Official Report 112KB pdf
We move to item 3. Members have a paper before them on the Government's establishment of a national economic forum, including a response from the deputy director of the enterprise and industry division of the Scottish Government. Do members have any comment?
I ask the committee to note my great disappointment at the Government's response to our suggestion. Having looked back at reports on the issue over the past couple of years, I note that there was cross-party consensus, with no objection from any party, that a good way forward would be to establish some kind of national economic forum, involving all business groups—small, medium and large—the college sector, the STUC and the universities. There was cross-party consensus on the need for a long-term strategy to take Scotland forward—our predecessor committee spoke of a decade-long strategy, but we may need it to be longer term than that. It should survive any change of Government or composition of the Parliament. Our predecessor committee's report was excellent in putting forward that view.
I am not convinced that it would be helpful to have MSPs on the forum. If that were to happen, the danger is that our party-political views would interfere with discussion on the economy. There are advantages in letting the forum get on with its work without direct political involvement. There is plenty of time and room for political involvement in and debate on the forum's findings. The forum is, after all, an advisory body. All its discussions will be brought back to the Government and Parliament in due course.
Clearly, there are different views on the issue. Gavin Brown's point is a fair one. As he pointed out, the Government based its decision in part on the argument that the forum is "a numbers-limited group" but went on to say that the core membership would be augmented by other members who would attend according to the theme.
As I am an historian, it is my business to introduce dullness from the past into the debate. Two similar bodies were set up in the past: the Scottish Economic Committee, which Walter Elliott set up in 1936; and the Scottish Economic Conference, which Arthur Woodburn set up in 1948. The format that I would want us to avoid is that of the Scottish Economic Conference of 1948. It was representative of all sides of industry and politics, but it drowned itself in generalised discussions. I believe that those discussions were largely monopolised by Tom Johnston, who could conduct hour-long monologues. No one dared to interrupt him because he was so senior.
It is always dangerous to follow Christopher Harvie, but it is one of the great enjoyments of the committee that I learn something every time I turn up. I am glad that he mentioned Tom Johnston, as he represented the seat that I now represent—however, that is an aside.
I think that it would be rather churlish of us not to welcome the fact that there is to be a national economic forum. The discussion is around various aspects of one particular point—the membership of the forum and whether it ought to include politicians. There seem to be a range of views on the matter, and it seems that the letter that we have received from Jamie Hume contains an internal paradox. He suggests that the forum will be "a numbers-limited group" but that it will have the flexibility to include 120 people.
I would go along with that. We need to write to tease that out. If we are going to write anyway, we should also ask what Mr Swinney feels is the relationship between the national economic forum and the business in the Parliament conference, which will take place next month. That is quite important. I would like to know whether he foresees the conference continuing or whether it will be superseded by the national economic forum.
I do not think that that is quite within his gift. The conference is a creature of the Parliament—in particular, of this committee—that the First Minister and the minister who is responsible for our area of work are always invited to attend and speak at. However, we could ask in the letter how Mr Swinney sees the business in the Parliament conference—and, indeed, any other event—fitting in with the Council of Economic Advisers and the national economic forum. It would be useful to know what the strategic view is of how it is all going to bind together.
I am content to go along with the committee's decision. Ultimately, I would prefer something stronger, but I am sure that we can deal with that when we get a response.
Once we have the response, we can have another discussion on the matter.
The forum offers a unique opportunity for Government, Parliament and business to engage with one another at the same time, instead of one by one. It presents a unique opportunity, which is why I have stressed the views that I have expressed this morning.
I have been an advocate of the Irish model for many years, and the idea of having a consensus view on the direction of travel and building consensus around an appropriate vehicle is undoubtedly attractive to me. There is no doubt that a political input at some point is appropriate, and it is not unreasonable for us to ask why that is not the model that the Government has chosen to follow in setting up the national economic forum. If we disagree with the response that we receive from the minister, we can have that debate then.
Meeting continued in private until 10:55.
Previous
Research