 I have a great pleasure. I am sitting in a chair because I am the oldest member allegedly of the Committee. That gives them a pleasure. No comments, by the way. They do like me out at night still, so don't worry about that. Under the oldest member, I chair the meeting for the first two items on the agenda. I welcome everybody to the meeting. The first meeting of the Jobs and Fair Work Committee Felly, iddyn nhw'n ei wneud i'w myfyrdd, ond nid o'r cyfgareddau cael ei wneud i'w ffyrdd. Mae angen i'w gwaith datblyg, ac rwy'n cyfathlu'r iawn, mae'n ei fawr o'r byd i'w gwneud i'w bwysigio i gyd. Rwy'n cael ei gydagant i'w ddweud. Mae'n myfyrdd i'w ddweud i'w ddweud i'w ddweud i'w ddweud i'w ddweud i'w ddweud. If I start by saying that I own a business, I am a part owner, I should say, of a business called Gil's Motor Factors. It's now run by my son, Glen. We distribute throughout Scotland to the motor trade, so there is a prospect that some of the business that we may do may be related. I'm declaring in that regard. I also am a board member of a UK-wide organisation called NIPS. It's set up as a company that deals with all businesses involved in the business that I'm in. I don't take any pay or expenses. I go to a meeting once a year. I'm also be caught through the family business. I'm a member of the National Federation of Small Businesses. I've never attended any meetings, but I'm very much a supporter of it. Anything else that I don't think anything in my declaration of interest should be noted today, but if anyone's interested, it's there in the public domain for everybody to see. I'm getting nothing to declare, but on a voluntary basis, I'd like to highlight that I've been working for the last few years with the Scottish Grocer Federation to highlight the impact of the convenience store sector on the Scottish economy. I don't receive any remuneration for doing so, but it's important to promote the work of the Scottish Grocer Federation. Hi, I'm currently a director of my own company, Spontaneous Production, which has currently been wound up since I got elected. It was dealing in oil and gas training programmes and video production work, but it's currently been wound up. I have nothing to declare. Good morning. Professionally, by background, I'm a lawyer, so I'm a member of the Law Society of England and Wales. I was previously a partner of the law firm Link Letters, a law firm based in London from which I retired as of 30 April. I have no longer any connections with that firm. I do not have any other outside commitments. In terms of share ownership, I own approximately 4 per cent of a private limited company registered in England, which is involved in the private energy sector, primarily in relation to energy metering systems. This company has no business interests in Scotland and has no intention of having any business involvement in Scotland. I have no control or director's ships in this company. I am merely a minority shareholder. In terms of heritable property, I own residential property in Scotland, both as an occupier and in the past also as a landlord. In terms of investments, as part of my personal pension plan that started in 1996, I have funds under management by equitable life in respect of which I have no discretion in terms of the management or allocation of those funds, which will appear on the register of interests. I have no decision making capacity with regard to how those investments are made. Although shareholdings or pecuniary interests, I voluntarily offer those that I am a member of the GMB trade union, unite the union, friends of the earth Scotland and the co-operative party. I am a director and 100 per cent shareholder in my own business, Trinity Care Ltd, which is a company that provides legal advice services in my capacity as a lawyer. On that note, I am a member also of the Law Society of England and Wales and the Law Society of Scotland. I am a landlord for a property in Edinburgh. I am an unremunirated director of Strathleave and Regeneration Company. I am also a member of GMB and Unison. I am a self-employed advocate and member of the Faculty of Advocates. I also own heritable property in Edinburgh and West Lothian and receive rentals from those domestic properties. I hold ordinary shares in the Royal Bank of Scotland. Further detail of that will be in the register of interests. I have no relevant interests to declare. I am a charter accountant, member of the Institute of Charter Counties of Scotland. I take you to item number two, and that is the choice of convener. The Parliament has agreed that only members of the Scottish Conservative and Unionist parties are eligible for nomination as convener of this committee. I understand that Gordon Lindhurst is the party net nominee for that post, so, therefore, do we agree to choose Gordon Lindhurst as our convener? Yes, we do. Thank you very much for that, and, Gordon, can I invite you to take the chair? I also wish a lot for the future. We move on to item three on the agenda, which is choice of deputy convener. My understanding is that John Mason is the Scottish National Party's nominee for that post. Do we agree to choose John Mason as our deputy convener? I congratulate John Mason on his election as deputy convener, and then move on to item four, which is to discuss and agree the committee's approach to work programming and the suggestion of holding what is termed a business planning day, I think a way day, possibly as the technical term used by some for this. You will all have seen paper number three in the papers provided to the committee members. Do we wish to hold a business planning day as suggested in the paper number three prepared by the clerks to the committee? Gordon MacDonald? Just to say that I'm marching on holiday from the 18th of August. I think the clerks to the committee will liaise with individual members to try and establish what date is suitable for everyone. In light of what Gordon has just said and others, it may be that it will have to be either earlier or in August or possibly early September, but we will ask the clerks to the committee to liaise with members and establish a suitable date for everyone. Are we agreed to do that then? Yes. If I can move on to the question of what we will discuss for the business of the committee in the coming session, you will all have seen the legacy paper from the previous committee. The suggestion is that this be considered at the business planning day as to the items in it or whether we wish to use it as a basis for the committee's further work. I take it that there is no difficulty with that. Jackie Baillie? I think that it is an eminently sensible suggestion, but I wonder whether there is the opportunity for members to reflect in advance of the business planning day on other topics that we would wish to have considered as well. I do not think that we should be constrained solely by the legacy paper, although I think that it is a very helpful foundation to start with. Are we all agreed with that? John Mason? Sorry, Deputy convener. That is all right. I will clarify. Obviously, if we did not have the away date quite late on, we still need to be working on things at the beginning of September, so do we need to decide sooner or rather than later what kind of things we might look at in September? I am the only member who was on the previous economy committee, and one of the inquiries that we carried out last time was about internationalisation of Scottish business. When we looked at the situation with chamber of commerce, UKTI, SDI etc., it was a very cumbersome and mixed picture. To give us breathing space to identify what is set, the other topics that we could look at later in the year, in the legacy paper under 59.661, it makes a proposal that we could look at the remit of Scottish Enterprise in High. That might be a good starter. It is apolitical, so it gives us an opportunity to get our teeth into our subject. It is also something that Audit Scotland is going to be releasing a report on during the summer. I believe that the Government is doing a bit of looking at our subject as well. It might be something to start off with bearing in mind John's point about, if we have the planning meeting late, we still have to be up and running for the beginning of September. It is only a suggestion, but it is a topic from the legacy paper. Thank you, Gordon. I think that is something that we could note, that the clerks could note and possibly bring back to the next meeting in two weeks' time, and we could further discuss it then. Does anyone have any other suggestions? Yes. Just in terms of logistics, I am keen for us to have a constructive dialogue. As Gordon said, there is a lot of work to be done with regard to the Scottish economy. Should we set up, for example, a distribution list in terms of emails so that we can share policy ideas, because I think that the Scottish economy really does need some new, fresh, impetus and ideas in terms of how we tackle unemployment, how we tackle the lagging GDP of Scotland. Can I just put on record, convener, that it would be good to have a distribution list where we share policy ideas, because while we are in recess or in chamber, we will not always necessarily be in this room sharing ideas. If we all have the same agenda, which I think we do, of taking the Scottish economy forward and bringing a stronger Scottish economy for the benefit of the Scottish people, I think that it would be good to be quite informal and dynamic in bringing new policies forward. We need new policies. That is clear. Thank you, convener. What the clerks can do is just compile an email distribution list in the first instance, which can be shared with the members of the committee, and then we can see how we take that forward if people wish to approach things on that basis. We could also further discuss that at the next meeting if anything arises from that. Are there any other points on the issue of the legacy paper that people wish to point out or draw particular attention to so that people can consider this prior to the meeting in two weeks at a time when we will discuss the legacy paper and how that fits into the business planning day? If you want ideas as to other things, I think that we should focus on. I am keen to focus on the living wage, fair work and the whole question of manufacturing as part of the Scottish economy. Certainly, social enterprise has been mentioned before. That is noted. Just before the election, we looked at living wage and fair work in quite a bit of detail. While I am not adverse to looking at the subject again, it might be too soon to look at it so quickly after we looked at it last session. Secondly, if we want to look at, as Dean suggested, some way of growing our economy quickly, it might be an idea to look at the situation of our airports. We are in a situation where Edinburgh is growing and it has hit 11 million passengers recently. We could replicate the situation that Dublin has, where people tuned from America can go through immigration in Dublin. That has a fantastic input. Dublin has a huge number of flights that go through that airport now. It has a knock-on effect on trade and tourism. It might be another subject worthy of discussion and looking at it. Andy Wightman That is noted. I am wondering whether it is worth reaching out to those outside Parliament in the trade unions and business to invite them to suggest topics or questions that might merit their committee's attention. That might be something that you want to look at, perhaps, to bring to the committee? No, it is a suggestion that the committee itself may wish to reach out to people beyond Parliament to invite any suggestions that it has about agenda items for the future of this committee, not in the immediate term. Richard Leonard Just to agree with Andy Wightman's suggestion, I think that Gordon will keep us right, but has it not been the case in the past when there have been away days that sometimes external speakers have been invited in to stimulate a discussion? The one thing that I think works really well, and we only started doing it in the second half of this term in any great detail, was having the away days. We had one in Paisley, and when we were looking at fair work from memory, we invited unemployed people, small businesses and agencies that helped people into work, and it was informal. My concern about how the Parliament's work was developing professional witnesses, so sometimes it does not matter what the topic is, a committee is looking at it, it is always the same witness that turns up. I would be happier if there were more informal sessions where we heard from the front line about what is really happening, rather than being filtered through some lobbying organisation. I suggest having people not necessarily a mix of witnesses, as it were. It is not that you have a speaker, it is a case of how one MSP sits with a group, and you might have six or seven groups, and you act as a facilitator or another just to keep the conversation going, and you usually get a clerk or somebody who is taking notes so that we have some form of feedback from those discussions. I think that they work particularly well. We have also had round tables in the coffee lounge, which was the main one. We invited a lot of, this was the one when I was on ICI committee, and we invited a lot of small businesses, and again it was an evening session, and they all came, and it was good to hear that first-hand information about her potential, I cannot remember the piece of legislation now, but the piece of legislation that was going through Parliament, and we have got a bit of feedback. Again, I thought that all of those things worked better. It may be helpful to have that sort of thing, although one has to be careful not to have too much simply anecdotal evidence and also informality. It is a question of how views expressed or comments made are recorded, and also how the people are selected to come to such informal sessions, because one can have professional witnesses on one side, and on the other hand have people with a particular issue that they simply wish to promote. Of course, that is important to have regard to those people, but also have a balance, as you say. Discussions have had in these informal meetings, of which I have done three now. There has been no individual that has came along to these meetings with a particular axe to grind. It is about moving the agenda forward, and it has worked well. That does not mean that it would not happen, but so far, it has touched wood. It is not harmed. I think that Jackie Baillie wanted to make a comment, and then Dean Locker. The moment has passed, but nevertheless, I think that what would be helpful for our away day is to distinguish between those subjects that might lend themselves to one or two evidence sessions and those that are subject to much wider inquiries, because I think that we will want to mix and match a bit as we go along. I would support looking at Scottish Enterprise Skills Development Scotland. The Government is doing that, being aware of their timetable and being able to influence that would be helpful. I would be remiss if we did not mention oil and gas given what has been going on over the past few months. I do not know what the committee has done and where it has left off, but that is something that we should return to from time to time. Dean Locker has your moment passed? My moment never passes, thank you, convener. That was irony in case anyone escaped. I would say that our duty as a committee is to anticipate changes to the economy, look ahead and plan for changes in technology, changes in business practices that are already taking place. For example, the digital economy. I think that Scotland has a very strong position in the digital economy, and that is something that we can leverage on. I am very keen that if we do discuss and bring external speakers in, people from the digital economy would be very valuable to that exercise. I also mentioned in the chamber last week artificial intelligence, and I know that it sounds a bit outlandish, but I spoke to someone yesterday, and that is something that we will have to deal with. Edinburgh employs thousands of people in the back office of financial services that those jobs might be at risk of being overtaken by new software systems that will be in place in the next two years' time. The point of making here is that we have to look ahead. That is a five-year term, and we have to not deal with last-year problems. We have to deal with the challenges that we are going to face in five years' time. Thank you. Dylan Martin. I would like to look at something that I mentioned in one of the speeches that I have done recently. It is about remote working, and more people are particularly in areas that are not urban. In the rural economy, we are looking at remote working and supporting those who are not getting in their cars and going into an urban environment to work in an office and helping people to facilitate and grow in businesses that can work remotely. That is good. I will be able to guide us to the line between us and the rural economy committee, which I happen to be on as well, because I get very confused sometimes as to where one starts and another stops. I will take one more point from Andy Wightman, and then perhaps we can move on to the next part of the discussion, because a lot of this we are starting to get into detail that, obviously, we can work out as we move forward. Andy Wightman. Yes, just briefly, for the next committee meeting, I think that the outcome of the European referendum should be on the agenda. I think that the European Union referendum is something that is really Westminster's remit, not the Scottish Parliament's remit. I am not certain if on 28 June we will have any clear position as to what relevance it may be to this committee, the referendum, only having taken place four or five days before. We are talking about a situation that could have a massive impact whatever way it falls in our economy. For you to turn around and say that it is not something that should be considered, but this committee seems to be a wee bit disingenuous to say the least? Well, I think that if we do invite the Cabinet Secretary for the Economy to come, and if he considers that, he may well have comments to make on it, and how that may impact on Scotland. So it may be that that is something that will arise. I mean, it depends what way it goes, whether or not it will have a huge impact. Yes, Jackie Baillie. I agree with the convener's suggestion. That is a neat way of dealing with it if the Cabinet Secretary is coming. I wonder, though, whether we could not commission SPICE to do just a short paper capturing some of the facts emerging insofar as we are able to that might inform committee members if it is possible. What we will do is the Cabinet Secretary, is everyone content that he should come to the next meeting to outline what the Government's proposals are or what the programme is going forward from the Government's point of view is. If he considers the European Union referendum, depending on the outcome, he may take one view or the other, whether or not it is something that he needs to go into at the meeting. We will allow him to take up that issue if he considers it appropriate to depend on the outcome. We will also ask for SPICE to provide a report insofar as they think they can five days, I think, or for our meeting, which is four or five days after the referendum. Is everyone happy with that approach? Yes. It would be the Cabinet Secretary for the Economy and the Minister, I think that is Paul Wheelhouse, as well. The two of them would be invited to come to the next meeting. The clerks of the committee will get in touch with regard to timing, because, obviously, that may have to be set to a certain extent around the Cabinet Secretary and the Minister's commitments on that particular day. Unless there is anything else that I do not think there is from the convener's point of view, we will not adjourn. We will close this meeting of the committee. Thank you to everyone for coming and look forward to working with you over the next five years. Thank you.