Enterprise Agencies (Restructuring)
Item 6 is consideration of the restructuring of the enterprise agencies. Last week, we had a well-presented briefing from Sir John Ward, Jack Perry and Lena Wilson—respectively the chair, chief executive and chief operating officer of Scottish Enterprise—on their proposals. I remind members that it was a confidential briefing and that, therefore, we are not at liberty to disclose the detail of what was presented to us. We must talk in generalities. A paper has been circulated to the committee.
My impression—members who were at the briefing can correct me if I am wrong, and I am sure they will—was that there was general agreement with the thrust of what was being proposed. There are obviously issues of detail that will need to be discussed, but the only issue of major concern was the proposal for the middle tier of the planning units. Separate planning units are proposed for the east and the west. A number of us felt that that would reinforce the east-west split, particularly the Glasgow-Edinburgh split, and that it would perhaps be better to have one planning unit that covered both, as well as one for the north and one for the south.
Having spoken to people about the proposal, I think that the consensus is that we should express concern about it, while saying that we understand that things need to be done according to a staged process and that we perhaps need to start with an east unit and a west unit, dealing first with the city region strategies for Edinburgh and Glasgow and then combining them, as was argued for by Jack Perry. Alternatively, we could go straight to one unit that covers the whole of that part of Scotland. I had a brief informal conversation with Jack Perry on the phone yesterday. He said that that view is not dissimilar to what was expressed during last week's board discussion. It might be shared generally.
I am in a little difficulty here, because I do not know how constrained we are in discussing this matter. I am not entirely sure what is already in the public domain and what is not. I have some concerns, although I welcome—
Basically, whatever leaks from Scottish Enterprise is in the public domain. There have been a few leaks.
With respect to your humour, convener, it is a perfectly serious question. I have concerns about some of the detail of what has been proposed, but I do not know whether I am entitled to raise them in this meeting. Is it legitimate to raise concerns about some of that detail?
We should raise our concerns, but without going too far into the detail. We did give an undertaking that the briefing was a private briefing.
I have three concerns, and I do not think that any of them touch on anything that is desperately confidential.
Does Susan Deacon have a problem with this?
Yes. I would like to raise this as a point of order that follows on from the concerns Murdo Fraser expressed.
Either the committee is taking a view on the matter or it is not. If we are, due process and good sense would suggest that we ought to have a fuller discussion in open forum. This feels very odd, and I cannot think of a precedent when we have been given a private briefing and have then been asked to take a position on its content.
I remind members of what has been asked of us. Some staffing issues were discussed, and we were of course requested not to make that kind of information public. The general thrust of the reorganisation proposals has already been well discussed in the press. To be fair to Scottish Enterprise, it was a private briefing and there was a request that some of the more sensitive issues, for instance around staffing levels, should not be discussed in public.
I quite accept that. Nevertheless, some issues have arisen that may or may not be dealt with in the final proposal from Scottish Enterprise and Highlands and Islands Enterprise. I am concerned that the committee should air those concerns, without necessarily suggesting that they will or will not be covered in the final document. We do not know about that. When we got the briefing, the document was not concluded. It was my intention to articulate those concerns during this meeting. You have already articulated one of them, but I have a couple of others, which I have raised not just during private meetings but in public statements. I would be happy to raise those concerns again.
Let us not make a mountain out of a molehill. I was merely reminding members that one or two factual points were made in relation to staffing issues, for example, which, for obvious reasons, we were asked not to discuss publicly. I do not think that that should constrain us in any way from expressing our concerns or views, either positive or negative, on the proposed restructuring. I do not think that members should feel constrained in that way.
It is fair to make the point that there has been a lot of coverage on the subject, particularly in the Sunday newspapers. There has already been a lot of public discussion on the matter.
Not all leaked by you, of course.
I was not at liberty to leak it anyway, of course. I did not know about the matter until we received our presentation. Over to you, Murdo, before—
I withdraw that outrageous remark, convener.
I agree with you on the general thrust of the approach that Scottish Enterprise has taken, and I welcome what has been said. There are three points I would like to make.
First, I share your concern about the structure that would divide the country into east and west regions. I am not convinced that that is the way to go, for reasons that you have already mentioned. We should develop as a single unit the central belt of Scotland—or, indeed, the triangular central belt up to Dundee.
Secondly, I am concerned about how the business sector will contribute to the new structure. At the moment, we have statutory boards for local enterprise companies, which are partly made up of representatives of the business community. When Scottish Enterprise was set up back in 1991, there was a major shift from what existed under the Scottish Development Agency. We had local boards with local business representatives, who had a direct input into decision making. I understand that although local advisory boards are proposed, the statutory local boards will go and the direct business input will be removed. I am concerned about that and about how the business community will tie in with decision making in the Scottish Enterprise network.
My third concern is—once again—about the structural review. If the LEC statutory boards are to be abolished, I am not sure why the structure of local offices needs to be retained. It was tied in with the boards. I accept that there may be more to come on that, but it seems odd to take away the external input on decision making but keep the internal structures of Scottish Enterprise otherwise intact.
You may remember that I asked specifically why there will be 12 offices as opposed to 12 fully fledged statutory bodies. Why do we need 12 chief executives and 12 directors of business development? The reply was that that would be dealt with at the second stage; I think that was the wording that was used to describe the reorganisation. Like Murdo Fraser, I am concerned that the overhead will remain even though we will no longer have statutory boards.
I would like to record that I am unhappy with how the committee is dealing with this. The restructuring is critically important, which is why several of us made the effort to go to the briefing. It was incredibly helpful, although with one exception, which I will come to in a second. There was appropriate follow-up to the briefing, and I am not unhappy with how the paper that was circulated to us today on the restructuring of the enterprise agencies has presented a way forward. However, the convener has now made several comments about the Glasgow and Edinburgh planning unit, and other comments have been made. Some of what was said collectively at that private briefing session has become almost a matter of fact, although I have said that I do not recall some of those points. Do not get me wrong: I do not want to take up valuable committee time talking about what people did or did not say at a private briefing session; my point is procedural. If we have a discussion at a private and informal briefing, we have to be careful that none of us selectively takes and somewhat casually converts expressed views into formal points for the record.
For the record, I apologise if I inadvertently misrepresented anyone else's views. People can take what I said as my view. I apologise for that; I certainly did not intend to put words into others' mouths.
Having logged that concern, I have only one point to make on the paper on the restructuring of the enterprise agencies.
Paragraph 4 discusses planning units in Edinburgh and Glasgow. I recall asking for clarification on that at the briefing meeting. The substance of the proposals did not concern me so much, but there was a handling and hearts and minds issue. At the very least there was clearly a problem with what that perceived east-west divide would mean.
I did not necessarily think that the proposed structure was wrong, but there was clearly a hearts and minds issue in that, for that proposal to proceed as the basis of enterprise operations in Scotland, a great deal more needed to be done to buy in, persuade and be seen to have persuaded those with an interest and a stake in the process. It was a perception issue.
The only other point that I will make in general terms—because I do not feel that going into detail is appropriate in the absence of discussion, having had as a precursor the presentation to which we were party—is that the attempt to adopt a more strategic approach to the operation of our enterprise effort is to be welcomed. I am sure that the committee will have opportunities formally and properly to engage in the detail and I look forward to doing that.
I will pick up on one point. Murdo Fraser referred to the triangle up to Dundee, but I understand that the triangle goes up to Aberdeen. [Interruption.] I think that the representatives talked about a triangle of Glasgow, Edinburgh and Aberdeen—perhaps that could be clarified. I am concerned that, in any restructuring, we do not lose sight of the fact that areas such as Aberdeen, Dundee and the south of Scotland should receive as much attention as the central belt. That is a question of emphasis. When it restructures, Scottish Enterprise must ensure that the more peripheral regions of its area receive equivalent attention.
My comments may bear little relation to the briefing, but they concern deeply felt principles that I want to be applied to whatever is eventually produced. First, the structure should follow the purpose, so what an enterprise agency will do should be clearly defined before the most appropriate structure is considered.
Secondly, in relation to many matters, I have raised the role of the enterprise agencies in commenting on and helping to shape public policy in areas for which they do not necessarily have direct responsibility, such as transportation.
That goes back to a question that Karen Gillon asked in Thurso.
Yes.
My third point arises from the evidence that we received when we went to Finland, Sweden and Germany and is about how the relationship between the Government, academia and the business community is facilitated.
The connections between cities and their hinterlands and between metro regions and their hinterlands are important. I am an elected member not for a city but for an area that borders two city regions, so perhaps I see the issue in slightly sharper focus than others, but I know that I am not alone. That matter will have to be dealt with carefully. The structure will not necessarily make those connections a reality, unless the hearts and the minds are there.
Other issues are the level of local discretion that will remain, as opposed to bigger national projects and priorities, and how local issues might fit in with national priorities. As Murdo Fraser said, the role of the business community in whatever the new set-up looks like is as important locally as it is nationally.
The status of the people who staff any local facilities is another concern. An interesting phenomenon that I have observed over many years in people who negotiate to establish or expand businesses is that they like to feel that they are talking to an individual who is at least at their level of seniority. That is extremely important and I would like to see how it is reflected in the restructuring.
The structure has to take account of the importance of Glasgow and Edinburgh—indeed, all five cities—in driving the economy. However, that should not be done at the expense of areas such as the south of Scotland or the more peripheral areas of the Highlands. If the final proposal from both enterprise organisations manages to satisfy all my demands, I will be very pleased.
I am talking slightly in the dark, as I was unable to attend the briefing due to constituency commitments. I concur with much of what Christine May said and with the principles that she set out. Having read the briefing, I remain to be convinced that some of the changes will be in the interests of the constituency I represent. My constituents find themselves on the periphery of a Lanarkshire enterprise company and they could find themselves on the periphery of a much bigger organisation in a city region.
How the local enterprise company in my constituency involves the business community, local authorities and other stakeholders will be crucial. I would like more information before I take a formal position.
I would like to add my own view—I stress that it is my own view.
First, the proposal to separate out, to an extent, Careers Scotland, seems sensible, because Careers Scotland never fitted naturally with Scottish Enterprise. The situation in the Highlands and Islands is different because of geography and because of how people operate up there. It appears that Careers Scotland is operating effectively as part of HIE, but Scottish Enterprise is right to distinguish Careers Scotland from the mainstream organisation of its economic function.
If that is ultimately what is proposed.
It was in the proposal that we saw last week. Christine May touched on the second point, although we have not discussed it in detail: the proposed reorganisation of Highlands and Islands Enterprise. The one Highland member of our committee who attended, Jamie Stone, indicated that he was satisfied with the general direction, but we need to speak to him before we respond to the HIE proposals. We want to make sure that the one Highland member of the committee has a say in our response.
Are we perhaps straying into what was essentially a private discussion? Perhaps we should confine ourselves to general principles.
Fine. We also have to respond to the HIE proposals. It is only fair that we consult Jamie Stone before we do that.
Like Karen Gillon, I am concerned about the proposal for an east and a west planning unit. It would be better if the whole lot were planned in one go. I am particularly concerned about areas such as Ayrshire, Dunbartonshire, and Lanarkshire, which are not part of the immediate metropolitan area of either Glasgow or Edinburgh. It will be important to ensure that the economic development of those areas is properly catered for.
I agree with all the points that Christine May raised about defining the role of the local offices and defining the number and status of staff. We must be sure that everybody is clear about what they are supposed to be delivering. That is essential. Sometimes, I am not sure that we all know what a city or region strategy is and what it is meant to deliver. Therefore, we need some definition.
I think that we should ask the clerks to draft a response to Scottish Enterprise and Highlands and Islands Enterprise. In the paper, I suggest that we circulate that response to all members of the committee because it concerns a sensitive matter that affects all our constituencies. We will try to get agreement before we formally send the response to Scottish Enterprise and Highlands and Islands Enterprise. Is that agreed?
Members indicated agreement.
Stephen Imrie and the clerks have taken a note of the concerns that have been raised. My sense is that there were no contradictions or conflicts in our concerns. Is that reasonable? Nobody said anything that other people violently disagree with.
I was not at the briefing because I was away on paternity leave, so I am working in the dark on the matter. I think that the most sensible thing for me to do is to read the information that is in the public domain and to speak to other members before I tie myself in to any decision.
That is fair enough.
What is the timetable for Scottish Enterprise announcing the changes?
It did not define the timetable at the meeting, but its general intention is to do that within the next couple of months. Ideally, we need to respond in the next week to 10 days.
We will circulate the draft to make sure everyone is happy with it.