Back to the Scottish Parliament Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee Report
Archive Home

Business Bulletin 1999-2011

Minutes of Proceedings 1999-2011

Journal of Parliamentary Proceedings Sessions 1 & 2

Committees Sessions 1, 2 & 3

Annual reports

SP Paper 594

EE/S3/11/R2

 

Next

2nd Report, 2011 (Session 3)

A fundamental review of the purpose of an enterprise agency and the success of the recent reforms

CONTENTS

Remit and membership

Report

introduction

Evidence
22 September 2010
29 September 2010
6 October 2010
27 October 2010
1 November 2010
10 November 2010
12 January 2011

introduction

The Remit of the Inquiry

background

Impact of the reforms

Transfer of services to local authorities
Regeneration
Skills

First principles analysis

Governance and Accountability
Do the activities of the enterprise network impact meaningfully on the economy?
Does a better alternative model of delivery exist?
Case for a single agency
Strengthening communities and rural economic development

conclusions and recomendations

Introduction
Social capital
Access to finance
Alignment

Highlands and Islands Enterprise
Skills
The future

EXTRACTS FROM THE MINUTES

25TH Meeting, 2010 (Session 3), 22 September 2010
26TH Meeting, 2010 (Session 3), 29 September 2010
27TH Meeting, 2010 (Session 3), 6 October 2010
28TH Meeting, 2010 (Session 3), 27 October 2010
29TH Meeting, 2010 (Session 3), 1 November 2010
30TH Meeting, 2010 (Session 3), 10 November 2010
1st Meeting, 2011 (Session 3), 12 January 2011
25TH Meeting, 2010 (Session 3), 22 September 2010
26TH Meeting, 2010 (Session 3), 29 September 2010
27TH Meeting, 2010 (Session 3), 6 October 2010
28TH Meeting, 2010 (Session 3), 27 October 2010
29TH Meeting, 2010 (Session 3), 1 November 2010
1st Meeting, 2011 (Session 3), 12 January 2011

Remit and membership

Remit:

To consider and report on the Scottish economy, enterprise, energy, tourism and all other matters falling within the responsibility of the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Sustainable Growth apart from those covered by the remits of the Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change and the Local Government and Communities Committees.

Membership:

Ms Wendy Alexander
Gavin Brown
Rob Gibson (Deputy Convener)
Christopher Harvie
Marilyn Livingstone
Lewis Macdonald
Stuart McMillan
Iain Smith (Convener)

Committee Clerking Team:

Clerk to the Committee
Stephen Imrie

Senior Assistant Clerk
Joanna Hardy

Assistant Clerk
Diane Barr

A fundamental review of the purpose of an enterprise agency and the success of the recent reforms

The Committee reports to the Parliament as follows—

introduction

1. This report sets out the Committee’s findings in relation to its inquiry into the enterprise network in Scotland which took place between September 2010 and March 2011.

Evidence

2. The Committee received over seventy written submissions in response to its call for evidence on the inquiry. During the inquiry, the Committee heard evidence from the following witnesses:

22 September 2010

Colin Borland, Public Affairs Manager, Federation of Small Businesses;

Garry Clark, Head of Policy and Public Affairs, Scottish Chamber of Commerce;

Graham Birse, Deputy Chief Executive, Edinburgh Chamber of Commerce.

29 September 2010

Bill Jamieson, Executive Editor, The Scotsman;

Alasdair Northrop, Editor in Chief, Business7, Scottish Business Insider.

6 October 2010

Robin Presswood, Chairman Scottish Local Authority Economic Development Group, Fife Council;

Anil Gupta, Environment and Regeneration Team Leader, Convention of Scottish Local Authorities;

Jim Galloway, Member of the Business Gateway Board, City of Edinburgh Council;

Jonathan Levie, Reader, Hunter Centre for Entrepreneurship, University of Strathclyde;

Ronnie Smith, Chief Executive of Lanarkshire Enterprise Services and Executive Director of Business Enterprise Scotland, Business Gateway Lanarkshire.

27 October 2010

Paul Sheerin, Vice President, Global Operations, Polaroid Eyewear;

Paul Nelson, Managing Director, Allied Vehicles;

Michael Levack, Chief Executive, Scottish Building Federation;

Lorraine Hubbard, Training Development Officer UK, and Martin Hottass, Energy Sector Business Partner, Siemens;

Damien Yeates, Chief Executive, and Andrew Livingston, Director of Finance and Audit, Skills Development Scotland;

Linda McTavish, Principal of Anniesland College, Glasgow and Convenor of Scotland's Colleges Principals' Convention;

Laurence Howells, Senior Director of Skills, Research and Knowledge Exchange, Scottish Funding Council;

Jacqui Hepburn, Director, Sector Skills Alliance;

Martin Kirkwood, Deputy Director, Scottish Funding Council.

1 November 2010

Callum Iain MacIver, Director of Development, and Councillor Angus Campbell, Leader, Comhairle nan Eilean Siar;

Councillor Ian Ross, Chair of the Planning, Environment and Development Committee, and Councillor Michael Foxley, Leader of the Administration, The Highland Council;

Stewart Nicol, Chief Executive, Inverness Chamber of Commerce;

Lorne MacLeod, Company Director, Jansvans Limited;

Campbell Grant, Managing Director, Sitekit Solutions Ltd;

Clive Hartwell, Director, Skyeskyns Limited;

Norman Gillies, Director of Development, Clan Donald Lands Trust;

Martin Wright, Director of Marketing and Communications, UHI Millennium Institute;

Donald MacDonald, Managing Director, AROS;

Robert Livingston, Director, HI-Arts;

Angus MacMillan, Chairman, Stòras Uibhist;

Howard Vaughan, Finance and Operations Director, Columba 1400.

10 November 2010

John McLaren, Honorary Senior Research Fellow, Centre for Public Policy for Regions;

Professor Mike Danson, Reader in Economics and Management, University of the West of Scotland.

12 January 2011

Professor Donald MacRae, Former Board Member, and Dr Robert Crawford, Former Chief Executive, Scottish Enterprise;

Steve Thomson, Board Member, Highlands and Islands Enterprise.

19 January 2011

Lena Wilson, Chief Executive, and Crawford Gillies, Chairman, Scottish Enterprise;

Alex Paterson, Chief Executive, and William Roe, Chair, Highlands and Islands Enterprise.

26 January 2011

Dr Ian Wall, Vice Chair, SURF

Professor Mark Shucksmith, Professor of Planning and Director of Research and Consultancy, Newcastle University.

2 February 2011

John Swinney, Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Sustainable Growth

introduction

The Remit of the Inquiry

3. The inquiry sought to analyse the current structure of, and activities carried out by, Scotland’s enterprise network. The Committee considered whether the transfer of responsibilities that took place in 2007 has brought about the benefits that were anticipated by the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Sustainable Growth and whether they provide value for the public purse. In light of this analysis, the Committee explored what, if any, should be the fundamental role of a publicly-funded enterprise network and what alternative models exist.

4. As part of the inquiry, the Committee sought evidence on the following issues—

Value of recent reforms

5. What impact has the rationalisation of the enterprise network and the abolition of the LECs had on the quality or effectiveness of the services delivered?

6. Has the transfer of activities, such as the Business Gateway service, to local authorities improved the delivery of services to local businesses and what evidence is there of this?

7. What has been the experience of businesses that are not account-managed by Scottish Enterprise/Highlands and Islands Enterprise since the 2007 reforms? Are such companies finding it difficult to attract the support they need from the enterprise agencies and what evidence is there of this?

8. How joined up are the various agencies that are now charged with supporting economic recovery? Are there examples of successful partnership working between, for example, SE or HIE and local authorities? How has the establishment of the strategic forum assisted in this regard?

9. What distinctive contribution has been made by HIE as a result of its social/strengthening communities remit? Should the same obligation be applied to SE?

10. Have CoSLA and SE been able to agree on what constitutes local, regional and national regeneration? Are local authorities maintaining levels of local regeneration activities? What benefits have accrued from the transfer of local regeneration activities to local authorities? What has been the impact on regional regeneration projects? Have any regeneration projects failed or been cancelled as a consequence of this transfer of responsibilities?

11. The Cabinet Secretary envisaged that Regional Advisory Boards would provide a link between local, regional and national delivery. How is this working in practice and what links have been provided?

12. What advantages has the establishment of Skills Development Scotland brought in terms of the delivery of the skills agenda and have there been any difficulties?

13. How will services be protected in light of any planned further restructuring exercise within Scottish Enterprise and/or Highlands and Islands Enterprise?

More fundamental, first principles analysis

14. Could the Scottish Government’s economic aims be achieved in a different way? Are there more successful or efficient models of delivery in other parts of the world?

15. Could services be delivered as effectively, with greater efficiency, by a single agency or some other structure with increased shared services etc? Conversely, are a single economic strategy and the SE account management model suitable for both Scotland and the Highlands & Islands

16. What should be the role for a publicly-funded enterprise network, what activities should it be expected to deliver and what resources are required? Alternatively, what alternative exists to the current model in Scotland and what benefits would this have?

17. Do the enterprise agencies’ methodologies for calculating the return on investment bear scrutiny? Which activities have been identified as delivering most return on investment?

background

18. The enterprise network in Scotland consists of Scottish Enterprise (SE), Highlands and Island Enterprise (HIE) and the jointly-owned investment promotion body, Scottish Development International (SDI). Business Gateway is now delivered by local authorities and exists as a first port of call for local businesses and those interested in starting a business. Figure 1 below seeks to provide an illustration of the broader economic development landscape within which those bodies operate.

Figure 1: The economic development landscape in Scotland in 2011

Report diagram - landscape.jpg

Source: SPICe

History of the development agencies

19. Scotland’s development agencies have played a longstanding role in tackling the country’s economic development agenda. The origins of the HIE and SE can be traced back to the 1960s and 1970s respectively.

20. Both agencies were created to meet the conditions of the times. HIE’s predecessor, Highlands and Islands Development Board (HIDB) sought to address fundamental economic and social issues in the Highlands and Islands that stemmed from the area’s loss of population and the fragility of many of its communities. HIDB was provided with powers to address these economic and social challenges.

21. SE’s predecessor, the Scottish Development Agency (SDA), was set up to address the decline in Scotland’s traditional manufacturing base which led to the high unemployment levels experienced in the 1970s. The SDA had powers to address area regeneration, property development, business investment and support. Lena Wilson, during oral evidence to the Committee, described the rationale for Scottish Enterprise’s current emphasis on growth businesses. She said—

“scarce public resources should be targeted to help to grow the economy, so that things happen bigger, better or faster than would have been the case without the work of a publicly funded economic development agency.

We should not duplicate the private sector, nor should we crowd it out, but we must stimulate the market to respond. We should not do things that would have happened without us but we must stimulate companies to be ambitious for themselves and for Scotland. We should not pick winners but we should certainly back winners. We need to concentrate on helping the economy to grow”.1

22. Scottish Enterprise’s selection criteria for identifying the companies it works with are set out in its written submission, which states:

“we must focus our support on those companies that have the potential to grow disproportionatelyso that they contribute to improving Scotland’s economic growth rate, employ more staff (without displacing others) and develop local supply chains. Further, our support should add significant, additional value, as many companies can grow without public sector intervention. Our appraisal system for projects ensures that we take these criteria into account.

Research has shown that it is a relatively small number of companies that make this disproportionate contribution to economic growth and job creation. For Scotland this means, that, at any given time, there are around 14,000 businesses that are of sufficient size and scale to make the economic impact required”.2

23. Both HIE and SE owe their current existence to the Enterprise and New Towns (Scotland) Act 1990. The Act made provision for the establishment of Scottish Enterprise with the general functions of furthering the development of Scotland’s economy, safeguarding employment, enhancing skills, promoting industrial efficiency and international competitiveness and improving the environment of Scotland. Highlands and Islands Enterprise was established by the same Act but with a geographic remit confined to the Highlands and Islands and with additional responsibility for the social development of the Highlands and Islands.

24. Section 2 of the Act states that SE and HIE “shall each, to such extent as it considers appropriate, make arrangements for the purpose of:

a) assisting persons to train so that they may obtain and retain employment suitable for their ages and capacities;

b) improving and developing any such training.”

25. Between 1991 and 2007 the agencies operated largely through a decentralised structure of Local Enterprise Companies (LECs). For the most part there were 10 in the Highlands and Islands and 13 in the SE operating area. Both HIE and SE provided specialist support and services from their headquarters to the LECs and to national initiatives.

26. By definition LECs brought a local dimension to economic development delivery. As separately constituted bodies empowered and resourced through annual operating agreements with HIE and SE, they had their own Boards. Private sector involvement on the Boards was a feature along with other wider local representation, typically including local authorities (LAs).

27. The LECs inherited the skills development and statutory training programmes from the Training Agency and ran these between 1991 and 2008. In addition from 2002 to 2008, Careers Scotland was part of the Enterprise Networks. These responsibilities added significant resources (people and funding) to the development agencies.

28. In September 2007, for the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Sustainable Growth (the Cabinet Secretary) announced wide-reaching reforms to the enterprise network which were designed to support the implementation of the Scottish Government Economic Strategy. LECs and Local Enterprise Forums (LEFs) were abolished and replaced with a regional delivery model for enterprise support in an effort to reduce bureaucracy and streamline local delivery.

29. Business Gateway, local economic development and local regeneration services are now delivered by local authorities. Business Gateway acts as a “one-stop-shop” for business start-up and support and refers high growth companies to SE and HIE via the Growth Pipeline. In recognition of the different needs of remote and rural communities, HIE has retained its strengthening communities remit.

30. The additional responsibilities given to Scotland’s local authorities were an important feature of the reforms. The Cabinet Secretary set out the Scottish Government’s plans for the reform of the enterprise networks. In relation to local authorities he stated—

“With Scottish Enterprise firmly focused on national and regional priorities it is entirely right that local authorities assume an enhanced role in local economic development…we have looked carefully at the enterprise networks' current functions and identified those truly local activities which we believe should be transferred to local authorities enabling them to take forward a much more significant role in building their own local economy.

The Business Gateway is such an example. It provides advice to new start and local businesses serving mainly local markets. It is appropriate that it should be delivered by local authorities with whom these businesses already interact on a range of local issues.

Local regeneration activity in the Scottish Enterprise area will also become the responsibility of local authorities. Currently Scottish Enterprise are engaged in a range of regeneration and economic development related activities including land and property interventions…we believe it makes more sense to take a cohesive approach to local regeneration by placing local authorities at the centre of this activity and for that reason responsibility for local regeneration will be transferred to local authorities”.3

31. The Cabinet Secretary also announced that the skills and training elements of the enterprise networks would merge with Careers Scotland and learndirect Scotland to form Skills Development Scotland. This was accompanied by a transfer of funding to the new agency.

32. These reforms were accompanied by a transfer of funding from the enterprise agencies to local authorities that has resulted in a reduction of budgets and a reduction in staff numbers remaining in SE and HIE. In addition to their transfer of funds, further budget cuts have meant that the enterprise agencies have had to reduce programme and running costs on a year-on-year basis. Updated figures recently provided to SPICe show that that the combined effect of the budget transfers and the efficiency savings has seen the grant in aid for SE fall in real terms by £75 million (16%) since 2007/08 and, similarly, by £40 million (43%) for HIE – once adjusted for exceptional items4.

33. The tables below set out the real terms funding support for the enterprise agencies between 2008/08 and 2011/12

Scottish Enterprise Grant-in-Aid including transfers to SDS and LAs, 2007/08 to 2011/12

Real terms - 2010/11 prices   Data includes transfers  
Budget details 2007/08 2008/09 2009/10 2010/11 2011/12 £m %
Actual Actual Actual Draft Projected
SE GiA including GiA transferred to SDS and LAs 563 440 458 375 352 -211 -38
SE exceptional items 85 2 42 (27) -    
SE GiA excluding exceptional items but
including transfers
478 438 416 402 352 -126 -26
Note - includes cash funding only            

Source: SPICe and Scottish Enterprise

Highlands & Islands Enterprise GiA including transfers to SDS and LAs, 2007/08 to 2011/12

Real terms - 2010/11 prices   Data includes transfers    
Deflators (HM Treasury) 95.7 98.4 100.0 102.9 104.9 Change 07-08 to 11-12
Budget details 2007/08 2008/09 2009/10 2010/11 2011/12 £m %
Actual Actual Actual Draft Projected
HIE GiA including GiA transferred to SDS and LAs 108 86 81 77 65 -43 -40
HIE exceptional items 13 4 2 3 -    
HIE GiA excluding exceptional items but
including transfers
96 81 79 74 65 -30 -32

Source: SPICe and Highlands & Islands Enterprise

34. The main priorities of the development agencies have shifted in emphasis post 2007 with a focus on account management of high growth companies and support in key sectors. HIE have also focussed on large scale “transformational” projects and strengthening communities.

Strategic and economic context

35. Before considering the fundamental purpose of the agencies and the success of the reforms it is useful to consider the impact that the strategic and economic context has had on Scotland’s economic development.

36. In 2007 the Scottish Government launched the Government Economic Strategy with explicit aims and priorities for the development agencies and others to follow.5 The GES sets out five priorities for the Government and the wider public sector to pursue:

  • Learning, Skills and Well-being

  • Supportive Business Environment

  • Infrastructure Development and Place

  • Effective Government, and

  • Equity

37. In addition the Government has made a commitment that Scotland will achieve a headline target of 20% of total Scottish energy use coming from renewable sources by 2020. Scotland’s Renewables Action Plan sets out a framework for action in the specific area of renewable energy.6 The development of renewables has been recognised by both HIE and SE a major priority now and going forwards.

38. During evidence to the Committee, the Cabinet Secretary explained that one of the purposes behind this was to focus Government and public services, including local authorities, on increasing sustainable economic growth. He took the view that local authorities had been discouraged from seeing themselves as players in economic development, yet carried out some innovative and impressive economic development work and pointed out the range of other functions – such as planning, transportation and trading standards – which were part of local authorities’ portfolio and had an impact on the local economy.7

39. In the post 2007 period Scotland’s economy has been affected by the banking crisis and subsequent recession. Until recently, growth had fallen away and unemployment had increased steadily. There are now signs that a fragile recovery is underway. This takes place against the background of significant potential job losses in Moray, concerns over the long term future of Clyde Shipbuilding and over Scotland’s international competitiveness more generally as evidenced by its weak export performance.

40. During the downturn the Scottish Government implemented the Economic Recovery Programme. As part of this the agencies were seen as one of the economic levers to restore growth and during this period service delivery was flexed to meet the needs of the economic conditions and new services were introduced. For example the Scottish Investment Bank was introduced in February 2011. However the Scottish Government did not revise the Government Economic Strategy guiding the agencies.

41. In the context of the perceived importance of the enterprise agencies with a backdrop of reducing budgets the Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee, during its consideration of the 2010-11 budget, raised some fundamental questions about the purpose of the enterprise network and its role in economic development. These included whether it was time to rethink the very purpose of an enterprise network and what tasks it should be expected to carry out in a modern economy. This inquiry aims to address those questions.

Impact of the reforms

Transfer of services to local authorities

42. Responsibility for Business Gateway and local economic development and local regeneration were transferred to local authorities within the Scottish Enterprise area in April 2008 and in the HIE area in September 2009.

43. A key aim of this inquiry was to determine the success of this transfer of responsibilities by speaking to the providers of these services and to hear first hand evidence from those accessing the services. The Committee wished to determine whether the Cabinet Secretary’s aim that local authorities would take on a more significant role in building their own local economies had been met.

44. At the national level, the Business Gateway remains a partnership involving Scottish Enterprise, Highlands and Islands Enterprise and the Scottish Government, with CoSLA taking the lead role in running the national unit and with individual local authorities being represented through the Scottish Local Authorities Economic Development Group (SLAED). Scottish Enterprise retains the enquiry fulfilment and resource service (EFRS), which was established to handle and direct calls on behalf of Business Gateway.

45. Financial resources were transferred from both Scottish Enterprise and Highlands & Islands Enterprise (HIE) in relation to both the transfer of local economic regeneration and for Business Gateway functions. These are set out in the tables below:

Budget transfers from Scottish Enterprise to local authorities

SE transfers £m in 2009/10 prices
2008/09 Actual 2009/10 Actual 2010/11 Budget
To LAs for local regeneration 4.5 3.9 12.1
To LAs for Business Gateway - Contracts 12.4 12.2 11.8
To LAs for Business Gateway -Marketing and Quality Assurance nil 1.6 1.9
Total to LAs 16.9 17.7 25.9

Source: SPICe

Budget transfers from Highlands & Islands Enterprise to local authorities

HIE transfers £m in 2009/10 prices
2008/09Actual 2009/10Actual 2010/11Budget
To LAs for Business Gateway nil 2.6 2.2

Source: SPICe

46. Staff were also transferred from the agencies: 14 from Scottish Enterprise and 4 from HIE to undertake the Business Gateway function, no staff were transferred in relation to local economic regeneration. It is estimated that, in 2009/10, 1,201 people were involved in economic development service delivery in local authorities with an estimated annual spend of £214.2 million.8 In its submission to the Committee, SLAED stated that “one of the unintended consequences of the review is there has been a considerable reduction in local economic development expenditure” and that a “significant variance in investment between comparable authorities” exists.9 A number of written submissions from local authorities confirmed that there has been a reduction in the level of economic development expenditure locally.

47. In oral evidence to the Committee, Robin Presswood confirmed that it is SLAED’s view that while local authorities have maintained spending levels on local economic development, the overall pot of money in Scotland had diminished.10

48. The Committee notes that spending levels on economic development, both nationally and locally, have declined significantly since 2007.

Business Gateway

49. Business Gateway is the national, branded service providing advice and support to start-ups and existing businesses. It is delivered by local authorities. A Business Gateway Scotland Board, which includes representatives from local authorities across Scotland, exists to advise CoSLA on the policy and running of the Business Gateway functions within local authorities. The board is a joint arrangement with membership from the Scottish Government, Scottish Enterprise and council / SLAED members.

50. The Committee wished to examine whether situating the Business Gateway function within local authorities had led to improvements in service delivery and whether useful synergies had emerged.

51. Local authorities have added to the resources which were transferred from the enterprise agencies to enhance service delivery (including the leverage of European finds) and efforts have been made to link the support with other services. In its submission to the Committee, CoSLA reported—

“examples in the range of services available to and for business include help with exporting; workshops on business development uses, a significant increase in priority industry sector activity, the development of ‘one stop’, user-friendly arrangements for business are increasingly being established, linking councils’ planning, licensing and environmental services”.11

52. Jim Galloway, in oral evidence to the Committee said that “local authority economic development offices are entrepreneurial in nature and have been successful in levering in further European funding in the region of £14.5 million to complement business services. Drawing those services together has created a broader range of services with Business Gateway at the core, and the local authorities are able to bolt on services to meet local needs”.12

53. A recent survey undertaken by CoSLA found that “despite some early scepticism among business organisations, the Gateway has developed well as a shared service across member councils and in partnership with other organisations”. In its submission, CoSLA also claims that “a benefit of the local joint arrangements has been the local variations agreed in the previous SE local advice and training contracts. This has allowed a better response to the survival needs of local SMEs” and that “many councils have restructured their partnership arrangements to provide businesses with a stronger voice in community planning processes”.13

54. Garry Clark told the Committee that “most businesses have not noticed much of a difference in the day-to-day interaction with the Business Gateway.” He and Graham Birse stressed the importance of continued support by local authorities for local economic development as resources become scarcer, as SMEs would be important drivers of the recovery.14 They provided examples of services which are being delivered free to businesses such as the business mentoring scheme - which is delivered in partnership between the Scottish Chambers of Commerce and Scottish Enterprise, using European funding – and events on recovering from recession.15

55. Business Enterprise Scotland, in its written submission to the Committee highlighted an area of concern: “the process of getting acceptance for clients into the “pipeline” and subsequently into Direct Relationship Management by SE has been more complex and burdensome than anticipated” it added “With the development of a new approach to marketing SE’s products and services directly to the customer, there are even suggestions that SE is “competing” with Business Gateway, in pursuit of clients with growth prospects”.16 Comhairle Nan Eilean Siar agreed, saying: “it would appear that businesses that are not “account managed” are simply not engaged with by HIE” and that Business Gateway has experienced difficulty in having businesses accepted by HIE into account management through Growth Pipeline”. 17

56. Robin Presswood spoke of SLAED’s efforts to encourage councils to adopt a uniform approach through benchmarking and the development of national performance indicators but stated that “it is very much for councils to determine how appropriate it is to resource their expenditure on economic development” and that levels of spend were linked to each council’s historical approach to economic development.18

Gaps, overlaps and alignment of support

57. A number of written submissions to the Committee talk of gaps in the provision of services to businesses. There is a perception among some respondents that businesses which are too large or successful to benefit from Business Gateway support but do not have the potential for growth sufficient to attract account management support from Scottish Enterprise, fall between two stools. Inverness Chamber of Commerce, in its written submission to the Committee spoke of a support wasteland in the centre ground.19 Garry Clark, reiterated concerns regarding businesses which fall between account-managed and start-up status and argued that they are the high-growth firms of the future.20

58. Development Partners Ltd observed—

“anecdotally we have also heard of many instances where existing businesses have had real difficulty in getting advice and support. In essence they fall between HIE and Business Gateway (BG) with no one really sure about where to go. Many existing businesses do not perceive BG as appropriate to their needs while not really meeting the criteria for Account Management from HIE”.21

59. Business Enterprise Scotland likewise stated—

“there is a growing collection of anecdotal evidence which strongly suggests that some client companies who could benefit from advice and support services are falling outwith the present arrangements due to the specific criteria utilised for “account management” for SE and also the Business Gateway growth criteria within the present contract arrangements”.22

60. A similar observation has been made in respect of the SE area by the Scottish Chambers of Commerce—

“This is potentially an area for serious concern, principally for those which believe they are entitled to account management but are turned down by SE for this enhanced service. The risk is that by falling below the floor of SE’s remit, they get lost floating above the ceiling of the Business Gateway programme”.23

61. A further, related observation made by East Lothian Council is that the growth criteria applied within the account management process are not understood by local businesses.24

62. Scottish Chambers of Commerce, in its written submission said “the bureaucracy and uncertainty of negotiating with SE over who or who will not be account managed and the risk that individual clients will cease to be supported is a clear source of frustration to Business Gateway advisors and stakeholders”.25

63. A number of written submissions from local authorities confirmed that issues had arisen over the issue of criteria for entry into SE’s Growth Pipeline or account management status.

64. Robin Presswood said “we must try to close the gap in the crossover between account management in other Scottish Enterprise products and the Business Gateway suite of products. In that respect, we suggest that there should be formal tripartite liaison in each local authority or contract area to ensure that there is a formal mechanism for agreeing transfer, no overlap or duplication and no gap between the different partners”.26

65. Graham Birse gave an example of where partners outside the Local Authority structures have sought ways to fill gaps—

“through setting up Scottish Chambers International as a partnership with a £7.5 million budget over three years, we are offering in partnership with SDI a range of support services to encourage businesses to reach out. Those businesses are established businesses—it is not about start-ups. The aim is to provide support that will enable them to do that and share in the global growth elsewhere”.27

66. Ronnie Smith lamented the lack of alignment between local and national delivery (although he said that improved alignment between services at the local level had arisen as a result of the reforms). He said “Our members believe that we have lost clarity over the past two or three years about who does what in the Scottish economy”.28 He argued that growth pipeline and account management functions should be managed under the same banner and that an unnecessary link in the chain existed since the reforms. He felt that the drive to put companies into direct account management with Scottish Enterprise, enshrined in the current contract, had created “friction” and required urgent review.29

67. Lena Wilson said, of Scottish Enterprise, “we do not recognise the gap. All the evidence points to the fact that there is not the kind of gap that we have read about” and reiterated the importance of directed resources at businesses that are most likely to generate employment growth and international opportunity. She added “I concede that our evidence shows that there might be a gap in awareness among businesses of the support that they can get, for example from the Business Gateway. We could do more to ensure that we get all the information to businesses about where they can get support. However, we have no evidence of any unmet demand for services”.30

68. The Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Sustainable Growth agreed that there was an issue with the perception of what Business Gateway could and couldn’t offer but cited the numbers of start up businesses and the number of events to support business which Business Gateway provided as evidence that there was accessibility for all companies. He said that “the model that is in place, which makes Business Gateway and its services available to all companies, is an important facet of the system. If it is not widely understood, we have a challenge to convey that to people. If the Committee has observations on that, the Government will respond positively to them” and added “I do not want Scotland's company base to think that there is nowhere for it to go to get support and advice”.31

69. The transfer of responsibility for Business Gateway has allowed local authorities to align delivery with existing services. Issues have arisen over the elevation of growth businesses from Business Gateway to SE and HIE account management and a gap in provision has arisen in the middle ground between those companies which are too large to need Business Gateway support but ineligible for account management.

70. The Committee recognises that businesses cannot look to the enterprise agencies for every aspect of support and must qualify under the enterprise agencies’ criteria – i.e. they must have the potential to impact meaningfully on the economy. The Committee recognises that some negative comments about the enterprise agencies can arise from businesses that have been denied support because they do not meet those criteria.

71. The Committee recommends that Business Gateway providers liaise with the business representative bodies to further promote the services that are on offer and provide better clarity over the criteria for support. The Committee also urges HIE and SE to engage with stakeholders, such as the Scottish Chambers of Commerce, in order to establish and address the gap that may exist, in terms of the needs of businesses, between Business Gateway and account managed services. The Committee wishes to see action on this as a matter of urgency.

Geographic variation in delivery

72. While customer satisfaction levels with the Business Gateway service are high, at 91 per cent, geographic differences in the experiences of businesses emerged. For example, Garry Clark reported that feedback from chambers of commerce members in the HIE area “has not been great” but acknowledged that the Business Gateway service in HIE was newer.32

73. The variation of business support across the country was also borne out by written evidence received from local authorities and The Economic Development Association (Scotland) (EDAS) reported that “within the current structure it is very difficult to ensure you have the right balance between nationally set policies and local delivery on the ground”.33

74. Business Enterprise Scotland’s written submission warned of “costly and damaging rivalries between councils” if services were not delivered under a consistent model across Scotland.

75. The Committee is concerned at the apparent lack of alignment between local and national services in relation to economic development and business support and recognises the confusion which can result for businesses seeking support, noting that, in the Highlands and Islands area, this service has more recently been introduced.

76. The Committee believes that knowing where to go for support is of paramount importance to businesses and urges local and national partners to promote greater clarity on the business support services on offer and where they can be accessed.

77. The Committee encourages local authorities to work together with national agencies in the lead up to the 2012 renewal of Business Gateway contracts to configure services in such a way as to enable all eligible businesses to access support and to avoid duplication of support between different agencies.

Rates of business start-up and survival

78. In its submission to the Committee, CoSLA states that “despite recent reports of Scotland’s business start-up rates having worsened by the recession (compared to other countries), this is not borne out by Business Gateway figures. Instead, CoSLA has recorded an increase of almost 8% on the number of new businesses started with Gateway assistance over the past year and have also achieved considerably higher levels of customer satisfaction since its transfer”.34

79. Dr Jonathan Levie, during oral evidence to the Committee, argued that “There is a big difference between the number of start-ups in Scotland every year and the number of start-ups that are assisted by the Business Gateway. There are roughly 20,000 start-ups in Scotland each year, but only about 10,000 of those are assisted by the Business Gateway”.35 In a written submission to the Committee, Dr Levie pointed out that, in 2010, business deaths exceeded business births in the Scotland for the first time since 2004. He attributed the increase in businesses started with Business Gateway support to a reduction in the availability of money from banks or family and friends during the recession.36

80. Ronnie Smith cautioned against the use of clearing bank statistics in determining the true number of business start-ups in Scotland, pointing out that alternative lenders were playing an increasing role. Robin Presswood stressed the importance of access to funds, and said that Local Authority-led loan funds “have come into their own”.37 Graham Birse reported an increase in the number of business gate way start-ups in Edinburgh between April 2009 and April 2010. He said—

“That is not atypical, because in a recession a number of people from larger organisations find themselves out of work or between jobs, so they are more inclined to take the risk of setting themselves up in business. Those numbers contrast with the amount of money that is available from clearing banks, which is important—I have made that point. Clearing banks' lending was down 7 per cent in the year to June, so it is clear that something is going on in private versus public sector support”.38

81. Ronnie Smith took the view that “businesses that start with the support of the Business Gateway have a much better chance of long-term survival” and Jim Galloway also spoke of new measures to support business survival. Mr Galloway pointed out that “our figures indicate that 78 per cent of the businesses that are supported by the Business Gateway are surviving after three years' trading, against the Scottish average of 64 per cent” and Robin Presswood spoke of his “estimate that 100 jobs have been saved through projects I have been involved in, or made aware of”.39

82. Ronnie Smith described the way in which local authorities have tackled the impact of the recession: “the Business Gateway model was, until very recently, entirely designed to support a growing economy…but in fact the Business Gateway network across Scotland in its current form is much more finely tuned to the differences in local circumstances and in the economy, now that we are in a period of having to fight for recovery”.40 The Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Sustainable Growth praised the enterprise agencies and Business Gateway for their response to the recession and said that “I cannot imagine circumstances in which, in 2008, I would have decided to unpick the reforms because of what had happened”.41

83. The value of determining which types of start-ups were arising and the alignment of those businesses with the government’s key priorities was raised. At present, no such figures are published and it was unclear whether the analysis was taking place. Jonathan Levie agreed that “There is still a need to have a national view of what types of start-ups are coming through”.42 He added—

“It should be remembered that there is not much point in propping up with state funding businesses that are not going to go anywhere. The point of the enterprise agency system was to get more young firms to appear and go through the growth pipeline. There is a danger of slipping to assisting all companies that want help as opposed to companies that will create the most economic benefit to the nation”.43

84. The economic backdrop and lack of definitive data makes it difficult to draw conclusions on whether the transfer of functions to local authorities has resulted in greater numbers of business start-ups than would otherwise have been realised or whether more businesses have survived as a result of the reforms.

85. The Committee recommends that SLAED and CoSLA continue to work on the production of performance indicators for local authorities for the delivery of Business Gateway functions. Local interpretation of national strategy is important and mechanisms which allow feedback from local areas are necessary.

86. The agreement of Business Gateway contracts in 2012 will mark a critical point in the evolution of services and care must therefore be taken to ensure that the appropriate targets are agreed and lessons are learned from the first phase of contracts. A renegotiated national contract for 2012 must both support growth and innovation in businesses, continue to support the volume of business start-ups and include measures to support business survival. The contract should also provide a means of gathering and interpreting data on start-ups in order to feed back into service provision.

Removal of the Local Enterprise Companies (LECs)

87. The Cabinet Secretary told the Committee that “the reforms abolished the cumbersome and costly structure of Local Enterprise Companies and enabled SE and HIE to concentrate on interventions which make the most economic impact”.44

88. The Committee wished to explore whether the removal of local enterprise companies has reduced the ability of local businesses to have a voice in economic development. Witnesses described the disruption which was caused by the reforms and the resulting disconnect between Scottish Enterprise and Business Gateway’s respective roles and the subsequent development of a range of approaches in different parts of the country. Ronnie Smith felt that the loss of LECs inhibited businesses’ ability to debate the interpretation of national strategy at a local level.

89. A written submission from Business Enterprise Scotland states that “the abolition of the LEC network has removed an important mechanism where a range of stakeholders, and in particular the private sector, could engage in discussions to interpret national policy and agree local activity in response”. It added that “there is no consistent model and no agreed mechanism for such bodies feeding into the development of national strategy”.45 Garry Clark told the Committee that “The abolition of LECs has undoubtedly left many local businesses feeling divorced from the national enterprise network, but the question is whether that is a practical or psychological problem.” He stressed overriding importance of access to support, regardless of who is providing it. Graham Birse agreed, stating “if there is a national strategy for a sector as important as tourism, or for economic regeneration or redevelopment, as many businesses as possible should be able to buy into it”.46

90. Councillor Michael Foxley expressed concern over the loss of local presence: “...about that reduction in the fire power, as it were, of HIE. Our initial stance is to wish to see that strengthened and enhanced. It is about having as many people as possible on the ground to interact with the people who live and work in our communities”.47 This view was echoed by Councillor Angus Campbell, Comhairle nan Eilean Siar who stated in oral evidence: “we feel that a lot of the functions of HIE that benefited the Western Isles have been lost recently. That is particularly true of support for relatively small businesses and community groups. We are keen that the functions of HIE be retained in the Western Isles and the other peripheral areas and island groups of the region”.48

91. Callum Iain Maciver expressed the view that “having the strengthening communities remit remain with HIE is in many ways slightly anomalous. On the one hand HIE has been asked to focus on businesses whose growth would have an impact at regional and national level; on the other it has retained the strengthening communities remit”.49

92. Robin Presswood argued that the key impact of the removal of LECs has been financial but pointed to a range of models which had been adopted across the country to ensure that the business voice is not lost, such as the Fife economic partnership and Aberdeen City and Shire Economic Forum (ACSEF)50 although it was felt that Regional Advisory Boards (RABs) are less active and less prominent than the former LEC boards.51

93. Robin Presswood spoke of the work being undertaken to develop a local authority economic development framework “which will allow us to identify the best, share best practice, encourage people in individual councils to pick that up and take it on, and cover each of the main disciplines within economic development”. He said that this work is being funded by the Scottish Government and work would start soon.52

94. The Committee recognises the importance of the coordination and local feedback role formerly carried out by the LECs and applauds the efforts underway within local authorities, CoSLA, Business Enterprise Scotland, SLAED and the national agencies to date which attempt to fill the void which arose following the removal of the LECs to coordinate the delivery of services and spread good practice. The Committee also welcomes the development of local authority economic development frameworks to deliver on these aims but notes, as stated earlier in the report, that there is some way to go to achieve both geographical consistency and the alignment of local and national services.

95. The Committee hopes that these structures will overcome the serious issues of alignment of local and national services which persist and are explored earlier in this section.

96. Members are aware of anecdotal evidence that local knowledge and some funding was lost when the LEC’s were removed and sought witnesses views on the staffing and funding transfers which took place at the point of reform.

97. As an example, Robin Presswood estimated that, in Fife, “the reduction in spend might have been of the order of £4 million in uncommitted activities that SE Fife used to discharge” and “there are fewer staff and significantly smaller budgets for the type of engagement and partnership working that has been so successful in Fife in the past”.53 He added that “it is difficult to piece together a national figure”.54 Anil Gutpa pointed out that councils had been given resources to appoint lead officers from among their own staff and, in addition, the Business Gateway national unit was being expanded.55

98. Garry Clark, told the Committee that businesses in Fife had reported that “Scottish Enterprise doesn’t live here any more” and that similar sentiments were expressed in other parts of the country.56 Comhairle nan Eilean Siar stated that “it is the Comhairle’s analysis that Highlands and Islands Enterprise (HIE) has lost touch with the business base in the Outer Hebrides, with significant numbers of businesses believing that HIE has little relevance to their development aspirations”. Its submission compares current levels of business intervention with levels before the reforms.57

99. During oral evidence to the Committee, Lena Wilson said—

“as regards local economic development, if I pick two areas of Scotland—Fife…and Glasgow—we are working with significantly more account-managed businesses under the present structure than we were in 2007”.58

100. And added—

“in answer to your question about whether there has been an increase or a decrease in support, I cannot provide a specific figure on the overall effect, but I see no evidence that the change has been detrimental”.59

101. A number of respondents from the HIE area felt that the reforms had reduced the opportunities for businesses and criticised the new structure for failing to identify with the needs of small businesses. In its written submission, AROS (a visitor attraction in Skye) said “the ‘brain drain’ due to the reduction in staff numbers has been one of the biggest calamities suffered by the Highlands and Islands in recent years”.60

102. On the question of whether the emphasis for delivery was shifting away from the regions to a more centralised approach. Robin Presswood said “Scottish Enterprise has turned into a national agency. No regional management structures exist, other than a single regional director” and that new working relationships had taken time to bed in.61 The Cabinet Secretary accepted that less local engagement was now taking place but argued that this was due to a refocus on enterprise support and away from community development and, as such, was a product of strategic decisions.62

103. While the Committee does not advocate a reinstatement of the LECs at this time, it is disappointed to find that a number of businesses report that a removal of expertise and local engagement has taken place as a result of the removal of the LECs. The Committee notes that this withdrawal of knowledge and expertise was accompanied by a reduction in funding available in local areas.

Regeneration

104. The reforms announced by the Cabinet Secretary for Finance & Sustainable Growth in 2007 included an expansion of the responsibilities of local authorities with regard to local regeneration activities. Local regeneration had previously been a responsibility of SE and was transferred to local authorities, whereas in the Highlands and Islands regeneration continues to be taken forward under HIE’s Strengthening Communities remit. In relation to the 2007 reforms the Cabinet Secretary stated:

“Local regeneration activity in the Scottish Enterprise area will also become the responsibility of local authorities. Currently Scottish Enterprise are engaged in a range of regeneration and economic development related activities including land and property interventions…we believe it makes more sense to take a cohesive approach to local regeneration by placing local authorities at the centre of this activity and for that reason responsibility for local regeneration will be transferred to local authorities”.63

105. The Cabinet Secretary described the provisions which had been made under the reforms to support national, regional and local projects, with “significant local” projects being supported either through the urban regeneration companies or through specific decisions, on a project-by-project basis by local government and SE.64

106. The Scottish Government and CoSLA agreed that local authorities would receive an additional £12.5 million annual funding for local economic regeneration, to be released as SE’s previous commitments were met or expired.

107. The Committee wished to examine progress with the process of transferring the local regeneration role and funding and to discover whether clarity had been reached over what regeneration means, who is responsible for its delivery and whether local regeneration initiatives had continued to be supported.

108. Anil Gupta said that “In some areas, transferred regeneration moneys were not allocated immediately. Because local government finance is not restricted to a 12-month spending period, quite a lot of the money is being held in reserve while plans are put in place for expenditure of the regeneration moneys”.65

109. Written evidence from local authorities said that funds allocated by the government for regeneration had been less than expected and the ability to undertake long term planning had been affected. In its written submission to the Committee, CBI Scotland warned that—

“local authorities…have a wide remit and literally hundreds of different responsibilities and obligations, and so local regeneration may find itself slipping down the list of priorities in order to protect other projects deemed more pressing and the tighter fiscal situation develops”.66

110. The Scottish Chambers of Commerce said that—

“The underlying problem seems to be that the devolution of regeneration to local authorities cannot deliver regeneration objectives when the amount of resource transferred across to the local authorities from SE is as small as it was and so major programmes of land renewal and public realm improvements are now no longer feasible. The damage done affects all levels of community but especially the towns most in need of assistance such as Paisley, and Motherwell”.67

111. Of the decisions regarding funding for URCs, Lena Wilson said—

“two factors have affected the amount that each urban regeneration company will receive. First, there must be an economic opportunity, the sustainability of which is based on evidence of the gross value added to the Scottish economy—measured in relation to the other opportunities available to us…Secondly, we worked with URC representatives—as we have been doing over the past few months—on the legal commitments of each urban regeneration company and on the projects that we feel should have the greatest priority at regional and national level”.68

112. During evidence to the Committee, Crawford Gillies re-emphasised Scottish Enterprise’s commitment to urban regeneration—

“we remain committed to the work of the URCs. Together with the Scottish Government, we have been able to allocate a combined total of over £25million to the URCs for 2011-12, despite what has been a very challenging funding environment”.69

113. The Committee notes that, since then, the Cabinet Secretary has announced that amendments to Scotland’s draft budget for 2011-12 “will enable Scottish Enterprise to increase its funding for the urban regeneration companies to £12.5 million in 2011-12. That is an increase of around £6 million compared with the plans in the draft budget.70

114. The Cabinet Secretary concurred that “it is clear that over the years a lot of expenditure has been made in this area” and added that “the Scottish Government will support new models of regeneration, including through the £50 million joint European support for sustainable investment in city areas fund”.71

115. Dr Ian Wall, during oral evidence to the Committee, emphasised the importance of a holistic approach to urban regeneration. He argued that urban regeneration is “about people, not things” and stressed the importance of investing in the social as well as the physical. He regretted a decline in funds for regeneration activity which was due to a scaling back of public resources and also a withdrawal of the private sector as a result of the recession. Dr Wall spoke of the need for interventions to deliver a level playing field for those in disadvantaged urban areas, a sentiment which was echoed in the evidence the Committee heard on rural development.72

116. Dr Wall described a variable geographic picture of how local authorities had discharged their new responsibilities for regeneration and pointed out that the transfer had taken place at a time of economic decline. He felt that giving such responsibility to local authorities had the advantage of local democratic accountability but that the transfer of assets and monies had been slower than it should have been. He felt that the removal of ring-fencing of Local Authority budgets could mean that the emphasis on regeneration was more likely to differ from one authority to another.73

117. Dr Wall spoke of the need to give more confidence and authority to communities and was supportive of the application of a strengthening communities remit to lowland Scotland. He emphasised the importance of the government being comfortable with innovation and risk-taking to bring about change and foresaw difficulties with local authorities delivering a social remit due to the changes they had undergone on recent years. He also spoke of the role housing associations had to play in regeneration as powerful, locally-rooted organisations which had formed useful partnerships.74

118. Dr Wall also said that “there is constant talk of empowerment. However, in our society power is money—whether it is cash or land and property, or a bit of both—and if you really want to empower people that is what you give them. Communities in the Highlands and Islands have been empowered by taking control of seriously valuable material assets”.75

119. The Cabinet Secretary also spoke of the importance of focussing on human capital, saying “It is not enough to rehabilitate places; we have to create opportunities for people, and they have to have the skill and aspiration to be economically active”.76

120. Dr Wall emphasised the importance of the Government’s role in strategic, infrastructure projects such as the delivery of high speed broadband and said that—

“Government and major Government agencies such as Scottish Enterprise can invest capital long term in strategic investment for the country. That is where capital investment should go—it should not go to prestige property development projects. The private sector will do those projects if there is a profit to be made”.77

121. In order to stimulate investment in the regeneration of a given area, Ian Wall suggested that investing in the social fabric – schools, housing etc – was key. He said—

“good areas are defined by the quality of their public investment, not by the people who live there. If you really want to transform areas and have great and economically more successful communities, you need to give them first-class schools and health facilities, good housing and public transport and decent sports facilities”.78

122. Witnesses did not feel that a sufficiently clear definition of regeneration exists among all partners – national and local - tasked with delivering it and stressed the importance of communication between the various agencies tasked with delivery.79 In its submission to the Committee, the Scottish Chambers of Commerce said that the downgrading of Ravenscraig to a local regeneration project, despite the fact that it had been supported by SE for many years, resulted in a stalling of the project which the local authority was attempting to overcome.80

123. Lena Wilson said “there is no book that tells us what is local, regional, national or international” and argued that it was the Cabinet Secretary’s intention that “Scottish Enterprise would not be involved in projects that were easy to see as local economic development, such as town centre regeneration projects”.81

124. The Committee notes the evidence on the transfer of regeneration funding to local authorities and is disappointed that the transfers do not appear to have taken place according to the timetable originally envisaged by the Scottish Government.

 

Next


Footnotes:

1 Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee, Official Report, 19 January 2011, col 4629

2 Scottish Enterprise, written submission to the Committee, September 2010

4 SPICe. Review of the Enterprise Networks: A look at the transfer of functions to local authorities September 2010

5 Scottish Government, The Government Economic Strategy, 2007

6 Scottish Government, Renewables Action Plan, 2009

7 Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee, Official Report, 2 Februarycols 4773-4

8 SLAED, Survey of National Economic Development Investment in Scotland, January 2011.

9 SLAED, written submission to the Committee, September 2010

10 Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee, Official Report, 6 October 2010, col 4136

11 Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, written submission to the Committee, October 2010

12 Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee, Official Report, 6 October 2010, col 4144

13 Convention of Scottish Local authorities, written submission to the Committee, October 2010

14 Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee, Official Report, 22 September 2010, col 4035

15 Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee, Official Report, 22 September 2010, col 4040-1

16 Business Enterprise Scotland, written submission to the Committee, September 2010

17 Comhairle Nan Eilean Siar, written submission to the Committee, September 2010

18 Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee, Official Report, 6 October 2010, col 4137

19 Inverness Chamber of Commerce, written submission to the Committee, September 2010

20 Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee, Official Report, 22 September 2010, col 4031

21 Development Partners Ltd, written submission to the Committee, September 2010

22 Business Enterprise Scotland, written submission to the Committee, September 2010

23 Scottish Chambers of Commerce, written submission to the Committee, September 2010

24 East Lothian Council, written submission to the Committee, September 2010

25 Scottish Chambers of Commerce, written submission to the Committee, September 2010

26 Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee, Official Report, 6 October 2010,col 4144

27 Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee, Official Report, 22 September 2010, col 4043

28 Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee, Official Report, 6 October 2010, col 4146

29 Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee, Official Report, 6 October 2010, col 4161

30 Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee, Official Report, 19 January 2011, col 4642

31 Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee, Official Report, 2 February 2011,col 4777

32 Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee, Official Report, 22 September 2010, col 4042

33 The Economic Development Association (Scotland) (EDAS), written submission to the Committee, September 2010

34 Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, written submission to the Committee, October 2010

35 Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee, Official Report, 6 October 2010, col 4138

36 Dr Jonathan Levie, written submission to the Committee, January 2011

37 Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee, Official Report, 6 October 2010, cols 4140 and 4142

38 Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee, Official Report, 22 September 2010, col 4042

39 Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee, Official Report, 6 October 2010, cols 41394141

40 Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee, Official Report, 6 October 2010, col 4143

41 Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee, Official Report, 2 February 2011,col 4770

42 Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee, Official Report, 6 October 2010, col 4158-59

43 Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee, Official Report, 6 October 2010, col 4148

44 Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee, Official Report, 2 February 2011, cols 4767-8

45 Business Enterprise Scotland, written submission to the Committee, September 2010

46 Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee, Official Report, 22 September 2010, col 4047

47 Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee, Official Report, 1 November 2010, col 4238

48 Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee, Official Report, 1 November 2010, col 4245

49 Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee, Official Report, 1 November 2010, col 4251

50 Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee, Official Report, 6 October 2010 ,col 4150-51

51 Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee, Official Report, 6 October 2010, col 4152

52 Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee, Official Report, 6 October 2010, col 4153

53 Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee, Official Report, 6 October 2010, col 4154

54 Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee, Official Report, 6 October 2010, col 4155

55 Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee, Official Report, 6 October 2010, cols 4145-55

56 Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee, Official Report, 22 September 2010, col 4031

57 Comhairle nan Eileen Siar, written submission to the Committee, September 2010

58 Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee, Official Report, 19 January 2011, col 4637

59 Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee, Official Report, 19 January 2011, col 4638

60 AROS, written submission to the Committee, August 2010

61 Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee, Official Report, 6 October 2010, col 4156

62 Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee, Official Report, 2 February 2011,col 4772

63 Scottish Government, 2007

64 Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee, Official Report, 2 February 2011,col 4787

65 Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee, Official Report, 6 October 2010, col 4136

66 CBI Scotland, written submission to the Committee, September 2010

67 Scottish Chambers of Commerce, written submission to the Committee, September 2010

68 Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee, Official Report, 19 January 2011, col 4651

69 Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee, Official Report, 19 January 2011, col 4625

70 The Scottish Parliament, Official Report, 9 February 2011, col 33061

71 Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee, Official Report, 2 February 2011,col 4788

72 Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee, Official Report, 26 January 2011, col 4694

73 Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee, Official Report, 26 January 2011, col 4696

74 Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee, Official Report, 26 January 2011, col 4697

75 Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee, Official Report, 26 January 2011, col 4700-1

76 Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee, Official Report, 2 February 2011,col 4786

77 Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee, Official report, 26 January 2011, col 4701

78 Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee, Official report, 26 January 2011,col 4703

79 Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee, Official Report, 26 January 2011, col 4716

80 The Scottish Chambers of Commerce, written submission to the Committee, September 2010

81 Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee, Official Report, 19 January 2011, col 4654