Work Programme
The final item on the agenda was to have been an initial discussion on the committee's work programme, the aim of which was to get an idea of the range of issues that members feel there would be merit in considering before we take a more detailed look at issues at our next meeting. Should we go round the table to enable members to propose issues, or should proposals be made to the clerk and dealt with in detail at the next meeting, which is next Tuesday?
Perhaps there could be brief suggestions on a tour de table basis. Members could say a sentence each about proposed topics, to give the clerk a steer.
That might be helpful.
I want to mention something that I have spoken to the clerks about. I am not opposed to cross-cutting reviews, but I have been struck by the fact that a full programme of scrutiny has been recommended to us in the financial scrutiny review report. That report signals that the committee's credibility rests on the skill with which we carry out our core function. I am anxious about there being a cart-before-the-horse situation. There is a danger that we will decide next week that we want to do X number of inquiries without first understanding the fundamentals of the financial scrutiny review, which represents a substantial body of work by our predecessors on our core function.
Another area that has not been mentioned and which I am keen on is the gender impact assessment of budgets—the Finance Committee did a lot of pioneering work on that subject in its early years. There has not been an opportunity to go back and review how things are working in practice. The international evidence is that it is much easier to publish press statements about intentions than to mainstream a gender impact into the making of budgetary decisions, not so much by us as by Executive departments, and in the scrutiny functions of other committees.
Those are my top priorities. Unless we get on top of the issues that arise from the financial scrutiny review, the committee will not have a reputation as the powerful committee that we have the potential and expectation to be and that we hope to be.
I would like the convener to guide me: I am a newcomer to the committee and am not sure about our scope to look into specific policies, but spending in two areas in particular interests me. I am particularly interested in fishery research, in finding out more about the accuracy of some results and in how much money is put into such research. I would like to go into more detail on such matters.
I would also be interested in learning more about the financing of the Scottish Arts Council and in examining more carefully how it spends its funding. I do not know whether we can get into that brief, but those are my areas of interest.
I am taken by Wendy Alexander's argument that we should focus primarily on the committee's core function. I would like to augment that by finding out what we can do about benchmarking budgets in the Parliament against those in other countries and making comparisons. I am rather intimidated by our predecessor committee's list, which could partly be the result of demob happiness and partly the result of keenness to load matters that it never quite got round to dealing with on to a successor committee. I would prefer to narrow the focus at first, then build our work agenda as we bring matters into closer focus.
I agree with Wendy Alexander and Jim Mather—we need to concentrate on our core functions. As I have previously said, there are issues relating to our scrutiny role in respect of financial memorandums. We should not take on matters that prevent us from doing such work with the accuracy and precision that is expected of us.
On possible cross-cutting issues, responsibility for issues such as health improvement lies in different sections of different departments—there is some responsibility in the Education Department, some responsibility in the Health Department and so on. There are also issues relating to expenditure on rural issues. When I was a member of the Rural Development Committee, it was often said that it could not scrutinise the entire expenditure on rural issues, as there was expenditure in other places.
I also have an interest in the formulae that are used to apportion resources to different regions of the country. There are issues relating to the deprivation indices that are used and the consequences of formulae on fire budgets, police budgets and so on.
That applies across departments, from health to local government and so on.
I notified the clerk of my interest in that area as well. It is important that there is more scrutiny of the way in which Scottish Executive money is divided into those areas and consideration of whether there is imbalance between different indices or means of calculation. Also, I think that there is scope for an inquiry into or consideration of the economic development spend—particularly the spend for Scottish Enterprise and the enterprise network—and the effectiveness of the money that is spent in that area.
I am inclined to go with members who said that they would leave the work programme up to the convener. I do not know whether it is within our remit, but means testing affects my generation disproportionately. It is an anachronism that should be wiped out. We should investigate it, because it has a tremendous impact on older people in Scotland.
Benefits issues are reserved, but there may well be some issues that could be picked up under the responsibilities of the Parliament.
I am sure that none of us would wish to underestimate our capacity and that all of us would wish to realise our potential, to coin a phrase. While Wendy Alexander, Jim Mather and Elaine Murray are right to say that we have a core duty, I am not persuaded that it is a duty that prevents us from undertaking other major work. In fact, we have a responsibility to undertake such major work.
As I suggested at last week's meeting, the area of maximum concern and controversy at the moment relates to Scottish Water. The water charges, the bills that we receive and the increases—up to 500 per cent—that businesses have had to pay are a real burden. As John Swinburne will tell us, they are a burden for senior citizens and people on low incomes whose income is not low enough to get assistance from benefits. There has been a widespread outcry about a number of failings. We cannot really address those serious issues during tomorrow's debate in the Parliament on the Conservative party's motion on the water industry.
I rather fear that if there is no committee inquiry into Scottish Water, we will make the same mistake that the Parliament made during its first session, when it concentrated on things that people felt were not key. Section 28 and foxhunting were subjects on which we all disagreed. I do not want us to make that mistake again. It is a key concern of individuals and businesses that Scottish Water is out of control. I have my ideas, and I would like to test them against the witnesses and the evidence.
The other options for a parliamentary inquiry seem to be closing down. I hope that the clerks, who have helped on this matter, can come back to us next week on that. The Environment and Rural Development Committee, which has the topic responsibility for the issue, has already said that, with eight bills, its work load is so great that it will not have time for an inquiry on the issue. Obviously, that should be confirmed. However, I gather that the Enterprise and Culture Committee has decided to have an inquiry into top-up tuition fees, which is another important topic. That will take up its time.
If no other committee of the Parliament will conduct an inquiry into Scottish Water, this committee, under the fourth part of its remit, should do so. Under the fourth part of its remit, this committee has a clear responsibility to scrutinise public expenditure in Scotland, including that incurred by quangos—or non-departmental government bodies as they are known in Sir Humphrey circles. I urge members to support calls for a wide-ranging, thoroughgoing inquiry into Scottish Water. I hope that we can start that inquiry in September.
I am the final member of the committee to speak on this matter. I think that we need to get a real sense of what our work load is likely to be, particularly over the first three months after the recess. Members will be aware that the budget process normally goes from March to December, in three stages. Because of the election period, the first two stages will have to be combined. I expect that there will be a considerable amount of work to do on the budget process during September to November. The previous committee wanted to work in partnership with all the subject committees in their scrutiny of specific areas of the budget.
The other constraint on our time is the introduction of legislation. In the past, the committee has not considered every bill that has been introduced, but has tended selectively to examine those bills that have a significant financial consequence. For example, the Water Environment and Water Services (Scotland) Bill was dealt with systematically by the committee at the start of the year. There are some constraints on our time that are based on the work load that we have.
I think that economic development is probably too broad a topic for analysis in a committee inquiry. I am sympathetic to looking at that issue, but we would need to have a more focused basis. There is a need to look at patterns of housing and regeneration expenditure, which is a topic that I would certainly be interested in considering. There is also a need to look at the overall sizing of the different budgets and to consider why £X million should go to health or £Y million should go to education. We need to try and get a sense of that.
Wendy Alexander and Jim Mather mentioned early tasks for the committee to carry forward, but there may be opportunities for us to carry out specific inquiries. Between now and Tuesday, the clerks will take advice and gather information on the suggestions that members have made, so that we can have an initial thrashing out of the process at our next meeting, which is on Tuesday.
Do members want to have that discussion in public or in private?
In public.
At some point we may need to have a detailed discussion of work programme issues in private, but the view for Tuesday is that our discussion will be in public.
I thank committee members and members of the public for coming along—the press are all long gone.
Meeting closed at 13:42.