Agenda item 2 covers a paper that outlines proposals for taking forward our cross-cutting expenditure reviews. We agreed the topics in principle last year, and paper FI/02/6/2 sets out the proposed remits of two reporter groups. The Executive has agreed to give us an informal presentation on how it managed a cross-cutting expenditure review. If members agree, information sessions can be arranged for after the Easter recess.
I have a slight concern about the voluntary sector reporter group. It seems that all that we plan to do is consult the main players, rather than people who are not professionals in the field. I have talked to people in the voluntary sector and have been reminded that there are various parts to the sector. We ought at least to try to include some of the non-professional voluntary sector.
I agree.
I also agree. I do not think that we are going far enough down the line. Several organisations find things pretty tough on a day-to-day basis and must scrape about for funding. They worry a lot about how they will get to the end of each financial year. Their day-to-day experiences would be more informative. I am not saying that others' experiences would not be informative, but we need to see more than one dimension.
The organisations that are identified in the paper are intended merely as examples of consultees. It would be up to us to look further afield for groups from which to take evidence.
We will all be approached by bodies including regional-level voluntary sector bodies. The organisations in the list in the paper could be perceived as the gatekeepers to access that control some of the hoops that people must jump through. I agree with Brian Adam and Tom McCabe. We need to get down to community level in some cases so that we can find out about experience at that level, what the organisations are trying to achieve—and whether that is reasonable—and the problems that the organisations have in accessing support, from whichever source. If we are to carry out such a review, and if it is to be meaningful for the voluntary sector, I agree with my colleagues that we need to find out what is happening at the bottom end.
We can take that point on board as we develop the group's remit. Are members broadly content with the remit as set out in the paper?
Do members have any comments on membership of the two proposed reporter groups? Do members agree to our splitting the committee in two, in effect? I presume that when we get our new member, we can somehow slot that person in. Do members wish to nominate themselves for one of the groups?
Are the suggested arrangements essential as far as timing is concerned? Do not we have time for the whole committee to carry out both reviews? I am not clear what our timetable for the rest of the year is.
The two reviews are timetabled to kick off in April and to conclude in December. They will run concurrently; however we are open to any suggestions about the whole committee conducting both reviews. I thought that it would be better to manage the process with small reporter groups of, say, three members each.
It would be easier to manage timetables and diaries, particularly over the summer recess, if we had only two groups.
There will be some co-ordination. I imagine that Arthur Midwinter will be involved with the work of both reporter groups, as will—with members' agreement—Audit Scotland. There will also be co-ordination by the clerks.
Are members content to choose one or the other reporter group? Are there any bids?
I would like to be on the voluntary sector group.
I would definitely like to be on the voluntary sector group. The group was my idea, anyway.
That is fine. I would like to be on the group on children in poverty.
I, too, would like to join the children in poverty group.
I would like to join the children in poverty group. Is that group getting a bit crowded?
No—there are two members on each group so far.
I am quite happy to join the voluntary sector group, if that is acceptable.
Members have raised the question of appropriate organisations to consult. I have a number of contacts through the work that I did on the National Lottery Charities Board—now called the Community Fund—with local-level voluntary sector organisations. It would be helpful to get notes from members if they want to tell us about particular bodies.
We also want to ensure that we have a proper geographical spread. It is so easy to focus on only one area.
We decided in relation to the lottery board to try to get a representative sample of bodies from throughout Scotland.
The establishment of a proper geographical spread was one of the problems.
I suggest that members take some time to think about the matter and that they e-mail the clerk with suggestions for organisations. Members might come up with different bodies; a pattern might emerge.
That is fine. I should probably declare an interest as a board member of the Wise Group, which is one of the voluntary organisations that is involved with reorganisation.
You will have to join the other group now, convener—we are not having any of that.
If that is the view of the committee, I will go on to the other group.
I was pulling your leg, convener.
Do members agree that we should seek the appointment of advisers? I presume that everybody is content with that.
I would expect specialists in the two policy fields to be appointed as advisers, and that I would provide financial information as necessary, which would result in a strong combination.
Members will note from the paper that we are seeking to request from the conveners liaison group agreement to research support. Are members happy to go along with that?
Do we agree that we will consult the organisations that are listed on the paper, while taking on board the point that was raised by several members about getting down to a more local level in relation to voluntary sector support? I presume that we can add to the list.
Which committee will meet on 24 May? Will the Audit Committee meet that day?
No committee will meet on 24 May; 23 May is a Thursday.
I got my dates mixed up. I apologise, convener.
Do members agree to the recommendation?
With what will the meeting clash? What business will we discuss in the chamber on that day? We have no way of knowing.
There is no chamber business that day.
Is that because we will be in Aberdeen?
Yes.
Sorry—I am a thicko.
Because the meeting will be in Orkney, we will need to travel up the night before the meeting. We must be careful about when we finish so that we can get away on the Thursday.
If we go on Concorde we will get back okay.
Maybe, but not without booking it.
We could meet on Thursday afternoon and Friday morning. If we were to start in the afternoon of 23 May, that would allow members enough time to get to Orkney by plane. Members could fly back to Glasgow on Friday afternoon.
We will need plenty of notice.
Let us consider the option of visiting Orkney on the afternoon of 23 May and morning of 24 May.
Meeting closed at 10:51.
Previous
Financial Scrutiny Review