Work Programme
Item 2 is consideration of the committee’s future work programme, for which the clerks have prepared paper 3. As members will be aware, the current inquiry into renewables will probably take us up to the middle of June. If we want to interrupt that, there is the opportunity to do a short piece of work on another important matter. We also need to consider what we might want to do in the autumn. Paper 3 is by no means definitive or particularly scientific—we have simply pulled together a range of suggestions from members about issues that we might want to consider.
I highlight a couple of points. First, we have been approached by VisitScotland, which, as members probably know, has developed a strategy on the winning years. Following the publication of our short report on tourism earlier this year, VisitScotland is quite keen to do a one-off evidence session on its strategy. That may be of interest, and is something that we could do at fairly short notice between now and the summer.
Secondly, I am sure that members will have had correspondence from various external groups proposing a committee-sponsored plenary debate on the subject of alternatives to GDP. Oxfam is launching its humankind index on Tuesday next week. Such a debate is certainly a possibility. It would be rather novel if we were to seek a debate on a subject without first having done some work on it. However, if members were interested in that we could try to factor it in and take some evidence. I am open to comments from members.
I know that the suggestion is to have an hour-long debate on the humankind index. An hour is not long enough, and if we are to have a debate, the committee needs to do some work beforehand.
On tourism, I would be keen to focus not just on the winning years but on homecoming 2. There is a wonderful opportunity there and I would like to ensure that work is going on behind the scenes to ensure that homecoming 2 is even more successful than the first homecoming.
I will not go through all the other proposals in the paper, because there are so many of them. However, on the economic viability of small towns, I would remove the word “small”. There should not be a distinction between small towns and medium or large towns—it should just be towns per se. It would be a legitimate piece of work for the committee to look at towns throughout the country. I dare say that we could all highlight towns, whether large, medium or small, in which there are positives as well as negatives in relation to the economic situation.
It will probably not surprise the committee that I speak up in favour of our doing something on alternatives to GDP. Members will know, but I declare it again for the record, that I am a member of the steering group for the humankind index. I have previously argued that we should do something on that theme, not just because Oxfam was starting its work, but because of Professor Stiglitz’s role on the Council of Economic Advisers. He has pioneered some of the work at the global level.
The Church of Scotland was in the Parliament again last night to talk about its special commission on the purposes of economic activity, which covers much of the same ground. It starts from a different premise, but it reaches many of the same conclusions. Enough of a body of work is developing on the general theme for the committee to take it up and take it somewhere.
I agree with Stuart McMillan that an hour is not long enough for members to get their teeth into a topic in the chamber. We should ask for a fuller debate. I do not know whether that could be held before the summer recess, but I know that time is available and committees can bid for it, and I argue that we should do that. It might be that the debate could inform a later piece of work. Recently, some committees have taken that approach and held a debate in the chamber to inform an inquiry, with the debate being summarised as part of the committee report. We might have time for an inquiry later in the year.
I will quickly flag up two other issues. First, I am surprised that we have not heard much about the cities strategy since the beginning of the session, or shortly thereafter. I would be interested to know whether we have any updates on where it is going, if anywhere.
Now that Perth is a city, I am interested in that.
Indeed.
Secondly, if we were to do something on youth unemployment or women in employment, it might be possible to do something more widely on equality in employment and examine what effect the recession is having on equality in society.
Alternative economics is an interesting topic. My only concern is that it is a complex subject and we would need to give it adequate time, not just in a debate but in committee, so that we could explore it properly.
I suggested that we should look at the planning system, but there seems to have been a bit of a misunderstanding. Audit Scotland looked at one narrow aspect of planning and how it operates. It considered measures of efficiency, planning fees and so on. As we heard this morning, the planning system is criticised by people on both sides. Developers say that it is not fit for purpose, as do communities that are concerned about proposals.
Given that we are six years on from the passage of the Planning etc (Scotland) Act 2006, I suggest that we take a broader view of the planning system than the paper indicates. The subject is important, because the planning system regulates pretty much all economic development, so it is profoundly important that we get it right.
I point out that, strictly speaking, planning comes under the remit of a different committee—the Local Government and Regeneration Committee. That is not to say that it would not be relevant for us to look at the economic aspects of planning, but we do not want to tread on another committee’s toes—we should bear that in mind. We have to be slightly careful about that.
Indeed, but it is the economic aspects that I am most concerned about. I am a bit of a student of post-neoclassical endogenous growth, and it is the planning system that is going to deliver that.
I agree with Patrick Harvie and Stuart McMillan. If we are going to do something on alternatives to GDP, I am pretty relaxed about whether we have a debate first, which would influence our inquiry, or have a debate afterwards, in what has been the normal fashion in the Parliament. The question is how we schedule that. We should certainly be considering the issue because it is relevant, and a wider discussion is being held outside the Parliament.
If we look at the first three topics in the paper—productivity, high-performing workplaces and employment issues; tackling youth unemployment; and women and employment—and bear in mind Patrick Harvie’s comment about the wider issues around employment and those who are suffering because of the recession, we could probably bring all those issues together into one longer inquiry into employment and productivity. Some serious questions have come out of the Scottish Trades Union Congress debate about the nature, quality and availability of employment in Scotland.
Finally, there is an issue that is not included in the clerk’s paper; perhaps it fell down because of what has happened during recess. I am concerned about what is happening with Scottish football at the moment, particularly with Rangers. The issue might be fraught but it is something that is happening outside Parliament just now. We should consider fan ownership and the economic arguments around football and how it affects our communities.
I do not fall out with anything that has been said so far, and I agree with Stuart McMillan about looking at the economic viability of towns in Scotland, particularly because I am trying to set up a cross-party group on town centres, so looking at that issue would be of benefit.
An issue has come up in the past couple of days that we have not really addressed. When the minister came before the committee, he did not address it either. There has been movement on fracking in England so maybe the committee should be looking at that issue. I did not feed it into the clerks but it is an issue that we should be looking at.
Having met with the Scottish Football Association a few weeks ago to talk about co-operatives, having been in discussion with the Rangers Supporters Trust in the past two weeks, and having won a Celtic strip in a raffle on Friday night, I must admit that I have some sympathy with John Park’s suggestion.
You could give evidence.
I certainly will not be wearing the strip.
I also have some sympathy with the idea of looking at the humankind index, but we need to take a lot more time and not squeeze it in just before the summer recess because it is a significant topic.
We need to talk about the cities strategy before we talk about the economic viability of small towns in Scotland because one clearly has implications for the other. I would also like to do some work on the commercialisation of intellectual property and research in Scottish universities, but that can wait until next year.
We need to meet VisitScotland to discuss the tourism strategy because of the lack of information that we got in our earlier discussions.
With new councils in place soon, the role of public sector procurement and its implications for employment will be a significant issue. My vote goes to tourism and procurement, but that does not in any way diminish the importance of the other suggested issues. Next year, we should discuss the business arguments and debate around our constitutional future. I put that issue on the same level as alternatives to GDP.
I am quite content with the majority of what has been suggested for the work programme. I fully support the humankind index and what Oxfam is trying to do, and it would be useful for the committee to have a short, one-day inquiry with some of the proponents of the initiative and those who are against it so that we can temper the chamber debate. As Patrick Harvie and others have said, if we are going to have a debate in the chamber, it should be a meaningful one. We have to consider GDP, the measures that are currently used and the benefits, if any, that they bring to the people of Scotland and our economic programme.
The humankind index might warrant a very brief inquiry. Oxfam will launch it on Tuesday and anyone who has not accepted the invitation to that launch should still go along to hear the presentations and speak to some of the people involved, including our very own Patrick Harvie.
12:15
The very eminent Patrick Harvie.
It would be worth while to give the index due consideration instead of simply skipping over it with a one-hour debate in the chamber just to stimulate discussion. I do not think that that would be useful.
As most members have pointed out, the other issues in the paper certainly make up a full programme of work. With regard to tourism, it would be useful to hear from VisitScotland sooner rather than later—and preferably before the summer recess—to ensure that we know exactly what it is doing at the height of tourist season to tie in future events in the winning years and the year of homecoming in 2014.
The committee seems to be of the view that it would be good to bring in VisitScotland for a one-off presentation, and we should certainly try to schedule that for before the summer recess.
Would that replace one of the meetings that have already been scheduled?
The paper that we will discuss in private is purely illustrative. None of the dates is set in stone; we can jiggle things around and slot in an evidence session on tourism either alongside an evidence session for our renewables inquiry or on a completely separate day. In fact, the latter option might make more sense.
The paper that we will be discussing in private suggests that, although we will have completed our work on the renewable energy targets inquiry before the summer recess, the report itself will not be signed off until after the recess. I am keen to sign it off before the summer, if that is feasible.
I suggest that we discuss the matter in private, because there are certain human resource issues to take into account. Nevertheless, we will see whether, within the constraints of what we have discussed, we can schedule a session with VisitScotland.
There is a lot of interest from members in the humankind index and I get the general feeling that we want to do more work on the matter. I have to say, however, that I would be a bit nervous about going to the Conveners Group and asking for permission for a chamber debate on the issue without being able to demonstrate that we had actually done some work on it ourselves. We should ask the Scottish Parliament information centre to put together a scoping paper for a short inquiry on the subject and to bring that forward as time allows.
I also suggest that we ask the Scottish Government for an update on the cities strategy and fracking, which has been a newsworthy issue in the past couple of days, and get SPICe to produce research and/or scoping papers on the other topics, namely productivity and employment issues, including those involving youth employment and women; constitutional matters; procurement; intellectual property and commercialisation; and the economy of towns. We do not need to decide today on the issues that we want to go into in more detail but if SPICe can produce some more detailed work, ideas and scoping for potential inquiries we can choose which of them to take forward, probably in the autumn.
Does that seem like a reasonable way forward to the committee?
Members indicated agreement.
In that case, we move into private for item 3.
12:19
Meeting continued in private until 13:05.