Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee, 19 Sep 2007

Meeting date: Wednesday, September 19, 2007

Official Report 256KB pdf

---

Skills Strategy

There are two more items on our agenda this morning. I thank Brian Adam for convening the meeting and apologise that I had to take part in the deliberations of the Rural Affairs and Environment Committee on foot-and-mouth. The Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs and the Environment was in attendance, so it was important, for obvious reasons, for me to be there.

Item 3 is consideration of the Scottish Government's skills strategy, which was published and debated in the Parliament the other week. In addition, we know that next week the Minister for Enterprise, Energy and Tourism is due to make a statement on enterprise and related issues. I seek the committee's guidance on how it wishes to scrutinise those issues, which are of significant interest and are very much part of our remit.

In the discussions that we have had so far, both informally and formally, we have been clear that skills are a component of our deliberations and that we may seek to inquire into the issue over the next year or so. Perhaps we should deal separately with skills and the role of the enterprise agencies. Do colleagues think that we should take evidence on skills from ministers? When the First Minister announced his Government, he made a point of saying that both Mr Swinney and Ms Hyslop would be responsible for the area. There is an argument for our seeing that demonstrated by having them give evidence together, given that their portfolios cover skills in the broadest sense.

The role of the enterprise agencies is part and parcel of the committee's remit. Although I recognise that skills are an important element of the economy, I believe that the issue falls within the remit of the Education, Lifelong Learning and Culture Committee. We already have a broad remit, and it is not our role to deal with skills. I am pleased that we have organised an event with the Scottish Trades Union Congress for early in the new year. The STUC wants to talk to us about skills and workforce involvement in the issue. We should deal with the crossover between what this committee will do and what the Education, Lifelong Learning and Culture Committee will do; some of us discussed the matter with the STUC yesterday. However, our remit is broad enough without our wandering into someone else's area. The Education, Lifelong Learning and Culture Committee might be upset if we included skills in our work.

The Education, Lifelong Learning and Culture Committee will take evidence from Fiona Hyslop at some point before the October recess. I was not suggesting that it should not do so. However, it would be extraordinary for us not at least to have an interest in what the Government is doing on skills.

I disagree with Brian Adam. We have discussed the issue before and take different views on it. If we are the economy committee—not the enterprise committee—and if we believe, as Brian Adam does, that skills are central to the economy and economic growth, it is not widening our remit for us to consider the issue of skills. If we look at skills, we are merely serving the remit that the Parliament has given to us.

In our first discussions with Mr Mather, I raised the issue and he made clear on the record that we should ask Fiona Hyslop to give evidence to the committee on the skills agenda. The minister did not see that as surprising. On that occasion, it seemed that he did not wish to stray into a colleague's territory. Whatever might be said about the cross-cutting nature of the skills agenda, Mr Mather's response to being asked about it was to suggest that his colleague Fiona Hyslop should speak to us about it.

We are in an odd position because the Parliament did not endorse the Government's skills strategy. It would be entirely reasonable for the committee to discuss with Fiona Hyslop how she intends to develop the strategy. If we felt that we were stepping on the Education, Lifelong Learning and Culture Committee's toes, I would not be averse to the two committees hearing the evidence together, but that could be a bureaucratic process and, if that committee has already set up its work programme, it might not be the most effective use of our time. However, the world outside would think it astonishing if we were to say that although we are the economy committee, we are not going to consider skills.

I support Iain Gray's comments. Like you, convener, I was a member of the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee in the first session and I am the current chair of the cross-party group on construction. The industry out there would be bemused if we did not take evidence on skills. I do not propose that our work should conflict with what the Education, Lifelong Learning and Culture Committee does; we should look at the subject only as it affects our role on this committee.

If we are saying that the key to our economic success is the skills of our workforce—we hear ministers saying that—it seems ludicrous that we should not look at the skills agenda and how it impacts on our remit and on business. I do not see how we, as an economy committee, can do our job otherwise. To consider the skills agenda would not widen our remit or step on anyone else's toes; we should consider only how it impacts on our remit.

There are merits in both the arguments of Brian Adam and those of Iain Gray. However, the answer lies in the first chapter of the skills strategy document, in which the overriding reason among the two or three offered for having a skills strategy is the wish to grow our economy. Given what that document says, and given the background information that we have heard, we should consider skills. The subject falls between two committees and one could argue strongly that it probably falls more within the remit of the Education, Lifelong Learning and Culture Committee than ours, but skills are still an integral part of our considerations and the skills strategy document confirms that.

In our discussions with the STUC yesterday afternoon, its line was that it was particularly interested in the acquisition of skills and an increase in productivity being diffused and, to some extent, controlled by the workforce, who cannot be expected to be productive without any comeback. We formulated the idea that an event could be held with the STUC that would be called "productivity through participation". That seemed to answer the STUC's problems. Participation with the Education, Lifelong Learning and Culture Committee could then occur consensually.

If Careers Scotland is to be removed from the enterprise network, which seems to be a done deal, and given that the chief executive of Scottish Enterprise told us yesterday that he did not want Careers Scotland to be part of his remit, then, if it is to be part of some new body, it falls within our remit to look at that new body and say, "What's your remit and what's your task—are you following the right lines?" We have heard from the tourism industry about the lack of skills in that sector and lots of interesting stuff has been flying around this morning about the energy sector. Do we have the skills there? Skills are a wide economic question and it is right that this committee should consider it.

I am sorry to repeat this point, but it is worth reflecting that, as a committee, we have focused on skills issues as we have thought about what to do in the next year. Having ministers appear at the committee would assist that process in both our understanding of what the Government is proposing and the construction of our work programme. I would be keen to explore that possibility with the Government, and I judge that there is cross-party support for making such arrangements.

I repeat that I acknowledge Brian Adam's point about not stepping on the toes of the Education, Lifelong Learning and Culture Committee. That would not be my intention, nor would it be the committee's.

Iain Gray fairly referred to the time when Jim Mather came to the committee. We could interpret what Jim Mather said in one of two ways. Iain Gray chose to take it that Jim Mather was saying that Fiona Hyslop could come to the committee. Another interpretation is that Jim Mather was saying clearly that skills were not part of his remit and he would not come to the committee to talk about them. It is not the role of the minister to decide the committee's remit, as Parliament has already decided that—it does not specifically relate to skills, while another committee specifically has skills in its remit.

I accept that skills are part and parcel of how we intend to make progress, but I am worried that we will end up devoting some of our energies to a part of the overall picture for which another committee has responsibility. We have heard today, at our away day and in the previous round-table discussion about so many other things that we should concentrate our efforts on—and we will undoubtedly hear about more at our next round-table discussion—that I do not think that we should pursue skills.

That is a fair point of view, but a number of members, from all parties, are arguing that we should see the minister. Unless anyone is otherwise minded, I propose that we explore with the Government whether we could arrange for a minister to come to the committee after the October recess to discuss matters. I would like at least to explore that with the Government to see whether that is possible.

Does anyone have a view about what the committee could do in scrutinising whatever comes out of the chamber debate on the enterprise networks next Wednesday? We might want to reflect with stakeholders and others outside the small world in which we live in this building on their views. We can come back to that at our formal meeting in two weeks, as we will know what has been said, but I am just looking for a steer from colleagues on that point now.

It is crucial that we do that. It would be interesting to ask what, if any, indication the committee will be given of the Government's intentions before the announcement is made. Committees have previously been consulted on similar big policy decisions, but this time we have not. I would be a wee bit concerned if we went into the debate next week not knowing what we were to debate. We discussed yesterday how important consultation is not just for national but for local issues. I am concerned about the process and that we have not been involved in the consultation.

Does Stephen Imrie want to make a point on the process?

I cannot comment on the consultation process or whether it is appropriate for parliamentary committees to be involved, but it might interest members to know that there is a protocol between the Government and parliamentary committees on a range of issues, one of which covers what happens when the Government is about to make a major announcement. I can give members the relevant paragraph if they are interested, but it basically says that the Government shall endeavour to keep parliamentary committees informed of major announcements, news releases and documents that come under a committee's remit. It is a point that I have impressed on my contacts in the civil service—we should be informed not necessarily about everything that happens daily but about some of the major announcements. With the committee's approval, I am happy to reaffirm that the committee would like to be kept informed, perhaps in the same way as party spokespeople are kept informed prior to some announcements.

That would be helpful.

We will move forward in that way. Item 4 is in private, as we are dealing with individuals, so I close the public part of the meeting.

Meeting continued in private until 11:59.