Agenda item 3 is our on-going consideration of petition PE96, on sea cage fish farming. As members are aware, a paper has been circulated on the arrangements for a rolling inquiry into the issue. Attached as annexes to the paper are a draft call for evidence, correspondence between the Deputy Minister for Environment and Rural Development and myself, relating to the appointment of a research co-ordinator, and a draft adviser specification. Do members have any views on the paper? I ask our two reporters to respond first.
Official Report · Committee
Sea Cage Fish Farming (PE96)
Speakers
Choose an MSP to read only their contributions- Andy Kerr Lab 6
- Robin Harper Green 2
- John Scott Con 2
- Maureen Macmillan Lab 1
- Callum Thomson Clerk 1
The record
12 contributionsThere is some confusion between us and the Executive about the role of the adviser or research co-ordinator. For that reason, we want to have further discussion with the Executive. One of the clerks is trying to set up a meeting between the reporters, the convener and the Executive as early as tomorrow afternoon, so that we can straighten out the adviser's terms of reference.
That is all that needs to be said at the moment. We need to take this conversation forward and to clarify the adviser's terms of reference. At the moment, we do not have clarity.
If members have no further comments on that matter, I will move on to deal with other items contained in the paper.I take it that members are content with the general thrust of the paper. We are asked to agree the reporters' remit, to agree to call for evidence as set out in the paper, to agree to take steps to appoint an adviser and to agree the adviser's terms of reference. The last two items are subject to discussion with the Executive. We are also asked to agree to conclude formal consideration of PE96. Do we agree those recommendations, subject to the discussions that will take place tomorrow afternoon with the Deputy Minister for Environment and Rural Development? As soon as that discussion has taken place, we will provide committee members with a detailed report on it.
I am not sure that the period specified in annexe C for the appointment of the adviser will be long enough to allow the appointee to perform the mammoth task that faces him. We need to define his role clearly. I had envisaged him doing more for us than the proposed number of days would allow him to do.
I will seek advice from the clerks. Is this the standard approach that is taken when appointing an adviser, or can we alter it?
Callum Thomson
Clerk
link
That is for the committee to decide. Most committees have opted to appoint advisers for around 15 days when conducting inquiries of this scope and length.
Members will recall that we were able to extend the period of appointment of our previous adviser, Ian Jones. John Scott has made a relevant point. I am happy to hear the views of other committee members on the matter.
At the moment we are not sure how much support we will receive from the Executive. The Executive said that it would support us, but it has not indicated precisely how it will do that. We hope to clarify that at our meeting with Rhona Brankin and her officials tomorrow afternoon. It would probably be useful for us to indicate where we are coming from. We should indicate that we have asked for a minimum amount of support, but that we would prefer to be in a position to ask for further support, should that be needed. That would accommodate John Scott's concerns.
That is a fair comment. The report states that it is proposed that the adviser be appointed for 15 days. The clerks have informed me that it is possible to extend the time scale for the adviser's work. We are not tying ourselves down. I take on board the caution expressed by John Scott, and Robin Harper's comments on our forthcoming discussion with the minister. We will report back to the committee once the details of the adviser's role and remit have been firmed up.
We need to beef up the adviser specification. The person whom we appoint must have a good understanding of the sea cage fish farming industry. Any old understanding will not do. The adviser must have a full understanding of the current policy debates on the issue. We are looking for a specialist.
We can fill out the person specification a bit and ensure that what John Scott just said is reflected. That is no problem. The reporters and I will meet the minister, report our findings and make recommendations to the committee on those issues. Do members agree to proceed on that basis?Members indicated agreement.
In this meeting
Everything on 3 Oct 2001 →- Scottish Parliament Transport and the Environment Committee Wednesday 3 October 2001 (Morning) Committee business · 2
- Interests Procedure · 3
- Deputy Convener Procedure · 4
- Sea Cage Fish Farming (PE96) Committee business · 12
- Organic Waste Disposal (PE327) Committee business · 29
- Budget Process 2002-03 Committee business · 89
The type of each item (debate, statement, questions, members’ business and so on) and the times shown are worked out by this site from headings, the chair’s opening words and the Official Report’s running timestamps. They are not the Parliament’s own classification. Text: the Scottish Parliament Official Report.