Item 3 is consideration of our approach to our proposed inquiry into the methods of funding capital projects. The clerks have produced a paper that sets out a proposed outline timetable, a proposed remit and a proposed approach to written and oral evidence. The Scottish Parliament information centre has produced a briefing paper, which sets out some of the issues that might be covered by the committee's inquiry. I invite comments from committee members.
I do not want to go through the approach paper section by section, but I will make a couple of suggestions. It is a good paper, which reflects pretty well our discussion at the away day, but I suggest a couple of amendments to the remit to make it clearer what we are trying to do. The remit reads:
You have a suspicious mind.
One never knows the outside interpretation.
I was not at the away day, so I came to the paper fresh. The inquiry is one of the most important that we could undertake and potentially of great benefit. However, two aspects struck me. First, the main emphasis should be on how capital projects can be funded under the Scottish Government's and Scottish Parliament's current remit. That would include a review of conventional funding methods, public-private partnerships and the futures trust if it emerges as robust and permissible under the Scotland Act 1998. It would seem to me, also, that if the futures trust does not emerge in the timescale of this inquiry, for whatever reason, there is still a benefit to be had from doing the first two bits. Secondly, the remit refers to "different models". That could involve international comparisons or adjustments to the Scotland Act 1998 that could create powers to do different things.
It is not my paper, but I think that that is fair enough.
I agree.
The clerks have heard the comments that have been made. Any other comments can be made directly to the clerks.
Do we agree to the proposed timetable and the initial remit?
Do we agree to the suggestion in the paper to issue a news release and general call for written evidence?
Do we agree to write to the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Sustainable Growth, seeking details of the timetable and scope for development of the proposed Scottish futures trust?
We should seek clarification on whether the cabinet secretary's proposals will require legislation. We need to be absolutely clear about that.
That is a precursor. There is no point in us spending a lot of time examining that model if it cannot be put in place.
Do we agree to write to the cabinet secretary, seeking details of the timetable and scope for development of the proposed Scottish futures trust and asking for clarification with regard to legislation?
I am sorry to be a pain, but in relation to the suggestion that we issue a news release and general call for written evidence, I suggest that—given that submitting evidence will entail a significant amount of work for any organisation—we should write specifically to those authorities that have used public-private partnerships and other relevant models. For example, Falkirk Council got approval from the previous Executive—when Tom McCabe was providing excellent leadership to the department—to create something that we would regard as being close to the futures trust, but at local level. Argyll and Bute Council's Liberal Democrat administration has done something different but relevant. Two health boards—Lanarkshire and Lothian—have done more PPPs than anyone else. It would be sensible to draw the attention of such organisations to our call for evidence and to ask them whether, given their experience, they would like to submit evidence.
Are you suggesting that we issue a general call for written evidence, but that we also target specific organisations that could give us practical information about their experience of various models?
Yes.
It would be particularly interesting to hear from Argyll and Bute Council, as it is operating a not-for-profit model.
So is Falkirk Council.
Do we agree to Alex Neil's suggestion?
Because the inquiry is so specific, it is suggested that we get an adviser who has specific expertise.
I agree that we should appoint a specialist adviser. When the Enterprise and Culture Committee undertook its business growth inquiry, so many people in Scotland and the United Kingdom had axes to grind that we looked outside the UK for an adviser and got the former head of economics from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. Almost every academic whom I know has written about capital investment projects from one point of view or another, and they will all bring to the subject almost as much baggage as we do. As a result, it might be an idea to deliberately seek someone from outside the UK, who might have the added advantage of knowledge of other systems in Europe, North America or wherever.
We should seek widely, choose the best, and leave it to the clerks to bear in mind what Alex Neil has said in finding us the best, most unbiased advice possible. Taking that into account, do we want to appoint an adviser for this inquiry?
Next, do we agree to ask SPICe and any adviser to prepare a more detailed briefing paper on the different funding models?
Finally, we are asked to agree an approach to developing an oral evidence programme, and to delegate to the convener the authority to approve any claims under the witness expenses scheme arising from the inquiry—having such power over expenses might go to my head. Are we agreed?
Members have agreed to appoint an adviser, so a specification can be drawn up of the duties to be performed and the skills, knowledge and experience that are required. There are no other substantive items that need to be discussed before the October recess, so there would seem to be no need for the committee to meet next week. To get the adviser process moving, I propose that the committee delegate to me and the deputy convener the agreeing of such a specification. Do members agree?
The deputy convener and I will be doing overtime, but we do not mind.