Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee, 27 Oct 1999

Meeting date: Wednesday, October 27, 1999

Official Report 274KB pdf

---

Appointment of Adviser

We now come to the remaining items on the agenda.

I have a pressing engagement so I will leave at this point.

We will try to do this as quickly as possible.

A paper has been circulated on the appointment of an adviser to assist the local economic development inquiry.

We must pay careful attention—this relates to the remarks that I made at the start of the meeting—to ensure that we keep focused on the job that we are trying to do in this inquiry. We must ensure that we do not wander too far off, up the highways and byways of other issues. We must keep within our remit.

One of the suggestions that has been made in discussions with the clerks is to draw in an external adviser who could assist the committee in its work. The clerk's paper is for discussion among members. The recommendation is that we should, in principle, support the concept of an adviser and delegate appointment issues to a cross-party group of members. It is also recommended that we commission some research support to assist in the analysis of existing local economic development services in Scotland. However, I want to say a little more about that recommendation.

The people at the Scottish Parliament information centre have been doing a fantastic amount of work to prepare material for the committee on the grid of service provision within Scotland. Members will not be surprised to hear that it is a big job. SPICe staff have put forward a proposal effectively to delegate the formulation and gathering of much of the information to local enterprise companies and others. I am not keen on the recommendation because I do not think that it gives us the independent analysis we require. However, I wanted the committee to have an open discussion on the issue, as I felt that I would be overstretching the mark if I took a view.

I want to draw on my experience of the Audit Committee. When we have held inquiries in that committee, it has been easy to focus on the issues, because the National Audit Office suggests the lines that we take, although we are not forced to take them. An adviser on this inquiry would be useful, because he would keep us on the tramlines, rather than let us go down all the fascinating byways that spring to mind when one reads the papers. I am not sure what sort of beast he would be. Perhaps someone from within the enterprise network who knows where the bodies are buried?

I think that that is unlikely.

I believe that we have been taking evidence fairly succinctly from the producers and givers of advice. We need now to talk to the recipients—the consumers—of business development advice and to ask them where they think the system has failed. I accept the basic proposition that we should move to appoint an adviser, but whomever we appoint must take on the task of getting out there and speaking to the consumers of advice to get both sides of the story on the delivery of business advice services.

I agree that we need to appoint someone. Indeed, we may need to appoint more than one person at particular points in the inquiry to get the range of expertise. The thing that we need to bear in mind is that this is a small village. Nearly everyone one talks to has been engaged somewhere in the process and has their own view and perhaps their own agenda. We will therefore have to be very careful with the selection. We will need to consider the people we pick closely, to ensure that we get a truly uncoloured view.

Coincidentally, I read the clerks' paper just after I had visited one of the universities where I met a range of professors. It occurred to me that it might be valuable to invite some of the Scottish universities to be part of the process. They would be able to stand back and take a more independent line. They would also be able to outline what is happening in other parts of the world. They could give a more global perspective, which would counter the point that was made a moment ago about the small village. I support the idea of an adviser.

That goes to the heart of the matter. Whomever we identify is bound to have an opinion. We have just spent half an hour discussing someone's opinions in many senses. I do not know how we would find somebody independent. I do not know what the enterprise network offered in terms of support, but should we automatically rule it out, as if we are after some sort of alien agency?

Are there businesses that are prepared to consider secondment here as well? Can we get a range of businesses or organisations, or whatever, with people who would consider secondment? Is that contrary to what we are looking at in terms of an outcome? I do not know, but let us have a look at it.

Duncan beat me to it. I was going to suggest that we should talk to some of the principal banks, as they have people who are involved in both sides—the success and failure of economic development. They tend to have a broad view rather than the academic view. They would be able to understand what the consumers of the service go through in the process. That is one of a range of areas that we should consider.

I do not think that I have much to add to that. I support what Allan, Duncan and David are saying. It is important that we hear clearly what the consumers—the recipients of all this advice—are saying. There are many different trade associations that represent those consumers, and I hope that we will hear from some of them. We have heard from many providers of economic development, advice and training, but have not heard the other side of the story. Whoever is taken on as adviser must take that into account.

Let me draw things together. The point about hearing consumers' opinion is fundamental to our inquiry. If we fail to capture that opinion, our inquiry will not address the concerns that exist. When starting an inquiry, it is much easier to go to the providers, as they are known, but we must access the opinions of consumers. The danger is that we could line up several people at the hearing in Inverness who had particular concerns about the work of enterprise companies and were quite happy to sit at the table. Whether that would take forward the debate constructively is another matter. We must capture that opinion.

The point that George makes is valid; we are a small village. Even among the academic community that would be able to advise us, there are some people who are heavily involved in work for the enterprise network. We must bear that in mind.

In response to Duncan's point, I had one concern about the assembly of the grid. I thought that the committee would benefit from seeing that done dispassionately, from an external perspective—through the Scottish Parliament's information centre, with additional support as its researchers are under a great deal of pressure. I will take into account the views of committee members, if they are concerned about that.

There is agreement, in principle, that we should go down this route, but that the tasks should be delegated to a smaller group to develop the proposal and bring recommendations back to the committee on how it should address the issue of an external adviser and how we should tackle the gathering of information on the assessment of existing provision. Is that agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

I suggest that we make that a cross-party group, with one member from each party. I shall convene that group and represent the SNP, if the committee agrees. Can members suggest who else should be in that group?

Annabel Goldie, George Lyon and Allan Wilson.

Does the committee agree to appoint Annabel Goldie, George Lyon, Allan Wilson and me to that group?

Members indicated agreement.

Thank you.