Business Growth Inquiry
Item 4 is our business growth inquiry. The committee will review the progress of its inquiry, following the business in the Parliament conference 2005. The point of this item is to have a debriefing on the conference while it is fresh in our minds—how we think the conference went and what lessons the committee can learn for our inquiry. On the first point, I wrote to Stephen Imrie and his team, the civil service team and Ann Stark—the event organiser—to congratulate them on the extremely professional organisation and presentation of the conference. The event showed the clerks, the civil service and the event organiser at their best: it was excellent, and the feedback that I received from participants was very good.
I will not comment on the substance of the conference until others have had the chance to do so. I will go round the table to see what members thought of the event and whether it was productive.
I thought that this year's event was much better than last year's. I know that there will be structured feedback, but all the feedback and chat that I picked up from people who had been to both events was that it was better than last year. It is important to record that point, given the amount of time, energy and effort that went into developing the event. There are areas for improvement, which I will touch on in a second.
Generally, the level of dialogue was good, and a constructive discussion took place. For that matter, constructive criticism was aired. To that extent, I was disappointed, although not surprised, that some of the media coverage focused on the criticisms, as distinct from seeing the event in the round. It is important that we create a space where people can have honest and open discussions about what is and what is not working, and both views were drawn out of the discussions.
I have a couple of points on process and design. We created a bit of a false environment when we said that we were there as politicians in listening mode, when we were also there in formal response mode. The next stage of developing the event would be to create more opportunities for dialogue. That was what people wanted in the workshop sessions, at which the politicians started to participate more. If I have a criticism around that, it is that the questions that were posed for the workshops, which many of the workshops flung out, were too limiting. They did not allow for the more searching dialogue and exchange of ideas that people wanted. Instead, people were restricted to saying what the Executive should do about X.
Several issues of substance, which the committee will need to consider, arose as major themes. First, the planning system was referred to time and again. As so many people said, the forthcoming legislation will allow us a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to make meaningful improvements to the planning system by making it more streamlined, not just for businesses but for all who engage with the system. I believe that it is perfectly possible to strike a balance between making those improvements and ensuring that communities are more engaged in the process. If members ever had any doubts that the Enterprise and Culture Committee should be actively involved in that debate, those should have been dispelled last Friday.
Secondly, the perennial issue of water and sewerage infrastructure development was highlighted. Somehow we need to break that logjam and stop the endlessly pointing fingers. I will not even begin to engage in the substance of the matter just now, but we all know about the problem and how it manifests itself. Our committee could contribute by edging towards providing solutions.
Thirdly, the need to take decisions on major transport infrastructure projects was highlighted. As a Parliament, we should and could—as I have argued before in the chamber—do something about that here and now. The message that came across loud and clear from the conference was that we need to get better and faster at taking those decisions. I know that the Executive is proposing a transport and works act, but we will need to keep a close watch over whether that will actually get us there. I am sure that the Parliament could do some things at its own hand.
Fourthly, the issue of public sector procurement was raised. That is not a new issue, but it strikes me that something quite deep-rooted in the machinery of Government is proving stubbornly resistant to making improvements in that area. Nicol Stephen's closing remarks were helpful in that he engaged with people on that.
My final, overarching point—I apologise for going on so long but if I had been last instead of first, I would have probably run out points to make—is that our report of our inquiry into business growth must, as I have said before, factor in the wider issues about the context in which debate, discussion and policy making take place in Scotland. Friday showed us in microcosm how limited our ability is to have an open and honest debate in Scotland about what works and what does not work without our debate being reduced to some fairly simple terms by people outside. As well as leading by example in our willingness to have such debates, the committee needs to weave some of that thinking into our report. Given that whatever we recommend cannot exist in a vacuum, the tone and tenor that we create will be absolutely relevant for the country as a whole. There was more of that openness in the chamber than outside it, perhaps because the event allowed people to get a little look-in on what goes on.
Members will be pleased to know that I will end there.
That was very helpful.
I think that Richard Baker was otherwise engaged last Friday.
I was, but I am glad that the event went well.
You missed yourself.
Yes, he missed an extremely valuable event.
It has been recognised that there was a real buzz about the day and a feeling of positiveness about the committee's willingness to engage with the business community. The onus is now on us not only to listen to the business community's comments on the issues, such as public procurement, that Susan Deacon highlighted, but to take action. If we want to keep the business community moving with us, it is vital that we be seen to do more than just listen; we need to take concrete action on some of the proposals.
I was disappointed that the summing up of my group's discussion—I was on the group that dealt with infrastructure—made only small mention of flexible working and working from home, which we had in fact spent quite a considerable amount of time discussing.
We combined the two aspects of infrastructure—transport and broadband—that were on the agenda and discussed how they could be brought together to reduce congestion. It was an illuminating session. I was disappointed that we had only one session and that we could not take part in one of the other sessions. The workshop gave people a really useful and valuable opportunity to engage round the table openly and freely. The onus is on us to prove that we were listening.
I agree with everything that has been said. This year's event was much better than the previous event, and the mix of participants was much better. People from many different business backgrounds and perspectives attended, which was helpful.
I agree with Shiona Baird that the workshops were interesting. It would have been helpful to find out what was going on in the other workshops, and not just in the very formal feedback session. I am not sure how that problem could be solved. Several people that I spoke to said that they would have preferred to go to two workshops rather than just one; for example, they would have liked to go to one in the morning and one in the afternoon. That would have allowed them another perspective.
The participants were sent a booklet of Executive responses to the comments that came out of the previous conference. I had a look at it and found its tone very defensive. Perhaps that was because the Executive did not particularly want to hear some of the messages that came out. If the exercise were to be repeated for the recent conference, the Executive should be able to respond a little more positively to what was said.
I am sorry that I missed Nicol Stephen's summing-up, as I had to attend another event. However, I understand that it went down very well.
I agree with most of what has been said. The feedback that I received has been very positive. I was not at last year's conference, so I cannot comment on the improvements that have been made in organisation since then. However, I detected from some who had attended the first event that the conference's credibility, and its long-term viability, depends on feedback and on people being given responses to the issues raised. Most of the businesspeople to whom I spoke were perhaps slightly cynical about whether politicians were genuinely listening. They welcomed the opportunity to make their views known, but they wanted to see what action would be taken in response to the issues that they raised.
I thought that the four speakers on Friday morning were excellent and well chosen. However, I am not sure whether the workshop approach is entirely satisfactory. I was in the workshop on promoting Scotland internationally. Although there were four topics, I thought that it lacked focus. I was not entirely sure that those attending the workshop were clear about its purpose. It drifted far from many of the issues that we were meant to consider under the four topics set by the committee.
There is a need to consider how the workshop approach is developed. Several participants told me that the workshop had taught them nothing that they did not already know; that it was all common-sense stuff; and that they did not know what the workshop was trying to achieve. Perhaps we should reflect on the workshop approach to make it more dynamic and focused. We should ensure that the participants are clear about a workshop's objectives.
Like other members, I thought that this year's conference was much better than last year's. I have one or two odd wee housekeeping matters that I am happy to feed back to the clerks.
We should start planning now for next year's conference. What I thought were the key issues could form the basis for some work either with the participants or with others on their behalf. For example, one major issue that emerged from the conference was planning. As the planning (Scotland) bill is about to be introduced and as there will be public discussion on the matter, I wonder whether we should facilitate some workshops to ensure that, by next year's conference, people know what has been done. After all, Susan Deacon's points about the water and sewerage infrastructure and about decisions on major transport infrastructure all come down to planning and the question whether such decision-making should be made nationally or devolved to local areas. The same point applies to private bills.
We have not yet mentioned issues such as regulation and skills. I believe that the Subordinate Legislation Committee is about to propose a committee bill on regulation. We think that we widely promote all our consultations; however, I do not think that anyone in the chamber or in the committee rooms on Friday knew about that committee's proposal. It is clear that we have to feed back what we are doing.
We could also promote some discussion about skills. Indeed, this morning, Jamie Stone, Murdo Fraser and I attended an event at which industry began by lambasting Government but in the end accepted that it should take back responsibility for skills. I very much welcomed that approach.
I also feel that the committee could seriously promote a dialogue on public sector procurement, because the issue cannot be addressed simply by reserving some contracts for local firms or saying that a percentage of the available money should be put into them. After all, how do we define "local"? The issue is about financial institutions having confidence in young firms that do not have a track record. I want to have a debate that would involve the committee, those who have raised the matter, the civil service and the Executive. It is not as if the Executive does not want such a dialogue, and we need to discuss how to use public funds, how we get best value for the bucks that the public sector puts in and how we keep local jobs where possible.
The conference was a great success. There is no doubt that it was a big improvement on last year, partly because of the wonderful building that it was held in—I should say that I am being facetious. I have a couple of tiny niggles about the way in which things were done, but I will communicate those to the clerks at another time.
This year, I noticed a certain amount of good will from some pretty big hitters in the Scottish business community. I have to say that that was not much in evidence last year, and it was most encouraging to find it. I endorse the comment that we have to deliver all these things—or at least make a valid attempt at delivering them—and the same applies to the Executive. If we get that right, we will build something quite fine in years to come.
I echo members' comments that, although the conference was a big improvement on last year's, some areas could be improved. The Thursday night event went extremely well, but it was too short. Quite frankly, that was because Adam Crozier's attendance depended on his being able to leave the building at 7.15pm so that he could fly back to London on business. That said, his attendance was still worth while; he was excellent, as was Willie Haughey and the chairman, Alf Young. I felt that the event could have gone on for another 45 minutes, because people were just getting into the swing of things. It was a good warm-up for the conference on Friday—as was the reception afterwards.
As for Friday, I feel that we could have cut short the afternoon session. It had the potential to develop into a moaning session about fairly minor matters, with the Minister for Enterprise and Lifelong Learning being asked whether he would visit some important event in Auchtermuchty. It was not meant to be like that. The next time, we should follow Murdo Fraser's suggestion and have workshops in the morning and the afternoon. That would give people the chance to participate in more than one workshop. Michael Matheson is right to point out that the workshops worked well when the questions were focused and people wanted to dwell on them. In one or two cases, we will need to think out the remit and be clearer about what we want from the workshops.
On feedback from the workshops, I emphasise that we will get written feedback in much more detail than was given on Friday and that that feedback will formally be part of the business growth inquiry.
I think that we cover all the angles in our business growth inquiry. We have covered skills and the international dimension and we have a round-table discussion lined up on finance, intermediary technology institutes and infrastructure. The one matter on which there is not a session is public procurement. Christine May is right that if we can build it in to the programme before we have to write the report, it would be worth while to have a round-table discussion on that area and invite the speakers at last week's event and any others who feel strongly about it to participate.
Like other members, the feedback that I got from the businesspeople who attended was very good. However, a number of people left after lunch on Friday; perhaps having workshops on the Friday afternoon would go some way towards keeping people there. We ended up with overrepresentation of some groups and underrepresentation of other subsections of the business community, which perhaps skewed the Friday afternoon discussions a wee bit. The feedback from a number of ministers was that from the Executive's point of view a Monday would be a better day than a Friday. Early on in the planning of the event we had a debate about whether to hold it on a Monday or a Friday, given that on Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Thursdays either we cannot use the chamber or other things are on in the Parliament. We perhaps need to talk to the Executive again about the issue prior to the next conference.
I think that the event was successful. It is interesting that not only the businesspeople but the serious business journalists who were there felt that it was worth while. I read a speech by the chief executive of Glasgow Chamber of Commerce a few weeks ago in which she stated that Parliament does not engage with business. All I can say is that she does not know what is going on. The Parliament has engaged with business not only through last week's conference but in several other ways. Particularly after the success of last week's event, nobody can now accuse the Parliament or the committee of failing to engage with business. If we take up the follow-up suggestions that Christine May and others have made plus the follow-up work that is planned anyway with the Executive—there will be full feedback to all the participants, feedback in our report and feedback in the Executive's response—we will have an iterative process from now on with those who participated. It is not the case that people who participated will not hear from us until they get an invitation to next year's conference. They will hear constantly from us. That is the way to build the event up for next year.
I make a plea that that iterative process should not be dependent on an exchange of paper-based information. Christine May made a good point about, for example, facilitating workshops and dialogue on the issue of planning. The conference does not have to be a one-off event. I am not suggesting that we host an event on that scale every week, but we can build on the conference by facilitating discussion to take the issues forward.
I will pick up on another comment made by Christine May. I am not surprised that a host of individuals and organisations do not know about all the Parliament's consultations and so on, because we churn out documentation rather than have conversations. In a small country such as Scotland, that is where the real potential exists. We should strike while the iron is hot and capture some of the good will and momentum that were evident last week. We should consider how, on a smaller scale, we can bring together cross-sections of people to take forward some problem-solving work.
The planning legislation is a good example. Although we do not have any formal role in that legislation, there is nothing to stop the committee—with or without Nicol Stephen and the Scottish Executive Enterprise, Transport and Lifelong Learning Department—co-sponsoring a day's seminar on its implications for the business community. Indeed, there is nothing to stop us having a seminar on infrastructure legislation, looking at whether, for example, we must always use primary legislation when secondary legislation would perhaps speed up the process.
I will have one of my regular minister-to-convener meetings with Nicol Stephen tomorrow. I am happy to suggest to him that, as part of the follow-up over the next 12 months, we should perhaps pick a couple of subjects such as planning and infrastructure and co-sponsor a one-day session. As Susan Deacon says, such a seminar might not be on the same scale as last week's event. Perhaps a morning session or an afternoon session would be enough on those issues. We would want the discussion to be free-flowing in the way that it was on Friday. Are members happy with that suggestion?
Members indicated agreement.
I thought that Nicol Stephen's comments and how he handled the discussion—such as his offer to crash his diary—were exactly what people wanted to hear. They wanted assurances that they were being taken seriously and that we would not walk out of the room and ignore or forget what they had said. The promise that he made has gone down exceptionally well with the people to whom I have talked.
Meeting continued in private until 16:51.