Voluntary Sector Funding
Item 3 is on voluntary sector funding. Members have a message—mine came by e-mail—from Donald Gorrie about voluntary sector funding. I say for the benefit of new members of the committee that we have been considering the matter for some time. The paper from the clerk outlines that history and the present position. Donald Gorrie's message makes it clear that he does not want the review of voluntary sector funding to be delayed until next year and—even then—for it to be uncertain.
In the light of the additional information that we have received in writing and subject to our discussions with Peter Jackson, I think that our inquiry into private finance initiatives and public-private partnerships will be extended at least until March 2002. The budget and the budget bill are also to be considered during that period so it is inconceivable that we could take on another inquiry. I am open to members' views, but my view is that we should decide in principle that our next inquiry will be into voluntary sector funding, subject to two provisos. The first is that the Social Justice Committee, which is examining the voluntary sector—including funding—does not produce so much information that we have no room to make progress. I have spoken to Johann Lamont, who is the convener of the Social Justice Committee, and I do not think that that committee is likely to go into such detail. The second proviso is on unforeseen circumstances; if a pressing matter arises in the interim, we will delay the review.
I suggest that we take a policy decision that our next inquiry will be into voluntary sector funding, subject to those two provisos. I am not asking for immediate agreement, but if members want to contribute, they can do so now.
I read the clerk's paper, which is focused. It is important that the PFI/PPP inquiry is done in depth and correctly and that we do not rush it. I know that we will discuss the PFI/PPP inquiry later, but I have concerns about the time that we have allowed ourselves and the range of activity that we will undertake.
If the Social Justice Committee carries out a short-term inquiry into the voluntary sector, that could be the basis—with Adam Ingram and Donald Gorrie's work—for considering how to approach the review. However, I do not recommend that we set as a firm target that the review of voluntary sector funding will be our next inquiry because, as members recall from previous discussions, consideration has been given to an inquiry into the Barnett formula. With the events that are unravelling in Westminster, I suggest that we keep our options open.
I agree with David Davidson. Although funding in the voluntary sector is important, we can say the same about many other departmental issues in the budget. It is not exactly clear why, next March or when some time becomes available to us, voluntary sector funding will necessarily be the most important issue before us. We should make a decision when the time comes.
That is a different suggestion. The clerk suggested that we should not make a decision today. I take on board Alasdair Morgan's comments about there being other important issues, but we have committed ourselves to an inquiry into voluntary sector funding and Donald Gorrie has been the driver of that commitment. I do not know whether any member might wish to fill the gap left in the committee by Adam Ingram's departure, but Donald Gorrie will still drive forward our commitment.
I take the point that funding in the voluntary sector is not the only important issue, but we have made some progress on it and I do not want to leave it hanging in the air. David Davidson is correct; the Barnett formula has been considered, but we did not get an inquiry under way on that. I am not sure what events are unfolding south of the border—perhaps I have missed something in the past couple of days. I prefer our commitment to be firmer than merely saying that we shall consider the matter again in March. The work that we have done provides the basis for a stronger commitment. I said that we would take up the matter unless there were compelling reasons not to. We shall no doubt consider it again in March after our consideration of public-private partnerships and the public finance initiative. Are members agreed?
Members indicated agreement.