Enterprise and Culture Committee, 06 Jun 2006

Meeting date: Tuesday, June 6, 2006

Official Report 136KB pdf

---

Business in the Parliament Conference 2006

We move on to item 3, which is the business in the Parliament conference 2006. As in previous years, we are organising the conference in co-operation with the Executive. The paper that has been circulated gives an update on our thinking about the conference.

I invite comments from members. Is there anything that people want to add, subtract or amend?

In paragraph 5, I notice that we have broken the conference down into five key themes. Although I do not argue with those, I wonder whether the employability framework, Government services and support to business sit well together as a single entity. I say that because, later in the paper, there is a suggestion that we should have four business speakers. If we had four key themes, we could get the speakers to take one theme each for their keynote speeches. In that way, we would hear from somebody with expertise in each area. They could touch on the other themes, but they would focus on their broad area of expertise.

Yes—that would tie in.

Paragraph 5 gives suggested themes on which to focus the event. To what extent were people outside the Parliament consulted on those themes? In feedback on last year's conference, people said that procurement is an important subject—that also came out in the discussions on the day. We would miss a trick if we did not seek to identify from people outside the Parliament—in the business community, for example—what they regard as the key issues to be discussed. Paragraph 5 may well cover those issues, but I do not know whether that work has been done.

It is important to people who come to the conference that there is good attendance by MSPs. Last year, there was reasonable attendance by MSPs until lunch time, when lots of people disappeared. We should strive to do anything that can be done to encourage MSPs to attend for at least part of the day.

I will take other members' points, then I will ask Stephen Imrie to comment.

At the breakout session that I attended last year, there were two MSPs and 20 or 25 businesspeople. That was not a particularly happy balance. For me, the session seemed to be more about a variety of businesspeople expressing their frustrations with the Parliament, particularly about the proposals for plastic bag taxes and the smoking ban. The session did not take us anywhere in particular. More work might need to be done on the breakout sessions to make sure, first, that they are of sufficient value to encourage the MSPs to stay for them, and, secondly, that the businesspeople who attend feel that they get something out of them. If the sessions were a bit more programmed, that might help to make them more than just a reiteration of problems, issues and concerns and people might feel that they were taking the debate forward.

In the breakout session that I attended, we heard a hilarious contribution from a gentleman who felt that global warming did not exist and that we should therefore drive as a big a gas-guzzling car as we liked.

His name was not Bush, was it?

There is a lot of sense in what Murdo Fraser says—which goes to prove that there is a little bit of Tory in everyone, me included. If business people are to interact and take part, they will want their agenda to be addressed and they will want to ask awkward questions of us and of ministers. The danger—[Interruption.]

I am sorry, Jamie, but someone has a mobile or a BlackBerry on.

With public bodies such as this Parliament, Westminster or the civil service, there can be a tendency to let the politicians, the civil servants or parliamentary staff control the agenda. That is an instant turn-off for the business sector. Obviously, some people will come up with crazy ideas along the lines of there being no such thing as global warming, and we will have to filter such ideas out, but we have to engage the business community and make people feel that they own some of the agenda. That would be invaluable.

It is true that we must keep the MSPs here; it is no good if people disappear at lunch time or do not turn up at all. The businesspeople expect to see members so that they can buttonhole them. I do not know the answer—perhaps the clerks can help—but we should get really good, crowd-pulling speakers. You yourself, convener, have been involved in the Parliament's cross-party group on the Scottish economy and you understood right from the beginning the importance of keynote speakers. Such speakers pull the troops in. If that happens, we can have further success.

One of the successes last year was the Thursday evening with Adam Crozier and Willie Haughey. The format worked well. However, the second part of the evening was also rated highly by the business community because of the opportunities for networking. People had the chance to meet MSPs and ministers informally. The feedback from the business community on previous occasions—this will be the third conference—was that the networking opportunities were very important.

I agree with Murdo Fraser. There are two other things that we will have to try to do. First, we need an overarching theme, which we should agree once the consultations have taken place. Secondly, we will have to make the Friday afternoon a bit more exciting so that we retain people. Last time, the event withered away after lunch on Friday, and most people withered away with it. Perhaps we could cut things short at 3.30 or 4 o'clock on Friday, and try to ensure that it is not heavy meat.

Keeping the best till last is a good idea.

The wind-up speaker could be important. If it is somebody who really holds a crowd, people might stay for the Friday afternoon.

Is there any pressing need to continue after, say, half past one on Friday?

Not really, no.

Could we not break and have an informal lunch or whatever? Then we would not be asking people to come back in the afternoon.

I see a lot of members agreeing with that.

Karen Gillon makes a good point. For constituency members in particular, it is traditional to have surgeries on Fridays. It can sometimes be very difficult to break that pattern, because other people are involved too. Karen's suggestion would allow those who are able to travel to get back to their constituencies after lunch on Friday, and that would give us a far better chance of getting more MSPs to attend and to stay—even if only for the beginning of the lunch break.

The networking session after lunch on the Friday, after the breakout sessions and the discussion groups, is very important. There will be conversations that we will want to continue with people who have made interesting points in the meeting rooms. However, last year the number of people who wanted to speak far exceeded the number who could have spoken in the time available. Many of us therefore swapped cards with folk and asked whether we could carry on the discussion. Such networking is useful. I therefore agree that finishing officially at 1.30 will be good.

I agree. If people are committed to the Thursday night, and then the Friday as well, they are committing a large share of their diary time to one particular event. For most MSPs, it is difficult to manage that—which is why last year so many people ended up disappearing at lunch time.

If we can find a way to reconfigure some of what happens on the Thursday, to link that with the Friday and to finish after lunch on Friday, I suspect that we will retain a higher proportion of MSPs. Otherwise, we are talking about three parts of our diaries—Thursday evening, Friday morning and Friday afternoon—which form a substantial chunk of the week, given that we are tied to Parliament on Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday. In effect, we would be left with only Monday in that week to do other stuff.

I am grateful to members for their feedback on the two substantive points. It was important to have the discussion before the summer recess, because it is necessary to do as much of the planning as possible this side of the summer recess. As the conference will be in November, September would be a little late to revisit the format.

Members asked about consulting external groups, which we absolutely did. Primarily, matters have been taken forward with the Executive, but I have also had discussions with the Scottish Trades Union Congress and business organisations. The conference is a joint event between the Executive and Parliament, but it is officials' intention to have discussions with all the main business associations and the trade unions all the way along—that will include discussion of the themes and the format. My impression from discussions with those organisations is that they fully support the event and see it as their event, too. There is no question of not consulting business organisations and individual businesspeople on the conference's themes and format.

I am happy to take away the idea of a reduced Friday afternoon, to work with the Executive on what can be done and to keep the programme as creative and exciting as possible. I take on board Mr Stone's suggestion of keeping a good keynote speaker to the end.

We can play about with other elements, but a balance must be struck between giving MSPs and ministers a named role and giving the appearance of a top-heavy programme with lots of political speeches and intervention. However, that is not to say that nothing can be done to give MSPs a role during the event, which also helps to encourage people to stay.

I am happy to take on board all the points. I suggest that I should liaise with the convener and the deputy convener during the summer and that I will report on progress in September. The bulk of the work on keynote speakers, the format and the themes will need to be sorted out this side of the summer recess. I hope that we will hear feedback from the Executive and ministers on those points.

I have one point as a result of what Stephen Imrie said. We were right to decide last year that the conference provides an opportunity for members and ministers to listen to business, so our role is to participate by being there and listening. Speeches from ministers should be keynote and relatively short. We might try to have a member of this committee or a senior member of another committee in each discussion group, but nothing else.

Absolutely. Last year, the First Minister was keen to speak first—we had originally arranged for him to speak after the four business speakers. I do not know whether he regretted his decision; that is a matter for him. Subject to discussions with him, it might be better if he wound up the conference, because people would wait behind to hear what he had to say. We will discuss that with the Executive.

Are members happy for Christine May and me, along with Stephen Imrie, to develop plans with the Executive?

Members indicated agreement.

We will take on board all the comments that have been made and in particular those on consultation. That is great. I thank members for that.

Agenda item 4 will be taken in private, so we need to clear the multitudes in the public gallery.

Meeting continued in private until 15:22.