Education, Lifelong Learning and Culture Committee, 10 Jun 2009

Meeting date: Wednesday, June 10, 2009

Official Report 133KB pdf

---

“1st Report 2009 (Session 3): Review of SPCB Supported Bodies Committee”

Agenda item 4 is the report on the review of the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body supported bodies. Members will recall that the committee submitted a response to the Review of SPCB Supported Bodies Committee's consultation. That committee has now reported, and its report contains a specific recommendation that the Education and Lifelong Learning Committee consider whether there are any overlaps between the work that is undertaken by the Commissioner for Children and Young People in Scotland and the work that is undertaken by children's organisations.

Members will have seen the paper on the issue, which goes into some detail on ways to proceed on the recommendation. One option that is open to the committee is to ask the children's commissioner for his view when he gives evidence on 23 June, and then to remit to the Scottish Government the question to the children's organisations, given the Government's responsibility for funding those organisations and the committee's lack of remit in that area.

I point out, however, that the Scottish Government probably also lacks a remit in that area, as most such organisations receive very little funding from the Scottish Government, so it is entirely up to them on what they choose to spend their money. I would have thought there would inevitably be some overlap in what they do: if the children's commissioner and organisations that seek to represent children's issues truly understand the issues that are important to Scotland's children, they may well be campaigning along similar lines, which is not such a bad thing.

I am keen to hear members' views.

I am pleased with the Review of SPCB Supported Bodies Committee's decision on the role of the Commissioner for Children and Young People in Scotland. I think that it has made the right decision on that. I am a little bit more unclear about its recommendation that we investigate overlaps between the work of the commissioner and the work of voluntary sector organisations. Like the convener, I think it would be very odd if there were no overlaps that they might want to investigate and comment on in print—the issues that matter to children and young people. Also, the Scottish Parliament has no remit to hold charitable organisations in the voluntary sector to account—they have their own set-ups.

We can certainly ask some questions of the new commissioner at our meeting later in the month, but I do not think we have a remit to question the children's organisations. I, too, doubt whether the Scottish Government will be able to take the issue further. It would probably be better to let stand the decision of the review committee that there would not be much benefit for children and young people in a merging of the children's commissioner with the Scottish Human Rights Commission. I would be happy to let that decision stand and for us to investigate with the commissioner his role when he comes before the committee later this month. I do not think that there would be a great deal to be gained from our trying to—I do not believe that our remit allows us to—exercise control over what independent, voluntary and charitable organisations do in respect of children and young people or any other area.

I agree with Margaret Smith. Most of us will be able to agree with the recommendations of the Review of SPCB Supported Bodies Committee, except for the one that seems to suggest that we conduct an inquiry. I would be very worried about holding an inquiry into such an issue, both because of our existing workload and because I do not believe in the necessity for such an inquiry. Nevertheless, I would not wish to take anything away from the recommendations of that committee. Could we satisfy recommendation 21 by asking the new commissioner for his views and by writing to the Executive for clarification of its position? Alternatively, we might lodge a committee amendment when we debate the report in the chamber.

There is an opportunity for us to lodge an amendment. When a parliamentary committee considers a matter that is in the remit of another committee, it would normally discuss intended recommendations with that committee. That has not happened—if it had, I would have raised the matter.

There are some logistical issues for this committee, not least regarding our commitments and workload, which we have determined for ourselves. We must also decide whether an inquiry is entirely necessary. If the committee is so minded, we could suspend this morning's meeting briefly to give the clerks an opportunity to draft an amendment—which the committee could consider—to the motion to be debated in the chamber. We could make clear our support for the findings of the review committee's report, but point out that the recommendation on an inquiry is not entirely appropriate or necessary.

Paragraph 18 of our paper says that

"any meaningful examination of voluntary sector organisations would probably require a full scale inquiry."

It then goes on to mention the committee's commitments. If we were to conduct an inquiry, it would have to be very limited, simply because this is not the main committee to conduct such an inquiry, which would best be carried out by the Local Government and Communities Committee. If that committee carried out an inquiry, we might wish to involve ourselves in some of the evidence taking, but in a very limited way. I certainly do not think that we should even consider being the major committee for such an inquiry—at any point.

Do members wish to consider lodging an amendment in the committee's name, or would you prefer simply to note the Review of SPCB Supported Bodies Committee's recommendations? [Interruption.] I have just been told that the motion has not been lodged yet, so we are not in a position to amend it.

To be honest, I would be quite happy to leave the matter to your discretion. The views of the committee are fairly clear. I would not wish to amend the motion if it is not necessary. If we could debate and agree whatever is recommended by the RSSB Committee without amending its motion, that would be preferable. Perhaps we could draw that committee's attention to our discussion, and it might come up with a suitable motion that does not require amendment.

That is an eminently sensible suggestion. We will have some dialogue with the RSSB Committee, and hope its motion will be something that we can all support. I am sure that that will be the case.

Meeting continued in private until 11:43.