Official Report 211KB pdf
A paper has been circulated that gives a great deal more information on what is likely to come up under future business, which has been arranged into three groups—A, B and C.
Members indicated agreement.
May I ask why?
I am putting that view to the committee.
I only ask why we should discuss that item in private.
I made that suggestion to the convener because the paper discusses possible timetables for bills that have not formally come before the committee. They are purely speculative, as giving publicity to the timetabling of bills before decisions are made could mislead the public.
Item C refers to bids for committee time in the chamber. Unless members wish to express a view to the contrary, we could safely take that item in public. Therefore, I propose to take item C in public now and then move into private session to conclude today's business.
While we have discussed the forestry strategy, people were looking for opportunities for further debate on and a higher profile for that issue. Would it be in order and appropriate for a strategy of that kind to be proposed as committee business by the committee? The committee might come to the view that that strategy requires more public or parliamentary attention. Would it be in order, or possible, to bid to use our time to discuss either the strategy consultation that is before us or the report on the consultation when that is published?
To make a bid for time in the chamber, the committee would have to have taken a position on the matter and have produced a report to the Parliament upon which the debate could be structured.
We are not simply talking about an opportunity for a parliamentary debate on a subject that might not otherwise get that opportunity; it is effectively a report from this committee that we are submitting to the Parliament for approval.
Yes.
Do we definitely get time for debate? Do we know anything about the time scale?
We have to bid for it, and put forward a proposal.
Could I suggest that we do not bid this time? A couple of weeks ago, we spoke about hanging fire until we get our first main report on employment patterns in rural areas completed, before we bid for time for debate.
I am delighted that this item has appeared on our agenda, and I think that we should bid for time as soon as possible. The subject is important to this committee. We have had a number of reports. Three of them are mentioned on the piece of paper before us. I am of the opinion that we should look for time in the chamber to discuss again the issue of the fishing boundary, and I would be happy to say why.
I am sure that everyone is aware that 16 committees bidding for six half-days of debate in a year is not a lot. I am most loth to take Richard Lochhead's suggestion because the Parliament has already had a debate in the chamber on the issue of fishing boundaries. We have already had a full debate on it in this committee and have put out our report.
Can I come back on that point?
I will call Lewis Macdonald first, then I will ask Richard to comment.
I support Rhoda's proposal. It has been a concern for a number of members of this committee that the short-term issues that sometimes attract attention for a day or two seem to take precedence over our real, substantial, long-term work. We should ensure that the signals we send out to Parliament through the business that we seek to have discussed in the chamber reflect the committee's priorities. The committee's first established priority is our inquiry into rural unemployment.
To my knowledge, very few reports from committees are before the Parliament, so we would have a good chance of getting more than one debate over the next year or so. We have the choice between bidding and not bidding for a debate in Parliament. I do not believe that this is a short-term issue; that was recognised in the report.
If bids are being sought, we should put in a bid for time. There is nothing to stop us doing that every time bids are sought. I have never been happy with the response to one of the first serious reports the committee produced, on which we spent considerable time. I would be happy for us to bid on that subject. That does not stop us bidding on any other subject in the future. Every time there is a round of bidding, we should be seen to take part.
If we put in a bid for Parliament to discuss, say, the impact of the Scottish Adjacent Waters Boundaries Order 1999, which has already been debated, I do not believe that it will be accepted. The people who make these decisions in the Parliamentary Bureau or wherever will take the view that the issue has already been debated and wonder whether we have nothing else to bring before the Parliament. That would send the wrong message from this committee. As Rhoda Grant suggested, we should put in a bid in the next round for a debate on a major initiative that the committee has taken.
Members will not be surprised to hear that I take a different view. The Parliamentary Bureau will decide on this issue, and the votes there may be stacked against us, but I am not clear about who would be sending the wrong message. Would it be us, or would it be the Parliamentary Bureau by turning down our request? This is not a short-term issue. It does not require a massive inquiry, but it is of significance and relates to matters of principle, so we should debate it.
Members will not be surprised to hear that I support Rhoda Grant's view. I have said repeatedly that we need to consider issues such as employment strategies and to remember that this is not just a fisheries and agriculture committee. We are about to do three major reports, and our priority should be to debate those. I would be concerned if we spent our time discussing issues that we have already covered and did not take the opportunity to discuss the three reports. Those are the important areas on which we need to make progress.
Given the amount of work we have put into the investigation and the fact that we made a stark recommendation to which we have had an inadequate response, we have two choices. We can allow the issue to go away and die or we can say that it is an important issue and consider the options that are open to us. The most obvious option is to take the report to the Parliament. That might provoke an adequate response. If we are unsuccessful in that bid, it will not stop us from bidding on other subjects.
We have come to a clear choice. The idea that we use our report slot to discuss a reserved matter on which the committee has had divisions on critical points, on the basis of an alleged response that none of us has seen, seems entirely wrong. We should emphasise matters on which the committee, the Parliament and the Executive have a direct influence.
I understand the points that Richard Lochhead and Alasdair Morgan have made. My priorities are realism and effectiveness. We have debated the matter before, it will not be debated in Parliament again and I do not see the point in asking the bureau to put it on the agenda—it will not happen. As Lewis said, we should address the issues that concern us and for which we have some responsibility.
If we do not make a bid, it will send out the message that in the nine months we have been in business, the Rural Affairs Committee has not discussed anything worth debating in Parliament. That is not the case.
I am not suggesting that we should not respond at all. We could say that we want to bid for a later slot, after the recess, and explain why. We could also explain that no one apart from us is going to set that business in front of the Parliament. We might ask the bureau to recognise that we are being thoughtful in allowing others to come forward. In withdrawing our bid for this space, we would be putting in a bid for a later space.
I do not want to underrate anyone's powers of persuasion, but I suspect that we are going round in circles. We might try to reach a decision.
It is strange that the same issue has divided the committee all the way along. The clerks have noticed the same thing and have been writing motions on voting forms for some minutes now.
Do we have a proposal?
We have a proposal that has been gleaned from what you have said and another from Rhoda Grant.
We have had a proposal from Rhoda Grant that the committee should bid for time immediately after the summer recess for a debate on changing employment patterns in rural areas. The other proposal, from Richard Lochhead, is that the committee seeks a debate in Parliament on its report on the impact of the Scottish Adjacent Waters Boundaries Order 1999.
May I clarify something? My proposal is not a counter-proposal; I do not oppose Rhoda's proposal. We can all vote for both of them as far as I am concerned.
There is a clear choice. Rhoda is proposing that we take a negotiating position; everyone understands that these are matters for negotiation. We will strengthen our bid for a debate in the early period after the recess by following Rhoda's proposal.
I do not think that we should be spending minutes trying to interpret the politics of the Parliamentary Bureau. I am happy with Rhoda's suggestion; but I want us to make another bid for a debate in the immediate future.
I agree with Lewis. Let us not beat about the bush: this is clearly a choice between one course and another. We have Rhoda's suggestion before us and I think we should vote on it. The result will be indicative of opinion on the second suggestion.
This is not a choice between conflicting alternatives: we could recommend both proposals, which I am happy to do. I have nothing whatever against Rhoda's proposal.
In terms of procedure and logic, the two proposals are not mutually exclusive, which would be the only circumstance in which we would put one against the other.
My proposal is that we put in only one bid, to underline the importance of that topic and to ensure that we get any time that is available to discuss it. If we get time to discuss one topic, the chances are that we will not get time to discuss another. The bureau will say that we have already had time to discuss something and will therefore give the next available time to another committee. We have to strengthen our bid by putting in only one bid. That is really important.
Given our priorities, that is clearly what—
May I suggest that, as I have made a proposal, we vote on it? Thereafter anyone else can put forward any other proposal.
I suggest that we vote on Rhoda's proposal first.
But surely I made my proposal first.
No, I proposed mine first. [Laughter.]
But I brought the subject up!
I would like to be clear about the number of days that are available.
I understand that five half-days could be allocated between now and the summer recess. One half-day is being used later this week by the Standards Committee and the Health and Community Care Committee jointly so, in theory, there are four half-days left. However, there is no guarantee that the bureau will agree to allocate all four half-days.
And after the summer recess?
No decision has been taken on that, but there is a requirement that there be 12 half-days a year for committee business.
To simplify the voting process, we will consider Rhoda's proposal as the main proposal and Richard's proposal as a counter-proposal. We will vote on the counter-proposal first and then vote on the main proposal. That will simplify a problem that I can foresee arising in the near future; it will also allow me to keep to advice that I took in advance.
Convener, will you clarify that Rhoda's proposal is that we should make one bid in relation to the employment report, and that Richard's amendment is that, in addition, we should make a bid for an earlier debate on adjacent waters? Is that the choice before us?
And will you clarify something else? We are talking about making one bid, but in how long a period? Is it one bid ever? Is it one bid for this calendar year?
For this year.
Calendar year?
For a debate as soon as the employment report comes out.
This is our first bid.
Convener, I am somewhat confused by the arrangements. Are we going to vote first on Richard's amendment to Rhoda's motion?
Yes.
But if Richard's amendment is passed, it will emasculate Rhoda's motion. Is that correct?
Will there not be two bids—one for now and one for later—if Richard's amendment is passed. Actually, I did not think that Richard's proposal was an amendment.
Would it complicate things too much to say that we want, if possible, to bid for one half-day before the recess for the fishing boundaries debate and to bid for another date after the recess for the employment debate?
That is Richard Lochhead's proposal. Rhoda Grant's proposal is to make our first bid for a debate on the employment report. It is straightforward.
All I am suggesting is that our first bid should be for a debate on the fishing boundaries, which could be before or after the recess.
That is the difference between his proposal and mine. My proposal is that if Richard's proposal is not taken before the summer recess it should fall and allow the employment patterns debate to take priority in the allocations after the recess.
We still have the same choice to make.
My proposal is that our first bid should be for a debate on the fishing boundaries, whenever it may be.
This is the situation that we are in. Everyone agrees with Rhoda Grant's proposal. We will have the opportunity initially to vote on Richard Lochhead's proposal. If it is defeated, it is likely that there will be unanimous support for Rhoda's proposal.
My confusion is still great. If we take Richard's proposal as an amendment and vote for it, it will destroy Rhoda's motion.
Richard has said that this is not an amendment, but an alternative proposal. We should vote on Rhoda's first and on Richard's second.
That is the only thing we can do.
It is up to you, convener. At the end of the day, you must make the decision.
If we take the votes separately, what is the wording of Rhoda Grant's proposal?
The proposal that I have from Rhoda Grant is that the committee makes one bid for time immediately after the summer recess for a debate on the impact of changing employment patterns in rural areas.
In debate, the proposal has become that the first bid should be for a debate on the report on employment patterns.
I want to propose an amendment to replace Rhoda's motion, that the committee will make a bid for a debate as soon as possible on our report on the fishing boundaries.
That is a counter-proposal. It is hardly an amendment.
That is the same way as things work in the chamber. It simplifies matters, because everyone knows that we are voting on two things. We should vote on the amendment first.
I wish somebody would simplify things.
Do we accept Richard Lochhead's proposal as an amendment?
No. It sounds like an alternative proposal to me. Convener, it is for you to decide.
Although it is a substantial amendment, it can safely be treated as one. That is how decisions have been made in the chamber. Shall we move to a vote then? First, we will vote on Richard Lochhead's amendment.
The amendment is, that the committee seeks a debate in the Parliament on its report on the impact of the Scottish Adjacent Waters Boundaries Order 1999.
As we are not agreed, there will be a division.
For
The result of the division is: For 6, Against 4, Abstentions 0.
Amendment agreed to.
How will the motion, as amended, read?
The motion, as amended, is,
I understood that we were making a bid for only one debate and that Richard Lochhead's proposal was to continue to bid for the debate on the fishing boundaries. I did not think that he wanted us to bid for time for another debate.
We voted for the amendment as contained in Richard's statement. Effectively, that became the proposal—the motion. Are we agreed?
On what?
On the motion as amended.
No.
In that case we will have a vote.
As I understand it, that was not Richard's motion. He had a counter motion to my motion that did not include having a debate on the changing employment patterns in rural areas.
We have lost the bid for a debate on the report on current employment patterns.
So in theory we should have another vote on the amended motion.
More than in theory.
His motion replaced my motion.
We should vote on the motion as amended.
On Richard's motion.
We will now vote on the motion as amended.
For
Motion, as amended, agreed to.
We will now move on.
Is it in order to propose a further motion, continuing—
We have done it.
Yes we have—but I think there is some unease about what we have voted on. [Laughter.] Can I propose another motion?
Feel free.
I would like to propose that, should we not have obtained time for a debate by the summer recess, we debate the report that we will then have on the impact of changing employment in rural areas.
At this stage it is unnecessary to tie our hands. The committee might want to revisit the question in the light of the report when it is published.
That is right. The committee has made a decision on what it considers the priorities to be. A minority on the committee deeply regrets that decision and finds it surprising that the vote was taken, but we will want to revisit this if and when we have a different set of circumstances later in the year.
I want to say for the record that that is totally ridiculous. We are talking about debating a report we have not even started the investigation for yet, far less produced or given the Executive any time to comment on. We can apply for time to debate that report when we actually produce it.
I am sure we will want to do that, but at the moment we are not in a position to make that decision.
Alex, are you happy with that?
Yes.
If there are no further comments, we will move to item 5 on the agenda, which we will discuss in private.
Meeting continued in private until 16:34.
Previous
Petitions