Item 4 relates to a conference on the common fisheries policy. I have put it on to the agenda so that, if the committee feels that it would be appropriate for a member of the committee to attend the conference on its behalf, the necessary approval can be sought. Do members think that it is right that the details of the conference were circulated and that it would be appropriate for the committee to delegate a representative to attend the conference?
I looked at the conference programme, which seems to be extensive and to include many eminent speakers. I then noticed that the cost of the conference is £795—presumably plus travel costs. That seems to be a fairly substantial sum of money and I do not know how that would sit with whatever budget we have for doing other things. I am not sure what the process is and wonder if you could comment, convener.
That is one of the significant reasons why I put the matter on to the agenda. We should consider whether it would be appropriate for the committee to be represented at the conference and whether it would be an appropriate use of resources.
It was slightly unusual to receive notification of a conference. I presume that a large number of conferences come to the attention of the committee, about which information could be circulated. I was surprised that this conference had been singled out.
I notice that the conference is being convened to discuss the European Union common fisheries policy, but is taking place at a location fairly close to Gatwick airport. It seems unfortunate that it is not taking place in Scotland, given the far more significant role of fisheries to the Scottish economy than other parts of the UK. Be that as it may, I think that it is important that the committee sends somebody to it.
I certainly take the view that if the committee nominated a representative to attend the conference, that person would represent the committee rather than the Opposition.
What Fergus Ewing said was outrageous.
I suggest that we ask for a report back on the conference. That would save us sending anybody.
I would like clarification on the question of costs. I assume that if a representative of a committee attended, that would be paid for by the Scottish Parliament, and not out of this committee's budget.
That is correct. Of course, we would have to ask for permission. The matter has been put under this agenda item so that finance could be sought if the committee felt it appropriate for us to be represented.
Arguing against sending a representative of the committee on the ground of cost is complete nonsense. It is a very important conference. A conference is taking place in the Shetlands today, which many members will know about. It is a one-day seminar, to which we all received an invitation last week. That was unfortunately short notice, as we were unable to apply in time to the conveners liaison group, which needs six weeks' notice. It turns out that MSPs are the only group of politicians to be absent from that major conference on the CFP. The Executive, the Westminster Government, MEPs, the industry and the European Commission are all represented.
I should perhaps have asked this at the beginning. Richard Lochhead has raised an interesting question: should the Parliament be represented by someone who could report back to both committees? Has the European Committee discussed that, given that it has just published a report on this subject? Has that committee made a request to send anyone?
I am afraid that I have no information on that.
I do not think that it is appropriate for the committee to send people to conferences. If we want information on these issues, we should ask the European Commission or the relevant minister for evidence. I do not think that we should be sending someone to the conference, because it might set a precedent. Will it mean that every conference that comes up will be included on the committee agenda? To be quite honest, I think that that is nonsense. It would be quite legitimate to ask for reports for information, but we should not send representatives. As I said, if we want to investigate these issues in any great depth, we should seek out the information from Franz Fischler himself, or do things properly and invite organisations to give evidence to the committee.
I point out to George Lyon that there is something out there called the wider polity where people engage in discussion and debate. To argue that Scotland's Parliament should not send any representatives to these occasions under any circumstances is absolute nonsense. It beggars belief.
You are free to go if you wish to go.
I think that election nerves are destroying the committee's valid arguments for sending a representative to the conference. We have responsibility for rural affairs, of which fishing is a key aspect. The idea that someone should not attend and be involved in what will be an extremely serious issue for the Scottish economy over the next two years and beyond is absolutely wrong. We would be diminishing the committee's role if we did not send someone to represent us and to report back. It is all very well to say that the minister should report back, but all that we will get is another file of papers to discuss. Why should we not send a committee member who will report back directly and objectively on the issues that were raised? That is what a committee representative should do.
I register my disappointment both at the fact that the issue has been put on the agenda and at the discussion that we have just had. In my view, the item should not have been put on the agenda, and I do not know why you put it there, convener. As someone mentioned, there have been many conferences over the past two years on important issues that the committee has addressed, but this is the first one that has been approached in this way. The matter should have been discussed with committee members before it was put on the agenda; indeed, I feel that it should not have appeared on the agenda at all and I am disappointed at the way in which the whole debate has progressed. I hope that we will agree to end the discussion and move on to the next agenda item.
I propose that we nominate a representative from the committee to be present at the conference.
The mood of the committee is that there is a reluctance to go ahead with that suggestion.
I suggest that we take a vote on Margaret Ewing's proposal.
Okay.
Can we clarify what is being proposed? Is Margaret Ewing proposing that an individual from this committee should go to this specific conference or that we should set a general precedent for all conferences where important issues are being discussed that the committee should hear about?
I make my proposal on the specific paper in front of us. Every case should be dealt with from the chair.
Can I put a counterproposal that we ask for notes back of all the speeches at this conference so that we can take cognisance of them and that, if we want to pursue any of the issues, we invite the speakers to come before the committee? That is the way it should be done.
Elaine Murray has suggested that we go to a simple vote on Margaret Ewing's proposal. We can take it as read that we will take the action that George Lyon suggested. I propose that we vote for or against Margaret Ewing's proposal. Is that agreed?
I am not trying to be disruptive, but is not George Lyon's suggestion an amendment to the proposal?
We are not required to proceed in this matter on a complex basis. I feel that the view that George Lyon expressed is the view of the majority of the committee. We have had a proposal from Margaret Ewing and a subsequent proposal from Elaine Murray to vote on whether to go ahead with that proposal.
I suggest that we amend that proposal.
That is a separate proposal. No one is going to argue against getting the notes if we do not send someone.
We will not get the notes unless we send someone.
We can ask for the text of the speeches. Everyone has to submit a paper before they attend the conference.
I second Margaret Ewing's proposal. Let us have a vote on it. If George Lyon wants to make another proposal, we can vote on that as well.
The proposal has been seconded, and it is suggested that we take a simple vote for or against the proposal. The question is, that the proposal that the committee send a representative to the conference on the common fisheries policy be agreed to. Are we agreed?
No.
There will be a division.
For
The result of the division is: For 3, Against 7, Abstentions 0. The proposal is disagreed to.
On a point of order. Does that decision mean that the committee is now decided that it is inappropriate for a member of the committee to attend any conference? If so, that is a retrograde step.
We have taken a simple vote. I assume that the view that has been expressed by George Lyon is shared by the committee.
I have a separate point to make. I am sure that George Lyon attended conferences when he was the president of the National Farmers Union, rather than asking for the speeches to be sent to him. However, he made an important point when he said that it is inappropriate for the Parliament to send representatives to conferences. Will the convener take up that issue with the conveners liaison group and seek clarification on it?
On a point of order, convener.
There are no formal points of order in a committee meeting, but I shall be delighted to hear what you have to say, Mr Rumbles.
Your interpretation of standing orders is slightly different from mine. Can you clarify what Margaret Ewing suggested? She said that she was talking about the specific conference.
Yes.
Therefore, all the generalisations from Margaret Ewing's proposal are not appropriate. Margaret Ewing made it quite clear—and she is nodding in agreement—that she put forward the proposal in relation to this conference only. That is the end of the story.
Yes. I am happy with that interpretation.
Let me clarify what I said. I said that we should ask for the conference papers. If specific issues that the committee wants to investigate arise in those conference notes, I suggest that we invite the individuals to the committee to give evidence to us. That is the appropriate way for the committee to carry out its business—not by being spectators at a conference.
Rhoda Grant suggested that we ask for the minister's comments on the conference, as the minister will be present. I presume that that meets with the approval of the committee.
With respect, convener, it is pretty obvious that the minister will be at the conference for only a short period. If we asked for her views on the whole conference, we would be asking her to give up three days, which she is not prepared to give up for that conference.
Are we content that we have dealt with this matter?
I return to my point that George Lyon suggested that it is inappropriate for the Scottish Parliament to send any member to any conference. I am not talking about the vote—I am talking a about a comment that George Lyon made. Will you raise the matter at the conveners liaison group, convener, to clarify whether the Parliament deems it appropriate to send representatives to any conference at any time?
I will approach the convener of the conveners liaison group on that issue. Are we content with that?
Will we come back with proposals for how to deal with these matters in future?
Yes.
They will either be on the agenda or they will not—we need a way of dealing with them.