Official Report 334KB pdf
The proposal for the new economy seminar arose out of a speech that I made to Lloyds TSB senior managers, who said that it was such a brilliant speech that they wanted to follow up on it. They suggested sponsorship of a seminar once our report has been published. I take it that there is agreement to that proposal.
I have a concern about it. Should the committee be tying itself to any member of the financial sector by allowing it to co-host a seminar? It is extremely important that the committee maintains its public neutrality. Are we sending out a message to other financial institutions that they should be trying to get their oar in? At what point should we resist such invitations? If we agree to this proposal, we are opening the door to the committee expressing a willingness to consider invitations from operators in any sector to co-host such events. I must be honest and say that I am slightly uneasy about it.
I hear what Annabel Goldie is saying, but I think that it is quite a good idea nevertheless and one that we should consider seriously. I would certainly support the proposal and I would like us to go ahead and do the seminar. It is a new and different way of engaging with the industrial sectors in Scotland.
I also support the suggestion. I take Annabel Goldie's point seriously, but we would have to receive clearance from the relevant parliamentary authorities in any case, so we might as well test the water. If they say no, then that is it. If they say yes, or yes with conditions, we can go ahead.
I would want more details about the planning. I take cognisance of what Annabel Goldie says. If it is simply a matter of taking some generosity from the private sector to allow something that has public benefit, I can see merit in that. If it was becoming more interlinked, I would take to heart more of her concerns, which she is right to flag up. I would want greater specification of who, what and how.
I do not just want to hear from Lloyds TSB, I want to hear from the Bank of Scotland, the Royal Bank of Scotland and any other major players in the new economy. I do not want any of them to feel that it is the Lloyds TSB show and that they should therefore not endorse it. Would it be better to repeat our business-in-the-chamber meeting, but to concentrate this time on sectors such as the financial sector? After all, there are a limited number of banks in Scotland, so we could invite them all. That does not have to be an expensive day at all. We could ask a whole gamut of other people too. I feel that the proposed seminar could set a slightly undesirable precedent, and might restrict access to the very people that we want to hear from.
I must admit that I like the idea of the seminar and of keeping things quite tight, with 30 or 40 people. We can learn more and get more views if it is tight. However, I take on board what Annabel Goldie says. I had the same worries. Could we compromise by holding the seminar on our own and inviting Lloyds TSB? We could go on to do something else depending on how that went, but I can see how the proposed seminar could be perceived. However, the idea is a sound one and, like Elaine Thomson, I like it.
Yes, I like the idea.
Let us do as Marilyn Livingstone suggests, and pursue the idea of a seminar before the parliamentary debate but after the recess. That is the logical time to hold it. We could hold it in the chamber on a Monday or Friday, providing that we get approval. We shall write to Lloyds TSB saying that we like the idea of the seminar but feel that we should not be tied to one company.
Is the intention that we should host the seminar with a wide-ranging representation?
Yes.
I have a concern about holding it in the chamber. I am not saying that business in the chamber was not hugely successful, because it was. It was also useful for the delegates to sit in the chamber, simply because of where it is, but it is a very formal setting and that might put a lot of people off. If we want a seminar that allows as much interaction between them and us as possible, we should look for somewhere else.
I agree.
Do members agree to the proposal that there should be a seminar, hosted by the committee, after the recess but before the parliamentary debate, and that it should be held in close proximity to the Parliament, somewhere that is not too expensive and that we are likely to get approval for—
And where we can be reasonably informal.
Yes. We can agree the agenda through the group of five nearer the time. Is that agreed?
We shall write to Lloyds TSB accordingly.
Meeting continued in private until 13:05.