Rural Affairs Committee, 28 Mar 2000

Meeting date: Tuesday, March 28, 2000

Official Report 259KB pdf

---

Rural Employment Inquiry

We are delighted to welcome Professor Mark Shucksmith and Sue Sadler. Members will recall that they provided advice and research for the committee during the discussion on our inquiry on the impact of changing employment patterns in rural communities. At the previous meeting, Professor Shucksmith outlined his initial approach to the inquiry. In the light of last week's discussion, he has drafted a consultation paper that was circulated to members last night.

The purpose of today's discussion is to consider whether the committee is content with both the consultation paper and the plan for public meetings, or whether adjustments to them are required before their publication. Members should also be aware that the cost of the public meetings will be in addition to that of the research contract, and that the committee will have to bid against the fund that is available to committees for ensuring partnership with the people in their work.

Professor Shucksmith will go over the paper again and indicate any changes to it to the committee.

Thank you, convener. I had the benefit of some helpful and constructive comments from officers of the Parliament yesterday. On the train this morning I tried to build those comments into the text of the document. It is, of course, too late to circulate those changes, but it might help the committee if I go through the changes without going in to great detail about the text that I propose to insert.

One suggestion was that web links to other documents should be included. That should be taken forward in conjunction with officers of the Parliament.

Question 2 implicitly asks whether there has been an increase in local government jobs. It would be best to replace the words "local government" with "public administration, health and social work and education." According to the Scottish Executive, those sectors account for 26 per cent of jobs in rural Scotland.

It was suggested that the paper should bring out more specifically rural issues, for example, the fact that low pay is more of an issue in rural areas and the impact of the national minimum wage on rural Scotland. There are also issues about the flexibility of labour and different job search methods. I have tried to add one or two sentences relating to those issues.

Under the heading "Who is affected?" it was suggested that there should be more discussions about the types of areas that might be affected along the lines of discussions about different social groups. As a result, I propose to include the point that distinctions are sometimes made among commuter areas, agricultural areas, tourist areas, remote areas and islands. People have different ideas about how to distinguish between such areas. Views will be sought about how such areas are affected in the diversity of rural Scotland.

I thought that it might be helpful to include some of the figures that the Scottish Executive has provided on changes between 1991 and 1997 in the Highlands and Islands, the rest of northern Scotland outside the Highlands and Islands and southern Scotland, to highlight that diversity and aid people's responses.

It was suggested that the paper should make more explicit the "other services" mentioned before question 7. As a result, I suggest that we should add the phrase "such as post offices and schools" in brackets after "other services".

The other main points were raised in connection with the section entitled "How can policies help?" Before I had even heard from the clerks, it occurred to me that what is listed under the heading "Scottish Parliament" relates only to the direct education, training and enterprise responsibilities of the Parliament. I therefore propose to include a reference to other devolved responsibilities such as housing, transport and the environment, communities and social inclusion, and to draw particular attention to the Parliament's responsibilities under the rural development regulation brought in by the European Union in its common agricultural policy reforms.

Finally, at the end of the paragraph on training in the section on Highlands and Islands Enterprise and Scottish Enterprise, I propose to flag up future developments in the field, particularly individual learning accounts and the Scottish university for industry, and to ask whether they can be made to work in rural Scotland.

On question 7, which refers to the provision of services, is there any way to tease out from local authorities and other service providers indications of additional costs of providing services? Although you referred to schools and post offices, there is obviously an issue for local authorities about their ability to provide schools in rural locations.

I could certainly invite people to submit views or provide information on that issue.

I just want to run a small point by our advisers on the use of Highlands and Islands statistics. People have told me that the economic picture of the Highlands and Islands is slightly distorted because of Inverness, and can hide decline elsewhere in the region. Will you take that point into account during the investigation?

Absolutely. Any statistics that are available for different zones within the Highlands and Islands reveal a considerable diversity. My proposed text on this point will come just before question 6 and say, "Between 1991 and 1997, the Highlands and Islands gained population overall, but employment fell by 1 per cent. Within the Highlands and Islands, there was considerable variation from one locality to another".

In all of this, we have been trying to strike a balance between providing the answer to the question, which we do not want to do, and providing enough issues to provoke a response. I was hoping that a sentence on the considerable variation within the Highlands and Islands would encourage other people to raise points about the relationship between different parts.

Are there any other comments?

The previous question prompted the thought that urban drift is part of the picture. Whether in Inverness, Aberdeen or other regional centres, urban drift will inevitably be part of the inquiry. I wonder whether that will emerge from the questions that you have laid out, or whether we need to include a question on it.

That issue is raised in two or three places in the draft, in relation to the areas that are within easy reach of urban centres. On employment trends in the north of Scotland, outside the Highlands and Islands, I draw particular attention to Aberdeenshire as dominating the trend.

If it is feasible, you may consider including two types of statistics for the Highlands and Islands: one set that includes Inverness and one that does not. Perhaps you might include only the statistics that exclude Inverness and qualify that.

It would be easy to build in tables of statistics on issues such as population, employment and different sectors. We have not done that so far, because we wanted people to come forward unclouded by too much of our analysis. However, we could easily include more tabular or statistical information if the committee thinks that that would be appropriate.

If the employment statistic without Inverness, for example, is minus 5 per cent or minus 6 per cent, that is the bigger picture that people should see. It would be misleading if that were distorted by the inclusion of Inverness in the statistics.

I shall certainly look into that. The Scottish Executive has not provided us with the figure for the Highlands and Islands excluding Inverness for the period from 1991 to 1997. Generally, when one wants to distinguish between local territories, or between a city and a broader region, one has to return to the 1981-1991 census comparisons. However, I shall check whether the figures excluding Inverness are available.

Before we discuss the public meetings, we should look at the front page of the draft consultation document, to check that we are all in agreement on the objectives of the inquiry as they are set out. I suspect that this may be the last time that we will be able to suggest changes.

I notice that the title has become "The Impact of Changing Employment Patterns in Rural Scotland", which is slightly catchier than the previous one. Are we all in agreement with the key objectives that it sets out?

I took the title and the objectives from the specification for a tender bid. I am happy to change anything.

Are we agreed that the consultation document, the questions and the reasoning that is set out in the questions are appropriate—with the adjustments that Professor Shucksmith has suggested?

Members indicated agreement.

Richard Davies has just pointed out that there will be a final draft. Would the committee be content for Richard and I to agree that final draft, which I shall then send off?

Members indicated agreement.

Proposals on public meetings, have been set out in the paper. Are there any comments on the schedule for public meetings?

I do not have a copy of that paper in front of me, but we have made considerable progress on the public meetings, which are subject to agreements on the details of finance and timetabling, such as when buildings are available and so on. We are considering arranging for the participation of some committee members by video link, if they are not able to attend public consultation meetings and have agreed that Lewis will be the venue for the island visit. I am happy to take questions.

I have a question about the final paragraph, in which you propose to offer additional, small, informal sessions to excluded members of society. How do you intend to identify whom to invite to those meetings? Are you suggesting that there should be an invited audience?

We will work with existing groups and field workers who know people in those situations and who can support their contributions. It would be disingenuous to expect people whom we approach specifically because of their disadvantaged situations to be able to put together strong and coherent arguments. They should be allowed to respond in a supported setting.

I presume that that will mean that people will go to them and that they will not be expected to come to us.

Yes. I think that we would have to arrange that according to the circumstances.

I want to get down to the nitty-gritty. You propose to hold a meeting in Newton Stewart on Monday 8 May, which you suggest that Elaine Murray and either Alasdair Morgan or I should attend. It is absolutely right that Alasdair Morgan should be present, as he is the local constituency MSP, but is there any reason why three of us should not attend?

No, not at all. In fact, one or two names have been added to the list recently. Rhoda Grant has been added to the meeting in Newtown St Boswells and Richard Lochhead has been added to the meetings in Lewis, Laurencekirk and Dingwall. You will be busy, Richard. Did you volunteer?

I volunteered as required.

Funnily enough, I would like to volunteer to go to Lewis.

I will stray a little from the agenda by returning to the previous major item of business. It was clear that the perspective of the Stornoway Trust on land reform has not been taken fully on board in the debate. If two or three members of the committee are to attend the meeting in Lewis, it might be helpful for them to meet representatives of the trust, in case the committee chooses to invite it to give evidence in future.

That is a useful suggestion, which we will consider before the meeting takes place.

Will people be able simply to turn up in order to participate in the public meetings?

Yes. We will try to publicise the meetings in any way that we can and we will invite everyone to come along.

Have members had a chance to go through the process that has been laid out for the public meetings? Do members feel that every eventuality has been covered? Are there any comments on the proposals?

I am not sure whether I have the same papers as members of the committee, but I draw the committee's attention to the fact that the date of the Oban meeting has yet to be confirmed.

I have one other question. On what date do you expect to launch the consultation? Has that been considered? I shall do my best to return the consultation document in its revised form to members tomorrow or the next day.

Do we have a date in mind?

The document could be published on the website and printed within a couple of days of the final wording being agreed.

Are there any other questions about the public meetings?

When will we know whether we have the funding?

We have to agree a bid for the partnership fund, but I understand that that should not be a problem.

Before Mike Rumbles left, he was asking about a date for Laurencekirk.

The proposed date for Laurencekirk is Thursday 11 May. Is that date still to be confirmed?

None of those dates has been confirmed.

The date on the paper is only a proposed one.

I should mention that time is tight and we have to fit in all the meetings on dates that are available to members.

Can we assume that the current plan for public meetings is agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

As I mentioned a moment ago, we have to bid for money from the partnership fund to finance the meetings. I hope that that will not be contentious; I am told that it is unlikely to be.

Does the committee agree that we should go ahead with a bid for funding?

Members indicated agreement.

We need to talk about when we want to launch the consultation. What is the earliest practical date?

That depends on when the final text is agreed.

I can send you a final text tomorrow morning—I will still have to check the point about separating Inverness from the rest of the Highlands and Islands, but I can make the other amendments and e-mail the document to you.

We could announce the consultation publicly on Friday.

We will have to agree a press release to publicise the launch of the consultation. I shall circulate the draft press release by e-mail for members to comment on. Members can assume that that press release will be used unless there is a good reason for alterations to be made. If any members have suggestions for alterations, they should inform Richard Davies as soon as possible. Mailing lists have been supplied by the Arkleton Centre for Rural Development Research.

It is worth asking Professor Shucksmith for his view on mailing lists. We had a brief discussion about this at a previous meeting and asked whether the committee would be content to use the list provided by the Arkleton centre.

We have a suggested mailing list. Many of the categories on it are generic and would require detailed addresses from other sources. We could also obtain the list that SERAD uses for its consultations and for rural challenge grant information. There is also a list of chief executives and heads of economic development in local authorities, which can be obtained from the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities. Somebody has to request those mailing lists and bring them together.

There is also the Arkleton centre's mailing list, which I have with me and can pass to the clerks. We have a list of other organisations that could be approached, although we may not have the full addresses yet.

We have already started to talk about the details with the clerks and other officials; it is a matter of agreeing how the information is brought together.

We want the consultation to go out as widely as possible. You should ensure that the list of addresses is made available to members so that, if any member feels that anyone has been missed out, they can nominate additional names.

We will pass it to the clerks directly after the meeting.

The final point on the checklist with which we have been provided is a suggestion that the committee should see the first witnesses on 25 April.

Has the committee, or Professor Shucksmith, had any thoughts on who the committee would like to hear from first in this inquiry?

My suggestions for early witnesses would be Highlands and Islands Enterprise and Scottish Enterprise—as organisations with prime responsibility for economic development, employment and training. The committee could also invite COSLA and the Scottish Council Development and Industry.

Does Richard Davies have any comments on what the agenda will be for the meeting on 25 April?

It will be heavy.

You might not want all those organisations to attend the first evidence-taking session.

Do members have any comments on who they would like to see first? Should we perhaps select two of those organisations and start on 25 April?

We will take that as a proposal.

Are there any other points to deal with?

When will the consultation period end? I suggest 18 May, as the final public meeting is on 15 May and we should allow a couple of days for people who are stimulated by that meeting to write in. We need to have a couple of weeks for the analysis, which we will try to complete by the end of May.

I have a question about publicity. Is there a plan to put a letter in the letters pages of all the local newspapers? A lot of people read the local press, so that would give us some free publicity.

Members of the committee might wish to do that. I know that we all have our own structures for the local press in rural areas. Perhaps we should prepare a draft letter, which members could circulate, with all the information that we want to include.

That might lead to some confusion. The Scottish Parliament press office will have a fax number for every local paper in Scotland. We could send out a letter from the committee to every local paper; I am sure that the newspapers will print it.

That seems sensible, because we do not have comprehensive coverage.

We will take that as a proposal.

I will write to The Press and Journal, if you want.

The folk there would not know who you were, would they Richard?

They just bin your letters.

Does the committee agree with the proposal to end the consultation period on 18 May? We will take on board the lessons of the Scottish Executive and accept the odd submission on 19 May.

Members indicated agreement.

Professor Shucksmith, are you happy that we each understand what the other is planning on this?

Yes.

We will have a list of dates for the meetings confirmed as soon as possible and circulated so that members can put the dates in their diaries. If any major changes are proposed, we will contact members to check that those changes are acceptable. We have a good system for contacting members and have managed to agree a timetable in the past.

I express the thanks of the committee to Professor Mark Shucksmith and Sue Sadler for coming to the committee meeting again. I wish them luck in their preparations for the inquiry.

I thank members for their attendance.

Meeting closed at 17:00.