Committee
Enterprise and Culture Committee, 16 Jan 2007
16 Jan 2007 · S2 · Enterprise and Culture Committee
Item of business
Legacy Paper
Stephen Imrie:
Watch on SPTV
Absolutely. You can talk among yourselves while I get my papers together.I thought that it would be helpful to provide the committee with a suggested framework for a legacy paper. As several members have already talked to me about the importance of producing a legacy paper and some of the subjects that it should cover, I thought that members should have the opportunity to discuss an outline framework of such a paper before the clerks try to draft it. Therefore, I have put together a short briefing paper on how the legacy paper might look and I would appreciate some feedback on it before we start to write the legacy paper itself.Assuming that the committee wants to produce a legacy paper, I have set out suggestions on the framework in paragraph 9 of my paper. I suggest that the legacy paper should have an introductory section to explain the purpose of legacy papers, which is basically twofold. First, any legacy paper should look back at lessons that have been learned during the parliamentary session, including feedback from members on what worked and what did not work, how the committee went about its operations and what things were particularly worth while. For example, members have said that the round-table evidence-taking sessions that the committee has had recently have been valuable. The first purpose, then, is to look back over the parliamentary session and record members' thoughts on ways of working.The second purpose of a legacy paper is to look forward and to provide our successor committee or committees—there is no guarantee that there will be an Enterprise and Culture Committee as such in session 3—with our advice and thoughts. Of course, it is for any future committee to decide which, if any, of the ideas it will take forward. The proposed framework builds on that by suggesting that the legacy paper should include a review section, a lessons learned section and a future ideas section. For the future ideas section, because of the possibility that the committee's remit might be given to more than one committee in session 3, it probably make sense to list ideas by subject matter—enterprise, arts and culture, tourism and so on—to make it easier to farm out our suggestions to any future committees. That is the basic framework.Obviously, the future ideas section will be informed by the round-table session that we had on the employability framework and the strategy to help those who are not in education, employment or training as well as by today's round-table session on the aging population and our future round-table sessions on the sport 21 strategy and on creative Scotland and the creative industries. However, I would be grateful to hear, between now and February, any other ideas that members have for future priorities and inquiries so that we can work those into our draft legacy paper.I should point out that the paragraph on the review section suggests that the committee, or a successor committee—it could be one of a successor committee's first tasks—might want to ask the Executive about the recommendations the committee made in a number of the important reports it published during session 2. The Executive has already commented on those recommendations. It agreed to some and did not agree to others. The committee might want to ask the Executive how it has implemented the recommendations it agreed to. Have the recommendations been held in abeyance or have they been acted upon? If there is time, the committee might want to undertake that work now, as part of its legacy paper, picking out its main recommendations, or it could suggest that the task be undertaken by a future committee.That is the basic framework. I would certainly appreciate ideas from members so that we can take the issue forward.
In the same item of business
The Convener:
SNP
Agenda item 2 is consideration of our approach to our legacy paper. As the clerk has helpfully circulated a paper on the matter, I ask him to introduce the i...
Stephen Imrie (Clerk):
This is somewhat unexpected—
Murdo Fraser:
Con
He keeps you on your toes.
Stephen Imrie:
Absolutely. You can talk among yourselves while I get my papers together.I thought that it would be helpful to provide the committee with a suggested framewo...
The Convener:
SNP
Thank you very much.The purpose of today's discussion is to try to agree a general framework to which the clerks can work when they prepare a draft legacy pa...
Mr Stone:
LD
I have three points—one about the subject area and two about process. First, I might be wrong, but after almost four years I have the impression that we coul...
The Convener:
SNP
I agree with your point about the session in the Edinburgh hotel. One reason why it was so helpful might be the quality of the advice that we got from Wolfga...
Susan Deacon:
Lab
I am not sure that that is true, but the quality of the advice that we got from Wolfgang Michalski was particularly good and our relationship was particularl...
The Convener:
SNP
I encourage all members who have detailed points to feed them in. My attitude—I think that Stephen Imrie's is the same—is that we should put comments in the ...
Christine May:
Lab
I agree with Susan Deacon about our remit. The extent to which we have been able to do anything other than enterprise stuff is an issue. My experience of pre...
Murdo Fraser:
Con
I have just a couple of brief points. In his paper, under the heading "Future ideas", Stephen Imrie refers to the idea of a skills summit. That should be bro...
The Convener:
SNP
Alex Salmond will have only four departments, so there may be only four committees in the whole Parliament.
Murdo Fraser:
Con
And which ministerial office will you hold, convener?
The Convener:
SNP
I call Richard Baker.
Richard Baker:
Lab
I wanted simply to say that we should perhaps flag up in the legacy paper the value of post-legislative scrutiny, which is a good thing that some committees ...
The Convener:
SNP
I do not want to dampen Christine May's idea, because it is good in principle, but I suspect that the business managers may have something to say about it.
Fiona Hyslop:
SNP
This is your committee, but as a former business manager I can perhaps give a wee bit of perspective on the idea of refreshing. Having gone through two sessi...
The Convener:
SNP
Coming back to Susan Deacon's point about structure, I think that the Parliament misses an opportunity. Departments tend to work on particular subject areas,...
Shiona Baird:
Green
As a member who has been refreshed on committees—I came from the Equal Opportunities Committee to the Enterprise and Culture Committee—I can say that the dow...
The Convener:
SNP
I have been an ordinary member in a committee with prepared questions and I absolutely hated it. My personal view is that that practice stifles the committee.
Shiona Baird:
Green
I was anxious when I entered this set-up, but I can now see how valuable it is to members to have the freedom to go down whatever avenue suits them.
The Convener:
SNP
At present, some committees use prepared questions and some do not. I personally do not like prepared questions, because the whole point of the process is to...
Shiona Baird:
Green
At the same time, there is an opportunity. The clerks on this committee do good work in providing briefings and outlines, to give us information on which to ...
The Convener:
SNP
We will not have a guess as to what they are.
Christine May:
Lab
They will not include climate change.
Shiona Baird:
Green
The Confederation of British Industry is on to that already.
The Convener:
SNP
I am happy to open a book.
Mr Stone:
LD
I have a point about the non-scripted questions in this committee. It is an incredibly important feature that was part of the dynamic of the committee. I tak...
The Convener:
SNP
The decision on that is really for committees and their conveners. My view is that having questions prepared to that extent takes the life out of a committee...
Mr Stone:
LD
Not having scripted questions has made us think and listen more.