Enterprise and Culture Committee, 02 Sep 2003

Meeting date: Tuesday, September 2, 2003

Official Report 176KB pdf

---

Work Programme

Agenda item 6 is on the work programme. As a result of our away day last week, we have produced a paper that I hope reflects accurately the interests that members expressed. Ideally, we should agree on two major inquiries with a view to drafting a remit and starting work on them perhaps at the turn of the year. The other items would remain for the committee to deal with as and when time arises. If members are happy with that approach, we must agree on the two most attractive or urgent items for major pieces of work.

Between now and when?

The idea is that if we agree on the items now, we can draft a remit. After agreeing a remit, we can put out a call for evidence with a view to obtaining written evidence by the end of the year and starting the inquiries either towards the end of the year or at the beginning of next year. That time scale is, of course, subject to other events.

Are we not timetabled to undertake the Scottish solutions inquiry through to the end of the year?

That is right.

The aim would be to start the next inquiry in January with some evidence in place.

That is the idea. I was flexible about time scales in case the Scottish solutions inquiry finishes earlier or later, but the rough idea is that once that inquiry is out of the way, the two inquiries on which we agree could run in tandem throughout the earlier part of next year.

Let us get in with both feet. What is happening with UK legislation means that an inquiry on renewable energy should take place sooner rather than later. If we leave that too long, an inquiry will be almost irrelevant.

Given its overriding importance for the Parliament, an inquiry on the economy must be of equal priority. I do not mind whether we run the inquiries in tandem or take them one after the other, but they are far and away the most important matters.

I have no problem with anything in the paper. We are being asked to give priority to some items. I do not necessarily agree or disagree with Christine May, but perhaps one way of dealing with the matter is to rank the major and minor inquiries in e-mails to the clerk. In that way, the clerks will have guidance from the committee on what is wanted.

I rate entrepreneurialism and business birth and growth as the number 1 priority. As an Opposition member, I do not want to say this, but the issue coincides with the Administration's view of what is most important, because we must grow the economy. I do not suggest for one minute that renewable energy is unimportant—the timing of an inquiry on that might also be important. However, my constituents are pressuring me about the roll-out of broadband now. There are many technical roadblocks to delivering broadband changes. Many people who want those services now want that matter to be examined.

I suggest that we have a short deadline for prioritising the inquiries and that we leave it to the clerk and the convener to collate our priorities. As the convener suggested, we should deal with the top two major inquiries and slot in smaller inquiries when time is available.

If we agree to that, there is no point in more discussion now.

If that general approach finds favour with members, we will send an e-mail with the headings, because we might need to think carefully about what is and is not a topic. Members can respond to that e-mail—I am not sure whether the single transferable vote system will be used or whether another voting method is favoured—and we will reflect fairly members' views.

I understood that Brian Adam was suggesting that we should rank the inquiries in both categories from 1 to 5.

Yes—or whatever numbers are appropriate.

A point-scoring system will be used.

Okay. Perhaps the number 1 priority will have five points. That system must have a name.

Ranking the priorities from 1 to 5 would do.

Are members content with that approach?

Members indicated agreement.

That will let the committee get on with its work.

I thank members for their assistance.

Meeting closed at 15:29.