External Meetings
The need for an external meetings policy arose when we were getting requests from everyone and their auntie to hold meetings all over Scotland. We agreed that, rather than simply saying yes or no to invitations as they were made, we needed some kind of guidance on the matter. We will be the first committee in the Scottish Parliament to have set up such guidance.
I want to hear members' views on the paper that we have before us. If we agree on the proposals in the paper, we could suggest that they become the basis for a general policy across the Parliament. While it is right that we get out and about in order to ensure that we are not seen to be simply a central belt Parliament, there is a danger that we could end up meeting all over the place without taking a systematic approach to where we go.
You talked about our being seen to be a central belt Parliament, but we have to reflect Scotland's population distribution. It is a matter of regret that we have not been to Fife, Dunbartonshire, the Lothians or even, dare I say it, Lanarkshire. Rather than having a geographic spread, I would want us to have a population-based spread. There is a growing mood in the west of Scotland that this is not a central belt Parliament, but an Edinburgh Parliament and we have to reflect on that. I do not share that view, but it is being encouraged by some for political ends—Mr Sheridan being the most recent culprit.
I do not see why we should say that we will meet outside the Parliament buildings only twice a year. That seems to be a hostage to fortune.
We are a wee bit po-faced about what we say in the paper about people offering us public venues, given that we are likely to be made the offer by an organisation such as Highlands and Islands Enterprise or whoever were our kind hosts in Shetland. What is important is transparency. No one can convince me that, should Robert Crawford give me a cup of coffee in Glasgow, I would suddenly be bound to reflect what Scottish Enterprise wants me to. The same applies to HIE.
Members should bear in mind the fact that we held one of our most successful meetings at the IBM offices in Greenock.
I agree with most of Brian Fitzpatrick's comments about the regional spread of our meetings.
The only amendment that I want to make to the paper is to the second paragraph of the draft policy, which says that we should not meet
"outwith Edinburgh for the sake of appearance".
We should be careful about that. I remind members that the first motion lodged in the Parliament was signed by members of every party and was lodged by one of the more forward-thinking, progressive members. That motion said that we should be seen to be meeting around the country for the sake of appearance, if you like, in order to reinforce the fact that the Parliament is not Edinburgh based, that it is a roving Parliament and that its tentacles reach across the country. There is a case to be made for meeting outwith Edinburgh, and I take Brian's point that areas such as Lanarkshire should be part of the mix.
I agree with Andrew Wilson and Brian Fitzpatrick about both those points. Appearance matters, and we should reflect that in our paper by dropping the reference to
"2 external meetings a year".
I am attracted to such meetings by the fact that about 80 per cent of the total enterprise and lifelong learning budget is delivered by quangos. We should not feel restricted in any way from using the offices of HIE, Scottish Enterprise or the Scottish Qualifications Authority as locations for meetings when we scrutinise their budgets. In fact, doing so might be appropriate, as that would deal with Brian's point about meeting in the areas in which those bodies are located. Andrew's point about appearances is also relevant.
I agree with all my colleagues—we are all on the same tack. We should remove the figure "2" from the second paragraph of the draft policy.
In the third paragraph, I suggest that we should remove the word "different" from the sentence:
"In particular the Committee recognises its responsibility for highland as well as lowland Scotland, and the different nature of issues in remoter areas of Scotland generally."
I disagree with that statement. There are issues in remote areas of Scotland, but I think that, in general, they are the same as the issues that affect the rest of the country.
As well as sending out a message about the geographic spread of our meetings, we should say that it is of particular importance that we reach out to the most disadvantaged communities. We are based in Edinburgh, where there are plenty of communities that enjoy physical proximity to the Parliament, but that do not engage with the Parliament at all. It is just as important for us to go to the estates in Edinburgh as it is for us to visit geographically distant areas. I say that to highlight a key failure of the Parliament, which we could bring out in our paper.
I agree with almost everything that Brian Fitzpatrick and my other colleagues said. I also agree that we should definitely take out the reference to
"2 external meetings a year",
because appearances matter.
On Ken Macintosh's point about disadvantaged groups, some groups might not feel that the Parliament is for them. I will be parochial and mention the fact that Fife is just across the water from Edinburgh. It is just as important for us to visit areas such as Fife as it is for us to visit areas that are more rural. The point is that the whole committee should visit those places—we should take the Parliament to groups that would not usually have access to the Parliament.
I serve on two other committees, and have been out and about. I have no objection to whatever building the committee chooses to meet in, as long as there is public access to our meetings. For me, that is the major issue. It is important that we get out and about and that we hear what the quangos are up to, as Tavish Scott suggested. On their own patch, many quangos are able to make significant comments about whether what appears to be a bland, central policy is delivering or not.
I agree with Rhona Brankin's comment that we should take our discussion of particular subjects only to appropriate places, because not everyone is into certain subjects. The conveners liaison group has to co-ordinate such programmes across all the committees, in order to achieve an even spread around the country and to avoid positive discrimination in favour of particular areas.
My desire is to leave the situation as flexible as possible. I agree to the deletion of the reference to two external meetings. From time to time, the committee should determine the need, and where it must geographically go to address that need. We should not be tied to comments about geography or to numerical restrictions. I desire to keep the situation as flexible as possible, so that the committee can make a legitimate decision about what to do when the need arises.
I emphasise that a budget for external meetings exists. Any time that we want to go outside the parliamentary complex, we must apply through the Parliamentary Bureau. If requirements are outwith a budget, sometimes we must approach the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body. We always approach the CLG.
Perhaps we should delete the reference to "2 external meetings" and add a reference to the existing budget constraint. It is a case of presentation to the public. I understand that members are unanimous about four or five changes. Everybody agrees that we should remove the words
"for the sake of appearance".
Ken Macintosh suggested removing the word "different" in relation to rural problems.
I am concerned about that. Some issues relate specifically to island communities, for example.
Such issues exist, but the paper implies that rural issues are not the same as those elsewhere. Poverty and education are problems everywhere in Scotland.
I do not need a lecture on that, thanks.
The word "different" implies that the issues in rural areas are totally different, which they are not.
Perhaps the paper should say that some issues are different.
We should add a reference to areas that are disadvantaged geographically or by poverty and deprivation, which Ken Macintosh and Marilyn Livingstone suggested. We will consider at an appropriate time whether there is a better way of expressing that.
The final point concerns co-ordination with others so that we do not visit Inverness this week when another committee is to visit it next week. I do not think that that has happened, because the CLG tries to co-ordinate such matters, but perhaps we should emphasise the point and recommend it as a general policy for the Parliament.
We need to be reasonably bullish about what we do. We enjoyed the visit to Shetland, but I will not stand accused of having had a jaunt because we went to Shetland. If we go out and about, we do so for a purpose. Throughout the Parliament, the attitude has been that we should go, then work out why we have gone.
That is right.
However, once we have decided that we will go somewhere, we should be bullish about that and the purpose for going. Despite what we will say about tourism, no one who leaves their bed to stay in a strange bed in Scotland does so for a jaunt or a jolly. We should resist that suggestion.
No one who saw you on the flight from Glasgow to Inverness could accuse you of that.
I stayed on.
Is everybody happy with the paper, subject to those amendments?
Members indicated agreement.
I look forward to seeing everyone next week.
Meeting closed at 12:57.