Enterprise and Culture Committee, 13 Feb 2007

Meeting date: Tuesday, February 13, 2007

Official Report 189KB pdf

---

Legacy Paper

We discussed an approach to our legacy paper and the first draft has now been circulated. I ask Stephen Imrie to introduce it, please.

I circulated a draft of the legacy paper. Previously, the committee discussed a framework and agreed the structure for the legacy paper, which I have fleshed out. Members kindly e-mailed me comments on the points that they wanted to be included in the paper; I hope that I have done those justice. I reiterate my offer to meet any member of the committee privately between now and the committee's final meeting, if there are issues relating to the legacy paper that they would like to discuss.

We are still waiting for some information. The committee was keen for us to ask the Executive to provide us with an update on the conclusions and recommendations of the inquiries that the committee has undertaken during the parliamentary session. On the committee's behalf, I have written to the Executive to ask it to provide that information, which should be available by our last meeting. In addition to the legacy paper, we will write up the notes from all the round-table discussions that the committee has had, including the one on the creative industries that we had a few weeks ago. By our next meeting we will have a revised version of the legacy paper, depending on members' comments today, the notes from the various round-table discussions that have taken place and the post-inquiry update on conclusions and recommendations.

The legacy paper is relatively straightforward. I have tried to keep it short, because it is not helpful for an incoming committee to get reams of paper that it does not examine in detail. The committee has learned many lessons along the way that would be valuable to a successor committee. I have tried to provide the new committee with accessible, brief hints, thoughts and advice on new inquiry topics. The paper is fairly self-explanatory, and I am happy to revise it in light of any comments that members make today.

There is only one full meeting of the committee left, although we need a special meeting to deal with a Scottish statutory instrument. It is likely that the full meeting will have to be postponed beyond 6 March, because of the availability of the minister and other people. We will probably meet on 13 March, but Stephen Imrie will be in touch with members once the position is clearer.

A legacy paper is only advisory and informative—there is no way in which we can commit our successor committee or committees to anything. However, when I joined a committee the second time, in 2003, I found the legacy paper useful, because it let me know what the committee had already done and passed on the baton for issues that could be taken up more immediately, especially in the first year after the election. The idea is to inform and advise, but we can in no way dictate or decide. I invite comments from members.

I am generally content with the legacy paper, which is comprehensive and covers all the ground. I would like to make a small point about paragraph 21, which refers to the idea of a skills summit. Although a skills summit is an excellent idea, we need to flesh out what we mean by that. I think that I made that point at a previous meeting; if I did not, I apologise.

I recall that the idea of a skills summit was discussed. I would be happy, if members wish, to say a bit more in a redraft of the legacy paper about what a skills summit might look like, in order to give a successor committee more guidance on what this committee was talking about.

That would be helpful.

In light of the Leitch review and talk from some parties of establishing a full employment agency, it is a very relevant subject.

I have a number of comments. The first relates to the Harold Wilson quotation in the paper. I am not averse to a quotation, but perhaps we can find a better one.

I have one from Alex Salmond. Would you like that to be included?

Is it the tip for the 2.45 at Newmarket?

It was Stephen Imrie's idea to include the quotation. When he asked me whether I wanted it to be left in, I said yes, as I wanted to see who would move to take it out.

I am more than happy to have a Harold Wilson quotation—just not that one.

I forecast that it would be you.

I know that—why do you think I raised the matter?

To an extent, paragraphs 7 and 19 deal with the same subject—the overlap in the remits of various committees. The example that is chosen is European structural funding, which the European and External Relations Committee has dealt with, but which is definitely relevant to the Enterprise and Culture Committee. Would it be sensible to put in something further around paragraph 7 on joint working and the possibility of joint inquiries, which we have not done to the extent that we might have? I know that that is difficult, but other committees have selected rapporteurs, for example.

Is everybody happy to add a reference at that point to joint working?

Members indicated agreement.

I felt that one sentence in paragraph 11 said, "You really have to do your homework, members, because it is not good for you or your mental processes to have us make up questions for you." As I said when we previously discussed the legacy paper, it is appropriate at times to have guidance on questions.

Should we rephrase that paragraph?

We should rephrase it to make it a little less teacher-ish.

Okay. Do members have other comments?

I do not disagree, but I like the sentiment behind paragraph 11.

So do I.

The change has been important.

Our practice is much better, although it has downsides, such as very long questions. I tend not to interrupt members, because it is up to members to pose questions. Even when a member asks a constituency question, which should not really be done at a committee other than when giving an example, I allow that, on the basis that an example is being given. Jamie Stone asked Patricia Ferguson about Caithness earlier.

Do the words "pot" and "kettle" come to mind?

My experience is that members should be given the maximum freedom to ask what they want to ask. They are the members of the committee.

I say—to avoid doubt—that I agree completely with the convener. However, I am a bit confused. Karen Gillon referred to "the change" and we have talked about agreeing to the change and dispensing with the practice. I do not think that the committee has ever used prepared questions, although some other committees do.

The theme has been pretty regular in other committees, too.

It is important to make it clear that we have not made a change; we just did not adopt the practice, although some committees have. I agree absolutely that we should not go down that road.

The situation was the same in the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee, which did not have prepared questions.

That is what I thought.

In paragraphs 8 and 9, which are about working practices, we need—for clarity if nothing else—to distinguish between what is formal and informal, what is private and not private and what takes place in a round table and across the table. The variations on a theme do not come across. The example is given of the social enterprise session, which was too far along the spectrum. That session was a round table and informal and was therefore in private, so it was without an Official Report, for example. We pushed that session too far along the spectrum. It could have been a round-table discussion with the OR, which would have felt better for all concerned.

The legacy paper does not convey the fact that we have had bona fide informal meetings, some of which have been valuable just as briefing sessions, such as the Royal Society of Edinburgh's briefing on its renewable energy report. Nobody would suggest that that could or should have been made more formal or public. It is good to channel such events just to committee members.

On the other hand, when we tried to capture something from the bona fide informal meeting that we had with Scottish Enterprise about its structural changes, we ran into difficulties in pure process terms, if nothing else, because we had not captured the discussion.

I think that we would all agree with what I have said, on the basis of experience. My plea is that the legacy paper should unpack all that a little more. If a recommendation is to be made, I suggest that we should recommend or suggest that our successors continue the practice of considering a range of models. The point is to find the right one to suit the purpose. That is partly about the subjects, partly about the organisations involved and partly about the timing of what we do with the output from the discussions. Stephen Imrie could elaborate a bit on that. I do not want him to write a book, just a few extra paragraphs.

Murdo, did you have something to add?

No. It is fine—the moment has passed.

Stephen Imrie will redraft the report for us to approve at our final meeting. Is everybody happy with that?

Members indicated agreement.