Rural Development Committee, 15 Jan 2002

Meeting date: Tuesday, January 15, 2002

Official Report 313KB pdf

---

Integrated Rural Development

We now come to item 5. Members will recall our discussion on 18 December, when the committee agreed to pursue the theme of integrated rural development, initially through a series of visits. Suggestions for visits were invited. Last week, we agreed that the clerks should produce a paper on the suggestions that had been put forward, and they have done so. A possible four visits have been drawn up from the suggestions made.

My only view—members may agree or disagree—is that we should try to avoid overnight stays. However, that may at some stage be inevitable. I wonder whether what we would learn in Kintyre would be much different from evidence that we might gather in Lochaber—but members with more knowledge of those areas may inform me otherwise. However, I support the principle of the four visits, on the basis that three or four members might be able to attend each one. I do not think that we should expect all members to attend each visit.

I think that we decided that four visits should be made. I see that four candidates for destinations are before us, so that means that there is space for them all to get elected. I hope that that is agreed. There are practical difficulties, particularly for the visit to Colonsay, but I hope that those will not deter us from making that visit. As Rhoda Grant pointed out previously, going to a place that is difficult to get to and difficult to develop is really the point.

I disagree with you slightly about the second part of the paper before us, which is about involving local people at the first and second stages. I entirely approve of that approach. However, if we agree about that, does that not assume that we will not decide now whether the full committee will go to each of the four places, and that we will make that decision later, once we have gauged the response from the local people. In other words, the first stage will be to elicit the response from each area. If there is a thirst to have a full committee meeting, I would very much like that thirst to be quenched. I would not want now to rule out having a full committee meeting; we could revisit the possibility.

I appreciate that we will have to approach the conveners liaison group to get the money. I had envisaged that the visits would involve the full committee. It would detract from and devalue the process were we to decide now, willy-nilly, that we will not have full-blown committee meetings. If we decide to hold full meetings, it would provide a galvanising force for Lochaber, for example, to be aware that the committee is coming. As a result, we might get a large response from people with their own ideas, not just the ones that I and others have suggested in the paper. People should get not just the poor-relation option of a visit by one or two members, but the full Monty of the committee in its full splendour.

The mind boggles. My only difficulty with that is the timetabling for the conveners liaison group's financial approval. Essentially, we have to present the CLG with a paper by Friday, for consideration next Tuesday. If we slip past that deadline, it will be a matter of approaching the CLG at the end of March. I would hope that a couple of visits will have taken place by then, as if we do not fit them in in March or April, we will have severe difficulties with our work programme. As always, I am open to suggestions.

I am relatively happy with the paper. Involving local people is important. During our previous inquiry, we were getting 70 folk at some of the meetings that involved members of the public.

Instead of just inviting witnesses and the great and the good from the usual organisations, it is important that we give an opportunity for ordinary people to come to meetings. We did that with our previous inquiry, which was successful. That inquiry did not involve official committee meetings, but I agree with Fergus Ewing—if that option fits in, we should go for it, but it is not a priority.

If we go to Colonsay, let us go the same way that the public go, rather than making special arrangements. The only way that we can get a grasp of the issues that face ordinary people is to do exactly what they do. Why should we hire a special boat to take us over?

I do not think that that will happen.

I feel strongly about that.

I could not agree more, given that one of the reasons for going to Colonsay is the difficulty of access, as Rhoda Grant pointed out last week. That is a perfectly fair point.

Given that we must get costings in by the end of the week and you said that you hoped that at least two visits would be over and done with before the next agenda—

That is only my thinking.

Would it be easier for the clerks and the committee if we pick the two simplest options and get the costings in for the end of the week, so that we can go sooner? Perhaps then we could work up the costings for the two more complex visits, with a view to doing them later on.

So you are in favour of applying for two visits now and a further two at the next round of bidding.

Yes. We might have more chance of getting all the visits if we apply for them that way, especially if we accept Fergus Ewing's point and go for full committee meetings. If we go for full meetings, we will need the Official Report, security and so on, which is expensive and difficult to organise. However, for communities that feel a wee bit away from the Parliament and perhaps think that we do not always listen to them, it might be a good idea to hold full committee meetings there.

So your suggestion is that we apply for two visits now and two at the next round of bidding, and that we apply for the full committee to go. That is not a bad idea at all.

If Colonsay is too difficult, Mull is another obvious option.

I do not think that Colonsay is too difficult; it is just a question of fitting it into the bid, if the whole committee is going to go. It would be sensible to spread the cost over two separate bids to the CLG. When I talk to the CLG about the first two bids, I would be happy to mention that that is only half the programme. If members are agreeable to that route, I suggest that as the visits to Lochaber and Dalry are probably the simplest—those places are easy to get to and the visits will be shorter—we should go for those two first. That would give the clerks and those involved a little more time to work on the logistics of the other two meetings.

I am quite happy about going for the two simplest visits first, as long as the work on the other, more difficult visits continues so that it is ready for the next round of bids.

I take it that we are talking about visits of the whole committee, or as many of the committee as possible.

Usually, the arrangement is that everyone can go if they want.

A formal visit of the Parliament is different in that it involves taking many more officials than are required by an inquiry such as that on the impact of changing employment patterns.

To take up Rhoda Grant's suggestion, we can put in the two bids for formal meetings of the committee at Lochaber and Dalry. We can review that in light of the responses that we receive, should it transpire that it is necessary to do so.

I must clarify whether we are talking about a fact-finding visit by members of the committee—which is not necessarily accompanied by the full force of officials and others behind us and therefore is considerably less expensive to conduct—and an official visit of the committee, with the full force of officialdom behind us.

There is an argument for chancing our arm and saying that we want all four visits to be full committee meetings. Why not? We are the Rural Development Committee, but we have had fewer visits out of Edinburgh than other committees.

My view is that the visits stem back to our desire to be proactive, which we identified at the away day at the end of the summer recess. The visits are the only proactive exercise that we have on the agenda. I have no difficulty about arguing the case at the CLG.

We will try for four visits. If the CLG says that we can have only two visits, we will accept that.

We can start with a committee meeting and have a fact-finding visit as well. What Fergus Ewing said was right—having an official committee meeting might attract people to come and speak to us. If they watch a committee meeting and see how we deal with business, they will realise that they can speak to us—that we are human, which is not something that the press usually portrays. Perhaps people will come forward and give us more information as a result.

The Parliament will also receive a lot more publicity.

Do members want to go forward with two full visits of the committee to Lochaber and Dalry? That is the bid that we will put in on Friday.

Do we agree on the principle of going for four visits? Will we definitely do that?

Yes.

Are we able to say to the people in Huntly that they will have a visit?

You cannot say anything until the CLG has agreed it. We will prepare a bid to go to the CLG. The paper has to be in on Friday, although I think we have until Monday. A full committee meeting is also subject to the identification of suitable facilities, but that will not be a problem—certainly not in Dalry. I am sure that we can manage in Lochaber too.

There will be no problem there.

We must also draw up a formal remit for the inquiry. Are members content that I cast an eye over that and approve it in the paper? The exact remit of the inquiry has never been laid down in the Official Report. I understand why that is required. Are members content on that item?

Members indicated agreement.

We will deal with the final two items in private.

Meeting continued in private until 17:25.