Skip to main content

Language: English / Gàidhlig

Loading…
Chamber and committees

Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee, 30 Jan 2008

Meeting date: Wednesday, January 30, 2008


Contents


Research

Item 2 is consideration of research proposals. Members have a copy of the paper from the clerks. Are there any comments on the way in which we should commission the research?

Dave Thompson (Highlands and Islands) (SNP):

I have a comment on recommendation 3 in paragraph 11, which asks the committee to

"note that the research proposal into productivity has been completed by SPICe and that this may be a subject the Committee returns to when it considers the choice of subject for future inquiries".

I suggest that we replace the word "may" with "should". I was impressed by what we heard at the Scottish Trades Union Congress seminar. On the day, the clear message from the Rolls-Royce people and others was that if we can increase productivity, we can improve the economy of Scotland. Our productivity is behind that of other countries. If we take up and develop some of the suggestions and ideas that we heard at the seminar, Scotland will benefit as a result. We are talking about improving the output of existing workforces and companies. The proposal should be put high on our list of priorities.

The Deputy Convener:

How do other members feel about that proposal? "May" does not preclude something from being a subject for consideration; neither does "should" mean that it will be. We will have to determine our future work programme at a future point. That is not for discussion today.

Lewis Macdonald (Aberdeen Central) (Lab):

To back up what Dave Thompson was saying, I thought that our session on productivity was very useful. To scope out the subject a little bit further, it might be useful to seek further advice from the Scottish Parliament information centre—the research that it has already done was very useful—on whether there are any areas on which it might readily be able to expand, so as to give us more information on which to make a judgment in due course about our future work programme. The case has been well made in the evidence that we have heard that productivity is the missing bit of the jigsaw for further economic growth.

The Deputy Convener:

I take it, gentlemen, that you are suggesting that productivity should be the subject of an inquiry in the future. We would hear not just from the STUC about the case studies. Obviously, we would invite the STUC back, but we would also hear from representatives of industry.

I suggest that we consider productivity as a topic for a potential future inquiry, rather than make a decision this morning to go ahead with an inquiry.

We could put it on the list of subjects for consideration for future business. Is that generally agreed?

Mr Thompson has picked up on one item in the proposals paper. I think that Mr Brown has some suggestions on other points.

Gavin Brown (Lothians) (Con):

Yes. I concur with everything that has been said about productivity, which is a weak link in the Scottish economy. It is right for us to put that subject on our list and to look into it further.

The forthcoming SPICe briefing on "The housing market and the Scottish economy and the impact of the ‘credit crunch'", which is covered in paragraph 5, jumped out at me. I read an article in The Economist last week by the well-known banker George Soros. He was apparently saying that the impact of the credit crunch and the situation in the sub-prime mortgage market was pretty much all over, and that we did not need to worry about it any more. I suspect that not everybody is saying that.

A briefing on the matter is being prepared for mid-June. I wonder whether there is any way of accelerating that. Things are moving quickly, and not all the work that is done by June might be relevant afterwards. I wonder whether we could pull that work forward somehow.

Is that view generally shared by the committee?

Lewis Macdonald:

Do I understand correctly that Mr Brown is referring to the part of the research that will relate to the credit crunch, rather than the wider economic implications of the situation in the housing market, which I suspect will require quite a big piece of work?

For that particular part of the work, it would be quite helpful to get something sooner than mid-June, given that things are moving quickly.

The Deputy Convener:

Today, we are getting a report back on the commissioning of research on issues that we are interested in. Mr Brown is suggesting that we seek to accelerate one part of the research, and I understand that SPICe might be willing and able to do that. On that basis, is there agreement that we encourage SPICe to conduct that research a little earlier, so that we can make decisions on our future work programme relative to that?

Members indicated agreement.

The Deputy Convener:

I would like to go through the recommendations in paragraph 11. I take it that members are quite happy to note the first four bullet points, taking into consideration our suggestion relating to the third one. Are members also happy to consider the last two items in the paper—that is, the material regarding the commissioning of research that appears in the annexes? Are we content to accept that?

The recommendation in paragraph 11 on encouraging export promotion and international trade is helpful.

Okay.

Gavin Brown:

The final bullet point of the recommendations refers to any further issues. If this is not already on the list, I would like to add research on how we capture and measure our economic data. That has been referred to by several experts both at the away day and thereafter. It would be useful to have a good summary of the potential options and why some are better than others, so that we can see whether there is a Scottish consensus on how best to capture and measure economic information.

David Whitton (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (Lab):

I understood that the Council of Economic Advisers was also concerned with that. I vaguely recall that its first report mentioned that there was a lack of proper data. As Mr Brown says, the point was also made at our away day. If we are trying to get a handle on what makes the Scottish economy tick—including productivity and international factors—more up-to-date data would be a big benefit.

Stephen Imrie (Clerk):

As David Whitton said and members will recall, George Kerevan, John McLaren and others at the away day talked about the quality of economic statistics collected by the Scottish Government and about what improvements could be made. Following the away day, the convener wrote on the committee's behalf to John Swinney to ask what the Scottish Government was planning to do, because the subject had been mentioned as an early task in the work plan of the Council of Economic Advisers. The cabinet secretary replied that it was a priority and that the council would consider it at an early meeting. I understand that it will be one of the subjects that the council considers when it meets again in February.

I will ask the civil service for a briefing on what went on at the council and what moves are planned, which I will bring back to the committee for further discussion. I am also happy to liaise with colleagues in SPICe to see what opportunities there are for improving data collection.

The subject appears regularly in the newspapers—Bill Jamieson wrote an article in The Scotsman on it recently—so I am happy to keep the committee informed of what the Scottish Government is doing to improve statistical services.

Christopher Harvie (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP):

Back in the 1970s, the Scottish Council Research Institute did a big project to compile a Scottish input-output table. It modelled the economy almost in three dimensions so that people could see the flows from one sector of the economy to another and the flows in from and out to external bodies. That was great when I was working on North Sea oil, for instance. Nothing of that sophistication has been produced since. It was valuable in showing how the economy would move in one direction and what all the associated links between economic sectors would be. That was all done before personal computers and so on, so one imagines that it should be easier to do now than it was then. Such a model would give us a much more realistic view of the economy and how changes in one sector cause changes in another.

Dave Thompson:

It is a question not just of what we are collecting and how but of the speed of collection. As various people have mentioned when addressing us, there seems to be a time lag in the Scottish statistics, which lag a quarter, two quarters or even further behind the statistics available for the rest of the United Kingdom. That is important, because we need up-to-date information if we want to make proper decisions.

Are members content to allow the clerk to contact the appropriate people bearing in mind the points that members have made? We will have a report back so that we can consider the subject for future work.

Members indicated agreement.