Official Report 336KB pdf
Under agenda item 4, we will discuss and agree the committee’s approach to work programming and the suggestion of holding what is termed a business planning day—or an away day, which I think is the technical term that some use for that.
Members will all have seen paper EJFW/S5/16/1/3. Do we wish to hold a business planning day as suggested in that paper?
I am on holiday from 18 August.
The clerks will liaise with individual members to establish a suitable date for everyone. In light of what Gordon MacDonald has just said, the date might have to be earlier in August or possibly in early September.
Are we agreed on the suggested approach?
Members indicated agreement.
I move on to the question of the committee’s business in the coming session. Members will all have seen the previous committee’s legacy paper. The suggestion is that we consider the items in that paper at the business planning day and decide whether we wish to use it as a basis for the committee’s further work. I take it that there is no difficulty with that.
It is an eminently sensible suggestion, but will members have the opportunity in advance of the business planning day to reflect on other topics that we would like to be considered? We should not be constrained by the legacy paper, although it is a helpful foundation.
Are we agreed?
Members indicated agreement.
If we do not have the away day until later on, we will still need to be working at the beginning of September. Do we need to decide sooner rather than later what we might look at in September?
I am the only member here who was on the Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee in the previous session, which carried out an inquiry into the internationalisation of Scottish business. When we looked at the situation with the chambers of commerce, UK Trade & Investment, Scottish Development International and so on, we saw that the picture was cumbersome and mixed. To give us some breathing space to identify other topics that we can look at later in the year, I point out that paragraphs 59 to 61 in the legacy paper propose that we look at the remits of Scottish Enterprise and Highlands and Islands Enterprise. That might be a good start. The subject is apolitical, which gives us the opportunity to get our teeth into it. Also, Audit Scotland is due to release a report on it during the summer, and I believe that the Government is also looking at the subject. It might be something to start off with, especially if we bear in mind John Mason’s point that if we have a planning meeting late, we still have to be up and running for the beginning of September.
That is only a suggestion but the topic is in the legacy paper.
The clerks will note that and may bring something back to the meeting in two weeks’ time, when we can discuss the matter further.
Does anyone have any other suggestions?
10:15
My suggestion is about logistics. As Gordon MacDonald said, there is a lot of work to do. I am keen for us to have a constructive dialogue about the Scottish economy, so should we set up an email distribution list for sharing policy ideas? The Scottish economy really needs fresh impetus and ideas on how we tackle unemployment and Scotland’s lagging gross domestic product.
Maybe one is in place, but it would be good to have a distribution list, as we will not always be in the committee room to share ideas—we might be in recess, for example, or in the chamber. I think that we all have the same agenda of taking the Scottish economy forward and developing a stronger economy for the benefit of the Scottish people. It would be good to have an informal and dynamic format for bringing forward new policies, which clearly are what we need.
In the first instance, the clerks could compile an email distribution list, which will be shared with committee members. We can see how we take that forward, if people wish to take that approach. We could discuss the idea further at the next meeting, if anything arises.
Do members wish to draw attention to any other points in the legacy paper for people to consider prior to the meeting in two weeks’ time, when we will discuss the legacy paper and how it fits into the business planning day?
If you want ideas for things that we should focus on, I am keen for us to focus on the living wage, on fair work, on manufacturing as part of the Scottish economy and on social enterprise, which has been mentioned before.
That is noted.
Before the election, the then Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee looked at the living wage and fair work in quite a bit of detail. I am not averse to looking at the subject again, but to do so now might be too soon after what we did in the previous session.
If we wanted to look at some way of growing our economy quickly—as Dean Lockhart suggested—an idea might be to consider our airports’ situation. Edinburgh airport is growing—I think that it recently hit 11 million passengers in a year. We could replicate the situation whereby people who are travelling to America can go through immigration in Dublin airport; it creates a fantastic input and draws a huge number of flights through the airport, which has a knock-on effect on trade and tourism. That might be worthy of discussion.
That is noted.
Is it worth our while to reach out to people outside Parliament—in trade unions and business, for example—to invite them to suggest topics or questions that might merit the committee’s attention?
You might want to look at that and bring something to the committee.
No. I suggest that the committee might wish to reach out to people beyond Parliament and invite their suggestions about agenda items for the future; it might not be for the immediate term.
We note that.
I agree with Andy Wightman’s suggestion. Gordon MacDonald will keep us right, but is it not the case that at some past away days external speakers have been invited along to stimulate discussion?
We really started having away days—which I think work really well—to any great extent only in the second half of the previous session of Parliament. The then Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee had one in Paisley—from memory, it was when the committee was looking at fair work. We invited unemployed people, small businesses and agencies that help people into work to an informal meeting. I am concerned that how Parliament has worked means that we have developed “professional” witnesses—no matter what the topic a committee is looking at, the same witnesses always turn up. I would be happier if there were more informal meetings at which we could hear from the front line about what is really happening, rather than the information being filtered through a lobbying organisation.
Are you suggesting that there should be a mix of witnesses?
Yes. We do not have to have a guest speaker. When we have had such meetings before, there have been maybe six or seven groups and one MSP sits with each group and acts as a facilitator. Usually a clerk or someone takes notes so that we have feedback from the discussions. Those meetings worked particularly well.
We have also had round-table meetings—the main one was in the members’ coffee lounge. When I was on the previous session’s Infrastructure and Capital Investment Committee, we invited a lot of small businesses to come in one evening. It was good to hear first-hand information about potential legislation that was to go through Parliament. I cannot remember what the legislation was, but we got a bit of feedback. In my view, those things work better that way.
It may be helpful to have that sort of thing, although one has to be careful not to have too much simply anecdotal evidence.
Absolutely: it is about striking a balance between the two.
Indeed. In addition there are questions about how the views that would be expressed and the comments that would be made would be recorded, and how people would be selected to come to those informal meetings. We could have professional witnesses on one side and, on the other, people who have particular issues that they wish to promote. It is important that we have regard to those people but—as you said—there is a need to strike a balance.
So far, in the discussions at informal meetings—of which I have now attended three—no individual has come along with an axe to grind. Such meetings are about moving the agenda forward; the approach has worked well. That does not mean that what you describe might not happen, but so far—touch wood—it has not.
Jackie Baillie wants to comment.
The moment has passed; however, I will make my points. It would be helpful for our away day for us to distinguish between subjects that may lend themselves to our having one or two evidence sessions and those that would be subject to much wider inquiries, because I think that we will want to mix and match a bit as we go along.
I would support the committee looking at Scottish Enterprise and Skills Development Scotland. The Government is conducting a review of those organisations, so it would be helpful to be aware of the timetable for that and to be able to influence the review.
It would be remiss of us not to mention oil and gas, given what has been going on over the past week and, indeed, over the past few months. I do not know what the Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee did in the previous session, or where it left off, but we should return to that subject from time to time.
I think that Dean Lockhart wants to comment—or has your moment also passed?
Thank you, convener. My moment never passes.
That was irony, in case it escaped anyone.
I think that our duty as a committee is to anticipate changes to the economy and to look ahead and plan for changes in technology and in business practices. Such changes are already taking place—for example, Scotland has a strong position in the digital economy. We can leverage on that. I am keen that, if we bring in external speakers, we include people from the digital economy because they would be valuable to add to that exercise.
Last week in the chamber I mentioned artificial intelligence. I know that it may sound a bit outlandish, but I spoke to someone yesterday about the matter: it is an issue that we will have to deal with. Edinburgh employs thousands of people in the back offices of financial services, and those jobs might be at risk of being taken over by new software systems that will be in place in the next two years.
The point that I am making is that we have to look ahead. This is a five-year session of Parliament and we have to deal not with last year’s problems, but with the challenges that we will face in five years.
On the back of that, I would like to look at an issue that I mentioned in one of my recent speeches: remote working, particularly in non-urban areas. I want to look at the issue in the context of the rural economy, and at how to support people who are not getting into their cars and going into an urban environment to work in an office, and how to facilitate people growing businesses that can work remotely.
Maybe the clerks can guide us on the line between our committee’s remit and the remit of the Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee, which I happen to be on, too. Sometimes, I get very confused about where the work of one starts and the work of the other stops.
I will take one more point from Andy Wightman, then perhaps we can move on to the next part of the discussion, because we are starting to get into detail that we can work out as we move forward.
The outcome of the referendum on the European Union should be on the agenda for the next committee meeting.
The European Union referendum falls under Westminster’s remit, not the Scottish Parliament’s. I am not certain that we will have, on 28 June, a clear position on the relevance of the referendum result on this committee, given that it will have taken place only five days before then.
We are talking about a result that could, whichever way it falls, have a massive impact on our economy. For you to turn around and say that it is not a matter that the committee should consider seems to me to be a wee bit disingenuous, to say the least.
If we invite the Cabinet Secretary for Economy, Jobs and Fair Work to come, he may well have comments to make on the referendum result and how it may impact on Scotland. It may be that that issue will arise. Whether the referendum will have a huge impact will depend on which way the result goes.
I agree with the convener’s suggestion—the cabinet secretary coming to the committee would be a neat way to deal with the matter. However, I wonder whether we could commission the Scottish Parliament information centre to do a short paper—in so far as it is able to—that would capture some of the emerging facts and might inform committee members.
Is everyone content to invite the cabinet secretary to our next meeting to outline the Government’s proposals or its programme? He will take one view or the other on whether to go into the topic of the outcome of the referendum on the European Union, but we will allow him to take up the issue if he considers it appropriate to do so. We will also ask SPICe to provide a report—to the extent that it can—for our meeting, which will be five days after the referendum. Is everyone happy with that approach?
Members indicated agreement.
We will invite both the Cabinet Secretary for Economy, Jobs and Fair Work and the Minister for Business, Innovation and Energy—who I think is Paul Wheelhouse—to the next meeting. The clerks will get in touch with members on timing, which will depend on the commitments of the cabinet secretary and the minister on that day.
Unless members have anything else to raise, I thank everyone for coming, and I look forward to working with you over the next five years.
Meeting closed at 10:30.Previous
Deputy Convener