Business in the Parliament 2005
The next item concerns the business in the Parliament conference 2005. The committee may remember that the first such event was held in April 2004. The event will be jointly sponsored by the Executive and the Parliament. For the purposes of organising the detail, the committee represents the Parliament.
I welcome Mike McElhinney, head of business and trade union liaison at the Scottish Executive Enterprise, Transport and Lifelong Learning Department, and Rebecca Robinson, policy adviser at the business and trade union liaison unit in the same department. Mike Watson and I spoke earlier in the year to Mike McElhinney and asked him to prepare a summary paper on the progress that was being made with the event, to allow the committee to make an input on what it felt would be the right structure of and approach to the conference. Mike, would you like to say a few words by way of introduction?
Mike McElhinney (Scottish Executive Enterprise, Transport and Lifelong Learning Department):
I welcome the opportunity to be here for the discussion on the business in the Parliament conference. I am happy to try to answer any questions that the committee may have about the conference that we ran last year or the work in progress for the conference that we will run in 2005.
It might be useful if I outlined briefly the context of the event. The Executive's partnership agreement commitment underlines the Executive's commitment to work in partnership with business. Ministers have an on-going programme of engagement with business representative organisations as well as with individual businesses. The partnership agreement commits us to establishing an annual business forum to bring together Scotland's businesses and politicians to develop ideas and generate debate on how to maximise the drivers for economic growth.
To make progress on those commitments, we hosted a business conference in partnership with the Scottish Parliament in April last year. We designed and delivered a two-day business conference in which businesses of different sizes and from different sectors from throughout Scotland engaged with ministers and MSPs to discuss key challenges that businesses face and how to feed views into the wider policy landscape of the Executive's activity. The Enterprise, Transport and Lifelong Learning Department's policy aims included building on the ministerial relationship with business while focusing discussion on the key themes of the enterprise strategy in "A Smart, Successful Scotland". We ensured that the outcomes of the conference were fed into the refresh of "A Smart, Successful Scotland", which was published in November 2004. The conference helped to make the refresh process inclusive, consultative and, we hope, informed.
We had more than 200 delegates at the 2004 conference, most of whom came from the business community, business representative organisations and some sectoral organisations. The feedback from the delegates suggested that the event was well received by individual businesses and by the main representative organisations. There was a strong sense of the value that they got from engaging with the Executive and MSPs in that unique way. The feedback from the Presiding Officer, the Enterprise and Culture Committee and ministers was also positive. The project was a strong collaboration between the Executive and the Parliament. For our department, the closeness of the working relationship with the Parliament was unique. We worked closely with the Scottish Parliament throughout and engaged business stakeholders from the outset.
Ministers have agreed to co-host a similar conference in the new Parliament building, the provisional dates for which are 8 and 9 September. We are pleased to have the Presiding Officer's support for the event so far. The Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body has formally approved a conference on 9 September and the main business organisations remain supportive of this year's event.
We have formed a grandly titled steering group, which basically consists of the Enterprise and Culture Committee clerks and us—that is about it. We are starting to make progress with the detailed planning of the event and we have had informal discussions with the convener and some committee members. We have started to shape the event and we have gone out to tender for the business manager contract that we normally award for projects of this scale. We have made an input to the paper that is before the committee today, which sets out a proposed structure and focus for the 2005 conference. We will shortly update ministers on progress, taking the committee's views into account in doing so. We welcome the committee's views on the shape of the 2005 event.
Last year's conference was well received by the delegates and it formed a valuable part of the Executive's on-going work to engage with business. We look forward to building on that work and to working with the committee and parliamentary colleagues in the months ahead.
I emphasise that there is joint ownership of the event between the committee and the Executive, so we should use this opportunity to feed in views and to be frank and, I hope, innovative and productive about how the event should be structured. I will leave my comments to the end, given that I got into trouble for making comments that were not too popular in some quarters about how the previous event was structured.
That was before you were a member of the committee, convener, so your views were from the outside. However, some of what you said carried a fair bit of weight. I took part in the first conference and found it useful and enjoyable in parts, particularly the break-out groups. It was probably felt that the conference had too much of what you described as civil service input, which is often code for ministerial control. We need to stand back a bit. The balance between the committee and the Executive emerges more clearly from the discussion document, which is positive.
The first session last year had too many speakers. I do not remember the number of speakers, but I think that it was more than the number of opening speakers outlined in the paper, which suggests opening speeches from the Presiding Officer, an Executive minister and the convener. I thought that we should cut the number to reduce the time for which people are simply sitting and being lectured or spoken to, rather than involved. The more time for which the event is interactive—that is probably the best word—the better. Quite a bit of that is proposed.
I like the idea of having a speech from a guest speaker, but it is slightly odd to call that
"Closing remarks from conference rapporteur",
who will be a prominent business person and who, it was suggested, would make a thought-provoking speech that brought out various ideas. A rapporteur draws together the discussions in the break-out groups; several rapporteurs will be involved. There is room for more discussion and thought about that. However, the idea that a prominent business person will stimulate debate is good.
At last year's closing session, it was said that the break-out groups made several suggestions that should have some follow-through. It was said that to encourage those who were involved in the conference to return, they would have to see development year on year, so that they felt that giving up a day or a day and a half of their time was worth while. I strongly subscribe to that view. Events should not be self-contained; they should be inextricably linked. I am sure that that is the intention. If we invite people again—I hope that some will return—we must make that clear.
My question relates to the point that Mike Watson has raised. At the beginning of the conference, will the opportunity be available for a short feedback session on progress that has been made since the last conference, including on the business growth inquiry, which in many ways arose from that conference?
On the point about the number of speakers, we received the same feedback from the Executive and the delegates. We are considering the numbers of political speakers and business speakers, the latter of which will bring the business view to the fore.
As for follow-up work and demonstrating to people who attended last time that we are making progress, we put in place several actions, some of which were relatively straightforward. Everyone received a transcript of the conference and of the economy debate that was hosted last September, at which we published the Executive's response to the outcomes of the 2004 conference. That is on the Executive's website. We are committed to producing an update on that, which we hope will act as a springboard for some of the discussions at the 2005 event. That document evidences the wide range of views that emerges from such an event. In some cases, progress may be the restatement of a position 12 months later, but at least that will help to inform and tee up some of the debate for 2005.
I take it that it is okay just to express opinions, as the deputy convener did, and that we need not turn everything into questions.
Absolutely.
Good. I know that the convener has spoken to several committee members about the event; I could not take up the opportunity to have a discussion beforehand, for which I apologise. I share some of the concerns that the convener voiced publicly about the previous event—perhaps I would not voice them in the same way, but I share some of the concerns. Last time around, opportunities were missed. People can always get something from events and people got something out of last year's event, but I sincerely hope that many lessons are learned and I am pleased to hear that processes are in place to ensure that that happens.
I will raise specific issues and some questions. The first is fundamental. What are the event's objectives? I really think that that has to be clearly stated. For people whose time is at a premium—and I include in that number the politicians who might intend to attend, as well as the business people—we have to be clear about what we are trying to achieve. The top line, which was quoted again from the partnership agreement—
"bringing together Scotland's businesses and Scotland's politicians to develop ideas and maximise the drivers for growth"—
is not enough. Bringing people together and having that discussion may be the starting point, but what are the end points?
I heard what was said about the various outcomes of the report and I have a copy of the Executive response and the transcripts of debates, but those outcomes are very paper based. What all of us want out of the exercise is to feel that there is some momentum behind it, that some life is being breathed into things and that there is a sense of on-going dialogue and debate and of some dynamic taking place.
I have a copy of the report from last year's meeting—I do not think that the report has been circulated for the meeting, but I want to refer to something that it says. Paragraph 44 contains the following recommendation:
"There needs to be wider buy-in to the Smart, Successful Scotland strategy—the Scottish population has to ‘do' SSS. We should get out there and get organisations to sign-up to the strategy. It shouldn't solely be about business—schools should also buy in to it. SSS is the right agenda but delivery at a local level needs to be better, and would help better deliver its vision."
That is one of the outcomes of the conference. The Executive response to that, apart from saying that there will be a refresh of the strategy—another document—is basically to tell us about the "Determined to Succeed: Enterprise in Education" programme. That is a valid programme, but to me that recommendation is about creating a living, breathing momentum to go behind the smart, successful Scotland strategy. The fact that a whole collection of business people have a missionary zeal to get out there and sell the strategy to the wider populace is positive, but I did not feel that that was the kind of energy that came out of the event and has carried us through thus far.
I realise that what I am alluding to is, in some respects, quite intangible. However, as with so many things, you know it when you see it and feel it, and I am not seeing and feeling much of that kind of energy at the moment. I would like to think that a bit more energy will come out of the event this time round.
I would like to know how the conference will be comprised this time. That links back to the objectives and what we are trying to get out of the event. Last time, the idea of asking every MSP to bring a local business person along was laudable at one level and quite attractive to individual MSPs at one level, as it was a nice local thing to do and to get local plaudits for. I know that there was an issue about the amount of notice that people had, but let us leave that to one side and assume that lead-in times will be much better this time. However, that skewed the composition of the event. By definition, the conference largely consisted of successful local business people. That is great and good, but I think that, because of the way in which the guest list was drawn up, we missed out on a tier of people from some of the major corporate players in Scotland, which could and should have been involved in the debate. I would like to know how thinking has moved on in that regard.
I shall stop there. I have one or two other points, but I do not want to sound as though I am pouring cold water on the event. I certainly do not want to pour cold water on the concept, but people need to feel that the investment of their time is worth while. That is an important point: the first time round, it matters a huge amount; the second time round, it matters a hell of a lot more. The worst possible thing that we could do would be to get an awful lot of people to give of their time and energy and have them go away thinking, "Well, it was nice getting a tour of the Parliament building, but, hey, what impact have we actually had on the things that affect the work that we do?" We all want to make the conference happen, but I feel that there is a lot more still to be done to breathe life into the event.
Being relatively new last year, I was one of the MSPs who invited a business person to the event. Funnily enough, I bumped into him about four or five weeks ago and his question was, "By the way, you know that conference I went to? It was very good to get the transcript of what was going on, but what happened? What was the result? What were the outcomes?" I said, "Well, I'm not on the committee that deals with it, so I'm not entirely sure." From what Susan Deacon has said, it seems as though there may not have been all that much in terms of outcomes. I entirely agree that we must ensure that something comes out of the event. There is no point in having a talking shop for a couple of days and just letting everybody visit the Parliament. We need to ensure that we are aware of what we want to achieve from the event and of what our goals are.
To build on what Mike Watson, Susan Deacon and Mike Pringle have said, I agree that there was too much talking at people last year and that there was too little time to prepare properly with a view to what we wanted to get out of the event. This year, starting now, we have the opportunity to do that preparation. It is not just a matter of our own preparation, however. We have to give guidance to those on the potential guest list—the invitees—about what it is we need them to do or to arrange help for in the areas with which they are concerned. Their area could be sectoral, within an industry, for example; it could be regional, concerning central Fife or Fife as a whole, for example; or it could be something covering the whole of Scotland. That all depends on the businesses that are involved and on the nature of their business.
Time is relatively short. Ideally, we want individuals to come with the benefit of all their background knowledge, which allows them to make suggestions as to what needs to be done next. That means a lot of briefing, finding things out and working with local enterprise companies, local authorities, business organisations and so on.
I am conscious of the fact that a lot of so-called usual suspects took part last year and that they were making the usual points. We had heard those points previously and we did not get a feel for where we had reached, what points had been made, what had been done and what participants were wanting us to do. We need to spend some time talking about how the preparation will be done this time, how the guest list will be drawn up and whether we will set all political affiliation to one side and have individuals talk with politicians from the different regions, so as to try to get comprehensive cover.
Will we leave nominating invitees to others? We could then simply turn up and hear what is said without having any personal input. Will a mixed approach be taken? We need to thrash out those issues, so that we are quite clear what MSPs will be asked to do, how we will buy into it, what feel we will have for owning the process and how we will maintain the independence of thought and suggestion that we need to review what we have done and what people want to be done. Perhaps that means narrowing the agenda slightly.
I will continue with the theme that other members have been developing. I did not attend the previous conference, because my diary did not allow it, although I did have a nominee there. He was a local businessman with quite a bit of involvement with the chambers of commerce—an obvious choice of person. I spoke to him afterwards and asked him what he thought. He replied that he had had a very interesting day and had met lots of interesting people. He had enjoyed the day. However, when I asked whether it had been of any great value to him, he said, "Frankly, no. I'm not convinced that it was and I'm not convinced that anything that I had to say was really being given much time." We need to avoid repeating that result. When I asked him whether he would go again, he said, "No. I don't see the point of going again if it is done like that."
Looking forward, I think that it might be helpful if we identify who is coming, approach them in advance and ask them what they want out of the event and what topics they wish to discuss. We could then collate those responses and set the agenda on the basis of what the participants want to discuss, rather than on the basis of what we want them to discuss. It would be helpful if we could structure the event in that way. That would be advantageous to the participants, because they would feel greater ownership of the agenda and its outcomes.
A lot of good, convincing points have been made. I was thinking that our business growth inquiry would be the focus of the conference. That more or less matches what is written in the current plan. However, it is slightly harder to see how the structure that Murdo Fraser suggests would feed into the committee's business growth inquiry unless we started an entirely new chapter, which might take us in a completely new direction. We would be asking other people to set the agenda, whereas, in the proposal that we have before us, we are saying, "The agenda is the research that we have done over the past four or five months. Please can we have your input into it for the next draft?" As Susan Deacon said, that might create just another paper exercise that would not go anywhere. Therefore, I think that Murdo Fraser's proposal is interesting.
I will add my tuppenceworth and then ask Mike McElhinney to respond. It is not a them-and-us situation; it is a joint issue and we are contributing ideas. Mike is not here on trial or anything like that—yet.
Let us return to why we had the conference in the first place. I am guilty because, when I was convener of the previous committee, I submitted a paper to Jack McConnell, as head of the Executive, and to David Steel, as Presiding Officer of the Parliament. That paper was based on the White House conference on small businesses. In America, a small business is a business that employs fewer than 250 people. Regional state conferences take place over three or four years and that process has, under every President since Carter, culminated in the White House conference on small business. The purpose of that conference is to try to reach tripartite agreement between the executive and congressional branches of the Government and the business community on what the priorities are for the legislature and the executive in terms of assisting the business community to achieve business growth and all the other things that business wants to achieve in the subsequent four years. The purpose is to end up with an agreed action plan that contains action items and four or five key priorities that both branches of Government can take forward together with the business community. The federal Government covers a range of issues from customs practices to taxation and all the rest of it. That is what happens in the States.
The idea is to take that model and examine how we could use it in Scotland. We would not restrict it to small business but have a general business conference because of the size of Scotland and the fact that our geography is different. The idea is to bring together the Executive, Parliament and the business community regularly—I was not suggesting that it had to be every year—to agree the priorities for a joint agenda. Our job is to enable the business community in Scotland to perform better, to improve exports and to do all the other good things that we are all trying to achieve.
People who say that there is no contact between Parliament and the business community are talking nonsense: there is loads of contact. The difficulty with much of the contact is that it is sporadic and there is no systematic approach. We go to a dinner with the Confederation of British Industry or the Federation of Small Businesses and come away agreeing with them, but that is it—the issues are hung in thin air and there is no conduit for taking them forward. The purpose of the business conference would be to act as a conduit to progress the agenda. That is what we are trying to achieve.
That said, Christine May made an important point about the need to focus on the conference agenda. The White House conference lasts for a week. If we tried to focus on issues that are of material importance to Parliament and the Executive on the one hand, and to the business community on the other, we might get more out of our conference.
We should theme the conference. The previous conference was based around "A Smart, Successful Scotland", to which we are all signed up, but to an extent that strategy is like motherhood and apple pie. We need to get down to the nitty-gritty of the more fundamental policy issues that need to be addressed. For example, when Jim Wallace was before the committee two weeks ago, one of the issues that we discussed was the continuing lack of private sector research and development in Scotland. Jim Wallace agreed with the committee that, to get to the OECD target, we need to double the £600 million spend on private sector research and development. To make the conference really productive, a group should address how we can substantially increase and, over a period, double the level of private sector research and development. Of course, in a morning or an afternoon we will not come up with the answers, but at least we will start the conversation—that is the in word these days in the run up to the election.
A big one.
Yes. We need a conversation between the business community and parliamentarians about how to address the major strategic issue of doubling private sector research and development.
Another example comes from the report that the Royal Bank of Scotland produced a few months ago that showed that, for our population the numbers of large and small companies in Scotland are okay, but there is a constraint on growth because when companies reach a certain size, they tend to sell out, which means that they move out of Scotland along with their assets. What can we do to close that strategic gap and allow companies in Scotland to grow and become multinationals that are headquartered in Scotland? Those are the kind of practical issues that we should discuss in the break-out sessions, so that we come away with thoughts on them.
We also need to consider how we will make progress once the conference is over at 4.30 on the Friday afternoon. During the day, we should seek, as appropriate, suggestions about that so that we do not just leave the event as a discussion that took place one Friday afternoon. For example, we need to consider how to set up a little group from the break-out group on research and development and get it to report regularly to the Executive and Parliament, although we would have to consider who would organise that. We need to think about how to make progress and not simply leave matters in thin air.
The point has been made that we should not decide on the invitation list until we decide exactly what will happen during the event. That is a bit of a chicken-and-egg situation. Murdo Fraser is right that, before we finalise the agenda, we should sus out what the business community wants from the conference. I suggest that we survey 400 or 500 people in the business community, including those who were at the previous conference. We should tell them that we are planning to hold another conference on 9 September and say that we would like to discuss issues such as how to boost R and D spend in the private sector, how to keep growth companies in Scotland instead of their selling out and another two or three issues. We should ask which other issues people think we need to discuss.
When we get feedback, we can decide on the final agenda and then the invitation list. As Susan Deacon said about the invitation list for the previous conference, it was laudable to get MSPs to invite a constituent, but that meant that we were all over the place because we had everybody from an ice-cream man right through to the managing director of a major multinational. Also, several MSPs invited public sector employees from the local enterprise companies and the like, which was not the purpose of the conference. I am in no way castigating members, but the aim was to get front-line business people. Similarly, we do not want the conference to be dominated by the private sector bureaucrats who run the CBIs of the world—I have said that to Iain McMillan. With all due respect, it is the Gordon Smiths of the world—the people at the coalface—whom we need, otherwise the conference will not work. I think that we are all agreed that those suggestions would be major improvements.
Finally, apart from having a welcome from the Presiding Officer, I suggest that we have absolutely no political speeches in the first plenary session, and that we do not have question time to Executive ministers. Let us use the time in the break-out sessions and make the conference really worth our while and meaty. It might be useful for a Jackie Stewart-type figure to give an overview of the conference agenda and the challenges that we face, then go straight to the break-out sessions. We can forget all the political speeches. We are not there to deliver speeches; we are there to listen.
One of the things that people liked last year was that the First Minister and the Minister for Enterprise and Lifelong Learning took the time and the trouble to turn up and say something, so we should give that some thought.
On starting a conversation, we need to consider the what and the how. We are going to have to go back. If starting a conversation is what we want to do, the preparation work has to start, and it cannot be just about the business community's agenda, otherwise we will hear, "We don't want any regulation, thank you very much. Leave us alone. We don't like business rates," which would not be helpful.
I support Christine May's suggestion about ministers. If we are to sell the conference to the business community, being able to say, "The enterprise minister will be there, and ideally the First Minister will be there too, and you can make points directly to them," would be a major advantage. Otherwise, people from the business community will think—with the greatest respect to the rest of us—that they are coming to speak to the second division.
I am not against a short opening speech by, say, the First Minister, but would not it be more productive if the Minister for Enterprise and Lifelong Learning, the Minister for Transport and the Minister for Environment and Rural Development participated in break-out sessions?
Absolutely.
Indeed.
That is the point that I was going to make.
With all due respect to the First Minister—who has a busy diary—given the importance of the event and the importance that we are trying to attach to it, we should encourage him not just to deliver a speech and go away again, but to participate.
On the point about ministers, the issue is one of balance. There was an imbalance last year. I confess that I did not take part in the break-out sessions, but I am aware that they had lead-offs by ministers. If we were to correct that imbalance, it would make a huge difference. As Murdo Fraser and others have said, it is important to ensure that there is visible involvement from the First Minister down.
There are two other points that I want to ask about. Mike McElhinney mentioned that a tendering process is under way. An awful lot of what we talked about in terms of event organisation and design is not rocket science. Will much of that form the work of a professional events organisation team? Where is the line drawn? I include in that many of the issues that Murdo Fraser raised about liaising with potential participants, setting out objectives and determining the target audience, which are standard methodologies for people in the field.
The answer is probably no; the event managers would take their lead from us and work to the list that we give them. There are several issues.
I will allow Mike Pringle in, and then I will get Susan Deacon to address some of those issues, unless she has other points.
I have a completely separate but terribly short point.
Will we finish this point? Is your intervention on the same subject, Mike?
It is. We talked about feedback. Do we have any feedback on ministers giving speeches? I do not know whether information on that was included in the feedback. I do not think that the one person with whom I was involved thought that ministers making long speeches was a great idea. On the point about ministers being there, it is much more important that they spend their time in the break-out groups so that they hear what people are saying. They are the people who make the decisions and they need to be influenced.
We are not talking about only the Minister for Enterprise and Lifelong Learning; the Minister for Transport and the Minister for Environment and Rural Development are just as important.
Absolutely—I agree entirely. What was the feedback? Did people enjoy having ministers there? My evidence was that they were not enthusiastic.
On the final point, we were always going to get mixed feedback on whether people enjoyed the event. There is a feedback report on the website, which contains comments such as:
"Very worthwhile first meeting. Proof is in following and feedback and actions taken. Great networking opportunity, which has helped me understand the role of the Scottish Executive and the Parliament … A first class opportunity for the parliament to engage with the business community."
Another comment was:
"There was a sense of genuine engagement by the ministers present."
There was feedback to the effect that the business people who attended the event valued their engagement with ministers and MSPs. The point was made that there were perhaps too many ministerial speeches, which we are considering actively this time round.
We will also consider having a longer lead-in time to get better representations from MSPs and encourage them to get there for part of the event. We got a real sense that engagement with ministers and MSPs was one of the strengths of the event, which we are keen to replicate. The people there were keen to hear from the First Minister and the Minister for Enterprise and Lifelong Learning as part of the programme, but we will consider ways of striking the balance between getting those messages across and letting the views of business people come to the fore. We will not need the introductory element that we needed last time, because it was the first event and we had to tee up what we were trying to do.
On the objectives of the event, our ministers engage in on-going dialogue with business organisations and individual businesses, but the Scottish business community is so diverse and diffuse that it is difficult to do that. The event allowed us to try to do that differently and more proactively and collaboratively. From the parliamentary side, it was meant to help business people who do not normally have access to ministers and MSPs—normal front-line businesses rather than business representative organisations—to get into Parliament and increase mutual understanding. I know that that is intangible, but it is part of an on-going process in which we are engaged.
I suspect that we are drawing to a close, so I will not labour the point. With the greatest respect, Mike McElhinney's final comment serves to reinforce the lack of clarity about the objectives of the event. If it is meant to give people in business—who would not otherwise have it—access to MSPs and ministers, that may well be a perfectly legitimate objective. However, it is different from some of the objectives—stated or assumed—that have come out in the discussion today. Unless and until that is stated clearly up front, there will always be a lot of disappointed people, because everyone has different expectations. Let us not labour the point.
I do not think that anyone has touched on the fact that the structure of the days as outlined in the paper suggests that we have a parliamentary debate the day before the conference. Surely at the very least the debate should be soon after the conference.
That is a fair point. I think the idea was to provide an incentive to get people there.
I was going to make a point about MSP involvement. I agree with Susan Deacon that the event is not just about giving MSPs the chance to meet the business community. I expect all MSPs, to a greater or lesser extent, to do that in their constituencies anyway, but that is necessarily local. My impression was that not a lot of MSPs were at the previous event. How many MSPs were enrolled?
Rebecca Robinson (Scottish Executive Enterprise, Transport and Lifelong Learning Department):
Twenty-nine.
That represents a fairly low percentage. A month ago, the convener, Murdo Fraser and perhaps others were at a briefing from Scottish Enterprise at which somebody said, "You'll never get MSPs if you have an event on a Friday, when we have other things on." That is a dreadful argument. We are talking about something that is planned six months ahead. If MSPs cannot mark a Friday in their diaries and plan to stay in Edinburgh on a Thursday night to be here on a Friday, that is a poor show, to put it mildly. Apart from anything else, because of parliamentary commitments, it will be logistically impossible for us to organise two other consecutive days.
We must make more effort to double at least if not treble the number of MSPs who are present. We will do that by highlighting the date as far ahead as possible and encouraging people to blank out the date. We will not achieve that just by telling MSPs about the event. Some of our MSP colleagues must be convinced that they have something to put into the process. We must work out how to do that.
It was a minister who made the statement that Mike Watson related.
Was it?
We will not name him.
I invited somebody to last year's event, to which I went because I thought that I had an obligation to be there with the business representative whom I had invited. I did not stay for the whole event, because I had other things on, but I changed my arrangements to ensure that I could be present. When I arrived, I was surprised to see that almost none of the business people was with an MSP. I assume that they were all invited by MSPs and I do not know what they thought when they turned up and their MSP was not present. It was fairly surprising that more MSPs did not attend.
If people in the business community knew in advance that the First Minister, the Deputy First Minister, the Minister for Transport, the Minister for Environment and Rural Development and others would all be at the conference, would be involved in the discussion and would be participating in the break-out groups, they would think, "Hang on a minute—this is quite serious." Business people would want to be there to talk to the ministers. If we end up with 29 MSPs after the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister disappear once they have made their speeches—that is probably what happened last time—people will ask what the point of coming was. The delegates are important people. Their time is valuable to them. Our time is valuable to us, too, but we want them to attend. Convincing ministers to attend and participate will raise the event's profile.
I have a suggestion. It is essential to have at least one development session—or perhaps two—before the conference takes place. I do not mind how that is organised, but individual MSPs should not do it, because that would mean that I did something then Murdo Fraser would do something as a list MSP, which would be daft.
Susan Deacon's suggestion that the event's management should be supported by a facilitator is good. They could put together a package of regional development sessions, so that when we reach the day of the conference, individual MSPs will have had the opportunity to talk locally to folk. They will know broadly who will attend and what will be discussed and will have had input to that. That will give them an incentive to turn up on the day, because a sense of ownership will have been created. Such sessions might also provide a good chance to have a perspective on the regional economy that we might not obtain from meetings with LECs and individual businesses or local chambers of commerce.
I am keeping a close eye on and from time to time meeting the steering group, which involves clerks and the Executive. Members have produced loads of points and ideas to ponder.
Mr Pringle talked about the number of ministers. So far, seven ministers are committed, or committed subject to other engagements. We hope that that number will increase.
On Mr Watson's point, we have discussed whether to hold the event on a Friday or a Monday. There is no ideal day of the week to run such an event.
I accept that.
Monday might be more convenient for MSPs, but the soundings that we took from the business community and organisations that represent businesses showed that Friday is probably better for them. Businesses set up their week on a Monday and it is easier for them to get away to attend a conference on a Friday.
I was not suggesting a change. Friday is the best day because we can use the Thursday evening as well. It would be difficult to use a Sunday evening.
We also propose to draw together representatives from the business organisations to help us to work up the detail of the programme. We want to engage with them at an early stage, and we will involve the committee clerks in that too.
It will be useful for the committee to get updates on the event fairly regularly. It is an important event and the committee wants to continue to have some input. Loads of points have been raised for you to ponder, and I hope that there have been a number of positive suggestions about how we can make the event a memorable one.
On the point about ministers, the big difference since last year's conference is that every minister now has a responsibility in respect of "A Smart, Successful Scotland". That is one of the important points that came out of the refresh statement about a month ago. There is a duty on every minister—or certainly on a minister from each department—to attend the conference. We will try to use what influence we have to maximise not only the number of ministers but the number of MSPs who attend.
That was a helpful session. I hope that it was helpful for you as well.
It has been helpful.
We look forward to continuing our dialogue. Thank you very much.