Official Report 307KB pdf
Item 4 is on the business gateway inquiry in relation to the contract renewal process. Again, a draft approach paper has been sent round committee members in advance. We agreed that we would look at the issue following a number of submissions and comments. The terms of reference and proposed remit are set out in the paper, along with prospective witnesses and a rough schedule. Does anyone want to comment?
The only thing that is missing from the paper before us is a request for written submissions. We seem to be going to the usual suspects and do not seem to have any way of getting the experiences of those who have attempted to use the business gateway and who have had an adverse reaction from it, if I can put it that way. It would be useful if we could call for written submissions to see whether we get any feedback from individuals or organisations that have tried to use the business gateway and have found it difficult or virtually impossible to do so.
I agree. I had a very brief discussion about that with our clerks in the minutes before the meeting. The paper does not say that we will seek written evidence, but the understanding was that we would do that. You are right—we should definitely seek written evidence, especially given the short timescale that we will be working to.
Bullet point 6 in paragraph 10 asks:
Maybe the use of the word “consistency” is not quite right. There is not meant to be identical treatment across every local authority because there are local differences and flexibilities are required. I think that what that bullet point is getting at is that there ought to be a basic minimum standard that anyone who uses a business gateway service is entitled to expect. There are bound to be differences, so maybe the wording needs to be amended.
Consistency is not the same as uniformity.
We do not mean “uniformity”. We should do some rewording to ensure that there is absolute clarity.
John Wilson’s point was about contacting businesses that have used the business gateway, whether their experiences have been good or bad. Frankly, I do not think that businesses—we are talking about small businesses—are sitting watching our web page. A start-up business may not have joined the Federation of Small Businesses. Maybe we could draft a wee press release to put out to the local papers to let businesses know what we are doing and to encourage them to participate.
I am surprised and disappointed to hear that you think that people are not sitting watching our meetings or reading the Official Reports of them.
Looking at the list of potential witnesses, I wonder whether there is any possibility of finding someone who does not have a direct interest in the current support system but who, perhaps from an academic point of view, has looked at comparable systems in other European Union countries, say. It might be useful to get an overview from someone who does not have a direct interest in the system.
Yes. If anyone can suggest people who might fall into that category, please feed that information in and we will see whether we can add them to the list of witnesses in the proposed timescale.
What concerns me in general is that it seems to me, as a new member, that there is a tendency to be a bit anecdotal and subjective about all this stuff. When we get witnesses in they give us their perspective. I would be much more interested in looking at hard data and economic data, if any were available, that allow us at least to begin to form a view on how effective the business gateway has been and to monitor any progress in the future, instead of taking an anecdotal approach.
That is right. We always want what is called “best evidence”, and in many cases hard data is clearly best evidence. In the past our problem has been getting that hard data. In many instances it simply does not exist or, if it does exist, people are not willing to tell us about it. We have come up against that issue a number of times, but you are right that any hard data that we can get will obviously make it a better inquiry. We will make that specific point in the request for evidence.
I have two points. I agree with Patrick Harvie that the witness list is perhaps a bit narrow and does not allow us to get some real objectivity, which is what we are trying to do with small businesses and start-ups. We got the “Business Gateway National Evaluation and Future Arrangements for the Delivery of Business Gateway” from ecogen, which has a lot of facts—or so-called facts—in it. It would be instructive to have that organisation in to give evidence, because although the report is a good read if you want to go to sleep, we need to question some of the bias that is in the system.
We can add Scottish Enterprise and others to the list for written evidence. What the committee is up against is the timescale. If we had been doing this six or seven months ago, we could have spent a good couple of months on it, had everybody in and done a more comprehensive piece of work. When we discussed the issue at the business planning day we faced the prospect of doing nothing at all or carrying out a fairly short, focused inquiry so that what we say can have influence and make some difference. We should cast our net as widely as we can, bring in everybody that we can and do the best job that we can, given the timescale.
I understand that, but the danger is that we will have a short, focused look at the business gateway that does not promote some of the fundamental changes that I believe are necessary, given the experiences and communications that I have had, and that we will roll the thing over and carry on for another three years with the same or similar contracts.
On the specifics, who are you saying we should invite in or seek evidence from who is not on the list?
If we can and if we have time, I would like us to invite ecogen—
Ekosgen.
And Ecorys—whoever produced the report to which I referred; I see that three companies were involved.
We will take those suggestions on board. The suggestion to invite Ekosgen, as the author of the report to which you refer, is particularly helpful.
A further area of inquiry that strikes me as having some merit is to seek evidence of how far local authorities’ being responsible for the business gateway and business start-ups has made local authorities’ policy and practice more business friendly, particularly towards start-up businesses. The major change is that that work is now being undertaken by local authorities, whereas previously it was undertaken by the enterprise agencies. Part of the underlying thought behind that change was that it would make local authorities more business friendly. It would be interesting to take evidence—if any evidence were available—to see whether there has been any effect in that regard.
I commend to you the previous committee’s report. We conducted a full inquiry into the changes over about six months, taking a wider perspective on whether they had worked. If you have not seen that report, it would be worth your reading it.
If we are going to ask Scottish Enterprise to participate in the inquiry, it is incumbent on us to ask Highlands and Islands Enterprise to participate as well. I have said it before and I will say it again: the two organisations have had a different ethos in working with communities, organisations and businesses. I know from experience that Highlands and Islands Enterprise has had a more localised approach to development, whereas Scottish Enterprise is—as, I think, Chic Brodie described it—in the premier league. It would be useful for us to do that, but I do not know how we can extend that invitation without having panels that are too large for us to deal with.
You are right that HIE will have a slightly different perspective on the matter for the reason that you outlined, but also because the contracts were not transferred to the HIE areas until six months or a year later. There was a different timescale initially, so HIE may well have a different perspective on the matter.
I want to go back to a point that Mike MacKenzie raised earlier. I am one of the new kids. Has the norm been for the process to run from the end of September to the end of the next September? Is it a full year’s process? Who will monitor the people who are currently providing the service in the community? I am well aware that they will be trying their best to win the contract again, but who will monitor the quality of the service? A year is a long time for staff to be devoted to trying to win the contract.
Do you have a specific suggestion or proposal?
Does the Scottish Executive look at that? Does it monitor the quality of what is being delivered out in the community?
I am looking at our terms of reference again. The last bit in the second-last bullet point asks:
Possibly—sorry.
The terms of reference are not exhaustive.
Has the process always been a full year? Could it be reduced to make it more effective?
Well, we can ask that question. I do not know the answer to your question on the exact timescale. This is the first retendering of the business gateway contracts since the move, so there might not be an answer to your question, but we can ask it.
Thank you.
Anne McTaggart was talking about quality. In seeking written submissions we should perhaps ask how quality is currently measured, so that we can see the peaks and troughs that occur during the retendering process.
Okay.
I know that the minister is coming to give evidence. As someone who believes that business gateways should—at least in some way—dovetail with local and national strategy, I think it might be instructive if he provided us with the outline of the Government’s business strategy first, so that we can see who is complying with it and who is not.
You would like to see that in written evidence from the minister before he comes in.
Yes.
Okay. I thank everybody for their helpful suggestions. We have boosted the inquiry slightly and it will be quite a good one. Are members content to proceed along the lines that have been set out, coupled with what has been added?
Previous
Independent Commission on Banking