Official Report 256KB pdf
Item 3 is the paper on the work programme. As members will know, our work programme up to Christmas is agreed and set, with the possible exception of an additional item on VisitScotland. The purpose of this discussion is to consider the work programme from January to June 2005. We have not gone beyond that because it is impossible to predict between now and then what will come up. Information from the Executive leads us to expect that, from about October next year onwards, we will be dealing with substantial legislation on bankruptcy. It is likely that we will be the lead committee for that. Clearly, any decisions on our work programme beyond that period would have to take that into consideration.
I consulted Mike Watson on the paper and had a brief chat with Christine May last week. Mike was not at our meeting, but he seemed reasonably happy. Do members have specific points that they want to raise, either to add to, subtract from or amend the paper's specifics?
I have a point on the timings for the business growth inquiry, which could be a substantial piece of work. The work programme paper proposes another inquiry to follow that in May and June of next year. I wonder whether that is too ambitious, given that the business growth inquiry may take up much of our time.
Can I make two points on that? First, we can take a final decision on the timing of the second inquiry once we agree the remit and methodology, and the timing of the business growth inquiry. As members will know, we hope to finalise that at next week's meeting on 30 November. Today, I want to get members' views on which of the paper's three suggested subject areas the committee should focus on.
I take Murdo Fraser's point, but as members will know, we review the work programme once a month or so and we can adjust timings. We never know what is going to come up.
I agree that we should focus on employability.
Last week's update of "A Smart, Successful Scotland" identified that one of the really big issues that we need to address is the level of economic inactivity in Scotland, much of which is a result of employability issues.
Do we get to know who the suggestions came from, by the way?
The suggestion on employability was originally from Norma Hurley, who is a consultant with Blake Stevenson Ltd and who carried out research work for the committee two and a half years ago on lifelong learning. She made a suggestion, which I considered and which then became my suggestion to put into the pool.
You have gone back a stage. I was just asking which committee members had made which suggestions.
I suggested that one—I take full responsibility. When I read in the Sunday Post that we were going to take responsibility for Scottish football, I thought, "Oh God, we've got to get out of that."
I did not see that report.
That was just curiosity on my part. As is the way of such matters, work is required on the definitions, but the bag of issues on employability is important. I am particularly interested in the people who are furthest from the labour market, which I think is the technical term these days. We should consider what is being done and what can be done to match up such individuals with the skills gaps that exist. The issue is a chunky one that falls fairly and squarely within the committee's remit and I agree with the suggestion.
Chris Ballance.
I thought that it might have been him.
The area that I represent has about 50 small towns.
The phrasing of the suggestion is in a sense pejorative, although there is a fascinating issue in there. However, I would like to come at it completely differently, from the point of view of the role and development of cities, rather than the threat that they pose to small towns. I will not bore members—some of them have been involved in the analysis—but fascinating work is being done internationally on global trends in city development and the economic impact of cities.
What about city regions?
I accept that the city-region aspect is part of that, but what Christine May described is only a relatively small part of the bigger tapestry of cities' economic contribution. I would like us to consider that issue because it is emerging and important and it is something that we in Scotland have not quite got our heads—or our policy agenda—round yet. I do not think that the cities review achieved that. The issue is the flip-side of the coin that Chris Ballance has put before us. That would be my number 2 ranking, but I would like to approach the issue from a different perspective.
Do you mean number 2 after the employability suggestion?
Yes.
Susan Deacon is right that her suggestion is the flip-side of the small towns proposal. I do not accept that my suggestion is pejorative. The Scottish Executive is undertaking research into the future and the economy of small towns—into what makes them tick. That ties in well with a campaign called small towns under threat, which is being launched by the south of Scotland European partnership. There is room for us to consider that in relation to the whole of Scotland, which is why I have suggested it as an Enterprise and Culture Committee inquiry.
All the proposals have merit. I know what Chris Ballance means when he talks about small towns under threat, but there are many issues that are pertinent to the committee, such as affordable housing and rural development. Chris's proposal is certainly worth considering. Employability might flow quite well from our inquiry into business growth; it is linked but it is also distinct. It chimes well with the framework for economic development in Scotland announcements and the refreshment of "A Smart, Successful Scotland". That is the key issue—that has been correctly outlined.
To sum up, there is some consensus. We appear to agree that we do not want to do an inquiry into sport in the immediate future. It is not seen as the top priority. On Chris Ballance's proposal, I suggest that we consider an inquiry in 2005-06 into—to use a terrible phrase that sounds very Eurocratic but covers all the points made—spatial economic development, which covers the issue of cities, city regions, and small towns and so on. I do not want to call it regeneration in case I offend the Communities Committee. Spatial economic development is the remit of this committee. Such an inquiry could encapsulate many of Chris Ballance's points. Given that Europe is reviewing its attitude to those issues, 2005-06 might be the right time to consider them.
It is important to remember that the needs-versus-opportunities argument continues and I would like us to be able to focus on that. Some of that impacts on opportunities in small towns, where the opportunity for return on investment is not as great as it might be in a city, but where the need is likely to be far greater. The perennial question—which I will pose here for the record—is about the role of Scottish Enterprise. Is it a business development agency or an economic development agency? They are different.
Is everybody happy for us to go ahead with the business growth inquiry? We can decide the remit next week, once we have heard the consultants' presentation. I have asked the Scottish Parliament information centre to prepare a paper to assist the committee in deciding a remit. After that, we can give priority to the employability inquiry and, when the time comes, we can build into our 2005-06 programme the possibility of a spatial economic development inquiry. Is that reasonable? Is everybody happy with that?
I am a great believer in consensual politics.
There are no other points on the paper, other than to say that we look forward to Richard Baker's solutions to the problems of Scottish football.
I have it all worked out.
Meeting closed at 16:20.
Previous
Subordinate Legislation