Official Report 438KB pdf
Agenda item 2 is an oral evidence session on the delivery of regeneration in Scotland. I welcome to the meeting our panel of witnesses: George Black, chief executive of Glasgow City Council; John Mundell, chief executive of Inverclyde Council; Lindsay Freeland, chief executive of South Lanarkshire Council; and Adrian Gillespie, managing director of Scottish Enterprise.
From a Glasgow point of view, alignment takes place through community planning; the strategic board, of which Scottish Enterprise is a member; and the single outcome agreement, which sets out all the joint priorities at a strategic planning level. Moreover, Scottish Enterprise is involved in major projects on the ground such as the newly opened Hydro at the exhibition centre. I would say, therefore, that there is a positive strategic and working relationship between the council, the community planning partners and Scottish Enterprise.
Very similar circumstances apply in Inverclyde, where Scottish Enterprise is a main board member of, and plays a proactive role in, our community planning partnership, Inverclyde alliance. The 14 member organisations on Inverclyde alliance’s main board cover the public, private and voluntary sectors and quite a wide range of people is involved in the process of developing our plans and objectives for the area. At an operational level, Scottish Enterprise is proactively involved in the work of our programme board, which delivers on a whole range of fronts, particularly regeneration, and is also involved in our urban regeneration company and certain strategic projects.
Our position is very similar. As part of our community plan, we have theme-based partnerships covering community regeneration and economic development activities. Each of those regeneration theme-based partnerships has good, constructive proposals on what we see as the priorities, and those proposals are shared with other partners through the community planning partnership.
I echo all those comments. We have made quite a big investment in ensuring that our senior staff have much stronger local links and, in particular, links to the local authorities; for example, 30 of our senior staff have location director responsibilities across the country. With that approach, we hope to work very closely on issues such as regeneration, feeding in the information that we are picking up from the companies that we work with in the area and the key sectors that we support such as energy and financial services. We try to bring to those partnerships a national view of, for example, the international opportunities for those sectors and the companies that we are working with and work with the local authorities on understanding those companies and the assets that they can bring to those priorities to allow us to work together on common objectives.
Many committee members have had the opportunity to visit Clyde Gateway and beyond that the committee’s evidence sessions have taken evidence from folks who have worked for Clyde Gateway and indeed members of the public. Given that the URC covers two of the council areas represented this morning—Glasgow and South Lanarkshire—I wonder whether any tensions have emerged as a result of that situation. If so, how have you overcome them? As it can often be difficult when two local authorities deal with one particular body, with one perhaps wanting to go one way and the other another, how have you overcome any such difficulties?
The relationship between Glasgow and South Lanarkshire over the Clyde Gateway project has been positive. The fact is that tensions will emerge in any major regeneration project, but they will be played out primarily at Clyde Gateway board level. No tensions have been raised at a senior level in Glasgow City Council and I am fairly sure that the same is the case in South Lanarkshire. We expect that, with any ambitious programme such as Clyde Gateway’s, there will be lively discussions about priorities, and I see such discussions as a positive rather than a negative sign.
I echo that sentiment. The URC has honoured a commitment with regard to the 2013 to 2016 operating plan and we constantly have meetings and discussions with the company to ensure that things are on track. As George Black has said, tensions will constantly arise about operational activities and various slippages, but the relationships are very good and positive.
Do you have any comment on Clyde Gateway, Mr Gillespie?
I am not aware of any specific tensions, convener. Obviously we are very involved with Clyde Gateway and have worked with the local authorities and the URC board to find out how it might better contribute to certain key sectors, specifically energy and financial services.
John Wilson has a wee supplementary.
Good morning, gentlemen. As I believe the Official Report will show later, George Black said that these particular tensions are not really brought to the council. I wonder whether Mr Freeland and Mr Black can tell us how issues that are discussed by Clyde Gateway are brought back to the council and reported to elected members. Clyde Gateway brings together two local authorities that comprise elected members. How do those members interact with those developments?
Just for clarity, my point was that Clyde Gateway has not raised any issues at a senior level in the council. Tensions will understandably arise at a local level, but they have not risen to a senior level.
One of our board members is also the chair of the enterprise services committee, so Clyde Gateway progress is reported through the enterprise services committee. We have a senior management team that engages daily with Clyde Gateway on operational matters. As recently as February, we had concerns about progress on the South Lanarkshire side. The plan, although it is articulated and works very well, has seen quite a lot of slippage due to unforeseen circumstances relating to the site, for example. The council leader and I met Neil MacDonald, who is the chair, and Ian Manson, who is the chief executive. Following that meeting, good progress has been made and good updates received, and we agreed to meet the chair every six months to review and monitor progress.
Before we move off this general line of questioning, I have another issue to raise. A number of other public bodies are involved in the Clyde Gateway regeneration work. Perhaps the impetus of the Commonwealth games is making things a little bit easier for you guys in that regard. Have there been any difficulties with other public bodies in getting to the place where you want to be? We have seen good examples of co-operation in Clyde Gateway with the various rail bodies in dealing with the stations that are required in the east end for the games. However, we have also heard about difficulties in dealing with other public bodies in trying to reach the goals. Are there strains with other bodies?
The date of the Commonwealth games is immoveable. That has had an impact on organisations, such as the utility companies—gas, electricity and water—and they are more proactive in ensuring that their work is co-ordinated with the other work in that area.
Being in the public eye makes folk move up a gear.
That is a fair comment. In general construction projects—not just in URC projects—there are constant issues with the utilities.
Will you give us examples?
I do not want to name specific utilities, but it is frustrating that the timescales of water and electricity companies and so on do not always complement our own. They have a separate agenda and, although we try to do as much pre-planning as possible, it is not always possible to get the deadlines to match.
Is it just the timeline that is a difficulty or is it also negotiating the link-up with the electricity companies, for example?
Yes. If you take sewerage as an example, there is sometimes a difficulty in getting a commitment to do the job.
That you very much for that—that is extremely useful.
Good morning, panel—welcome to the meeting. My question is on community participation and how you involve communities within the structures of regeneration strategies. What formal structures are in place to ensure that the collective voice of communities is heard and built into all of the activities?
We actively involve the community on a range of fronts in terms of community planning. We have workshops involving the community; we use our citizens panel; and we have specific events to involve the community in guiding and steering the community planning partners in the right direction and to take on the views of the community. Clearly, there are professional views from a strategic perspective that must be fed into the mix to ensure that our plans for an area are the right ones and that they are grounded in the community.
Our situation is similar to that in Inverclyde in that most of the engagement takes place at local level through the local community planning partnerships. How we are organised in Glasgow is that each of the 21 multimember wards has a local community planning partnership. The partnership includes community representation and strong community council representation. We also have a very active community-based housing association sector in Glasgow, as Ian Wall will be aware, which is also involved at the delivery level.
Before we hear from Mr Freeland, I have a question for Mr Black on local community planning partnerships such as the mini-scale ones that are based on wards or communities. We have heard from members of the public that many of the main players often do not come to the table at those fora. What is the experience in Glasgow of the main players? How do they react to the 21 local partnerships?
One of the prime roles of the local community planning partnership is to hold organisations, including the council, to account at a local level. I would be very surprised if any of the organisations in Glasgow were not regular attendees at meetings of the local community planning partnerships. Somebody might occasionally not be able to attend a particular meeting but, as far as I am aware, there is full representation at the meetings. The local community planning partnerships are very active in holding organisations to account, particularly senior officers from the agencies.
Our situation is very similar. It is a requirement for all our programme delivery partners to work in partnership with communities and to demonstrate how they involve them in informing and making decisions on projects. Through the economic strategy, we have a voluntary sector network that brings together about 160 organisations to focus on the thematic of economic development. All the arrangements help to articulate and focus the voice of community groups in South Lanarkshire. We meet them on a regular basis to focus on economic development and regeneration.
Our engagement with communities is through the community planning partnerships. We rely heavily on the feedback that we get from local authority partners through the partnerships. The impact of our work in communities tends to be on things such as new company investment, which tends to be very well received. We also work with companies in difficulty. If a company is announcing redundancies or closure, we will work very closely with the local authority on handling the initial situation and helping the workforce to find alternative work, or on what we might do to generate new employment from any facilities left behind.
I was chair of a social inclusion partnership in a past life, and we regularly got frustrated when Scottish Enterprise did not turn up. I imagine that attendance at community planning partnerships is much better, but what is Scottish Enterprise’s attendance at the community level that Mr Black was talking about, where a huge amount of the main business is done?
Our involvement is through the community planning partnerships, at the local authority level. We seek to engage with communities through feeding into the community planning partnerships.
Okay, but if one of the 21 wards in Glasgow thought that Scottish Enterprise had a part to play in something that it was dealing with, would Scottish Enterprise attend that meeting?
We are absolutely committed to playing a full part in community planning partnerships. If that means further engagement around an issue at a more local level, we would be keen to do that.
I am curious to know how many community members have a community planning partnership role, but I will ask about that later. How do community groups feed into local authority single outcome agreements?
It would be useful for us to know how many community members are members of the community planning partnership. If you have that information, please encapsulate it in your answer.
Our community groups are represented on the main board of our community planning partnership, Inverclyde alliance, along with the community council and the voluntary sector. The community council is covered by two representatives, and the voluntary sector, which has one representative, has nominated a person to be on our main board, so it contributes in that way.
So it is not only from community planning partnerships that you receive the information that informs other policies.
Our single outcome agreement is absolutely evidence based. We have gone to great lengths to make sure that our plans are aligned with the needs and demands of the community. The process that I have outlined is the method that we mentioned in our earlier answers to some of the committee’s questions.
We have about 80 active community councils in Glasgow. Off the top of my head, I believe that there are between four and six community representatives on each community planning partnership. That representation is primarily drawn from community councils, but there is also some representation from local housing associations.
Our main board includes a voluntary sector representative and a chamber of commerce representative as partners, and we have a community rep.
You mentioned citizens panels. Are their members self-selecting or do you look for all kinds of folk to be on them?
We try to get a representative cross-section of the community. We advertise and invite people to be members. We have a citizens panel of 1,000 people from across the Inverclyde population, and we believe that it is truly representative.
Our position is similar. We advertise for members; we ask people to answer questions at PayPoint facilities in supermarkets and so on. We look for nominations from all sorts of groups. We do not choose the members; they self-select.
The situation is similar in Glasgow, where quite a bit of effort is put in to ensure that we have representation from all the groups, including minority groups, in the city. That is done on a statistical basis.
My experience has been that many of the folks who volunteer to take part in such panels or juries—whatever we want to call them—are older, which causes a demographic imbalance. Have you tried to resolve anything like that, if it has occurred in your neck of the woods? Everyone is nodding.
We try to reflect the demographics as well as the different sections of the community. The levels of response to some of the panel questionnaires vary; that is probably reflected across the country. We sometimes get a response rate of 60 to 70 per cent to our surveys, which is quite representative. I do not think that we have identified particular issues with demographics.
Our approach is similar. We also engage with the youth council, elderly groups and special interest groups, which represent different demographics.
Our situation is similar.
You talk about involving all these people—particularly community councils and so on. There are a lot of purple passages about
At the strategic level, outcomes are agreed between the council and the Scottish Government, through the single outcome agreement. At the local level, we talk about the local priorities that matter. Budgets are devolved from councils to local partnerships, so that, as a group, they can decide on their priorities and commit resources to those priorities.
You say that community councils have elections. How do you monitor them? If they do not have elections, does that matter? Can the elections be allowed to slide? Do they happen regularly?
Community councils have a constitution, to which rules are attached. Glasgow City Council’s role has been to make available its expertise in running local elections, to ensure that community council elections take place.
You talk about elections but in many parts of the country, community council elections have not taken place for many a year because the number of nominations has not been sufficient to require an election. There could be accusations of self-selection. In recent times, how many community councils have been elected rather than just nominated?
Do you mean a sole nominee?
No. If a community council requires 10 representatives and there are seven, eight, nine or 10 nominations, no election takes place. How often are elections held?
I would have to check the detail. If your question is whether there is real competition at the local level, my answer is that I do not think that there is a surplus of competition.
A few months ago, we had an election for one community council, but another community council did not require an election for the reason that the convener just mentioned. It is a mixed picture in reality.
There are two levels. We translate the national priorities into local priorities and consult on those local priorities through various mechanisms. We then translate that information into what we call the council plan, which is known as the South Lanarkshire connect plan, and we engage with communities on that. Translating that into actions on the ground requires a different level of consultation, as what is needed to further an objective in one community is different from what is needed in another community, so there is local consultation. You will see from our written submission that, as a result, we have got a number of physical projects off the ground that involve increased community facilities. Those facilities give people a place to meet and organise, which leads to further spin-off community benefits.
When dealing with communities across a local authority area feeding in, there is always a challenge in distinguishing between the vocal and the voiceless. Some communities are good at making their case proactively, whereas other communities require a great deal of assistance in putting their views across or articulating their concerns and what they want councils to do on regeneration. How could local authorities better reflect the needs and concerns of those communities that do not have active community councils or community forums?
South Lanarkshire Council has a tackling poverty programme, part of which is about trying to increase community empowerment. We have people who are actively working with communities to get them skilled, able and confident enough to articulate their views. It is not the case that the people who shout the loudest get the most. Particularly in areas that are identified by the Scottish index of multiple deprivation, we are working hard with the communities on community capacity building to address that issue.
Our community planning partnership commissioned a local voluntary organisation, Your Voice, to do a lot of that work. We also provide support with capacity building in a similar way to that just described. We believe that we have our finger on the pulse in that regard.
Our situation is similar. Although there are community councils throughout Glasgow, the people who participate in community planning need support with the way in which they engage with the process. Recently, community representatives have been meeting as a group prior to the local community planning partnership meetings, which I guess is what you guys would recognise as a pre-meeting. That is regarded as positive, because it allows views to be discussed at the local level before they are fed in formally to the local community planning partnership. There is evidence that support arrangements can help local people round the table to participate fully.
Mr Gillespie, I am not asking you to answer many of the questions because I do not think that they cover your area of responsibility, but if you want to come in, just let me know.
I hear what is being said. Another challenge is that community organisations and groups often involve the same voices wearing different hats. Is there a way to go beneath some of those groups to try to reach those in the community who perhaps feel that their voice is not being reflected by people in particular positions who speak on behalf of the community?
The way to do that is to increase volunteering levels in the community and to spread volunteers across a wider base. We try to do that. In some areas, we have established new community-run activities in the hope that more people will participate in them, which will build a base for people to give their view. When people participate in activities, they tend to want to engage more with the council and other bodies.
My experience is that, if there is an issue that communities are interested in, people will come out and express their views. A recent example in my council was the potential introduction of a transit site for Gypsy Travellers. The community certainly came out to all the community events that we held to trawl for views, and those views were taken on board in developing our policy and in the conclusions that we came to. Other than that, our experience is similar to that which has been described already.
I echo John Mundell’s comments. In Glasgow, public meetings have been held on initiatives that have been taken forward. I have referred to Sighthill, where there have been various well-attended public meetings at which people have been very vocal and views have been put across clearly. However, such meetings are on single issues, and the challenge is how we can engage those people so that they have a more permanent involvement in the future of the community. That is a challenge that we all have.
One issue is to do with the delivery of council services in driving regeneration in communities, but another aspect is the presence of physical assets, whether they are operated by the council or other organisations. What importance is attached to ensuring that there are physical assets that the community can use as focal points and for a variety of community-based activities?
Such assets are vital to local communities. People do not want assets to be divorced from the future of the community. When it comes to place, people take a more holistic view—they want to know what the schooling opportunities are and what general practitioner facilities exist, for example.
As we went round the country we found that certain folk perceive that council services are better in some of the leafy suburbs than they are in areas of deprivation. On one of our visits we heard people say that with street cleaning, for example, more emphasis was put on the leafy suburbs than was put on their patch. Have you done any audit work to see whether such perceptions are right or wrong?
I certainly would not agree with such perceptions. The Society of Local Authority Chief Executives and Senior Managers and Audit Scotland have undertaken a benchmarking exercise on a range of services across the board so that councils can compare performance. In terms of the cleanliness of the city—
Can I stop you there, Mr Black? We are well aware of the benchmarking process that is going on. As you are probably well aware, we are keeping a close eye on it. I am more interested in performance within council areas, where you might have a well-off leafy suburb with a pretty deprived area next door to it. It was raised more than once with members of the committee that the folk in the leafy suburbs often get better services because they shout louder. I realise that you are talking about benchmarking among councils, but how do you benchmark among your council wards and among areas of deprivation and the leafy suburbs in order to ensure that everybody is getting a fair crack of the whip?
Most pressure would come from local elected members. The council aims to provide a standard level of service for a range of services across the city, whether in a leafy suburb or a deprived area. In my experience, elected members would not stand for a lower level of service in their area than is provided elsewhere. In certain areas, more resource might be required to deliver that level of service, but that is more likely to be in deprived areas than in better-off areas.
Our service delivery is designed on the basis of need and demand. As far as I am concerned, that goes without saying.
You referred to need and demand. I have found during the course of life that people demand things when they do not actually need them.
I do not believe that to be the case in my council area. That is just my view.
On the point about assets, as Mr Black said, they are vital, but they should not be forced on communities. Infrastructure, such as transport links, is also vital to communities.
Mr Mundell, I am aware that you did not address the question about assets that Mr McDonald asked.
I apologise.
This is my final question. As well as providing assets, every council goes through a rationalisation of assets, whether that takes the form of school or community centre closures or some other form of asset rationalisation. What cognisance do you take of the regeneration profile of a community when you consider which of the assets across your area you might consider closing or disposing of?
There is a live example in the Dalmarnock area, where the council has a £250 million pre-12 new-build and refurbishment programme in place. Given that the games village and other planned housing will be located there, we are projecting what demand will be from the families. It is a case not just of looking at current demand, but of trying to predict what demand will be further down the line, so that we do not close a facility that is not required now, but which will be required in three, four or five years. I would say that quite a sophisticated approach is taken to ensuring that we look ahead and align ourselves with the plans of other organisations in the city.
I understand the point that you make but, in general, that is the process that you would go through regardless of the location of an asset. I am asking specifically whether the fact that an asset is based in a regeneration community has any bearing on decisions that the council might take, given the discussion that we have had about the importance of having community-based assets in regeneration communities.
I do not think that it is at odds with the aim of regeneration for a facility in a regeneration area to be closed because it is not fit for purpose, if it is meant to be replaced with something better and that happens. I was trying to make the point that the issue is less about whether the area is a regeneration area and more about what future demand in that area will be.
When we do our asset management planning, we assess community facilities against a set of criteria that we use to ensure that we will not have a negative impact on an area. I am quite confident that we do that properly in Inverclyde Council.
Similarly, South Lanarkshire Council has a quite sophisticated asset management plan. We take cognisance of usage and condition, for example, and of other assets in the area that could be shared. There is a common look at what is going on in an area to determine whether properties can be rationalised while a specific community focus is still provided.
Good morning, gentlemen. In their written submissions, each local authority has provided details of the total spend on regeneration. What has that expenditure achieved?
Who will go first on that question? Mr Black?
I am quite happy to start, because I think that there is a success story in Glasgow behind its regeneration over a long period of time, and particularly the past five or 10 years. Glasgow Housing Association and the council have had a big part to play in that, and I am confident that all the information is available if members are looking for outcomes in respect of the number of jobs and improved houses and schools.
We have achieved a huge amount in Inverclyde, which is dramatically different from what it was when I first went there—I joined Inverclyde Council in 2006.
The achievement has been hugely positive. There is still a lot to do, as Mr Mundell said, and the SIMD figures are evidence of that, but the investment has created a lot of confidence in the area. Many jobs are being created and there is much progress on issues around employment for 18 to 24-year-olds. Statistics on improvements across a range of activities are starting to come through and we have a lot of good activity on job schemes and getting people to work.
Mr Mundell talked about building industrial units on spec; industrial units are often built on spec and never used. How have you identified whether there is a necessity for the units that you have built? Is it just a matter of promoting them so that you can give a wide choice—a bit like promoting shops that stay empty? I am interested in that because many industrial units are not used and, eventually, are pulled down.
That is an important point. Obviously, there is risk associated with that approach, but we believe that it is worth while because of the level of confidence that is starting to appear. We have built two new office blocks on spec through our urban regeneration company. One of them was finished only a few months ago and both are now fully occupied. That is not only about creating new jobs but about retaining and sustaining jobs within our area.
How have you identified that? That is what I am trying to get at. You said that you believe it, but how have you identified the need?
That was done through our urban regeneration company, which is responsible for that.
When we visited Cumbernauld, folks there said that a number of industrial units had been built but were never filled and they said rightly that that money should have been spent on something else. The units had been built on spec with no real business case for doing so. Will you outline for us the business reasons for building units on spec?
One of the key factors for us is depopulation in the area; we have to do something about that. The trends show our population declining at an alarming rate over many decades, so part of our repopulation strategy is to try to attract business. We are about to embark on a proactive marketing arrangement to attract people and business to the area.
That is all very well, but you have not given us real reasons why you chose to build industrial units on spec.
There would be a wide spectrum of input and research before any infrastructure was developed, especially if there were some risk around its occupancy. In some developments over the past few years, there has been much more industrial input at the strategic level through the industry advisory groups; such groups would surface the lack of business infrastructure as an inhibitor to their growth, and that would translate into our local work on fulfilling that demand.
I understand that and why there would be demand for a building that attracts folks involved in renewable energy. I also understand the work that has gone on in the Clyde Gateway area, where there was a demand for the units that were constructed and as a result of which oil industry jobs have been attracted to the east end of Glasgow.
That happens less and less now, because the rigour that I have just described would be applied to any investment in local industrial units and any decision in that respect would be based on strong demand for business space in the community. Indeed, we would feed in that sort of information. If companies that we are working with told us that they want to stay within the locality but need larger or different premises, we would work with the local authority on filling up available business space before we considered building something new.
Are you co-operating with Inverclyde Council and Riverside Inverclyde on the buildings that they are putting up on spec?
We would look at these matters on a case-by-case basis, taking account of a company’s need, and we would work with the local authority on fulfilling that need. Where there is a particular opportunity—such as in Inverclyde, where there are opportunities in renewable energy and the port infrastructure—we will work very closely and strategically to take it.
I said earlier that the decision to go forward with the units was taken by the urban regeneration company. The member organisations are the council and Scottish Enterprise; we have accountable officers who are involved with the main board; and the company has gone through the business planning process. I do not have the detail at my fingertips, but I am absolutely convinced that it has gone through due process.
It would be extremely useful for the committee if you could supply us with information about the governance of and the reasons for taking the decision. If you could provide that in writing to the clerks, I would be grateful.
No problem, convener.
A number of areas in Glasgow have improved, particularly areas with the most acute deprivation, but it is fair to say that there is a long journey ahead for Glasgow to bring itself to a position that is average or above average for the country. However, if you are asking me whether there has been progress in the past five or 10 years, the answer is that there has definitely been progress.
It is a long-term game, and we expect returns on the investments that we are making now to come over an extended period. As far as the SIMD areas in Inverclyde are concerned, that is a moveable feast as well. The investment moves from one analysis period to another. We still have a lot of work to do in that regard.
It is a similar picture in South Lanarkshire. There has been a lot of progress, but we still have a lot to do. I think that we have six areas in the top 5 per cent, so there is still a lot of work to be done.
If it is feasible for each of the local authorities on the panel to provide information on that to the committee following today’s meeting, that would be useful. I have looked into the Inverclyde situation as I stay in the area, and I know that there has been an increase in some of the areas. There are 110 data zones in Inverclyde and 40 per cent of them are in the 15 per cent most deprived areas in Scotland. However, it would be useful to have information from the other authorities as well.
That is one of the challenges that the community planning ethos is bringing to the table in relation to transformation. It is always difficult to stop doing something and start doing new things. What we have done through the early years collaborative and so on is to demonstrate that the new things are working. The transformation bit is to stop the old things and try to move on with the new things. That is a constant challenge for us because there are entrenched practices and different cultures, but there is evidence that we are starting to change how we do things.
Can you give any examples of things that you have stopped doing?
Let me take supporting vulnerable families as an example, In the past, we had a traditional social work service that would go and support vulnerable families; now, the work is much more integrated into council structures. We have specific people within the housing function, rather than the social work function, who are responsible for visiting people regularly, and they take responsibility for co-ordinating the service provision. One person is responsible for the family, rather than the family being passed on to someone in a social work team, who would deal with one small part of the problem.
Have you done any analysis of that?
Plenty of analysis was done of the breaking the cycle stuff a few years ago. Other, internal analysis of some of our projects has been done as well.
We would be interested in that information. If you could provide that analysis, that would be brilliant.
Mr McMillan, you referred to the SIMD areas within the single outcome agreement. The statistics that you referred to are there. The community planning partnership is fully aware of the specific examples that you gave.
Looking back, I would say that in Glasgow there was a time when there was too much concentration on physical change being the solution. It was thought that, if we improved people’s houses, that would improve an area by itself.
If it is okay, convener, I will ask Mr Mundell a couple of questions regarding regeneration going forward.
Okay.
They are very brief questions.
You said that the mid-term review was published. In actual fact, it was leaked before it was published. I think that people are aware of that issue.
What about the company aspects, Mr Mundell?
I am not familiar with the company referred to.
Its registered office is the municipal buildings.
As I said, I am not in a position to give you an answer on that at this moment in time.
Maybe you could delve into that and write to the committee about it.
My final question also regards the mid-term review. New Skills Consulting Ltd undertook the review, but it has been around Inverclyde since it was appointed to provide external consultancy support to the Inverclyde alliance on 9 May 2008. Would it be normal practice to have a consultancy firm that is already involved undertake a review, rather than having a separate consultancy firm come in to do it? There could be said to be a potential conflict of interest if a firm was doing a review of work in which it was already involved.
I am not sure that what you said is entirely correct. My understanding is that, earlier this year, the two member organisations—the council and Scottish Enterprise—jointly commissioned New Skills Consultancy, which is an English company, to undertake the mid-term review. I am certainly not aware that New Skills had any involvement with the Inverclyde alliance before that time. The first time that I ever heard of the company was a few months ago when I met the consultant who interviewed me as part of the urban regeneration company review.
My questions build on the previous questions on budgets. The chief executives have talked about significant areas of spending and investment in regeneration and on policy, but we live in a world of reducing budgets and budget pressures.
I have mentioned that there are eight transformational regeneration areas in Glasgow. Consequently, there is a focus on developing holistic plans for those areas. That is a big priority for the city.
I would be interested to hear about the new spend, too. Education, housing, social work issues and so on could all feed into important regeneration goals.
Absolutely. I do not hide from the fact that there are severe pressures on local authorities’ budgets, some of which have been recently played out in the press. I would not underestimate the challenges that those pressures bring, but local authorities have a proven track record of prioritising and taking a long-term view of revenue and capital expenditure. I am confident that that process will continue, albeit that it will be much more difficult.
Do the other authorities take a similar approach?
It comes right back to the vision: the place of choice as the best location to live, work and invest in, and making sure that the people in our communities have the right skills and are educated and that it is an environmentally healthy and safe place. All those aspects impact on the complex web of regeneration.
I echo that answer. We do not have a regeneration budget, but some capital moneys go towards supporting the URC and the vacant and derelict land fund. The budgets for social work, education, community and enterprise all contribute to regeneration in some way, and people are having to make pretty severe budget cuts, which at some point will have an impact.
I have questions for each panel member. I will start with Mr Gillespie, who has been out on a limb in some of the discussion—
Just a little bit.
Mr Gillespie, you said that Scottish Enterprise invested in the inovo building at the University of Strathclyde, which you said had 35 per cent occupancy on day 1. Was the occupancy all by the university, given the building’s location?
No—
One or two members have mentioned workspace units that have been created but for which there does not seem to be demand. I know that a number of office buildings in the centre of Glasgow are lying vacant. How does Scottish Enterprise make a judgment about investing in new office development on the edge of the city centre?
I clarify that I was talking about business occupation. A very small team from the university is based in the inovo building in advance of their building next door opening next year.
Thank you. Mr Black, you mentioned Sighthill a few times and you said that Glasgow has 21 local community planning partnerships. As you are probably aware, there is a unique structure in Sighthill park, and there are local and national demands for it to be retained. How would the community feed its views into the development if the council decided to go ahead and build on the park?
The community is already feeding its views into the process. Negotiations are taking place with the community on how we can find a solution that allows the regeneration of the area to go ahead while still recognising local priorities. That is true of many projects across the city.
I seek clarification on who “we” are, in relation to the community. Is the community involved in regeneration? You referred to the regeneration that we would like to go ahead. The nub of the issue in regeneration concerns the demands of the community that lives and works in the area and wants it to develop and grow around the community’s themes. The comparison is of things being done to communities rather than communities doing things themselves—the convener talked about that.
I think that I referred to that point as a lesson from the past.
You did.
I will broaden out the discussion a little. In major regeneration projects—Sighthill is one; its scope is wide, not local—we need to grapple with three issues.
I could ask a number of questions on the basis of what you say, but I know that time is tight and that we need to move on.
Given what has happened in the economy and the circumstances that have prevailed recently, the buildings definitely would not have progressed. If things had been different, the buildings might have gone ahead without the public sector pump-priming money, but we would not be in the position that we are in now if the public sector had not stuck with the main objectives that we are trying to achieve in the area.
Mr Freeland, you said that you feel that utilities sometimes do not come on board with the regeneration strategies that URCs or local authorities pursue. What can we do to ensure that utility companies buy into the objectives of the regeneration strategies of local authorities and others?
Ultimately, utility companies will buy in as a result of persuasion and convincing about the regeneration. They are businesses and they charge for the product that they deliver. My point was that we do not control their timescales. Sometimes, we would like things to be done a lot more quickly than the utility companies can do them. That can become a bit frustrating, but they have a different agenda from us—their priority is not our priority.
I have one final question for the three local government representatives. Given that the URCs were supposed to be short-life bodies created to assist regeneration in particular areas, what should happen to the assets that they have created with public money? After all, with Clyde Gateway and Riverside Inverclyde in particular, relatively large sums of money have been ploughed into developments.
I do not think that Clyde Gateway is all that short term—it has to be a long-term body. Indeed, I think that it will be another 10 years before the investment plan, which has been in place for years now, delivers all its objectives.
I agree with that. We in Inverclyde need to keep our options open. We have not yet decided whether to close the URC, which has a significant property portfolio that generates quite a significant revenue stream and which has some high-value items in the mix. We need to take our time and make very careful decisions on the matter.
There is a difference between winding up the URC and stopping its funding from the Scottish Government. Fundamentally, the URC is a partnership; its job in the east end of Glasgow is far from finished and, indeed, I expect that another partnership will be required to finish it. If there were any change to Clyde Gateway, it would make sense for its assets to be owned by whatever new partnership is created. My starting point, however, is that I see no reason for the URC not to continue in its present form.
I thank the panel for their evidence, and I suspend the meeting for a few minutes to allow a changeover of witnesses.