Enterprise and Culture Committee, 13 Feb 2007

Meeting date: Tuesday, February 13, 2007

Official Report 189KB pdf

---

Transport and General Workers Union (Meeting)

We move on to agenda item 2. I put this item on the agenda because of the general issues that have been raised in correspondence. However, I do not think that the committee should get involved in the individual case. I seek the committee's agreement that Christine May and I should meet representatives of the workers concerned to discuss with them the wider issue. If issues arise that we want to minute, we can add them to our legacy paper. I do not think that we want to get involved in the individual case.

For clarity, I should say that I am a member of the Transport and General Workers Union. I would never refuse to meet a trade union. Nothing would be lost by discussing the issues with the union, although I would have to make it clear that the committee can take no action about an individual company's commercial decisions. On that basis I would be more than happy to meet the TGWU.

I should also confess my membership of the TGWU—although "confess" might not be the right word.

I have no difficulty with colleagues meeting the union. However, all members are saying that it is not the committee's job to consider a specific case, so I seek clarification on what the committee might do. If Alex Neil and Christine May meet the union in their roles as convener and deputy convener of the Enterprise and Culture Committee, rather than as MSPs in their own right, it will be hard for the people on the receiving end of the conversation to understand that there is no role for the committee.

A fascinating issue has been raised, which I would like to understand an awful lot better, in relation not just to the activities of one company but to the global context. I have no difficulty in that regard, but I am not quite clear why the convener and deputy convener would meet the union to discuss a case in which the committee can have no role.

We are at the tail end of this session of Parliament and there will be only one full meeting of the committee after this one, so there is no time for the committee to do anything. I would regard a meeting with the union as exploratory, so that we can obtain information and perhaps agree a minute, which we could put in an annex to our legacy paper. That is how I envisage our possibly taking the matter forward. It would be for our successor committee to decide whether to take up the matter in more detail.

I would also like to explore with the union—in the context of its role in the global trade union movement—the tension between environment and economy. The case that we are considering involves the movement of produce half way round the world for processing and then back again. That is a commercial decision for the company, but we have just had Scottish environment week and seen considerable publicity about the use of transport, for example. I would like to discuss what might be done through global trade talks and European Union trade and other influential bodies.

The classic tension between environment and economy is illustrated by a situation in which jobs and the environment are one side of the equation and commercial decisions are the other. However, in the case that we are considering the decision that would be good for the environment would also be good for jobs.

The TGWU says in its letter:

"Workers at Young's Seafood's are not the first to be affected by globalisation and they will certainly not be the last."

As the convener said, we should consider the case in the context of the wider discussion on the impact of globalisation. We should certainly mention the issue in our legacy paper.

Shiona Baird is particularly interested in the issue. Can other members of the committee participate in the meeting with the union?

I will come back to that.

The issue is becoming less clear as we go on. I have no problem with the convener and deputy convener meeting people on behalf of the committee, if the committee has a remit to take up the matter that they discuss. However, I do not see a role for the committee in the case that we are considering. It might be perfectly appropriate for two MSPs from the committee to meet the union—that might be a better approach.

The discussion has headed off down various roads to do with the environment, globalisation and other stuff. As the convener said, we will have only one more meeting. I am more confused about the fundamental rules and purpose of our proposed meeting now than I was when we started. Although I was quite relaxed at the start, I am less relaxed now, given some of the comments that have been made.

I should say, for the avoidance of doubt, that I am not a member of the Transport and General Workers Union. I agree with Stewart Maxwell, who makes a fair point. I, too, am starting to get a bit concerned about the matter, having been quite relaxed at the beginning of our discussion. I am getting a bit more concerned about the status of the proposed meeting. If committee members wish to meet informally with the trade union, that is absolutely fine. However, if we are elevating it to the status of a formal or semi-formal meeting involving the convener and the deputy convener, we should think a bit more carefully about where that will take us.

I will not go to the barricades over the status of the meeting, and I do not think that Christine May will either. I would be happy if the committee preferred to offer an informal meeting, in which it would be open to every committee member to participate. Later in the agenda, we will suggest that the theme for next year's business in the Parliament conference should be the business challenges of climate change. Subjects such as this would be very relevant to that. As I said, I am relaxed about the matter as, I think, is Christine May. We do not want to elevate the meeting to something that it is not.

It might come as a surprise to some members, but I should perhaps remind the committee that I was, once upon a time, a member of the T&G. It is typical of us Liberals to go into the middle road, of course.

You are not in Equity now, are you?

They have standards at Equity, convener.

I disagree with Stewart Maxwell and Murdo Fraser. The trade union branch took it upon itself to get in touch with us. It is an enterprise matter, because jobs are going. That is to do with Scotland's enterprise, is it not? I will go with the option of having an informal meeting. However, I think that the matter should be included in the legacy paper, with a gentle suggestion to consider what is an important issue. It is not for us to dictate what happens in the future, but our successor committee may choose to pick the matter up.

To build on what has already been said, I suggest that it is worth commissioning work on the issue, or at least setting the ball rolling, via the Scottish Parliament information centre. I am always careful not to commission research papers casually, because I know that a lot of time, effort and resource go into them. The issue will continue to be relevant in the future, however, and it is bound to be considered further in some shape or form during the next session. I think that it is worth getting some of the work done. I do not know whether some research is being done already. Perhaps part of the response would be for researchers to capture some information on the matter.

I would strongly favour the idea of any meeting being open not just to Enterprise and Culture Committee members, but to MSPs in general. There is nothing to stop any organisation with an MSP sponsor holding a meeting here in the Parliament. We are invited to and go along to such meetings all the time. I think that that would be a better way to proceed, for a number of reasons. This will affect some of us less than others, but, for the sake of our successor committee, we must be cautious about setting any precedents. That is particularly the case when it comes to enterprise, I think.

There are any number of industries and companies across the country facing various difficult and complex issues. Many of them throw up legitimate policy issues for the committee to consider, but it is always worth pausing for thought about how a parliamentary committee such as this one can best consider such issues. Simply responding to a request from an organisation—be it an employer, a union, a campaign group or whatever—is not, in my experience, the best way of doing things.

I return to the point about precedent. We should be sensitive to that, too.

I think that the idea of asking SPICe to prepare some research, which would be available to our successor committee, is sensible.

Members indicated agreement.

I take it from members' nodding that we agree to ask SPICe to do that. That will keep them busy while the rest of us are campaigning. I should point out to Stephen Herbert that I am of course joking if I seem to be implying anything in saying that. On the second point, about a meeting, would members be happy if Christine May and I, simply as MSPs, organise a meeting, inviting all members of the Scottish Parliament?

Members indicated agreement.