Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee, 27 Jan 2010

Meeting date: Wednesday, January 27, 2010

Official Report 354KB pdf

---

Work Programme

We will continue with evidence on our banking and financial services inquiry at our next meeting. We hope to hear from more investment managers, representatives of the accounting profession and a credit ratings agency, so that should be fun.

The next agenda item is our forward work programme. I will give us an update on where we are and ask members to consider priorities. We have already launched our next inquiry, which is on international trade, exports and inward investment. The aim is to take oral evidence on that from March to May.

We have agreed in principle that we will then have a review of the restructuring of the enterprise and skills agencies. I suggest that we take evidence on that in June, after we have completed taking oral evidence on the international trade inquiry.

We have one or two outstanding items to fit in, one of which is budget scrutiny. As you might be aware, the Finance Committee has proposed that what is called a stage 1 budget strategy phase should be conducted for the next financial year, which means that we would have to take some evidence in April or May.

We have also agreed in principle to have a hearing on the whisky industry, a follow-up to the tourism inquiry and an evaluation of homecoming. We might perhaps look again at the National Trust for Scotland, particularly after George Reid completes his review of it. Finally, we will do a follow-up to the energy inquiry at some point—a year or so after we have completed it. I do not want that to be left on the back burner, if you pardon the pun.

Rob Gibson has proposed a possible one-off hearing on the response of the utility companies to the winter crisis. The committee has not considered that matter before but might wish to consider it in future.

In our international trade and exports inquiry and the one-off round-table discussion on the whisky industry, it is important to look at two sides: the impact of the whisky industry going out the way and the effect on bottling plants and practices in Scotland. I hope that we make it quite clear that we will cover both those aspects in the international trade inquiry and in the round-table discussion. We heard in the news this week that Whyte and Mackay has been increasing its profits but is still cutting jobs in the whisky industry and not promoting it in the way that it deserves. That deserves our attention. The industry is an exemplar of how the two issues of international trade and jobs at home overlap.

Whisky is bound to be a major focus of the international trade inquiry. We want to hear evidence on the industry's current position. There have been particular issues around the workforce, and we want to hear from both the industry management and the trade unions that represent the workforce about those issues going forward. It would also be useful to hear from both sides about the minimum pricing of alcohol and alcohol policy, and their potential impact on the industry. We should have a round-table discussion on those aspects and leave the international aspects to the international trade inquiry, as we will inevitably discuss them in that context.

We could have some representatives of Tennents along.

We should simply ask the clerks to go away and identify dates for the things that we have agreed to inquire into.

Are members content with the paper and happy to leave it to me and the clerks to programme the business? We will try to ensure that our meetings are not too long, but that we pick up all the issues in the paper.

Will you include the one-off hearing on the power utilities?

I was going to ask about that. As well as what we have agreed so far, Rob Gibson has proposed a one-off hearing on the power utilities and their response to winter maintenance. I do not know what members views' are on that. Do members think that such a hearing would be valuable?

Could Rob Gibson briefly indicate the reasons for his proposal?

There is an issue about maintenance by the power utilities and also an issue about their customer service at particular times. We take an interest in the power industry in relation to energy development, but it would be interesting to find out how it got on in practice during the winter. There will be moves in other parts of the Parliament to consider how we coped with the particularly severe weather. Energy is an area in which the committee has a locus and it would be worthwhile to consider the industry's response, at least on a one-off basis.

That is a legitimate request and a legitimate area for the committee to consider. There might be more issues in rural communities than there are in urban parts of Scotland. It would be worthwhile to consider the matter.

It is a legitimate area, but there are many ways in which to approach it. I would be happier if our consideration fell out of a piece of work that another committee was doing and wanted us to look at. Otherwise, it could get a bit fragmented. We should let somebody else take the lead. If they decide to invite the power companies in, that is great. If they insist that we do that, so be it. I do not think that we should set a hare running when the work should be led by the Public Petitions Committee, the Rural Affairs and Environment Committee or somebody with more of a locus to take an holistic view of the matter.

I suggest that the clerk and I liaise with other clerks to find out if any other work is being done. We will then try to work out a logical work programme, taking into account the work of all the committees. If it is logical for us to deal with certain issues, as Rob Gibson suggests, I am happy to bring that back, but the point about co-ordination is important because other committees might already be looking at the issues. Is that agreed?

Members indicated agreement.