Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee, 25 Feb 2009

Meeting date: Wednesday, February 25, 2009

Official Report 310KB pdf

---

Scottish Trades Union Congress (Seminar)

Item 3 is a report back on our joint seminar with the Scottish Trades Union Congress. As members know, Wendy Alexander, Rob Gibson and I were unable to attend the seminar because we were in Brussels during renewable energy week. I thank Lewis Macdonald for agreeing to chair the event. Perhaps he will make some comments before we discuss the seminar.

It was a useful event. The contributions from both the Irish and Scandinavian perspectives were extremely informative, and the comments, questions and discussion that followed the contributions were helpful. I certainly got the sense from those who were involved on the STUC side that the seminar was an event in the calendar that they appreciated, and I believe that they would like us to carry forward the event in the way that is suggested in the paper for discussion today.

Dave Thompson made the point from the floor that it would be worth while to make the seminar available throughout the parliamentary estate in the same way that committee meetings are available, and online. That suggestion was welcomed around the room, so we could go forward on that basis.

On the content of the discussion, the contrast between the Irish model and the others was striking. The Irish model was very much market led and tax-cut focused, and it is now in serious trouble as we all know from Ireland's biggest-ever public demonstration, which took place last weekend. Public sector workers in particular are faced with the costs of the economic crisis in a direct way, which has not been the case here and in many other countries. Effectively, there has been something like a 5 per cent real-terms cut in pay for public sector workers.

By contrast, the Norwegian and Swedish experience has, thus far, been different, because their model is a high-tax, high-public-spending model, where public ownership of most of the oil industry—in the case of Norway—is quite the opposite of the Irish model. The trade union perspective was more hopeful concerning the prospects for Scandinavia compared with those for Ireland.

The opportunity to hear about those different perspectives and to ask questions was appreciated by Scottish trade union members as well as by the MSPs who were present at the event.

It should be noted that the Norwegians, having held on to their oil, are sitting on double this country's gross domestic product per capita.

Indeed.

Okay—that is noted.

The seminar was excellent, and I echo much of what Lewis Macdonald said. We will come on to discuss how to structure the thing; I will not rehearse that just at the minute.

There was one disappointing element. The trade union representation at the seminar was dominated by the STUC, with relatively few people—as few as eight, in fact—from among what might be called shop-floor representation from elsewhere. That is a pity. There were quite a few cancellations because of the awful weather conditions, but attempts ought to be made to bring in more people, particularly from trade unions in the private sector. That tends to be a weak area; it has its own problems at the moment.

My understanding is that there were indeed problems with transport on the day, which affected attendance.

On parliamentary attendance, I note in the paper the suggestion that, as the seminar is meant to be analogous to the business in the Parliament conference, one way to give it more status would be to hold it during one of the committee's regular Wednesday slots. I have an open mind as to whether it is a formal or informal committee session. The suggestion is helpful, and we could pursue it for subsequent events.

I thank members for their comments.

We now turn to the recommendations. I am happy to consider the view that we hold future seminars on a regular committee day rather than as an extra event. That would maximise committee member attendance. For the sake of flexibility, it would probably be better not to hold such an event as part of a formal committee meeting. That would make it easier to manage. We can express our view that it should be televised on the Parliament's internal network, however.

That sounds fine. It was pointed out to me that a lot of people would have gained some benefit if they had been able to attend. If people could access the event on the web, they could listen in. I am sure that all sorts of groups would be interested in what was said.

The other issue is about public access to the seminar. What are the issues around people who want to come into the room and sit at the back? Should that be prevented or encouraged?

There is no problem: attendance at the seminar would be treated in exactly the same way as public attendance at committee meetings, even though it would not be a formal committee meeting.

Perhaps it fell down, in that it was not publicised enough. It was not mentioned in the Business Bulletin and so on, so people might not have known that it was taking place.

We will take all those points on board. Some things would be relatively easy to make happen. The Business Bulletin presents a slight difficulty, however, as it is a very formal document, and what may and may not be included in it is set down in standing orders. However, we can consider how to improve knowledge about the event and its accessibility.

The seminar was originally scheduled at quite an early stage in the economic downturn and, inevitably, it became substantially focused on the downturn and how it was affecting different countries. Looking forward to next year, perhaps we can consider preparing for the upturn or the economic strategy post-recession. We should be discussing that this time next year, wherever we are in the cycle. We cannot be certain that we will know where we are, but we know what the critical issues for the trade unions and the committee are likely to be a year hence.

Thank you. That is a useful starting point for consideration. We will discuss with the STUC which areas it wishes to cover next year. How to prepare for coming out of the recession, whenever that happens, will be on all our minds.

That takes me on to the rest of the paper. It is suggested that we continue our series of hearings on the state of the Scottish economy. The feedback from the seminar with the STUC was that our next hearing should focus on issues of employment and unemployment. Are members content to proceed on that basis?

Members indicated agreement.

There is also a suggestion that, at some future meeting, we consider the Scottish Government's economic strategy and the extent to which it needs to be revised in the light of the fact that the current situation is very different from the situation that existed when it was published in 2007. I do not think that anyone is blaming the Government for the fact that the situation is different. Do members agree to consider holding either a hearing or a seminar on the Government's economic strategy at some point?

Members indicated agreement.

I notice that we will have an informal meeting with the Bank of England's agent. Can that not be a formal meeting?

I am sorry; I forgot to mention that. We will have an informal briefing from the Bank of England on 26 March at 9 am. I am sure that you will all enjoy that—that is, of course, subject to parliamentary business on that day. Full details will be circulated.