Enterprise and Culture Committee, 27 Apr 2004

Meeting date: Tuesday, April 27, 2004

Official Report 253KB pdf

---

Annual Report

We move on to agenda item 5, on the committee's annual report. Members have a copy of the draft report, which I hope contains no surprises. Do members have any comments?

I have picked up a number of what are, in the main, relatively small points; there are one or two typos and a couple of points of substance.

Can I confirm that we are looking to get the report signed off today? In other words, do you want me to raise the points now?

Yes. We need to get the report signed off tonight.

I ask because I would usually raise one or two of the points in an e-mail or something. Such points include what I am sure are deliberate mistakes on dates in the first paragraph and the last paragraph. Should the first paragraph not say 2003 and the last one 2004 rather than the reverse?

I think that you are correct.

On the two paragraphs in the "Scottish Solutions" section, I wonder whether for the sake of accuracy it ought to say

"The Committee's first inquiry was into the impact on Scottish higher education of the"

proposed

"introduction".

That would indicate that we were debating the issue prior to a decision being taken.

Yes. I am happy to insert the word "proposed".

In a similar vein, the second sentence in paragraph 3 reads as if there were a causal link between the publication of our report and the creation of the UK liaison team. Was that the case? If so, that is excellent; if not, we had better not suggest that there was. I also wonder about the sequence of events. Did the Executive not come back to us and say that the machinery had been put in place? Is it not the case that those things, which were all part of the gradual process of improvement, had been done prior to our report?

I think that you are right to point that out. I suggest that we delete the phrase "Following the Committee's report", and make the start of the sentence read, "A UK Liaison Team has now been established". Someone who is a conspiracy theorist could still suggest that the fact that they are in the same paragraph implies a causal link, but I do not think the words would do so.

We have to be careful about whom we list as having given evidence as part of the renewable energy inquiry. I am not sure that we have got the generic groupings right. I know that the list starts with the word "including" and is not exhaustive. In paragraph 4, we use the word "manufacturers"—should we not just say "industry"? That is just a suggestion—there is nothing that I would go to the wall on.

The list conveys the fact that we took evidence from people who are involved in renewable energy, not because they are saving the planet, but because they are creating jobs.

We could refer to industry interests. I believe that Susan Deacon is thinking of Scottish Power, which is not a manufacturer.

Will we replace "manufacturers" with "industry interests"?

Members indicated agreement.

I am comfortable with that. The previous wording did not feel inclusive enough.

I have another very small point on the renewable energy section. I think that I am right in saying that the Campbeltown visit took place before the Denmark visit.

It did.

Should that order be followed in the report?

We could swap paragraphs 5 and 6.

The second sentence in the paragraph on the Denmark visit starts with

"The small group of members",

but it should refer to "a small group", to make a distinction with the Campbeltown visit, which the committee undertook en masse.

Why do we not say "three members"?

That would be better still. Precision is wonderful.

Why not name the junketeers?

We will change the words to "three members" and we will add the last sentence of paragraph 6 to the end of paragraph 5 after it has been moved.

My penultimate point is still on the renewable energy inquiry.

The previous point was the antepenultimate point.

The reference to the wind speeds at the turbines that we saw is jarring and is a point of incredible detail.

Perhaps that shows that we are anoraks occasionally.

We certainly needed anoraks on the day of the visit. Anybody who understands such speeds will know the significance of how hard the wind was blowing that day.

I must say that 23 metres per second means nothing to me.

I was just making an observation.

My final point is on the broadband inquiry and is similar to my comment about the list of renewable energy inquiry witnesses. Government agencies and local authorities are conspicuous by their absence from the list of broadband inquiry witnesses. Perhaps a generic reference to public bodies could be added.

I will add public bodies to the list.

Members will be pleased to know that that is all.

I compliment you on your helpful attention to detail. Has anyone else spent a sad evening recently? With those amendments, are members happy to agree to the report?

Members indicated agreement.

We were due to go into private to discuss agenda item 6, but in view of the time and of the fact that our agenda next week is relatively light compared with this week's agenda, I suggest that we take the item next week. In the meantime, members can send me further suggestions—Chris Ballance has already sent me stuff.

Do members agree to discuss the item in private next week?

Members indicated agreement.

Meeting closed at 17:03.