Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee, 08 Dec 1999

Meeting date: Wednesday, December 8, 1999

Official Report 79KB pdf

---

Tourism Review

The first agenda item is the paper that has been circulated in Simon Watkins's name on consideration of the tourism review and inquiry case studies.

A fortnight ago, we discussed the offer by Henry McLeish, the Minister for Enterprise and Lifelong Learning, to give the committee the opportunity to consider the tourism review. He proposed that we consider the document prior to publication and we suggested to him that we do so at our meeting on 12 January. I seek the committee's agreement to holding that meeting in private, because the document will not have been published. I expect that the committee would hear evidence from the minister responsible, Alasdair Morrison, and from representatives of the Scottish Tourist Board. We would then formulate our input to the tourism review and communicate that to the minister. We would reserve the right to hold further public hearings on the tourism review once it is published, probably in early February.

I appreciate the minister's initiative in making the document available to the committee prior to publication, which sets a useful precedent. All members will be required to respect the confidentiality that will be necessary if the minister makes the document available to us. We are all aware of the importance of the confidentiality of committee papers and of committee discussions that are held in private—we are entitled to hold such private discussions if the committee so decides.

However, I make it clear to members that there would be two consequences if the confidentiality of the tourism review document were breached. First, we would never again be given the opportunity to consider a pre-publication document, which would be a matter of regret but an understandable position for the Executive to adopt. Secondly, we would have to identify the person who had released the document and, as convener, I would pursue that vigorously, because the committee cannot operate if those ground rules are broken.

Other material was put forward in relation to case studies. It was proposed that the committee should undertake four case studies. We planned to examine business development services in Renfrewshire, Ayrshire and Tayside and the provision of lifelong learning services in Fife. The paper includes the names of the reporters who would be responsible for those areas. The clerking team would support members in the preparation of the programme of the inquiries.

I will be involved with the Tayside case study so I should declare an interest: my husband works for one of the business shops in Tayside.

That will be noted.

The minister's initiative—in telling the committee in private session about the proposals for the tourism review prior to their being published—is to be welcomed. It meets the concerns that we expressed at our previous meeting and is a result of the professional way in which the committee has addressed its remit, especially when compared with other committees.

Hear, hear.

Thank you for that vote of confidence, sister.

I hope that that level of professionalism can be maintained and that the minister's action proves to be infectious—although I hope that your sore throat does not, John.

Allan Wilson made a good point. Perhaps you could convey his sentiments to the conveners committee, John.

I am rapidly becoming the pariah of the conveners committee, owing to the number of requests for initiatives that emanate from this committee. I suspect that I acquired a bad name at yesterday's meeting.

We now turn to the recommendations on page 3 of the paper. I seek the committee's agreement to discuss in private the tourism review at our meeting on 12 January 2000.

Members indicated agreement.

Does the committee agree to invite the minister responsible—that would be Alasdair Morrison—and representatives of the Scottish Tourist Board who are involved in the review?

Members indicated agreement.

Does the committee agree that all members will be bound not to release any of the information contained in the review or the basis of the committee's discussion, or to comment on it publicly prior to publication?

Members indicated agreement.

Does the committee agree to undertake the four case studies outlined in the paper?

Members indicated agreement.

Does the committee agree on the names of the reporters and members who will participate in the studies, and that the reporters will report back to the committee on 26 January?

Would it be in order for those who are conducting the case studies on business development services to use their discretion to examine examples of workplace training? I am thinking of the examples of Michelin Tyres in Dundee and United Distillers in Renfrewshire. That would help us to incorporate the issue of workplace training into the wider issue of business development services.

I would not want to be prescriptive about the way in which members conduct the case studies. The only stipulation that I require, in relation to this inquiry, is that we follow the committee's remit, which must guide the direction of each case study. However, I would not want the study to be compartmentalised and not to consider other issues that have an impact on our remit.

From a practical point of view, how do we envisage setting up the visits, identifying the key players and accessing the customers in an area? The last thing that I want to do is to listen to all the interest groups that deliver the service telling us what a wonderful job they do in Ayrshire, that they can operate in partnership and all the rest of it. I want to get out there and find out, at the sharp end, the customers' views; that is what this committee has been trying to do. I want to identify how we can do that, and what the process will be after that.

As I said earlier, each reporter will be supported by the clerks in formulating the programme. I invite Simon Watkins to say a few words on those preparations.

I propose that each group has a lead member of staff from the clerking side, who would sit down with the reporter—and the other group members, if they were available—to work out in detail what they wanted to do. Each group would be reasonably autonomous in choosing whom it invited and in deciding the best value from speaking to people on the ground.

Simon, if it were not too burdensome for the clerks, would it be possible for them to prepare a modest briefing pack with a wee map of the area and a list of the local authorities, enterprise trusts and local enterprise companies? It was discussed at our sub-committee meeting that we need such factual information.

We are in the process of preparing a pack for each group, which will include all the submissions that have been received from the area plus the element of the gridwork that we are in the process of commissioning, which will outline each authority's responsibilities. That will be the starting point for discussion of whom the groups might want to talk to.

For my benefit, could we have a map? I like maps. [Laughter.]

We will not get into that. I suspect that, if we get into the specification of Ordnance Survey scale, I shall be in even more trouble at the conveners committee.

As I am to be sent out of Edinburgh, I shall need a map.

In my previous job, if I embarked on a project such as this, I would do a bit of asking around. Constituency and list members must have opinions on, and experience of, the various organisations and the way in which they work. We could initiate informal discussion with those members, to build up a picture with the clerk. It would take a long time to do that if we consulted anybody who is anybody. We should try to think of some folk first. A wee flow chart that outlined what we would do would be a good idea, as well.

The clerks will give each team the support that is required. George Lyon's point underpins our outlook on the inquiry and the point that we have reached so far. We want to get beyond the usual suspects, to the real people who use the services. That should underpin a lot of our reports.

The committee agrees the case studies, the members and the reporters. We will hear those reports on 26 January. The committee also confirms the revised schedule of meetings, as outlined in the paper.

I apologise for being late. I was making a rare television appearance.

In our tourism review, I am concerned that we may face a difficulty unless we have access to the submissions that are made to the Executive by those who have an interest in, and specialist knowledge of, that industry. We may be presented with a set of conclusions that are based on submissions. Would it be possible for the committee to receive from the Executive the documents that will, no doubt, be prepared by the civil service to summarise the content of the submissions? Those documents will be all-important, as they will contain the views of our constituents and people throughout Scotland who have an interest. We must establish what our relationship with the civil service is, in relation to the freedom of information.

Fergus has raised an interesting point. We are getting access to a pre-publication copy of the review, but members also want to see some of the consultation documents that fed into the exercise. We can request as much information as can be made available to us, with the caveat that we treat it as private, on the same basis as the review document. That would forbid us from commenting on it in public. I cannot give the committee an assurance that the material will be available—that is a matter for the minister and the Scottish Tourist Board, which conducted the review.

Nevertheless, there is an opportunity for us to listen to people's views about the review—I have already had that opportunity. That is an informative process and will help us to understand the issues with which the tourism industry is wrestling. Getting access to private documents may not be the only way in which we can gather information about the concerns that have been raised.

Most submissions are not submitted on the basis that they are private. Most organisations would be quite happy for the committee to consider their submissions—they might even expect it. Organisations that make submissions in a consultation process and want them to remain private tend to say so.

I hope that the committee can include in its paper a sixth recommendation, asking to examine submissions on the same basis as the strategy document.

I can request that we have access to those documents. Ministers are considering making that information available to us. That concludes item 1 of the agenda.

Meeting continued in private until 12:45.