Official Report 137KB pdf
Item 4 on the agenda is on the impact of the new economy—the committee's work programme for the summer and early autumn. The paper that has been circulated to members is self-explanatory. The proposal that it contains, to hold a committee meeting under the auspices of IBM at Greenock, has been approved in principle by the Parliamentary Bureau—it would require a meeting in premises outwith the normal committee premises of the Parliament. The conveners liaison group yesterday considered a paper on securing the necessary financial support for the visit to Greenock and the case studies. Annabel Goldie represented this committee at that meeting and can tell us whether the proposal was accepted.
Yes. That was agreed.
The paper that members have before them sets out the provisions of the inquiry. It has been recommended that the committee agree the work programme for the impact of the new economy inquiry as outlined in the paper. I seek the agreement of the committee to meet in private when we consider our report in relation to the inquiry, sometime in October. Are we agreed?
I see that I have been allocated the case study of Aberdeen. I would be keen to undertake that study but, unfortunately, I shall be on holiday that week. Could we reschedule that study for the week before?
We can discuss that after the meeting.
I would like to undertake the study, and I am available any other week.
We will come to some arrangement on that. That is not a problem.
I am happy with the report and with the idea of examining the textiles industry in the Borders. However, the committees are being restructured. Do you know the time scale for that restructuring, and whether we will know who is going to be on the committees after the recess?
Unless a proposal comes before the Parliament before the end of next week—which I guess is unlikely—committee members will continue in their roles until the Parliament agrees to a motion to change the size and composition of the committees. I would be surprised if such a proposal came before the Parliament before next Thursday.
That issue arose at the conveners liaison group meeting yesterday. Considerable concerns were expressed over the proposals for either reducing the size of committees or creating, in some cases, two separate committees with one portfolio. As a result of that discussion, the convener of that group agreed to feed those concerns into the system. There is no doubt that the conveners liaison group is regarded as a committee of considerable stature in the Parliament. Therefore, matters may not be as straightforward as some people thought.
That is all that we need to say about the size of the committee, which is a matter to be decided elsewhere. We note and appreciate the points that Annabel Goldie has made.
It is proposed that the visits relating to the case studies should take place at the end of August and the beginning of September. I am not sure whether I could manage a visit at that time, but I shall check. Might it not be preferable for the case studies to take place after we have received some oral evidence, so that we can test what we are doing against what we have heard in the general evidence that we will take during the first two meetings? I say that with hesitancy, as I know that party conferences come thick and fast in September, not least the one in which I expect to be involved.
We must be flexible and bear in mind how practicable the visits are for members. I quite understand that. A member of the clerking team and the information centre will work with each of the reporters to get dates and so on firmed up. There will be one-to-one discussions about the visits.
Previous
Scottish Parliament Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee Wednesday 28 June 2000 (Morning)Next
Annual Report