Rural Affairs Committee, 16 Nov 1999

Meeting date: Tuesday, November 16, 1999

Official Report 176KB pdf

---

Employment Patterns

The next item relates to the inquiry into the impact of changing employment patterns on rural areas.

We have the scoping report, for which we have been waiting for some time. We also have Simon Wakefield—who was responsible for preparing it—here today. I invite him to go over the report with us.

I also have a letter from Simon, covering one or two issues that are additional to the report. I have to say to him that I am very sympathetic to the points that he made in the letter. After he goes over the report, I would be most grateful if he went into those details, for the benefit of the committee. I hope that we are able to have a discussion based on what we have heard.

Thank you.

I will go through the scoping report briefly. We looked at the response that the Executive sent to the committee and other evidence that was available from elsewhere, under the key objectives that the committee had set for the inquiry. They covered identifying the key drivers of change in employment patterns; identifying who gains and who loses as a result of changing employment patterns; assessing the impact of the changes on rural communities, especially on income and housing; reviewing current policy to support employment in Scotland; and identifying best practice and areas for improvement in the policy.

I do not want to go through that in great detail, but we have identified a couple of opportunities for additional research and investigation by the committee. They would come under two of the key objectives that were set by the committee: reviewing current policy to support employment, and identifying best practice. Our scoping paper indicates that, although the Executive has identified a wide range of policies and initiatives to support employment in rural Scotland, there is no evidence from the Executive, or from any other research that has been done, of an overarching, comparative analysis of support offered to the different sectors and groups in the rural economy. That was therefore one area that we felt it might be helpful for the committee to consider in more detail, with some external research.

The information centre is working for the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee on an audit of economic development services in Scotland as part of its inquiry. There is a good opportunity for the committee to make use of that research, and perhaps add a bit of value to it from a rural perspective, providing additional comparative detail on support for the sectors that are especially important for the rural economy—sea fisheries, agriculture, forestry, tourism and so forth. It would be most effective if the committee brought in some expertise in rural development to do that work.

The committee previously agreed that an external adviser should be brought in to advise the committee, assist with the consultation exercise, and analyse and draw out the key themes. In the management of the research, it might make sense to link that consultation and analysis to the comparative analysis of support for employment, to get a single external research contract. From our experience of managing such things, it would be possible to do that, and doing so would be more likely to deliver results to the committee in the required time scale.

I hope that that is a reasonably helpful suggestion, which would dovetail the research resources of the two committees and produce deliverable results to help the inquiry.

Are there any questions for Simon on the scoping report, or on his suggestions of how we should proceed? This area is our No 1 priority, and we need to proceed fairly quickly. I understand that we had a hold-up because Simon was ill for a while, but he is back on course now. Do members think that his proposals on how we should proceed are appropriate? Given that we are at the first critical point in the investigation, is there anything else that anyone would like to comment on?

I do not wish to be critical, but tourism is such an important industry throughout rural Scotland—almost everywhere, local industries are largely based on tourism initiatives—yet only two short paragraphs are devoted to it in the report. I feel that the committee should flag up the importance of tourism throughout rural Scotland as a major employer.

We have come up against that problem before: we are all well aware of the importance of tourism in rural areas, but in the structure of the Parliament, it falls within the remit of a different committee. Perhaps we will need to have a chat with the relevant convener.

I am a little concerned that the Rural Affairs Committee's remit seems to be the consideration of only agriculture, farming and fishing. I do not want to lower their priority. Tourism may be in the remit of another committee, but it is also in this committee's remit, as it is the Rural Affairs Committee. We must ensure that that message gets across and that we are not compartmentalised into considering only farming, fishing and forestry.

I agree. From this committee's point of view, I am not concerned that there are only two paragraphs about tourism in the paper, because it is not our paper—it is the Scottish Executive's paper. Perhaps we might wish to comment on the fact that it has only two paragraphs about tourism. That does not restrict our discussions or conclusions.

I was reacting to the convener's comments. I did not want to let that ride.

It must be said that we are discussing the information centre's paper. It is there to target the way in which the inquiry will go, and I am open to suggestions.

I understand that Simon Wakefield's recommendations are not included in the paper. Is that right?

The recommendations were issued separately in a letter, which I will be delighted to let members see.

That will be helpful.

I have received neither the report nor the letter. That might be due to my mail being forwarded, but it makes it difficult to comment.

I have a spare copy, which I will give you.

This is just the report; I understand that you have a letter.

The letter is a separate item, which has not been circulated. Is it okay if I circulate the letter at this point, Simon?

Yes.

We will wait a moment, so that the clerk can photocopy the letter. Are there any other questions about the report at this stage?

No.

Simon, do you have any views on the priorities that ought to be attached to tourism and whether it was adequately covered?

What I suggested is that, although there is much evidence specifically about tourism, there has not necessarily been an analysis of how the different sectors of the economy, such as agriculture and fisheries, are supported. It might be useful to consider where the employment growth sectors in the economy appear to be and where there are opportunities to make a difference through the support that is provided. Tourism is one of the areas that is identified as important in the letter to the convener.

Are separate figures available for tourism in the rural environment and tourism in the city environment? Perhaps we should examine tourism as a rural industry.

Paragraph 2 of the briefing paper from the Scottish Executive contains a table showing rural Scotland's employment statistics from 1991 to 1997. The table shows agriculture, forestry and fishing, mining, manufacturing, electricity, gas supply and construction—but where is tourism?

Are not separate figures for tourism as a rural industry available?

Figures will certainly be produced for each tourist board area—the rural tourist board areas could be separated out from those for urban areas. There are some figures on expenditure and visitors from which I could produce information for the committee.

The point about the table on page 1 of the Executive's report is that it shows standard census categories for employment areas. Most tourism-related jobs would appear under the headings "Hotels and Restaurants" or "Other Services".

Under "Distribution, Hotels and Restaurants"?

Yes.

If, as I believe, tourism is such an important industry for Scotland, we, as a committee, should highlight that. It might reflect on the Scottish Executive that it has produced the figures in the way shown in the table. Far be it from me to criticise the Scottish Executive.

The table highlights the difficulty of quantifying the precise extent of tourism. If a tourist travels on a train, that is just another train ticket that has been bought, yet it is clearly a product of tourism. That makes objective analysis difficult.

However, the figures for 1997 indicate the importance of tourism, as they show that twice as many people in rural Scotland are employed in distribution, hotels and restaurants as are employed in agriculture.

I was just trying to flag up the issue.

It would be difficult to obtain figures for tourism, but I take the point that we should pursue the issue.

Do members have other comments on the paper?

I want to keep members up to date on other parts of the procedure. Members might remember that we agreed on 5 October that Cathy Peattie, Irene McGugan and I would be responsible for considering expert advisers who would deal with rural employment patterns. The Parliamentary Bureau has approved the appointment of an adviser to assist the committee with the inquiry, and we will be able to proceed with that when we agree the terms of the inquiry.

The photocopier must be further away than we thought. I could have gone over the recommendations, but the clerk has taken the original copy away. We will move on to other items and come back to the issue later. It would be fair to allow Simon to return to his seat. We will circulate the letter and take a moment to discuss it at the end of the meeting.