Official Report 507KB pdf
09:15
The next item is an evidence session on four applications to establish cross-party groups. Before I welcome the witnesses, I am pleased to confirm that, following a sift process that I conducted jointly with the clerks, 13 CPGs that were active in the previous session have now been re-registered. They are the groups on cancer, on culture and communities, on deafness, on Europe, on fisheries and coastal communities, on health inequalities, on islands, on life sciences, on long Covid, on Malawi, on palliative care, on Scotch whisky, and on towns and town centres.
At today’s meeting, the committee will consider applications to establish four new CPGs by hearing from their conveners in turn. Under our next agenda item, we will consider whether each of the proposed groups should be awarded recognition.
I first welcome Murdo Fraser, convener of the proposed CPG on tourism and hospitality. Thank you very much for joining us. I invite you to make opening remarks about your proposed CPG. You may then receive questions from the committee.
Good morning, and thank you for the opportunity to say a few words about the proposed CPG on tourism and hospitality. To give a bit of background, there was a CPG on tourism in the previous session; indeed, the group has a history going back before that. I was an office-bearer of the group, which was a popular and well-supported CPG. In fact, I think that you were a member, convener, and I remember you coming to various meetings. It was well supported by MSPs and by external individuals and organisations with an interest in the tourism sector. The secretariat was provided by VisitScotland, which is the public agency that is responsible for tourism.
The proposal is to change the group’s focus slightly. By agreement, VisitScotland is stepping back from the secretariat position, and that will be taken up instead by the Scottish Tourism Alliance, which is the industry representative body. As part of the discussions that we had about re-forming the group, it was felt that, rather than just calling it the CPG on tourism, it should be renamed the cross-party group on tourism and hospitality, to give it a slightly wider focus. That brings it into line with the Westminster all-party parliamentary group for hospitality and tourism, and it reflects the fact that there is an existing tourism and hospitality industry leadership group.
It is very much our view that it is in the public interest for the cross-party group to exist. Tourism is a very important part of the Scottish economy, as members well know, with a reach across the whole country, particularly in remote and rural communities.
We have been well supported by MSPs in the past, and I am delighted to say that 21 MSPs have signed up to be members of the group, from every single party—all six parties are represented, which is excellent. In addition, we have five individuals and 41 organisations as external members of the group. As I already mentioned, the Scottish Tourism Alliance will provide the secretariat and absorb the costs of that.
I think that is all that I need to say. I am happy to take questions from you, convener, or from any colleagues.
Thank you very much. You are absolutely right that tourism is incredibly important to all areas in Scotland, including rural and island areas.
I am interested in the merger. I can see that as positive, but how will you ensure that you strike a good balance between the two topics?
That is a reasonable question. There is considerable overlap between tourism and hospitality, which is a subset of the wider tourism economy. The previous group on tourism discussed issues including the visitor levy, business rates and policy changes such as the increase in employer national insurance contributions. All those issues have significant impacts on the hospitality sector, but the impacts also have a wider reach across the tourism sector more generally.
Therefore, there is considerable synergy between the interests of hospitality and the interests of tourism. We found that, inevitably, the previous CPG on tourism spent quite a bit of time discussing issues that related specifically to hospitality, so I think that it is logical and natural to make the proposed group’s focus slightly wider, with its title specifically referencing hospitality.
As you said, that shows the interdependence and the connections between the two.
As there are no questions from my fellow committee members, I thank Murdo Fraser for his evidence. We will have a very short pause to allow a change of witnesses.
09:21
Meeting suspended.
09:22
On resuming—
I welcome Finlay Carson, convener of the proposed CPG on forestry and wood processing industries. We have had a bit of debate about the title of the proposed CPG, so could you confirm that it is on forestry and wood processing industries?
Good morning, colleagues. Yes, the proposed cross-party group is on forestry and wood processing industries, not food on this occasion, although that is very important to the same areas of Scotland as forestry is.
I thank the committee for considering the CPG application. I believe that the proposal meets the criteria and the tests.
Forestry and wood processing industries are of significant importance to Scotland’s economy and environment, and they are also of social importance to Scotland. They support thousands of jobs and underpin investment in many rural communities, they contribute to sustainable construction and manufacturing, and they play a vital role in achieving Scotland’s ambitions on biodiversity enhancement, climate resilience and net zero.
Many of the issues that affect the sector cut across ministerial portfolios and parliamentary committees, which means that there is value in providing a dedicated forum where parliamentarians and stakeholders can come together to exchange views, identify challenges and explore opportunities.
It is important that I set out to the committee that the proposal did not start from scratch; it builds on the excellent work that was undertaken by the previous cross-party group on the wood panel industry, which was convened by Fergus Ewing. That group, which was well attended, demonstrated the value of parliamentary engagement with the sector and showed that there is an appetite among stakeholders for constructive dialogue. The group also raised awareness of the importance of the industry across the Parliament by highlighting the opportunities and challenges that wood processing industries face.
However, the challenges, as we know, extend well beyond the wood panel industry alone, so the proposed group intends to broaden its remit considerably by bringing together the forestry sector, timber growers, wood processors, manufacturers, construction industries and wider stakeholders to examine the full forestry and wood value chain.
The intention is to look not only at commercial forestry and timber production but at the role of native woodland and woodland management in supporting biodiversity. I am pleased that Scottish Woodlands and the Woodland Trust have indicated their support for the group.
By adopting that wider perspective, the group would be a more comprehensive forum for discussion on what shapes forestry and the industries that depend on it.
I would be delighted to take any questions.
Thank you. I represent Argyll and Bute, and there is no journey home, or around the constituency, on which I do not see a timber truck, so I recognise the sector’s importance to the economy in my constituency and across Scotland.
You have helpfully given a really strong explanation of how the two areas of the merger would work. Thank you for that. I have one question about the budget. What would you expect it to be spent on? I think that you said that a budget of between £10,000 and £20,000 has been made available for in-kind secretariat support.
We have Confor involved, which is a major partner. The idea behind the budget is to ensure that the group reaches out. Many different businesses are involved, starting with the horticulturists that grow the plugs for the tree plants. The budget is intended to ensure that we achieve that wide reach and generate as much cross-sector interest and awareness as possible.
That is great. As there are no questions from the rest of the committee, I thank Finlay Carson for coming to give evidence.
We will have a brief suspension to allow for a changeover of panel members.
09:27
Meeting suspended.
09:27
On resuming—
I welcome Willie Rennie, convener of the proposed CPG on Pakistan. Thank you for joining us. I invite you to make a few opening remarks, after which we will move to questions.
I have proposed the establishment of a cross-party group on Pakistan. I have been involved in a group on Pakistan in one way or another for, I think, the whole time that I have been involved in Parliament. There is strong demand from the Pakistani-origin community, which numbers about 70,000 people in Scotland. The community is very keen to have, I suppose, the validation that comes with having a cross-party group, as well as the practical benefit of having a forum where MSPs can meet representatives from the community.
The aim is to organise, or be involved in organising, two major events during the year. One is for Eid and the other is for Pakistan’s national day, and we already have dates pencilled in for those. We will also have regular meetings, often online, at which representatives can come together to discuss issues of common interest. The group will also provide somewhere for delegations from abroad, including those from hospitals and universities in Pakistan, to touch base.
Nadia Aslam is a force of nature and manages to achieve a tremendous amount with very few resources. There has also been huge backing from the community for her work and for the cross-party group in its various forms over the years.
That is great. During the previous parliamentary session, the CPG on Pakistan was struck off, if I can use that term. What processes are you putting in place to ensure that that does not happen again? From your description, the cross-party group feels as though it would be an important touchstone for the Pakistani community in Scotland, enabling it to feed into Parliament.
09:30
There was an error on my part. There was illness in my office and I should have picked up the issue, but we missed an important deadline. However, we carried on—we changed the group’s name, we called it a network and we still met. That showed the demand that there was. I will make sure that, if there is staff illness, the responsibility is passed to another member of staff or is picked up by the secretariat.
That is great. Thank you very much.
How many members have signed up?
Including me, we have six.
As members have no more questions, I thank Willie Rennie for coming to give evidence. I call a brief suspension.
09:30
Meeting suspended.
09:31
On resuming—
Finally, I welcome Joe Long, convener of the proposed CPG on social care. I invite you to make a short statement, then we will move to questions from the committee.
Thank you for inviting me and for hearing this evidence.
We are at an important moment for social care in Scotland and across the United Kingdom. Significant reform is proposed in the programme for government, and parallel processes of social care reform are being considered elsewhere in the UK. That makes it important that we have a forum in the Parliament where we bring together the voices of people who rely on social care, of social care providers and of researchers in a structured but perhaps more expansive way than we could in committee evidence. That means that, during this process of reform and into the future, we can hear from the sector and hear the experiences of people who use it.
From a personal perspective, I think that social care is often the “and” in health and social care. There is a need to raise the sector’s status and standing in our political discourse, so it is important to have a forum where parliamentarians can engage with the sector to hear about its diversity and agility and about all the interesting and innovative things that it does.
As I said, given that reforms are being proposed across the UK, this is an important moment to have a space for shared learning where we can find out what is going on elsewhere, what we can learn from the processes that are happening elsewhere and what we can share from our experience, whether that is in research, innovations in practice or the experiences of people who rely on social care.
We have cross-party support, as the committee can see from the proposed membership. This could be an important forum. I will stop there and open this up to discussion.
That is great—thank you. As you laid out, social care is an incredibly important part of life, and there is a lot of change happening just now. As I represent a rural constituency, I am pleased to see that you have members who represent rural areas. I hope that you will cover the differences for those areas across Scotland. Have you been considering that issue?
Absolutely, and we have, for example, the secretariat from the Coalition of Care and Support Providers in Scotland, which represents not only the large social care providers but a lot of smaller ones. The CPG needs to be a space for providers in the third sector, providers in the independent sector and local authority providers to come together.
The sector’s diversity is represented in the geographical differences, in the nature of providers and in the nature of the different populations that are supported in social care. The sector is, of course, important for older people, for lifelong support for people with learning disabilities, for people who are neurodivergent and for people who become disabled during their life and require care. It is a very diverse sector, so we need to represent the diversity of the communities that are served in social care, and of the types of social care.
From memory, I think that your application form does not mention any specific organisations. Who have you reached out to that could be the stakeholders?
As I said, the Coalition of Care and Support Providers is providing the secretariat function, and it represents a large group of organisations. However, my aspiration—I think that it is our shared aspiration—is to build the group. Several of us who are on the group will be speaking at the care home conference in Glasgow next week, which is for the independent sector, and we hope to bring in people from that sector. The intention is to build. This is about getting the ball rolling and building from there, but there should be an open door for everybody in social care.
As my fellow committee members have no further questions, I thank you for providing evidence. We will have a brief suspension to allow Joe to leave, and then we will move on to our deliberations.
09:35
Meeting suspended.
09:36
On resuming—
Our third agenda item is consideration of whether we are minded to award recognition to the proposed CPGs. I will ask the committee to take a formal decision on each of the proposed groups in the order that is set out on the agenda. Before I do so, do members have any points that they wish to raise about what we have just heard on the four proposed groups?
Members: No.
I turn first to the proposed CPG on forestry and wood processing industries. Do members agree to accord it recognition?
Members indicated agreement.
Do members agree to accord recognition to the proposed group on Pakistan?
Members indicated agreement.
Do members agree to accord recognition to the proposed group on social care?
Members indicated agreement.
Finally, do members agree to accord recognition to the proposed group on tourism and hospitality? [Interruption.]
There is a very strange sound, so we will need to suspend the meeting.
09:37
Meeting suspended.
09:38
On resuming—
After that unexpected suspension, just to confirm, do members agree to accord recognition to the proposed group on tourism and hospitality?
Members indicated agreement.
That concludes our consideration of proposed CPGs. I briefly suspend the meeting to allow us to set up for the next item.
09:38
Meeting suspended.
09:41
On resuming—