Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee, 26 Jan 2000

Meeting date: Wednesday, January 26, 2000

Official Report 238KB pdf

---

Local Economic Development

We had circulated a paper setting out a programme of future meetings. As part of that, we had planned to meet the minister responsible for tourism and the Scottish Tourism Forum on 9 February to have a post-publication discussion of the tourism strategy. Members will recall that we entered into an agreement with the Minister for Enterprise and Lifelong Learning that the committee would be given pre-publication consultation on the tourism strategy. That meeting took place a fortnight ago in private. I then wrote to the minister on behalf of the committee with a number of suggestions for the strategy.

We were assuming that the strategy would be published on 31 January and that we would have a public hearing on 9 February. However, the clerks have received a letter from the head of enterprise networks of the tourism division at the Scottish Executive, which they have asked us to share with the committee, as it changes our plans.

The letter states:

"Firstly, Mr Morrison has asked me to pass on his gratitude to the Committee for the courteous and constructive way it approached the discussion of the draft tourism strategy on 12 January. Like Mr Swinney he attaches great importance to the development of a constructive relationship between the Executive and the Committee, and he thought that the session on 12 January was evidence that such a relationship is indeed developing.

Mr Morrison has already discussed the contents of Mr Swinney's letter with Mr McLeish and both Ministers agreed that the Committee's comments were helpful in identifying a number of ways in which the strategy document could be improved. They agree with you that it is important that the fullest consideration is given to the first tourism strategy published by the Scottish Executive, and in the light of your letter they have decided, as you suggested, to take a little longer to finalise the strategy. They nevertheless hope that it will be possible to publish the final version before the end of February."

Thank you, Simon. As members will recall, the committee asked for further time to reflect on the contents of the strategy. I think that the exercise in which we have engaged has been positive and innovative in terms of committee development in the Parliament. I welcome unreservedly the Executive's decision to extend the period of reflection on the contents of the tourism strategy and compliment ministers on the positive way in which they have reacted to the committee's input.

This has a bearing on our schedule of meetings, as we cannot have a public meeting on a strategy that has not been published. The clerks have circulated an alternative future meeting programme paper that reflects that, and I want to work through it. Does any member want to comment on the letter that has been received?

We should formally record our appreciation of the fact that the minister has taken on board the suggestions that you made in your letter to him.

I would like to associate the committee with those remarks and to record the fact that these issues have been addressed very productively.

We certainly welcome the further opportunity to work with the minister. If the publication of the strategy document is to be delayed by a month, we have a month in which to work together in other ways. The extra month gives us an opportunity to analyse the 650 submissions that have been received from members of the public and to help the Executive formulate the best possible strategy. Can we find a way of using that month to make a further contribution, after we have received an analysis of the 650 submissions?

We will discuss a programme of meetings, but we have sent a comprehensive letter to the minister. In responding to the minister's reply, I can make it clear that the committee would welcome any further dialogue with him that is practical before publication. The points raised can certainly be made, but we must respect the fact that the Executive is considering carefully the comments that the committee has made.

The revised programme of meetings that the clerks have circulated takes the tourism discussion into a meeting on 8 March. The document should be published by then and we will be able to conduct that discussion in public, along with discussion on the other developments that are set out in the document.

That leaves us with a question mark over our next meeting, which is on 9 February. Over the past couple of days, I have discussed with Simon Watkins what we should deal with at that meeting. We started out wondering how we would fill a morning and ended up with a surfeit of options. The papers suggest that we consider some of the issues that may arise from the Executive's review of Scottish Enterprise.

There may be three components to that. First, there is the review that has been announced by the minister. We could invite some civil servants to explain the way in which that review is being undertaken. Simon Watkins has circulated to members the Government's formal announcement of the review.

Secondly, we could incorporate a presentation from Dr Andrew Goudie, who is the Government's senior economic adviser. He is working on the development of the Government's framework for economic development in Scotland. At the suggestion of the minister, Dr Goudie has made it clear that he would welcome a dialogue with the committee on his work and on the way in which the issue should be progressing.

Thirdly, the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities is finalising a report on several of the issues that the committee is interested in from a factual point of view—an analysis of who does what in economic development services. We can discuss those aspects of the Scottish Executive's review of Scottish Enterprise and our local economic development inquiry.

Yesterday, I received a letter from Elaine Thomson, which has been circulated to members. It suggests that we broaden the case study experience to include consideration of economic development and lifelong learning in the Grampian area. That was one of the options that we decided not to pursue. Elaine Thomson makes the point that Grampian is the one area other than Fife in which the individual learning account pilot study has been undertaken. I will ask her to make a couple of comments about that letter, after which we can proceed to more general discussion.

Thank you for considering this letter at such short notice, convener. Two letters from the chief executive and the chair of Business Enterprise Scotland have been circulated to committee members. They say that what has happened in Grampian is a good example of best practice. That is supported by another letter from Nautilus Offshore, the managing director of which is involved in one of the local enterprise trusts. One of the reasons why those letters were sent is that, in Grampian, there is an extremely good working partnership that includes the enterprise trusts. Those partnerships might not work well elsewhere, as we have heard this morning, but they work extremely effectively in Grampian. Grampian also has the north-east of Scotland economic development partnership and a strategy.

I believe that getting more evidence or visiting Aberdeen in a further case study would help to answer some of the questions that have arisen this morning. It would allow us all an opportunity to get answers to our queries.

As you said, convener, Grampian is the second area to pilot individual learning accounts. Questions have arisen about the case study visit to Fife, which is another reason for considering further evidence or conducting another case study visit.

Thank you, Elaine.

At this stage, we have to rule out a case study visit to Aberdeen. The hoops that we have to go through to obtain approval for even a limited visit by members to Aberdeen would not fit in with our time scale, given that we are discussing the programme for our next committee meeting on 9 February.

A range of options is available. We could take a number of different approaches to considering the issues connected with the review of Scottish Enterprise and/or we could invite a panel from the Grampian area to give evidence to the committee.

On 23 February, we will hear submissions from our expert advisers, but I believe that that is a little too late. They have not been much involved in the process up to now.

At our meeting on 9 February, we will start to bring together our thoughts—which we are already formulating—on how the report will finally shape up. The advisers are crucial to that process of analysing the perceptions that we hold at present. In particular, John Bachtler's comments on his experience of the delivery of economic development in other countries will have a great bearing on our consideration of the efficiency of alternative models. Therefore, we should bring forward to 9 February the submissions that are to be heard on 23 February, as it is important that we receive that input before we start to move towards the production of a final report and to crystallise our thinking on that report.

I was going to echo those sentiments, convener.

The experts' reports will make us better able to test the evidence of the 100 businessmen who will join us in the chamber. Thanks to the field studies that we have carried out, we are far better placed to judge the submissions that have been made to us. Initially, we were innocents and had no means of testing what we were being told. However, the experts may have practical difficulties in conforming to a tighter time scale, in which case I would have every sympathy with Elaine Thomson's proposal. It would be an invaluable contribution to our process and I support her proposal to extend our inquiry.

There are practical limitations. John Bachtler and John Fairley cannot physically attend the meeting on 9 February—we tested that option, which would also change their work programme. We are having to adapt to the change in direction on 9 February and cannot, therefore, consider that option. However, the papers that John Bachtler, John Fairley and John Ward produce for us will be in members' hands in advance of the business in the chamber event.

I support Elaine's proposal for further evidence, although an opportunity to visit Aberdeen would have been more desirable than taking evidence here, which will give us a less complete picture. I appreciate that there are time constraints, but it is a shame that we could not find a way of sending a delegation to Aberdeen to produce a case study report similar to those that we have received already.

I am sorry to say that it would take too long to seek parliamentary approval for such a visit, given the deadline of 9 February.

We have established templates for the field visits, thanks to Simon Watkins's good work, and it should be possible to be clear about the kind of people whom we want to invite from the north-east. For example, I would like to invite someone from the grass-roots, business shop level, as I have obtained valuable information from such people.

I recall that we held a video-conference downstairs on world AIDS day. Could we utilise something like that, given that this is the 21st century?

That would be a first.

When we tried to do that for the petrol price inquiry, we discovered that the technological capabilities of this place did not extend to video-conferencing with people in Arran, so I do not think that they will extend to video-conferencing with people in Grampian.

There would be no problem at the Grampian end, as a lot of video-conferencing takes place in Aberdeen.

They are dead clever up there.

If two or three members were interested in undertaking a case study, video-conferencing could be organised. The video-conferencing facilities would not allow the participation of all members, and video-conferencing might cause problems in terms of standing orders.

If I judge the committee correctly, it seems that we want to fill the meeting on 9 February with a detailed examination of the situation in Grampian, encompassing both business support and individual learning accounts. We will ask the clerks to arrange a programme of witnesses on those subjects. Is the revised future meeting programme acceptable?

Will the COSLA submission be covered by the consideration of further submissions to the committee? There is value to be gained from an exchange with COSLA.

That report will come to us. The question will be whether it will be possible to fit in a formal discussion about it. We can certainly try to incorporate that into the programme.

I want to raise a matter that we might be able to deal with today. There has been an exchange of views in The Herald between Crawford Beveridge and a commentator from that newspaper about the performance of Scottish Enterprise and, in particular, about the conclusions that can be drawn from a Fraser of Allander report. That robust exchange of views sends conflicting messages about the effectiveness of Scottish Enterprise, and it might be useful if our researchers considered that issue. I thought it fair to raise this point now to give the researchers the opportunity to examine the topic. There is a letter from Crawford Beveridge in The Herald today.

I am aware of the debate to which you refer. It is about the performance of the entire network, organisation and infrastructure, but our inquiry is much more sharply focused on local economic development services and our programme of meetings must concentrate on that subject.

We can ask the Scottish Parliament information centre to consider the issues that the exchange of views in The Herald raises so that they might be factored into our programme in due course. Is the future meeting programme agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

I remind members that we have a meeting in the chamber on Monday 31 January on the subject of petrol pricing, at which there will be an interesting range of witnesses.

Meeting closed at 12:33.