Meeting of the Parliament 22 May 2019
A good place to start is the cabinet secretary’s response to the committee’s report. Derek Mackay said:
“the answer as to how we best support our business base does not come from one voice ... it is through breadth and diversity of opinion that we will ensure the right choices are made.”
That is a mature reflection of where we are at, and I am sad that such mature reflection was somewhat lacking in COSLA’s response to the committee’s report.
I want to be crystal clear in stating my fundamental belief in local democracy and local accountability. I really want the local governance review to herald a new relationship between local and national government and the communities that we seek to serve.
It is fair to say that, in calling out the risks that come with the withdrawal of European structural funds, the committee has been standing up for local government and local business support programmes. Whatever our views on Brexit, the issue has never been far from our thoughts.
The central point, around which members of the committee from across the political divide coalesced, is that business gateway is a nationwide service, which is delivered locally, and that although it is a good service, as the convener said, there is ample room for improvement.
The committee made a number of recommendations on, for example, a review of key performance indicators in collaboration with stakeholders and the business community, external monitoring of performance against targets, better publicly available local information on financial inputs and outcomes, and transparency on budgets. In my view, none of that is rocket science or particularly radical. Is it not the humdrum or normality of everyday life? Yet sadly, we have seen real resistance from COSLA to much of that agenda.
Throughout its response, COSLA persistently stated that business gateway is “a local service”, subject to scrutiny by “democratically elected councillors” who are “accountable” and have to operate within the standing orders of their councils, which are “audited annually” and subject to “best value”. That is absolutely true, but it misses the bigger picture of a modern participative civic democracy that rates high on transparency, is inclusive in approach and is able to develop meaningful partnerships with communities of place and interest, so that services are shaped by the needs of users.
In other words accountability and scrutiny of one sphere of government will take place at many levels in many different ways; they do not come from one voice.
That brings me to diversity and the recognised wisdom that supporting more women, rural Scotland, people living with a disability, young people, or people from our black and minority ethnic community into business, is not just the right thing to do but—for the sake of our economy and to reduce the cost of inequality—the smart thing to do. It is absolutely necessary. Therefore, statements such as,
“Business Gateway service is a universal service which is available to all”,
do not do enough to recognise and remove the seen and unseen barriers faced by underrepresented groups.
Again, lack of data was an issue, and there was no solid, overarching commitment to find the best ways to reach underrepresented groups and to tap into all of our talents. On that point the committee made a very specific and practical recommendation for a wider range of more tailored and targeted programmes, but COSLA’s response was somewhat lacking. It said:
“with limited resources, the partners must focus their efforts on those businesses most likely to achieve a result”.
That is simply not good enough, when it implies an inherent bias by omission against businesses from underrepresented groups.