Item 1 on the agenda relates to the "Report on the Impact of Changing Employment Patterns in Rural Scotland". A paper has been circulated suggesting a motion for debate in the Parliament in committee time on Thursday. I am looking for comments on that. Our duty is to approve a motion for debate.
I found the Government's response to our report bizarre. The Executive took the report in wholly the wrong way. The response was very defensive, which suggests that the Executive believed that the committee was just attacking it and asking for more to be done, whereas we were simply reporting what we found during our investigation. It may be worth mentioning in the motion our surprise at the Executive's response.
The suggested motion was drawn up by the committee clerk, Richard Davies, on my behalf. There was obviously a likelihood that some people would think it too strong and others would think it not strong enough. We tried to hit the middle ground. I remind members that our opportunity to discuss the issues that the report raises will be during the debate on Thursday, rather than now. It is important that the committee should take forward the report and debate it under a motion that can find broad support in the chamber rather than cause division.
I heartily agree with everything that you have said, convener. We can discuss the issues during the debate. I, too, was disappointed with the Executive's response to our report, as I shall be making clear in the chamber. However, I believe that the suggested motion is couched in the right terms and I hope that committee members will support it, as it provides a useful way forward.
Are we generally content with the wording of the motion in my name and that it should be submitted?
We must also decide who should make the opening and closing speeches on behalf of the committee. The usual practice is for the convener to open and for the deputy convener to close. However, the deputy convener, Fergus Ewing, takes the view that, as he was not greatly involved in the collection of the data in the initial part of the investigation, he should perhaps not make the closing speech. Do members have a view on who should make the closing speech?
It is important that the person who makes the closing speech should have been involved in drawing up the report. Several members who are present were involved.
I would like to give Fergus Ewing first refusal. I have given his view as it was reported to me, but he is not here to confirm whether what I said is right. Normally, I would ask him to make the closing speech on behalf of the committee. If he decides not to take up my invitation, who do members think would be appropriate to close on the committee's behalf?
I nominate my colleague Mike Rumbles.
The deputy convener should close for the committee, but I am happy to do so if Fergus Ewing does not want to.
Are we content to leave it at that for the moment? If Fergus Ewing confirms that he does not want to close for the committee, we will act according to the suggestion that has been made.
I am quite happy with that.
I would like some clarification. How many committee members will get to speak?
Only two members are speaking for the committee. Other speakers will be allocated by the parties, as is usual.
How long is the debate?
It will last 90 minutes. We will formalise the decision on who will close for the committee at the earliest possible opportunity.
I had not fully considered the matter, but perhaps we could discuss it later.
I take it that you are still considering the issue.
I certainly am.
Okay. That brings us to the end of item 1. We have already agreed to take items 2 and 3 in private.
Meeting continued in private until 17:00.