After our short, self-appointed adjournment, we will progress to item 3 of our agenda, which is consideration of three petitions. The first petition is PE97, in the name of Thomas Gray, and relates to agricultural support. The petition was sent to the European Committee for comment on 4 April. That committee agreed to note the petition and to take no further action on it. Do members have any comments on the petition?
Official Report · Committee
Petitions
Speakers
Choose an MSP to read only their contributions- Alex Johnstone Con 11
- Mike Rumbles LD 4
- John Farquhar Munro LD 4
- Richard Lochhead SNP 3
- Christine Grahame SNP 3
- Rhoda Grant Lab 2
- Euan Robson LD 1
- Elaine Murray Lab 1
- Irene McGugan SNP 1
The record
32 contributionsTo be honest, I think that the petitioner has a point. Could we investigate his petition as part of our employment inquiry? There is no ceiling on the amount of assistance that farmers can receive, depending on the amount of land that they have, and that encourages people to farm bigger areas. If a ceiling were to be introduced, there would be more employment opportunities in rural areas, and that would encourage smaller holdings.
I agree. We could defer consideration of the petition until we have considered the issue that it raises in our inquiry.
Could you repeat that, Mike? I did not hear you.
I agree with Rhoda Grant—we could defer discussion of the petition to a later date, until after we have had a chance to examine the issue when we consider employment opportunities in rural communities.
I am aware that the petition has implications for the long-term policies of the Scottish Executive. It would be appropriate to ask the Scottish Executive for a briefing note.
I am happy with that approach.
There is no doubt that the sentiments expressed in the petition require scrutiny, but it could cause the demise of communities if all farmers were absorbed into bigger units. There might be wider implications, of which we are not aware, if we were to support the view expressed in the petition.
We will approach the Executive for its views and consider the issues raised by the petition within the framework of the broader inquiry in which we are involved. As there are no further comments on PE97, we will move on to PE113, which is from the Campaign for Borders Rail. Christine Grahame and Euan Robson, who have expressed an interest in the petition, have joined the meeting today. I will invite both of them to speak during our discussion of the petition. I understand that Christine wishes to speak first.
I do not sweet-talk committees and meetings of the Parliament on Thursdays just to get a chance to come along, nor am I trying to set a parliamentary record. The Borders rail petition raises a serious issue—it is not just about a railway line. That is why the Public Petitions Committee, of which I am a member, Euan Robson and many others in the Borders are involved in this cross-party issue, to which a cross-party group in the Parliament is devoted. This issue is about sustainability, and, although the lead committee is the Transport and the Environment Committee, the Rural Affairs Committee has a major input to make. I do not want to say too much, as I know that members have had a long afternoon, but to give members a little background information, the principal industries in the Borders are agriculture, forestry, electronics and textiles. Of those, agriculture, electronics and textiles have taken knocks, as many members know from their own rural areas. The Borders has huge economic difficulties, added to which is the fact that it is the only area in Scotland that is totally reliant on roads. There is no railway, there are no ferries and there are no operational airfields. The A68 and the A7 are the main roads that go through the area, and that is it. We are used to rural roads with lots of little bendy bits and there is no doubt that they inhibit development in the Borders. I know that I am teaching my granny to suck eggs, as many members present have rural constituencies, but the issue has a consequential impact. Thirty-seven per cent of the population is aged over 50 and, although the raw unemployment figures might not look so bad, that is because all the young people have moved away. The Borders also has the lowest level of wages in Scotland, at £50 a week below the national average. I know that Euan Robson will wish to say many things. I suggest respectfully that, rather than just taking note of the petition, the committee should consider taking evidence from the Campaign for Borders Rail, which embraces many people from many different backgrounds, on the impact on its community of opening a railway line.Members will note from the petition that the campaign is asking for a proper debate in Parliament on the issue, in addition to the perfectly legitimate members' business debate held already. The convener of the Transport and the Environment Committee stated that he would be quite content for such a debate to be held. I believe that the Parliament can do something positive for the whole Borders community. We all know that funding issues are involved, which is a nettle—or, in my case, a thistle—that must be grasped, but the petition deserves further investigation of the momentum behind it by one of the Parliament's committees, given that it has attracted 20,000 signatures. The situation is like the wild west—when the two ends of that railway were finally joined together, suddenly the community opened up and developed. That is what is needed in the Borders—it is the key to economic development.
Thank you. Is now an appropriate moment for Euan Robson to add his comments?
Thank you. I will be brief because, as Christine Grahame said, you have had a long afternoon. All Christine's comments were true. There is a cross-party approach to this major issue in the Scottish Borders. Without doubt, the lack of a railway line inhibits the economic development of the area—we are losing opportunities and we are losing young people, because there is no means of practical commuting from certain parts of the Borders to places such as Edinburgh. If we had a railway line, we would find that a number of our young people would stay to live in the Borders, because they could move to and fro between the Borders and major conurbations. That is why we talk about the social inclusion agenda as well as the economic agenda. With regard to the economic agenda, there is no doubt that a Borders railway line would stimulate activity, particularly if it were taken all the way through the Borders to Carlisle. There are important, strategic reasons why we should have what would amount to a third or fourth rail route out of Scotland, which is a matter that the Transport and the Environment Committee will doubtless grasp in due course. As Christine said, there is a positive, local approach to the issue. People are not coming to the Scottish Executive and saying, "Pay for it, please." A major effort is being made to identify a partnership approach to funding, so that the community will deliver, through its working party, a real commitment to the project. It is important to remember that the road network has not had much investment. With a population of 120,000 to 130,000, it is difficult to get the Borders scheme to the top of the list, because other schemes, involving larger populations, somehow get in ahead of it. There is a history of under-investment in the transport network. I emphasise that the east coast line goes straight through the Borders, but there are no railway stations. If one happens to live in the north-eastern part of the Borders, the nearest railway station is at Dunbar. Other stations are at Berwick-upon-Tweed and Carlisle, and all are located outside the Borders. It is important to consider this as a practical possibility—we would not be building a brand new railway line. The old track bed is still there, substantially, and the local authorities—Midlothian Council, Scottish Borders Council and Northumberland County Council—have protected the route to a large extent. Therefore, in terms of engineering requirements and local commitment, we are there already, and there are big opportunities for economic development. In the Scottish Borders, there is an understanding and an expectation that the project can be delivered if the political will exists. This committee's contribution to that would be to move the project forward and to say to the Executive—and to others—that it should be done in the interests not only of the Borders, but of the whole of Scotland, for the reasons that I have outlined.That is enough from me; I will be interested in the committee's comments.
I commend Christine Grahame and Euan Robson for their persuasive words. The committee should unreservedly support the petition. Part of our duty as the Rural Affairs Committee is to support any initiative that would help to regenerate our rural communities throughout Scotland.I should be happy for the committee to convey its support for a debate in Parliament on the issue and to convey its support for the petition to the Executive and to the other two committees that are considering it.We are not asked by the petitioners to examine the issue, as the petition specifically mentions the Social Inclusion, Housing and Voluntary Sector Committee and the Transport and the Environment Committee, so there might not be a case for us to take evidence. However, we could notify the other committees of our interest.
I would like to echo Richard Lochhead's comments.I think that all members of the committee will heartily support the petition and the comments made by Christine Grahame and Euan Robson. The way forward, as Richard Lochhead suggests, is to mandate the convener to make representations to the Parliamentary Bureau on our behalf, as a committee, stating that there should be a debate in the chamber at the earliest convenience.
I declare an interest as part of my constituency is in the Borders. I concur strongly with what both Euan Robson and Christine Grahame said, especially with Euan's comment that the railway should continue to Carlisle. It would make a big difference not just to go north, but to go south and link into the rail network in Dumfries and Galloway as well. A railway is important both for people who live in the area and for the expansion of tourism, which is not nearly as well developed in the south of Scotland as it should be. I would like strongly to support the campaign. Christine Grahame suggested that it might be possible to take evidence. I am not sure of the most appropriate way in which to proceed—it might be more appropriate for the lead committee to take evidence. The matter is certainly worthy of consideration.
Are there any other comments?
There is a unanimous opinion.
There seems to be. My one concern is the suggestion that this committee might take evidence at this stage. We have a problem with schedules. Although it might be appropriate at some point in the future for the committee to take evidence on the issue, at this stage we must limit ourselves to support for the principle. Mike Rumbles proposed that I should write, on behalf of the committee, to the Parliamentary Bureau to suggest that time be allocated for a debate on the issue. I understand that the Transport and the Environment Committee, to which the petition was initially addressed, intends to run with the issue. Members of this committee can support the petition through the work of that committee, if they wish to do so.Should we do anything else at this stage?
We should convey our support directly to the other committees and the Executive.
I suggest that Petra Biberbach, who is chair of the Campaign for Borders Rail, could provide a briefing paper for members nearer the time of the debate if that would be useful. The group has done a lot of work on economic impact. To add to what Euan Robson said, a huge number of people, not just cross-party but cross-political, through all levels of politics in the Borders, are working on the issue. They would be able to submit information if members do not have enough papers already.
Should we do anything else about the petition now?
Members
link
No.
We will act on the petition in the way that we have described.
Thank you very much.
We will move to the third petition, PE126, in the name of Dunlop and Lugton community council. It states: "We, the undersigned, declare that Government proposals to pay benefits through bank accounts will make many sub Post Offices unviable, forcing them to close. In rural communities the Post Office is an important public service.The Petitioners therefore request that the Scottish Parliament takes whatever it considers to be the most appropriate action to relay these concerns to Westminster."Would any members like to comment on the issue?
We have considered the issue briefly and expressed our concerns. It is a moving target, because proposals are still coming forward on how the Westminster Government proposes to act. I understand that the latest suggestion is that the Post Office has been successful in its bid to formulate a community banking initiative, which will benefit everyone because banks have been reluctant to take on board as customers people who would have difficulty maintaining a bank account. Likewise, there are people who would find it difficult to access an account, whether the banks were willing or not. They could now, with the Government's permission, use facilities to be set up at thousands of post offices, where a banking system would be in operation. We need much more information about that, because proposals are still coming on stream as a result of the concern that has been expressed about the viability of rural sub-post offices and about the people who might have difficulty accessing a bank account, if that were to be the only means for them to access benefits.
The Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee is the lead committee for the petition. It has been passed to us for interest, with reference to some of the comments that we have made on this subject before.At this stage, we could express our support for the principles that lie behind the petition, to the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee. We will retain the commitment that we have made previously to examine the matter in conjunction with a range of other issues, which will contribute towards the completion of the report on our current inquiry.
As you know, within the past two or three weeks, the sub-postmasters and sub-postmistresses petitioned the Westminster Parliament directly, with a huge petition. I know that many petitions have been circulated in constituencies around Scotland. The debate in our Parliament was very supportive of the retention of post office facilities. As Irene McGugan said, the matter is up in the air until we find out for certain what is proposed for automated banking in post offices. I am sure that, whatever happens, if it generates more revenue for post offices, it will be welcomed by the sub-postmasters and sub-postmistresses. The big problem is the individuals who do not currently have an account and still want to collect their benefit in cash at the post office.
People will still be able to collect their benefit in cash, but that is not sustaining rural post offices, which are still closing. The petition is about one issue; many other issues must be examined.
If post offices introduced automated banking, which would extend the facilities that they offered in rural communities, that might enhance their revenue.
We will express our support for the principles in the petition to the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee. We will examine the issues that it raises within the framework of our existing inquiries.If there are no further comments, we will move to item 4 on the agenda, which we have decided to take in private.
Meeting continued in private until 16:45.
In this meeting
Everything on 2 May 2000 →- Scottish Parliament Rural Affairs Committee Tuesday 2 May 2000 (Afternoon) Committee business · 4
- Islay Creamery Committee business · 38
- National Parks (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1 Bill debate · 132
- Petitions Petitions · 32
The type of each item (debate, statement, questions, members’ business and so on) and the times shown are worked out by this site from headings, the chair’s opening words and the Official Report’s running timestamps. They are not the Parliament’s own classification. Text: the Scottish Parliament Official Report.