A paper has been circulated that updates members on the progress of our two cross-cutting reviews—which we launched before the summer recess—on children in poverty and regeneration as delivered by the voluntary sector. Both reviews are progressing on schedule. External research has been identified and commissioned and invitations to submit written evidence have been sent to various organisations and individuals. Oral evidence sessions are also being planned. We expect those to take place in late October and November.
Not really. We are waiting for the written evidence to start to come in before we think about oral evidence taking. The gathering of evidence is a work in progress.
What is happening in relation to the third strand of the external research?
Do you mean the third piece of research on children in poverty?
Yes, I mean the strand of research on children in poverty that deals particularly with the impact of the health spending programme.
The commissioned research is the responsibility of Murray McVicar of the Scottish Parliament information centre. He is working with Connie Smith of the research and information group to identify people who can carry out research into the housing and the health spending aspects. There have, for various reasons, been problems in identifying such people. Work on identifying people to carry out the necessary research for Jonathan Bradshaw is continuing.
So researchers have been identified only for the first strand of research, but are still being sought for the second and third strands.
That is right.
The first point—under regeneration through the voluntary sector—mentions the aim of identifying "good practice and issues". Do we intend to carry out a mapping exercise? Many voluntary organisations do not know who is in the funding chain or where they should apply. Although voluntary organisations' knowledge is improving, it is important in the interests of transparency that we include something in the report that identifies different sources of funding. Perhaps SPICe could work on that.
The mapping exercise forms part of Sue Sadler's work. Sue Sadler has been commissioned to carry out the research that is identified in the paper. The mapping exercise will form part of that research.
That is useful.
On regeneration through the voluntary sector, I am anxious that we ensure that community groups are identified as part of the process and that their difficulties—as opposed to those of the national voluntary organisations—in gaining access to funding be examined. I had believed that a focus on community groups was to form part of the cross-cutting exercise, but I can see no sign of it in the paper. I am worried that the national voluntary organisations will give us the information that we know they are likely to give us and that we will not get at the information at community level. Communities are the subject of the proposed regeneration.
In constructing her review, Sue Sadler has taken into account the local angle. There is also scope for members to suggest smaller local organisations that might be able to provide written and/or oral evidence. We could pass on comments to that effect to Gerry McInally.
I have already provided such information. I have raised the issue at each stage of the process. I find it disappointing that the update paper does not identify community groups as one of the key areas. In my opinion, community groups are such a key area.
Perhaps that issue is covered in the paper's reference to
I am sure that both the adviser and the researcher will be fully aware of the issue. Even if community groups are not highlighted as such—all such groups will probably be called voluntary organisations—Robert Rogerson will be on top of the issue. The difficulties that community groups experience in gaining access to funding were highlighted when I did work with Robert Rogerson on the National Lottery Charities Board.
That would be helpful. In the context of health spending, it would also be helpful to speak to the Public Health Institute of Scotland to identify whether it could supply any expertise or information.
Professor Midwinter has reminded me that many members of the Parliament are exercised about how the Arbuthnott formula delivers. The Arbuthnott formula was intended to identify areas of deprivation, and different sectors within those areas. Unfortunately, the formula does not seem to be that well refined. If we seek a submission from the inequalities in health sub-group, it might be helpful to our understanding to hear specific comment on the detection of deprivation.
I know that the sub-group is focusing on unmet need, so I would have thought that it would deal with the matter that David Davidson raises. Inequalities in health are the key issue for the sub-group, but we will have specifically to relate the evidence that we take to children in poverty.
A separate piece of work—the neighbourhood statistics project—is trying to refine the data and to bring them down to a lower level. I think that 50 households is the scale at which the project is aiming. That project tackles the problem of, for example, social inclusion partnership areas in which a particular ward does not qualify for assistance, even though it is clear that pockets within the ward are deprived. I believe that that work is due to finish at the end of this year. I read in a paper that the project is due to be implemented some time in 2004.
Which department is carrying out that work?
Patricia Scotland sent me the paper. I do not know in which department she works. The paper followed an announcement by Margaret Curran, about which I inquired.
It will be a social justice matter.
That issue is highly relevant to Aberdeen, where deprivation appears in extremely small pockets. That can cause different results from those that people expect.
I will sound a note of caution: there is a view in my neck of the woods that the Arbuthnott formula goes nowhere near far enough in recognising the extent of deprivation or the costing consequences. The arguments on Arbuthnott do not go only in one direction. There is a debate about how the formula should work.
It will probably be most productive to hold informal sessions. We will invite appropriate witnesses to come to Edinburgh when that is convenient for the members of each review group. We will set things up that way. We anticipate that we will need to have at least two of the three member groups present at each evidence-taking session. We will seek to ensure as wide a cross-section of witnesses as possible.
Do you intend to use the odd weeks between formal meetings of the committee for that purpose?
Initial discussions have indicated that the odd weeks would be suitable for some, but not all, members. We will try to take account of members' preferences when we set up the meetings. We will also need to hold a meeting with the relevant ministers at the end of the process. We anticipate holding no more than three evidence-taking meetings, the third of which would be with the relevant ministers. We will put to the ministers the points that are raised during other evidence-taking meetings.
Do you want the meetings with ministers to form part of formal committee meetings, or would you prefer them to be conducted informally?
It would probably be better if the meetings were informal. We will still be examining formal reports at the end of the process.
We should ask members early what suits them so that they have a voice in the arrangements for the relevant meetings.
I am a member of the Audit Committee, which meets at 2 o'clock on alternate Tuesdays. However, I could certainly make a morning meeting at, say, 10.30.
We will canvass informally to find suitable times for informal sessions.
Previous
Financial Scrutiny Review