need is.

I agree with the point that Jamie Greene is making, and Stewart Stevenson has reiterated that maybe that is something that we should consider. Whether we should put that in the annual report, I do not know; if we start putting everything that we did not do in the annual report, it could become quite lengthy.

Can I make a suggestion to the committee? Jamie Greene raises a valid point, and it is something that would be appropriately raised at the conveners’ group meeting. We could discuss it across all the committees in the Parliament to try to find out whether there is a way to resolve that issue. Rather than put it in this report, is the committee happy that I raise it with the other conveners at the next appropriate meeting? Is everyone happy with that?

Members indicated agreement.

Thank you. Usually, when the committee considers a report, we go through it on a page-by-page, line-by-line basis. Members have made observations, and one or two members of the committee have made other comments that we will include in the report.

Is the committee happy for me to put the report out in the committee’s name once the suggested changes have been made?

Members indicated agreement.

That is agreed. Thank you.