Do members think that item 3 should be taken in public?
I see no reason why it should not be taken in public.
Okay. Members have been circulated with a paper on the proposal for a debate on committee business under rule 5.6.1 of standing orders. On 14 March 2000, the Rural Affairs Committee decided to seek a debate in the Parliament as soon as possible on its report on the impact of the Scottish Adjacent Waters Boundaries Order 1999. Immediately after the summer recess, the committee will bid for a debate on the outcome of its inquiry into the impact of changing employment patterns in rural communities. The conveners liasion group has decided to support the selection of the former topic for debate during the time allocated to committee business on Wednesday 26 April.
I was at Fisheries 2000 in Glasgow on Saturday. Fishermen from all over the country were there and they expressed their gratitude to the committee for seeking time to debate this matter.
I want to comment on Richard's aside about the event in Glasgow. I have also spoken to many people in the fishing industry in recent weeks and they have expressed surprise that the committee has decided to revisit the matter. However, I am sure that the debate will allow us to highlight other issues relating to the Scottish fishing industry. I will be one of those who uses the debate—referring, of course, to the motion that is before us—to raise some of the other issues that are of concern to the fishing industry. As the accompanying note says, given the committee's collective discussions of this issue and the fact that we voted both on the substance of the report and on the decision to seek committee time to debate it in Parliament, it seems sensible that we should agree to go forward with option 1 of the suggested motions, which asks Parliament to take note of the report. All members of the committee could support that motion and address it in terms that seemed to them appropriate.
Are there any other comments? I am keen to establish the views of committee members before we do what we always do on this subject and progress to a vote.
You will recall that at a previous meeting I suggested that we should return to this item. At one of the committee's early meetings, we took evidence from the fishing communities and fishing representatives, who were just as surprised as we were that the instrument had been approved by the Westminster Parliament without much consultation with the fishermen or the Scottish Fishermen's Federation. There was extreme disappointment at the time, and I do not think that that has disappeared. Many of the fishing groups to which I speak raise the boundary issue. The credibility of the Scottish Parliament and of this committee hinges on our being able to have the issue debated again, so that we arrive at a conclusion that the fishing fraternity finds satisfactory. I see no reason for us not to take the issue back to the Parliament. Item 9 in annexe C contains a recommendation that the committee should support strongly.
Are you expressing support for option 3?
I am. I think that the committee should support and promote option 3.
Do members have any other comments on the options that are before us?
Was Lewis Macdonald suggesting that we should support option 1 in annexe A?
That is correct.
That was just for clarification.
I would like to have one point relating to option 3 clarified and to seek comments on it. The proposed motion states:
I am keen to find a form of words that is acceptable to as many members of the committee as possible. I believe that it would be appropriate for us to propose that the Parliament should note the report of this committee and the issues that are raised in it, rather than that it should express direct support for the report. When we considered the issue, it was obvious that the committee was divided on it. For that reason, it is important that we frame the motion in terms that allow as many members as possible to express their support for it.
I would like to support Lewis Macdonald's suggestion that we choose option 1. If I had not been away sick on 14 March, I would have opposed the Parliament discussing this reserved matter yet again, but that is in the past. Option 1 at least allows other issues relating to the fishing industry to be introduced into the debate.
In light of the wish to lodge a motion that meets with the approval of most committee members, it strikes me that option 3 in annexe A might not be a bad solution, as it combines Lewis Macdonald's suggestion and the ninth recommendation in annexe C, which John Munro mentioned.
Two committee members have now expressed support for option 3, and Lewis Macdonald and Elaine Murray support option 1.
Option 1 is a bit weak. Given that option 3 also asks the Parliament only to note our report, we might as well spell out some of the report's details. Option 1 is so bland that I cannot bring myself to support it; however, at a push, I could support option 3 in the interests of compromise.
Option 3 will give people a chance to raise points in the report and to expand on them in the debate.
I want to follow Alasdair Morgan's spirit of compromise and suggest that option 2 offers the opportunity for the committee to come together around a middle position.
I do not think that option 2 is very useful.
I detect slightly more approval for option 3.
Obviously I prefer option 1. As I have said, it is more important to have a parliamentary debate on our first major inquiry instead of on this subject, and we will find consensus only if we choose option 1.
Option 1 is so bland that it does not change anything and it does it allow us to make any other suggestions. Option 3 has sufficient scope to incorporate all members' views and aspirations, and it is worthy of recommendation to the committee.
Are members content to have a vote on this matter?
Is the choice between option 1 in annexe A and annexe C? Has my suggestion about option 3 in annexe A been discounted?
Option 3 in annexe A is one of the suggestions under discussion.
So we are now debating options 1 and 3 in annexe A.
That is the choice before the committee.
Right.
Do members agree simply to divide into those who support option 1 and those who support option 3?
I suggest that we take a roll call vote on this issue.
Okay. We will now vote.
For option 1
The result of the roll call vote is: four for option 1 and seven for option 3 .
That the Parliament notes the terms of the report by the Rural Affairs Committee on the Impact of the Scottish Adjacent Waters Boundaries Order, 1999 (SP paper 42); in particular its dissatisfaction and concern:
a about the level of consultation carried out prior to the introduction of the boundaries order
b that the introduction of a boundaries order appears not to have identified any inconsistency with the Civil Jurisdiction (Offshore Activities) Order 1987
c that the amount of fishing activity in the disputed area does not appear to have influenced the Order;
and also notes the Committee's recommendation that the Secretary of State for Scotland should either introduce a new, revised Order, or support a bill calling for a revised boundary proposed in the House of Commons by Archy Kirkwood MP.
Previous
Bills (Timetabling)