Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee

Meeting date: Thursday, November 7, 2013

Official Report 411KB pdf

---

Cross-party Group (Application)

Item 2 is evidence from Richard Baker MSP on the proposed cross-party group on the Scottish economy. I welcome Richard to the meeting.

Thank you, convener.

Do you have an opening statement to make before we move to questions?

Yes. We had a very successful cross-party group on the Scottish economy in the previous two parliamentary sessions, which is one reason why we are keen to re-establish the CPG in this session, too.

We are all—across the political parties—agreed on the importance of the economy to the future of the country and our prosperity. The cross-party group will allow us to draw together all the different strands of economic interest in society, including the business community, to discuss various topics of interest. There are individual sectoral cross-party groups, such as those on oil and gas and construction, but this forum would bring together all the different discussion strands to talk about a number of subjects that affect the whole of the economy. For example, future topics that such a group could discuss include exporting, productivity, university and industry collaboration, access to financial support from investor groups and business leadership skills—a whole range of topics that are unlikely to be discussed in the cross-party groups that focus on industrial or business issues.

We have a great deal of support across the business community in particular. Organisations that will become members include Scottish Enterprise, the Confederation of British Industry Scotland, the Scottish Council for Development and Industry, and the Scottish Property Federation. However, other stakeholders with a broader interest in the economy will also join and include the Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations. Consequently, there will be a broad range of interest in the work of the CPG. In the past, having four co-conveners worked well, so it is proposed to follow that approach, with one convener from each of the main political parties.

There is strong cross-party support for the proposal. I hope that that gives a brief overview of the areas of interest such a group will want to discuss in seminars and talks. I am happy to take any questions from members.

Thank you very much for that comprehensive introduction. I invite questions from members.

Good morning, Richard. We were going to ask you to explain why the cross-party group will have so many conveners, which would be quite unusual, but you have set out the background to that proposal.

I note from your application that the Lloyds Banking Group is graciously providing financial support of up to around £800 a year. It is also providing secretariat support. How much will that support cost in an average year?

On your first point, having a cross-party approach to convenership with four co-conveners has worked very well in the past. We do not want the cross-party group to be a forum for heated political debate; it is more about briefing members across parties and trying to reach consensus on some of the issues.

On the provision of a secretariat, Neil Moore of Lloyds Banking Group has said that he will need to give about half a day a week of his time, or three and a half hours. He has not put a financial value on that. Given that there will be only four meetings a year, I would have thought that three and a half hours a week is the absolute maximum that would be required. I have not been so indelicate as to ask how much three and a half hours of his time is worth—

I do not think that he will be on the minimum wage.

I agree. If the committee wishes it, we can certainly supply a figure. I noticed that no figure was attached, but I wondered whether information on the time allocation would be sufficient.

I think that we would be grateful for that. Before I bring in Cameron Buchanan, I note that we have had this discussion before. What we are really looking for, rather than what the person’s employment costs, is what Lloyds Banking Group would attach as a cost to that amount of consultancy.

Absolutely. I fully understand that now, and we can supply that information subsequent to today’s meeting if that is agreeable to the committee.

Thank you.

The cost of Neil Moore’s time is not a cost to us, is it? We are not going to have to pay for it, so it is not really relevant to us, or to the Parliament.

I assure you that it is not a cost to the Parliament, but I appreciate that the committee wishes to understand what contribution Lloyds Banking Group will make in terms of a general financial value for the time.

One reason why we like to have the information and explore the matter in some depth when we consider applications is for transparency and so that the cost that is attached is apparent to anybody who looks in.

I appreciate that.

Good morning, Richard. Thank you for the presentation.

You said that the economy takes in numerous subjects, and I note that we already have a number of cross-party groups on those. I chair one myself, on aviation. How do you intend to avoid duplicating things that other groups are doing? For instance, Maureen Watt is co-convener of the cross-party group on oil and gas, which is trying to find out a wee bit more about the problems of offshore helicopters. That came up at her group and there will be a report to the aviation group. We are not doing anything on the subject because it would just duplicate what Maureen’s group is doing. How are you going to try to avoid duplication? What relationship will you have with the other groups that could conceivably have an interest in your group?

That is a good question. Having the four cross-party co-conveners will help. We all take an interest in a wide variety of cross-party groups, so I hope that there is knowledge there to help us to ensure that we do not duplicate effort, which would not be productive, as you say. Also, we have a wide membership of MSPs beyond the co-conveners.

I think that we will work in exactly the way that you suggest. You have liaised with Maureen Watt on offshore travel and safety, which is part of the work of the cross-party group on oil and gas. We would seek to take that approach as well.

In the eight years when a cross-party group on the Scottish economy existed previously, it was successful in not simply duplicating the work of other groups. We are looking, for example, at research and development issues, which go beyond one sector, be it oil and gas, transport or higher education. We will take that cross-cutting approach and consider, for example, support for investment in businesses in general rather than in any particular sector. In the previous existences of the group, we were successful in not duplicating effort, which is unproductive, and we will wish to engage in the working practices that you describe to ensure that that continues to be the case in the current session.

I should have said that I have put my name forward to be a member of the proposed cross-party group. I would like that to be recorded.

Thank you, Margaret.

Are the individuals you have listed from different business sectors in Scotland? I see that you have a good range.

Absolutely. They represent a huge number of organisations. They include David Lonsdale from the Confederation of British Industry Scotland, Garry Clark from the Scottish Chambers of Commerce and Brendan Dick from BT. All the members of the committee will recognise some of the names, because they represent a wide cross-section of Scottish business stakeholders. More broadly, they include John Downie of the Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations, so the work that we hope that the proposed group will do will have wide buy-in.

I noticed that there is a crossover between some of the individual members whom you have listed and some of the organisational members that are listed. You mentioned Brendan Dick of BT. Will he be representing BT, or will BT be a corporate member and Brendan Dick a personal member? I use him as an example.

I suspect that he will be on the group as a corporate member. Again, if you wish, I could seek clarity from Neil Moore, who we hope will be the secretary, on people’s status as individual members or corporate members. I imagine that a combination of both sorts of members are listed.

It would be good to get clarity on that.

I would like to see you put people’s names next to their organisation. That would be a good idea, as it would let us see which organisation they are from.

Although I think that the form says that when a body is listed in the organisations section, it is not necessary to list the names of individuals. The individuals section is for people who join a cross-party group as an individual. I asked my question because there seemed to be a crossover between the two lists. I wanted to know whether there is duplication.

In this case, would it not be helpful to have names and organisations together?

We do not need to do that.

Fine.

I would certainly be happy to provide clarity on whether people are corporate members rather than individual members.

Thanks.

As members have no further questions, I thank Richard Baker for attending. The clerks will, of course, let you know the outcome of your application in short order once we have had our discussion.

I suspend the meeting briefly, to allow for a changeover of witnesses.

09:42 Meeting suspended.

09:43 On resuming—