Rural Affairs Committee, 02 Nov 1999

Meeting date: Tuesday, November 2, 1999

Official Report 293KB pdf

---

Rural Communities (Employment)

Item 7 is the inquiry into employment patterns in rural communities. A briefing paper from the Scottish Executive has been circulated but, unfortunately, as a result of illness in the Scottish Parliament information centre team, the scoping report that we had expected to have by now is not available. We were rather depending on having that report, as it will lead to the questions that we have to ask in the inquiry.

I propose that we deal momentarily with the content of the Executive briefing paper and decide whether it contains omissions that we want to be addressed. However, in the absence of the scoping report, I propose that we continue discussion of this item at the next meeting.

Is there anything in the Executive briefing paper that requires to be developed, or—more to the point—is there anything that the paper does not address?

I agree that we should go forward. I find myself at a disadvantage—I do not know about other people—because my first chance to read the papers was this morning. There is a lot here on which I would like to spend more time.

Should we consider the Executive briefing paper in conjunction with the scoping report?

Yes.

I want to raise the matter of the amount of time that people are getting to consider papers—we may discuss that later.

On another issue, as economic development in Scotland is a matter for the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee, that committee's work will have an impact on this committee's investigations.

Is it appropriate to consider this report in conjunction with other reports at a subsequent meeting of the committee? That is agreed.

That brings us to the end of item 7. Mike Rumbles wishes to raise an issue at this point.

Before we move into private session, I want to say that I am not terribly happy that we have left the first agenda item up in the air—I hope that other committee members share that feeling. I do not think that it is particularly helpful to defer the item to a meeting in a fortnight's time. As we have already received the evidence, we need to decide what to do now. This is not an issue for the Scottish Parliament, so it would be helpful for the committee to recognise the fact that Archy Kirkwood is producing a bill to change the boundary back to its initial position.

We have to find out whether standing orders will allow us to return to an agenda item for further discussion.

My reading of the relevant standing order might not be the only interpretation of the rules of the Parliament; that is for members to decide. Rule 11.8.1 of the standing orders says:

"The convener of a committee or sub-committee shall determine the time at which members shall take a decision on any item of business."

The committee agreed earlier to continue consideration of the matter at a future meeting. Within the terms of the standing order, the committee could, if it wanted, take that decision.

Does the committee want to progress the matter at this point?

Although I indicated that the committee should postpone the discussion, that was not out of any desperate desire to do so. We have a lot on the agenda and I thought that we might want more time to consider the issue. I am happy to reflect further on the item, if the committee so wishes.

I am of a like mind.

The committee has decided to progress the matter now.

What sort of representation do we make as a committee?

Having decided to reconsider the matter, we have to retrace our steps to the end of the evidence that we received earlier. We now have to decide how to progress the matter. My short summing-up of the evidence is intended to stimulate debate and committee members are welcome to express opinions.

This morning, we heard that there was a strong feeling that this issue should not be laid to rest. As I have perhaps jokingly suggested at previous meetings, the committee can always accept the situation that has arisen and push it no further. However, the majority of committee members have consistently taken the view that we should not take that course of action.

It was also made very clear in our earlier question-and-answer session with Hamish Morrison and John Home Robertson that several issues are connected with this, some of which stray well outside the remit of the Rural Affairs Committee. We were concerned specifically about those issues that affect the fishing industry, but on a number of occasions we found ourselves discussing matters that were not primarily rural affairs or fishing issues. For that reason, and given the balance of views that have been expressed, it would be appropriate for us to report to the Parliament on the discussion that took place. We could suggest that time be allocated in the Parliament for further debate.

Given the committee's interest in the issue and the number of questions that we put to the minister and Hamish Morrison, it would surely be appropriate for this committee to make several recommendations.

The measure can be changed only by the Westminster Parliament; efforts are being made to do that there. Practically, the most useful thing that we could do would be to lend our support to those moves. My suggestion is that we recognise that this is a responsibility of Westminster and that we lend our support to efforts to have the decision changed. That would bring the matter to a suitable conclusion.

It is appropriate that we recognise that any change in the fishery boundary is a matter for the Westminster Parliament. I do not endorse Mike's view that we should express our support for the proposed amending legislation. We should note that it is a matter for Westminster and the answers that we have received today. We could, as the convener suggests, also remind Parliament that it is free to discuss the issue further. We should leave it at that.

We all agree that this measure would have to be changed by the Westminster Parliament, because we are dealing with an intra-UK boundary. At issue is what we should do. It is a bit anodyne for us to recommend to the Parliament that it debates the subject again. The committee should express a view; the question is what that view should be. Archy Kirkwood has a 10-minute bill, but that will fall when Parliament is prorogued in a couple of weeks.

I have been informed that Archy Kirkwood is withdrawing that bill and intends to submit a stronger bill, which would restore the boundary to the line that previously existed.

Once Westminster reconvenes, whoever is first in the queue will get to bring forward a 10-minute bill. Of course, the Government could bring forward another statutory instrument, which would be a quicker way of rectifying this. We have to decide whether we should recommend to this Parliament that it supports moves in the Westminster Parliament to change the boundary as defined in the order, although there is no mechanism that allows the Scottish Parliament to support something at Westminster. Another option is for us to urge the Executive to lobby the Secretary of State for Scotland and other UK ministers to bring forward a statutory instrument to change the boundary. We could, perhaps, adopt both strategies.

I do not accept that it is the settled view of the committee that we want to support Archy Kirkwood's bill. If the matter is as significant as we have been told, any recommendation should come from the Parliament as a whole. From the evidence that we heard today—I have also had discussions with the Scottish Fishermen's Federation over several months—I am not satisfied that the federation has brought forward a compelling case that its material interests have been affected. On that basis, I would not want to subscribe to a committee recommendation that Westminster replaces the order. If we note that this is Westminster's responsibility and that measures are being discussed there, that will be appropriate and sufficient.

I was relaxed about the fact that we were discussing this issue again, because I thought that we would be discussing the way forward, as opposed to taking an immediate decision. We had an excellent report on amnesic shellfish poisoning, which reflected the fact that we had heard evidence from other groups on other days. Why cannot we follow a similar path for this issue, at least to consider the options? We can make recommendations at a future meeting. We need a report and we need to consider our options.

The issue has been debated in Parliament. We have heard more representations today. This is not an issue for this Parliament. Almost everybody here would want the boundary to be put right, but the place to do that is Westminster. We do not need another in-depth report and to go through the motions again. We have a good opportunity here to flag up the issue and to recommend that action be taken in the Westminster Parliament, which is where responsibility for it must lie. If we do not do that, the affair will go on and on. We must deal with the issue now—that is why I asked for it to be debated again.

Considerable evidence has been given today. We must do that justice by considering various recommendations. I am not suggesting that we produce a 100-page report, but we should make some recommendations. Various members have suggested different ways forward. We should consider them at the end of today's meeting and not take a snap decision.

A couple of views have been expressed. How do other members feel about the issue?

I am sympathetic to both views. The state opening of the new parliamentary year at Westminster is not for some weeks yet, so we do not have to arrive at a conclusion before then. However, that timetable relates only to this committee. The other problem, if we assume that we are going to recommend to the Scottish Parliament that it should take a particular course of action, is that the Parliamentary Bureau would need to decide whether to select a motion for debate and to find a slot in which to debate it. We cannot control that part of the timetable.

In view of this discussion, it may be that we need to defer a final decision, despite Mike's stalwart efforts to bring the issue to a conclusion. There does not seem to be much common ground on how we take this forward, but clearly there will be some areas on which we can agree.

If the committee is minded to make a recommendation, we need a little time to decide to whom it is appropriate to make it. We can make a recommendation to the Scottish Parliament, but I am not sure that we have any authority to make a representation to Westminster.

I am inclined to agree with Mike Rumbles that there must be a sense of urgency, but the feeling that I get from members is that it would be appropriate to request a short draft report, highlighting the main issues that have been discussed. We need a range of options on how best to progress. The issue must be dealt with as a matter of urgency. A final decision must be taken at our next meeting. Mike, is that okay?

I notice that you use the word "final".

We will therefore proceed on those terms and make a note of Mike Rumbles's desire to see the issue dealt with as a matter of urgency.

We all want it to be dealt with as a matter of urgency—or at least relative urgency.

That is the end of the part of the meeting that was to be held in public. The next item on the agenda is one that we previously agreed should be discussed in private, which is the final consideration of the draft report on amnesic shellfish poisoning. We will now, therefore, move into private session.

Meeting continued in private.