Official Report 448KB pdf
How many people are we considering for the round table? We need enough time for discussion. It is good to have a range of folk, but we also need to get a view from everyone.
In the past, we have had round-table sessions with about 10 to 12 people. It can work up to that number. Obviously, we will not have people at the table just to fill seats; we will ensure that everyone has something to contribute.
At the round-table stage, it might be worth while going out of Scotland and inviting people from a country of similar size to Scotland that also depends to a great extent on forms of international trade. We could invite a consular official or academic who specialises in that country and is based here. I do not mean the usual suspects such as Norway—
I hear what you say, but on this occasion we should be the piranhas. We will take evidence from other areas to compare what happens in Scotland with what happens elsewhere. The key thing is to find out whether we are taking the right approach in Scotland.
I echo your comment, convener. It might be particularly valuable to consider a region such as Catalunya, the Basque Country, Baden-Württemberg or North Rhine-Westphalia. Some interesting parallels could be drawn with such Administrations.
The Minister for Enterprise, Energy and Tourism, Jim Mather, who will be with us for our next agenda item, is not due to be here until about 10 o’clock. I propose to suspend the public session of the meeting until then. I ask members to stay at the table; we may want to discuss process while we wait.
I welcome everyone to the ninth meeting of the Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee in 2010. Agenda item 1 is to discuss our approach to our inquiry into the public sector’s support for exporters, international trade and the attraction of inward investment. Members have a copy of the initial paper, which the clerk produced following discussion with me.
Greece!
Well—
The problem is that the usual suspects all know one another and play golf with one another. They will instantly go into defensive mode. Introducing a piranha from somewhere else would be valuable and healthy.
We are also considering Flanders.
I make the point that I always do about seeing people at many levels. When we went to London as part of our financial services sector inquiry, it was hugely useful to see many people at the same time. In the same vein of minimising cost and time, a brief Brussels visit would be worth while. Such a visit would allow us to find whether there is a Europe-wide role in promoting European companies to the east, given the scale of the challenge in doing that, and get a flavour of what a large number of other geographies are doing. Scotland House in Brussels has a pretty firm handle on what we do in Scotland. One has to assume that other geographies with comparable delegations have a similar view. Perhaps we should consider that option.
We are looking at the possibility of Brussels, partly to hold discussions with the European Community on its trade responsibilities and because it gives the option of tying in a visit to Flanders. It might be handy to meet trade missions from other regions while we are in Brussels.
The paper captures the essence of what we want to do. I support the idea of a tightly focused inquiry to look into specific areas over a fairly limited timescale. In that way, we can make progress. Broadly speaking, the paper sets out the right approach. The proposal to bring together some key witnesses on 24 March is important and I support the list of who should be invited. Perhaps we should also include a Scottish Trades Union Congress representative at the round-table stage. They would give a perspective that the other organisations might not necessarily reflect.
We would look to take evidence from similar-sized countries or regions with similar powers to Scotland. I am not sure that it would be practical to do what you suggest, Chris, in the timescale that is available to us.
Previous
Attendance