Enterprise and Culture Committee, 06 Jan 2004

Meeting date: Tuesday, January 6, 2004

Official Report 194KB pdf

---

Work Programme

We move quickly to item 2, which concerns our work programme. The purpose of the item is to formalise the discussions that we held informally after our last meeting when we discussed our proposed inquiry into business growth and entrepreneurialism and the fact that the Auditor General for Scotland is undertaking an inquiry into Scottish Enterprise and Highlands and Islands Enterprise. I suggest that we postpone the development of our inquiry into business growth until the Auditor General's report is available to inform our discussion.

If we agree to that, we need to address the gap in our programme. This might be an opportune moment to begin the inquiry that we decided to hold on the roll-out of broadband. The purpose of the paper is to seek the committee's agreement to those two points. If they are agreed to, we will bring forward a remit for the broadband inquiry in the very near future.

I am happy with the proposal not least because I am increasingly seized of the urgency of the broadband issue. It would be useful to undertake that inquiry. My one reservation concerns some of the thinking that underpins the decision. I say that as someone who is also a member of the Audit Committee, so I am familiar with the work that the Auditor General is undertaking on Scottish Enterprise.

I worry a little that the nature of our inquiry into business growth and entrepreneurialism was intended to be significantly different from and significantly broader than the inquiry in which the Auditor General is engaged. I want to note that. I do not think that this was your intention, convener, but the inference could be made that we see the spend of the enterprise agencies as forming a larger part of our inquiry than perhaps it will.

I am in general agreement with the proposals, convener, but I seek information on how many sessions you expect the broadband inquiry to take. What stage are we at with the ITI inquiry? Is that likely to impact on the situation?

Susan Deacon is right that the inquiry into entrepreneurialism and business growth covers more than simply the spend of the enterprise agencies. Another problem that we had was that, although the inquiry is potentially much bigger than that, I did not feel that it was well enough defined at this stage. If we are to have an inquiry, we must ask questions that will produce sensible recommendations. I did not feel that, in the next couple of weeks, we would be able to agree on a precise remit for the inquiry. My proposal would kill two birds with one stone; it would postpone the inquiry until something that will be germane to it is available and it will enable us—with input from members, I hope—to tie down a specific remit for the inquiry.

On Chris Ballance's point, I am not sure how many sessions we will need for the broadband inquiry, because we will need to agree the remit first. On ITIs, we decided to wait for more developments. We have had an initial evidence session, but we are at an early stage. We cannot say terribly much, and certainly we cannot produce a report, but we felt that it would be useful to return to the issue in the future and see what the ITIs are doing once they are established. At that stage, we could pontificate on the results.

My recollection of the agreement to hold a quick inquiry into ITIs was that the decision was made because I and others raised concerns that ITI Scotland should not be yet another talking shop or bureaucratic hoop for organisations to jump through to get money for developments. I am concerned about waiting until ITI Scotland is fully established because, if there is a problem, waiting until it is established will be too late. I am reflecting anecdotal concerns that have been raised with me that the organisation does not have the credibility that it should have because it is overstaffed and just another filter or another hoop through which institutions must jump. That was my understanding of what we were going to consider.

That point did not come out at the evidence session that we had and I do not feel that we can come to that conclusion. I would welcome a discussion of what further steps to take at a future meeting. We need to decide on a remit and on which people we should talk to. I am happy to consider the issue that you raise, but I would rather have written suggestions from members, so that we can proceed on the basis of a paper.

I am happy to speak with you outwith the meeting, convener.

It strikes me that something can probably be done now to take on board Christine May's concerns about timing and seeking to influence the outcome, although that may fall short of an inquiry. I am interested in exploring those concerns, but that can be done initially through an exchange of letters to provide us with more information.

Okay.

Do members agree to the two recommendations in the paper?

Members indicated agreement.

Meeting closed at 15:59.