Official Report 149KB pdf
Item 4 concerns integrated rural development. Members have had from the clerk a paper that outlines possibilities for two fact-finding visits for the inquiry into integrated rural development. The first is the proposed visit to Colonsay. I was slightly perturbed to find that visit plastered all over the BBC website this morning under the headline
Correct me if I am wrong, but in the three years of the operation of the Rural Development Committee, we have had only two committee meetings outside Edinburgh—one in the Borders and one near Loch Lomond.
The convener mentioned that a fourth option was to stay for two days.
It might be useful if I asked one of the clerks to outline the public transport options for getting to and from Colonsay.
We understand that, during the summer months only, a ferry goes to Colonsay from Kennacraig in Kintyre, stays for six hours and returns that evening, getting back to Kennacraig at quarter to 10. That option would not require the committee to stay overnight on Colonsay but would allow time for fact-finding visits or a meeting. However, as the committee has heard, it is not feasible to hold a meeting of the committee when the Parliament is meeting. It might be possible to identify a week when there was no meeting on Wednesday.
What time would we get there on the Monday?
I do not know. I could confirm that for you.
It might well be that, if we arrived late, we would have only one full day—Tuesday—on the island.
That would almost certainly be the case, given that the ferry back is on Wednesday. However, that would still involve three days of members' time.
Mike Rumbles's point was a good one: the fact that one full day on the island would take up three days of our time is indicative of the sort of thing that people who live on the island have to put up with all the time.
I remember making the same points as Mike Rumbles when we first discussed holding the meetings. It is important that the Rural Development Committee does not send out a message that it is unwilling to overcome obstacles in order to conduct an inquiry into obstacles to rural development.
Okay. However, I take issue with what you say. We have held only two official meetings outside Edinburgh, but we have held quite a few public meetings outside Edinburgh, especially when we were researching the report on the impact of changing employment patterns in rural Scotland.
There is no doubt that we have met outside Edinburgh only twice.
That is true for official committee meetings. However, we have held other meetings outside Edinburgh.
How many other committees have met officially outside Edinburgh, and how many times have they done so?
We do not know. However, as the Rural Development Committee, we have always felt that we should meet outside Edinburgh.
I do not dispute that, but two formal committee meetings outside Edinburgh might not be a bad track record compared with other committees—although I am not saying that that is the level that we want to achieve. It has always been acknowledged that it is difficult and costly for committees to meet outside Edinburgh. If the information that I asked for is not available, my question cannot be answered, but it might be useful for us to know the answer.
The information is not immediately available, but we could get it.
Convener, I have—as have you—attended many meetings of the conveners liaison group, at which applications by committees to meet outside Edinburgh have been discussed. I have been surprised that there has never been a financial barrier to that. I am not aware that any committee has been refused permission to meet outside Edinburgh. We seem to be stuck in a sort of self-fulfilling prophecy of finding barriers where they do not exist. This is a bizarre situation, because our inquiry is about barriers to integrated rural development. It seems that we are putting our own barriers in place right at the beginning of our inquiry. We should remove those barriers.
We will come to that.
How many people would be in the group?
I shall ask the clerk. How many people must travel to a full committee meeting, apart from the members?
I cannot give an exact number. There would be representatives from security, public information, the official report and broadcasting, as well as the committee's clerks.
Would there be about 20 people in total
Yes.
In that case, it might be more economical to hire a charter vessel from Tobermory or Kennacraig to take the team to Colonsay instead of going on the Caledonian MacBrayne ferry. Has that been investigated as a possibility?
That would be a sensible option.
It is possible to get a passenger charter from Crinan.
I am sure that it could go round the back of Jura to Colonsay.
It is not far from Jura to Colonsay.
I must point out that members rejected that option when it was put to them previously. We received a quote for chartering a vessel to take us there. Perhaps there are other vessels that we could charter—I do not know—but it is fair to say that there would be procurement delays.
We are in the difficult position of being damned if we go and damned if we do not. If we do not go, we will have press coverage similar to that which we have had. If we charter a boat for a huge financial outlay, we will be hammered again. We should not just rush on to Colonsay, hold an official committee meeting, then leave. It would be better to stay on the island so that we can speak informally to people.
I could not agree more.
I think that we will get more information by doing that. People might not speak openly at the meeting because their comments will be recorded in the Official Report. I would be happy for the whole committee to go to the island for an informal meeting to hear people's concerns. I do not back the proposal to charter a boat for a day, which would allow us to have a committee meeting on the island but do nothing more. I am keener on an informal visit.
I have much sympathy with that suggestion, but a possible problem is that the conveners liaison group will not be keen on funding an unofficial trip for the entire committee. However, I believe that we could argue successfully for Rhoda Grant's suggestion.
I would oppose such a suggestion at a CLG meeting, because if the whole committee is going on a fact-finding visit, we should have a proper committee meeting. It is only fair that I tell committee members that I will—because I feel strongly about the matter—say that at the CLG meeting. It would be ridiculous to pull out of an agreed committee meeting because of such impediments as the possibility of having to stay on the island for two nights.
We should not make a mountain out of a molehill. First, I do not think that there would be a media backlash if we chartered a vessel. Secondly, the media should not dictate our agenda. I sympathise with Rhoda Grant, but we should not be hung up about having the official report with us. I reiterate that if it proves to be impractical to charter a vessel—I would prefer to examine that option—we still have a duty to use our time sensibly. We should not go down the road of spending two or three days on Colonsay because we must have the official report with us. We should visit the island for only six hours. We have a duty to expose the committee to as much of rural Scotland as possible, which means using our time sensibly.
If we stayed for two nights in Colonsay, our time could be used profitably. We have said often that we would like to have an away day that would involve an overnight stay, so that the committee could discuss integrated rural development issues informally. We have a marvellous opportunity to have an official committee meeting on Colonsay and to combine that—if we are forced to stay there for two nights because of the public transport problems—with an informal meeting. It would be wrong not to use our agreed agenda for such an opportunity.
I sympathise with members' points. However, I want to respond particularly to Mike Rumble's comments. I am the constituency member for Coatbridge and Chryston. I am also a member of two parliamentary committees, which I am sure is the case for other members. I would find it difficult to devote three days to a committee fact-finding visit, particularly during the working week. The visit could take place during recess. Could the committee go to Colonsay on Tuesday during the first week of Easter recess, spend one night there and return on the Wednesday?
The committee could do that, but we would have to charter a boat to go there on the Tuesday.
Could we get a ferry on the Tuesday?
No, but expenses would be cut by using public transport on the Wednesday.
We need to ask the clerks to examine the logistics of chartering a boat that could take official report staff, sound equipment and everything else that we need. Accommodation on the island for the number of people who will be working there is another logistical element that must be considered.
Many private charter boats will not take more than 12 passengers.
We would need two charter boats, but that is okay. I hope that members are content with that for now.
I suggest that we press ahead for a full committee meeting in the north-east, and that we avoid the week of the Parliament's visit. It would make sense for us to visit the north-east at a different time because we want to ensure that people know that the Rural Development Committee is in the area. Confusion may arise in public perception if Parliament and the committee are there at the same time. For those reasons, I shall go for option 2, which is to find an alternative date and hold a formal committee meeting.
I whole-heartedly support what Richard Lochhead says. He is absolutely right. The clerks suggest Friday 7 June, which is a more suitable date.
Friday 7 June?
Yes.
Are you suggesting fact-finding visits, or simply a meeting of the committee?
I am suggesting a meeting of the committee on 7 June.
You see no need for fact-finding visits in the north-east?
Fact-finding visits will always be useful, but I make it clear, as Richard Lochhead has done, that it is important to have a full committee meeting. We will have full committee meetings in the south, in Loch Lomond, in Fort William and in Colonsay. I should also like to have a full committee meeting in the north-east.
Could I make a suggestion? If we are to have a full committee meeting on 7 June in Aberdeen, can we have, as Rhoda Grant suggested with reference to the Colonsay discussion, an hour at the beginning or end of that meeting to meet people informally? It may not be a fact-finding visit, but it would be something similar.
We will come to the format of the meetings later, but that is the sort of format that I hope to promote.
I understood that we would visit three locations in the north-east, so I presume that we would have the formal meeting in one of those locations and fact-finding visits in the other two. Aboyne, Huntly and Buckie were the three locations that were mentioned, and we could visit them in the same day.
I am happy with that suggestion. How do other members feel?
Can I make a plea? I know that Mid Deeside Ltd is having particular problems on integrated rural development.
Can we come to the details of the visits later? We should establish the dates and locations first.
That is what I am talking about. I would like the committee to come to Aboyne, which is what I proposed originally, for serious reasons. There are difficulties in Aboyne and up the valley of Deeside with integrated rural development, so I would like the committee to consider going to Aboyne.
I reiterate my preferences, which were mentioned at the beginning. Both locations are in my constituency, so I have no preference, although Huntly would be more appropriate. It has a higher unemployment rate than Aboyne, and we have not been there in any shape or form. We have visited mid-Deeside before.
We have not visited mid-Deeside.
We did, for fact finding on land reform.
If members are happy with Friday 7 June, we can ask the clerks to look at the locations and find suitable premises for holding the meetings. Once we have found out what is available and where, the committee can decide where to go. There will always be individual preferences, but we might as well find out whether places are available. I am sure that the clerks will be in touch with those in the north-east who have an interest to hear their suggestions. We will consider Friday 7 June, which might mean two nights away for members who are coming a long way, but we will cross that bridge when we come to it.
Are we in Parliament on Thursday 6 June?
I imagine so.
Are you suggesting that we would have to travel to Aberdeen on the Thursday straight after the plenary session in Edinburgh?
We would not have to do so, but it would probably make sense. We will have to wait until we know where we are going and what the logistics are.
Some of us do that journey twice a week.
That is a good point. That is the week after we are in Aberdeen, and we are unsure about the plenary situation for the week. I do not know whether the debating chamber will be restored after the General Assembly; we will have to find out. The details will be available for our meeting on 26 March, and we will firm things up then.
That is a good approach.
The clerks and local members could determine who should come, with the committee having to agree to their choices before the final decision.
I will make a general point, but before I do so, I state that I am a member of the Transport and General Workers Union and that I have declared an interest.
I do not argue with that at all. You are right that the place for that would be in the final evidence-taking meetings that will be held in Edinburgh. By that time, I hope, we will have identified any gaps in the evidence and will be able to address those gaps specifically. There is no reason why the unions should not be part of that.
Local trades councils from specific communities might also want to give evidence. I throw that suggestion to the clerks, because we have left them to decide who the most appropriate witnesses might be.
A fortnight ago, Angus Council set up a full-day briefing for me on rural issues. A range of external organisations from Angus attended. I urge the clerks to contact the economic development officials in the local authorities to get the names of such organisations. That would be useful.
I am sure that the clerks will take that on board. It would be almost discourteous not to ask the local authorities wherever we meet at least to send a representative to the meeting. Perhaps such representatives could also appear as witnesses. Most local authorities have a rural development branch of some sort. I would be surprised if they were not on the list of witnesses.
I am getting a little concerned. We seem to intend to speak to agencies and organisations. How will we tackle our objective of getting out and speaking to the people on the ground who have faced the problems and issues? Another problem with having formal committee meetings is that we almost have to have a body that we can ask to send a representative. It is difficult to get Joe Bloggs along to a formal committee meeting to describe the problems that are involved in, for example, setting up or changing a business. That is the kind of evidence that we want.
I return to the subject of how we will structure the meetings, which Elaine Smith first broached. I will run over what I think will happen in our visits to Dalry and the south of Scotland. We will do three fact-finding visits on the Monday afternoon. We hope to have an informal meeting with a list of invited people on the Monday evening before we all have something to eat. That is where the local members and their nominations come into play.
The paper suggests that we could have a 30-minute break in the middle of the meeting, which would allow members of the public to comment on the evidence and ask questions or air differing opinions. That would be a better approach, because their comments and the issues that they raise could be dealt with and recorded in the Official Report afterwards.
I am more than happy to try that approach at the meeting in the South of Scotland and, if it is successful, we could continue to use the model elsewhere. I am in absolute agreement with Rhoda Grant that we should try to find a format that allows us to meet the real people—as we have always called them—who are involved in this exercise. Otherwise, we will not do any good at all.
On the point about meeting real people, we could follow a model that involves doing some spadework in advance. We could contact agencies such as the local development company, Scottish Enterprise Grampian or any of the other organisations or trusts—such as the Royal Deeside Trust—and ask them to forward to the committee details of companies or individuals who would be willing and able to give evidence to a formal committee meeting. That would mean that we would not have the usual suspects turning up at the table to give us formal evidence. We would be able to choose in advance which people we would like to hear evidence from.
If we were to ask the local development company for a list of nominated witnesses, would we not get the usual suspects? I would like to hear from people who have not managed to get an enterprise company grant or to get the enterprise company involved and why.
That is exactly my point. I was only using Scottish Enterprise Grampian as an example. Let us forget about the enterprise companies—I am talking about the local community development trusts and companies, which are grass-roots development organisations. Unlike the enterprise companies, they are not top-down organisations—they are bottom-up organisations that are organised by and for local people. They would be able to give us lists of people and a range of options to choose from. They would not pre-select people for us or tell us, "This is the only person you can see". I am only making a suggestion.
Fair enough—your suggestion will be included in the Official Report of today's meeting. I would be happy if that approach could be used successfully, but I have the feeling that we would still end up with the usual suspects. I was hoping that local and constituency members would be able to feed into the process, so that we would have a proper cross-section of exactly the type of person I was talking about.
It is difficult for the committee to avoid hearing from the usual suspects, who often have an axe to grind. We want to hear from people who can give us genuine case studies.
That is a splendid idea, although I am not sure whether the advertising budget would extend to such an approach.
As an add-on to Richard Lochhead's idea, we could advertise through a press release that says, "We are coming and this is what we want." Most local papers would run that as a story—it would be a good story for them.
Are you proposing to put out the information through a press release, rather than through an advertisement?
Yes.
In the case of Huntly and Aboyne, the local papers would simply run a piece—it would not cost us any money.
The story ran locally in the Dalry area.
Even the BBC's website covers our business.
I was going to suggest what Richard Lochhead just suggested—I think that that is a good idea.
It is a sound idea.
I am sorry that I am a wee bit late—I was rather busy this morning.
I can see the journalist from The Press and Journal nodding.
The journalist from The Press and Journal is nodding vigorously behind us.
The journalist from The Press and Journal always nods vigorously. That is terrific.
It is odd that paragraph 4(a) mentions sea fishing and then aquaculture, but it does not mention freshwater fishing. That may seem a small point, but it is not a very sensible way of putting it. Aquaculture means fish farming and it also mentions sea fishing. I presume that all types of fishing will be included.
I am sure that that is the intention.
It is not well put.
Given that it is just an outline paper, I hope that you will forgive that oversight.
Just.
I am glad that you are in a generous mood today, Mr McGrigor.
The concerns that Mr McGrigor expressed are covered by the second bullet point in paragraph 4(b)(i), which states:
Yes. That is part of the suggestion for the informal networking event. Thank you for that point.
Health and safety is a big issue. Although it is, in a way, a reserved matter it still has an impact on agriculture in rural communities, so we might want to discuss it.
We can add that theme to the bullet points when we discuss whom we want to give evidence in Edinburgh.
We are considering rural development and possible barriers to rural development. At a meeting that I had with Highlands and Islands Enterprise this morning, it was stated that one of the perceived barriers—certainly in Lochaber—is the lack of housing in an area where unemployment is quite low. There are skills shortages, so available housing is needed to attract the people that are needed to fill the skill shortages. Could we add housing and transport? Transport links are seen by many as impacting directly and indirectly on what is good and what is problematic about development.
I have no difficulty with that, but I would have thought that those two subjects are likely to come up on our rounds.
I wonder whether we should signal those subjects in the paper.
There is no reason not to.
We should spell out for the public the fact that those subjects are included in our agenda.
I have no problem with that. However, I presume that the committees that deal with housing and transport also take an interest in the issues of rural housing and rural transport.
That is called cross-cutting, is it not? Much cross-cutting could be going on, because every issue has a rural aspect.
My point is related to Fergus Ewing's. Many issues will crop up, so perhaps we should not be too prescriptive. I thought that the inquiry's purpose was to allow themes to emerge from taking evidence, as opposed to putting themes into boxes before the inquiry starts.
We do not need to be too definitive yet.
The committee tends occasionally to go down too many routes, which means that we get what we want to hear as opposed to seeing what emerges.
I take your point. We can leave those subjects until we assess whether we have missed something out.
About the Dalry meeting or the Lochaber meeting?
About either. The proposed format that I described, however, was specifically for the Dalry meeting. I trust that everybody is happy about that format, which we have almost finalised.
On the Lochaber meeting, we talked earlier about the usual suspects. Seven organisations are listed in paragraph 4(c) as suggested witnesses for the Lochaber meeting. I would label five of those organisations as the usual suspects. I have heard of the Knoydart Foundation, but I know about it only from what I read in the newspaper. I do not know the Lochaber LEADER group. Could we not also include as witnesses community development companies or community trusts? Lochaber is in Fergus Ewing's constituency, so perhaps he could suggest witnesses. Could we have more local, grass-roots organisations in addition to the usual suspects?
Three committee members have fed in many suggestions of organisations that are not the usual suspects, which could give evidence or that we could visit.
This morning I met HIE. That organisation will make a written submission by 14 March. If all the usual suspects make written submissions, that will allow us to devote what time we have to taking oral evidence from those who are not the usual suspects, such as members of the public, particularly if they respond to the pleas from the excellent The Press and Journal and other press avenues.
I would agree with that. We have all sent in suggestions, but they are not reflected in the paper. The Lochaber Fishery Board is the only one of its type that has gone ahead and accepted the recommendations—it has amalgamated with several other fishery boards. It is an interesting example of a modern fishery board.
If many of the people who respond to our press release want to give us evidence, there would be nothing wrong with our taking up in writing the points that they raise with the usual suspects after the meeting. That would leave as much of the meeting as possible for hearing what people say. We could get responses in writing to the evidence that we receive. That would make more room for ordinary people. Do you know what I mean?
I do indeed. There would be no difficulty with that.
My point follows on from Jamie McGrigor's suggestion on the Lochaber Fishery Board. It is important that we keep in mind what we are trying to achieve with our inquiry. I presume that our aim is to identify obstacles to rural development and, at the same time, to find successes. Anyone from whom we hear should be able to say to us that X jobs have been created during the past 12 months as a result of a project. We must use some sort of criteria. Someone might say that they are unable to create jobs because of X, Y or Z. That is one side. Success is the other side. We should hear from people who can tell us that 12 jobs, say, have been created, rather than from people who just have a good story to tell. We need evidence that certain people will be worthwhile listening to as part of our investigation.
We are almost there with the Dalry visit. On the Lochaber visit, I suggest that the clerks should liaise with Fergus Ewing, Rhoda Grant, Jamie McGrigor and Alasdair Morrison to identify the appropriate candidates to give evidence—formally and informally. That goes back to the flexibility that we talked about. Unless there is a violent objection, we would go along with their suggestions.
An issue that has affected Lochaber over the years is the demise of the pulp mill and of aluminium smelting in the area. There have been significant job losses. British Waterways, which operates the canal system from Banavie through to Inverness, is an active job generator. We should not overlook the importance of its activities in that area. Perhaps we could involve that organisation in some way.
It appears that British Waterways has already been noted, but thank you nonetheless. We must realise that we cannot meet everybody on the visits. It is sad that we must prioritise. I am happy to leave it to the four members who have been suggested to finalise the choice.
Does anyone have further comments to make on the paper?
I presume that in the evening of Monday 22 April we will have the chance to meet a variety of local people in an informal setting, as is being planned for Dalry. If that is the case, perhaps arrangements could be explored with John Hutchison, who is the Highland Council area officer for Lochaber. He might be able to assist us in going about that.
Good idea. I believe that you had already suggested that possibility to Highland Council. I am happy for the council to consider that. Arrangements would be similar to Dalry, with a public session in the evening.
Meeting continued in private until 15:17.
Previous
Subordinate Legislation