Good morning and welcome to the 26th meeting in 2015 of the Local Government and Regeneration Committee. I ask everyone to switch off mobile phones and other electronic equipment, as they affect the broadcasting system. Members may consult tablets during the meeting, because we provide meeting papers in digital format. We have received apologies from Cara Hilton.
Under agenda item 1, we will take evidence as part of our inquiry into arm’s-length external organisations. I welcome Ian Murray, chief executive of High Life Highland, and Bill Alexander, director of care and learning at Highland Council, who will give evidence on High Life Highland, which provides cultural, sporting, leisure, learning and health initiatives and projects on behalf of Highland Council; Eric Adair, operations and finance director of the EDI Group, and Peter Watton, head of corporate property at the City of Edinburgh Council, who will give evidence on the EDI Group, which is a property development and investment business set up by the City of Edinburgh Council; Jillian Ferrie, chief executive of CultureNL, and Lisanne McMurrich, head of education skills and lifelong learning at North Lanarkshire Council, who will give evidence on CultureNL, North Lanarkshire Council’s cultural services ALEO; and Sandra Ross, managing director of Bon Accord Care, which delivers a range of social care services for Aberdeen City Council.
Before we hear from our witnesses, I will comment on the absence this morning of witnesses from Aberdeen City Council. Last week, the chief executive wrote to me indicating that the council was
“not currently in a position to attend this inquiry”
as officers with responsibilities relating to ALEOs had been asked to focus on other activity, and that the council did not think that it could
“give appropriate and useful input to an appearance at the committee.”
The committee clerk has had a series of conversations with Aberdeen City Council in that regard, reminding it of our powers to compel witnesses and urging it to reconsider. The clerk has also reminded the council of what I said on behalf of the committee last year in response to similar issues that we were then facing. On that occasion, I said:
“I would like to clarify the committee’s approach to who we ask to appear before us and the general criteria that we adopt. This is directed towards those from the public sector, including local authorities in particular, although for others our approach is similar.
When deciding who to invite, we look to achieve a balance from across the country that covers both rural and urban. We also have in mind coverage from affluent and less affluent areas. We aim to spread the coverage across the whole country, although we recognise that those in the larger urban areas might have more experience and knowledge of particular issues to share with us. We also recognise that staff in the larger urban areas can be more specialised and potentially handle a wider variety of issues, but we are always looking to the impacts on smaller areas, too.
We consider written submissions and other pertinent information before we select witnesses, and we are always interested to hear from those who provide an opinion that may differ from the status quo. If we receive submissions that provide similar opinions, we will try to avoid duplication on our panels, and we will strive to have contrary views available to test what we are told.
When we issue an invitation, we expect witnesses to attend. We will cancel an invitation only in exceptional circumstances. These invitations are not like invites to attend Government or other working groups, and we do not consider acceptance to be discretionary. We have powers to compel, but we do not want to use them, as we appreciate that it is far better all round that people attend willingly.
If witnesses feel that they are not the appropriate person to attend, they should contact the clerk immediately. That will allow an opportunity to discuss whether there might be a better alternative. If witnesses leave it to the last minute to contact the clerks, they will not be allowed to withdraw, and we will expect them to attend.”—[Official Report, Local Government and Regeneration Committee, 10 December 2014; c 2.]
I ask committee members for their views on whether they consider the reasons for Aberdeen City Council’s non-attendance today to be acceptable and invite comment on what action they would wish to take. I have a suggestion that we should summon from the council the original witness, the chief executive and the leader.
As there are no alternative views, do we agree to do that?
Members indicated agreement.