Seòmar agus comataidhean

Do other panellists have observations on regional partnerships?

Are there no issues at all? Is there a challenge with the cluttered landscape? Do you have duplication and two partners sometimes doing the same thing? Are you happy with the processes that you have in place to ensure that that does not happen?

I just follow up on that point. For its recent inquiry into the future of our town centres, which is a hugely important issue for our communities, the committee went to Dumfries and looked at a project partly funded by South of Scotland Enterprise. Because of its social aspect, the project had a housing element, although I would argue that housing is now a big economic factor. Would it be fair to observe that if I, as someone who represents the south of Scotland, went to Ayr, Lanark or all the other places that are covered by Scottish Enterprise rather than South of Scotland Enterprise, I would not be able to see those same types of projects being supported? Is it the case that, because you do not have that remit, you do not invest in those projects? If so, is that not a gap in your remit?

I want to follow up on the point about partnership working. I am keen to get the panel’s feedback on how effective regional economic partnerships have been so far. I will start with Jane Morrison-Ross, because my observation in the south of Scotland is that there is a very strong strategy and it is a very cluttered landscape but, when you look at the delivery, it is not always clear to me who takes the lead. For example, the very first action in the south of Scotland strategy is to

“Develop and deliver interventions to address immediate and longer term labour and skills shortages”.

Then, under “Key Partners”, it lists 11 partners that are involved. How do I assess whether that is being delivered when there are so many partners? It is not clear who is taking the lead on each of the interventions.

The project that I am talking about was a retail scheme with an element of housing to bring people into the town centre and boost that economy. It was very much an economic project, but clearly it falls outwith your remit.

I have a brief follow-up on the revenue side of things, although I know that my colleague has a question on losses for companies.

This question is probably for Jane Morrison-Ross. Coming back to what has been said about the challenges with the finances, I note that one of the observations that businesses, social enterprises and other third sector organisations make at the moment is that, when they approach South of Scotland Enterprise, they find that it has no revenue left. In fact, I hear that phrase all the time.

Perhaps this is more of a question for Anthony Daye, because the issue might well keep him awake at night. Is it fair to say that your budget is such that you are not overcommitted as such but that your commitments are pretty much already in place? Are you unable to directly support as many businesses over the next couple of years, simply because your revenues are already significantly committed?

There will still be agencies that will effectively have overlapping responsibilities. That is the nature of South of Scotland Enterprise. Even local authorities will still have an element of overlapping responsibilities.

How far do we need to go? Do we need to change those responsibilities? Can we put in place any other mechanism to ensure that somebody at least takes the lead? Often the experience in regional economic partnerships, for example, is that several organisations have similar responsibilities but nobody takes a lead. What mechanism do we need to put in place to make sure that somebody is delivering and taking the lead on that when they have that overlapping responsibility? Some of those responsibilities are quite general and they are not often specific.

Somebody in that circumstance would be in phase 1, which would last as long as the compulsory treatment, but somebody who has not had a compulsory treatment order would have only the six-month period. Is your concern that that six-month period may not be long enough for somebody with a mental health problem to deal with their debt?

Good morning to the panel. Can I raise a number of questions about the mental health moratorium working group? The working group has recommended that only those in compulsory treatment should be able to access a mental health moratorium, which is quite a narrow criterion. It is narrower than the definition in England and Wales. Does any of the panel have a view on that approach that they would like to share with the committee?

Good morning, James. I am interested in the boundaries of city region deals, given that my area, the Borders, is in two, including in one in the north of England, but I will not go there at the moment.

I want to highlight the issue that you raise about the cluttered landscape where several organisations often have overlapping responsibilities and there is no one-stop shop for the customer base. You do not suggest decluttering the number of players in the landscape. Instead, you recommend building collaboration into the design of the bodies. How do we do that, given the fact that we have been here before with the enterprise and skills review in 2016 and interagency competition is probably worse now than it was before that review?