We invite Jamie Stone to join us as we move to agenda item 4, which is the 2003-04 budget process. At our previous meeting, we discussed the possibility of undertaking some cross-cutting reviews. A paper has been drawn up jointly by Professor Midwinter and David McGill. Does Arthur Midwinter have anything to add to paper FI/02/5/4?
No. As David McGill did the final draft, he might want to say something.
There is not a great deal to add. The committee might want to be aware of a few points. On the timetable, we are looking at completing the review by the end of the year to give the Executive the opportunity to factor the committee's findings and recommendations into the budget for the following year.
Before I open the discussion to members, I say that I think that it is possible for us to examine two topics. If we decide to go down that route, I want us to put in train the building blocks for conducting the two reviews in the next six months. It might be possible for us to identify other subjects and get the ball rolling on them, so that when we undertake the work some of the advance work has been done on our behalf and we can make progress.
Given the current political interest in the voluntary sector and certain happenings, shall we say, in Fife, I do not think that we should examine the voluntary sector in the short term. When we examine the voluntary sector, we will have to review the impact of the decision making that is attached to matters such as the new opportunities fund. Such work would require liaison with Westminster on taking evidence.
The intention is to feel our way into the process of cross-cutting expenditure reviews. The review on drug-related problems is perhaps not the first one that we should do—it should be done after we have had a trial run—because it is complex and draws together issues from many different areas of Executive expenditure. Traditionally, those areas have not been considered together as much as they might have been. Drug-related problems is a worthwhile topic to consider, but we want to set the template for the cross-cutting reviews before we tackle that problem. That review is a high priority, but it should not be the first exercise.
The case for the review on children in poverty relates to the fact that the Executive has highlighted the matter as a priority. The review would mean that we would scrutinise the Executive at a strategic level, which we do not do in the conventional subject-area budget. The review would give the committee and the wider world the opportunity to quantify the scale of the resources that are committed to dealing with the problem of children in poverty. It would also allow us to examine the balance between the different programmes and whether there is scope for rationalisation and achieving value for money. That review is clearly manageable and is related directly to the committee's role. We tried to find topics that would allow us to scrutinise seriously the Executive's financial strategy as well as its spending on subject areas.
There is a difference between the reviews on children in poverty and drug-related problems. Major agencies of the Executive are involved in the drugs issue and for the past few years the evidence of their spending—or lack of it—has been fairly quantifiable. That evidence has been available since the Parliament began.
There is no difference between the topics. We took the view that the review on children in poverty was more manageable. Also, the Executive has carried out a study on the drugs issue.
We must make a decision. I am aware that other witnesses are waiting.
I have no objections in principle to our working on the voluntary sector, but, as David Davidson said, we might easily be pulled off-track on that issue, both now and further down the line, which would be unfortunate.
The second paragraph of the proposal on the voluntary sector is an attempt to do that. We are interested in access to the different funding streams, how use is made of them and whether that makes sense in budgetary terms.
My initial reason for the suggestion was to do with the challenge-funding approach, how we go about making decisions about which projects are funded, how they are funded and how organisations go about applying for funding. The suggestion is aimed at the Executive level, rather than at a council level, which Mr Davidson and Mr McCabe were concerned that we might stray into.
I was not concerned that we would stray into that area—you were trying to take us there.
That was not my intention, even though that might be enjoyable.
David Davidson's comments notwithstanding, there seems to be general acceptance among members that we go with the recommendations, as Brian Adam said. David Davidson's point that we should ensure that other topics do not disappear too far down the agenda is worth bearing in mind. We might want to look at the drugs issue pretty seriously.
Forgive me, convener. At an early stage in our discussions on the budget, Keith Raffan, who was then a member of the Finance Committee, raised that issue when we came to the first budget round. The drugs area was a prime topic in those committee discussions. I refer the clerks to that. The issue is not new—the committee has already considered it.
You mean that we would just be advancing the work of the committee.