Chamber and committees

I hear what you say about the scope of the pardon and its being limited to actions around and travel to and from picket lines. We have heard from miners who were directly involved in the strike and we have heard from members of the wider community that supported striking miners. One of the concerns with the limit of actions around and travel to and from picket lines is that it does not cover everybody. In one evidence session, somebody said that the pardon is welcome but will not mean anything unless it covers everybody. I will give you an example that does not relate to a picket line. As you know, miners who broke the strike were living in the same communities as striking miners and there were often tensions around that. Sometimes, the attribution of blame for violence—not violence to people but damage to property—was problematic. There are questions around why those kinds of incidents that were directly related to the strike but not at or around picket lines cannot be covered as well. Can you say more about why we cannot extend the criteria? Have you considered the option of extending the criteria to actions associated with the miners strike, which would include those kinds of activities in the community?

I appreciate what you say, and I appreciate that the act that you mentioned might cast the net wider than we think appropriate, but I am interested in exploring whether there is a way through. I do not necessarily mean that we should include the activities that you described, because we cannot assess things such as the degrees of malice involved, and, in many ways, we cannot make judgments about what happened at picket lines or on the journeys to and from them. However, it is important to understand that the strike happened in the context of the community, and not only at the picket lines. Recognising that aspect somehow is important, although I am not sure exactly how we do that.

I have a couple of questions. I will start with one on the numbers. What occupancy rates and footfall have been seen, particularly over the past few months? How have things looked in your sectors? What are you projecting for the coming year? I am interested in hearing about the short term at the moment.

I ask Marc Crothall to respond first, to be followed by Leon Thompson and then Stephen Montgomery.

Good morning Rob and Vicki; thank you for joining us. We heard from the earlier panel about the entrepreneurship, diversification and innovation that is happening across tourism to create what will probably look like a different industry post Covid and post recovery.

International experts say that a full recovery will not happen for at least another two years. We heard earlier about the tension between trying to go back to what we had—because we knew that—and ensuring that we make the most of seasonal and regional spread, which you have commented on.

There is something in this area that is to do with long-term resilience and sustainability. Much focus is placed on long-haul flights and bringing more people into Scotland, but we are likely to see rising fuel and air travel costs, and people might move away from air travel because of the climate emergency.

Do we need to do particular work to make tourism more sustainable in all senses, with regard to how people arrive here; how people with lower incomes, especially families, can afford to take part in activities; how accessible destinations are; different ownership models; and how costs can be met from smaller spends, but more of them? Can you say a little bit about the longer-term sustainability that we need to think of, given both the changes that we know will happen in aviation and the diversification and entrepreneurship that we have heard about?

Thank you. I ask Stephen Montgomery, too, to speak about the rural-urban difference that Marc Crothall identified, if there is one in relation to your sector.

I am interested to hear Leon Thompson’s thoughts.

I am now interested in thinking longer term. International experts are saying that full recovery does not look likely until at least 2024, so I suppose that there is a question about how we deal with the next two years. However, are there discussions in your respective sectors about the fact that full recovery in 2024 will not mean that the sectors will look like what they looked like pre Covid? What innovation, changes or diversification are happening? What pressure points do you need us to focus on to ensure that we have a vibrant and sustainable tourism and hospitality sector in the future, especially if we are thinking about non-pandemic challenges such as the climate emergency?

Good morning, minister, and thank you for your opening remarks. I want to extend the discussion a little around labour and the gaps in skills and training. As you said, it is difficult to predict where some of the gaps are going to be, but there are some clear instances where we know exactly what is needed now and what will be needed in the future. There are some areas where we have clearly identified the problem and the digital skills gap that you have mentioned is one of those areas.

We already know from the construction industry that in order to meet its net zero targets it will need 22,500 additional members in its labour force over the next few years, and we also know that in the just transition away from hydrocarbons, whether that be in energy or other sectors, there will be significant requirements for agility and flexibility.

I have a couple of questions in that respect. First, how do we ensure that we meet the need for the additional workforce numbers in construction? Secondly, with regard to just transition, how do we ensure that the uptake of the skills and training opportunities that we are planning for and which are in train will be effective in delivering the changes that we need?

Thank you—that was really helpful.

Perhaps I can dig a little deeper into your opening remarks, in which you talked about the diversification that many businesses undertook so that they could provide the things that we needed during the pandemic. Obviously there were financial incentives for them to do that as well as a moral imperative. Many of us would argue that there are similar imperatives around just transition.

You said that some people choose to reskill and retrain, perhaps particularly in energy and away from hydrocarbon energy intensive industries. There is a role for the funding and support of training and reskilling, and for courses to enable people to get the skills for the future economy. However, is there also something around incentivising people so that choice becomes easier to make?

There is something about labour market workers feeling that they have no choice and no power in all this. Is there something that we can be thinking about and implementing to support people? We talk about the labour market and the workforce as amorphic things, but they contain people, members of communities and individuals with hopes and dreams. That often gets lost in some of the planning, and sometimes even in the implementation. How do we bridge that gap?

Thank you for that, Chris.