We talked briefly at previous meetings about future inquiries. There are two papers that are relevant to this agenda item. The first paper details three topics that were suggested when we discussed inquiries, all of which are quite big subjects and would take quite a long time to investigate. The second paper, on the funding of the voluntary sector, is from Donald Gorrie. I invite Donald to speak briefly to his paper.
I am sure that all members receive a lot of representations about the voluntary sector. Voluntary sector organisations have had their funding cut almost annually for about 20 years. Whether they are local or national bodies, that is a real problem. There is more money from the Executive for certain projects, but it does not help with core funding. There is also short-term funding from the lottery, Europe or Government projects, but what happens when that funding finishes is an important question.
Donald Gorrie has identified an important area of the budget, which is an example of where we could make quite an impact for a whole range of organisations. This might be a good opportunity to appoint Donald as reporter into the funding of the voluntary sector, so that he can do some background work and report back to us before we launch a fully functioning inquiry. That might be the easiest route, rather than having a straightforward inquiry at this stage.
The committee might well wish to consider that. I have been informed that the Social Justice Committee is examining the voluntary sector and conducting a broad inquiry into charity law that will cover many of the issues that Donald Gorrie's paper raises. We might want to take up Andrew Wilson's suggestion, which I think is valid. It is right that the committee discusses the voluntary sector. Given that the Social Justice Committee will do some work on the subject, we should consider how we might make best use of this committee's and members' time. We might wish to appoint Donald Gorrie as a reporter, but perhaps we should first take a closer look at the issues that the Social Justice Committee will cover, so that we do not duplicate work.
Rather than saying to Donald Gorrie, "You're now a reporter. Off you go," I suggest that it would be worth while considering ways of properly resourcing him to conduct his inquiry. I do not know whether the clerks have time available, but perhaps we could allocate resources from our research budget for next year. That might allow Donald to take a lead, and would be better than sending someone off into the wild blue yonder, which experience has shown can prove less than useful.
I was just making a proposal.
I know that.
I support what has been said. I had a private conversation with Donald Gorrie and made the same suggestion as Andrew Wilson made. That is the way in which to proceed. Having acted as a reporter for the Health and Community Care Committee—I think that I am on my third report, and the committee may want to reconsider appointing me now—I support what Andrew said. It would be useful to link with the Social Justice Committee and find out what it is doing on charity law, and to have some research resource.
We will consider that suggestion. Callum Thomson will talk about the availability of resources and how we might proceed.
Originally, I thought that resources from the external research budget were being requested, but as the discussion has developed, it appears that the issue relates more to manpower and whether personnel are available in the directorate of clerking and reporting or in the Scottish Parliament information centre to assist the reporter in the early stages of the proposed inquiry. From a clerking perspective, I am not certain of our position to help with resources. I will need to come back to the committee about that.
May I make a suggestion? Given the limited availability of the clerks' time, especially as the timetable for the budget process is extremely tight, I suggest that the solution is first to discuss with SPICe what resources it has available. Secondly, and perhaps more interestingly, substantial research and knowledge resources exist in organisations in the voluntary sector. Donald Gorrie could partner up with them. I am trying to remember the names of some of the organisations—I am sure that people such as Martin Sime, who leads the Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations, and others, would love to have the opportunity to help with such an inquiry. We may be able to do it nearly cost-free, with Donald Gorrie taking a co-ordinating lead.
I would like to clarify what committee members are suggesting. Are we suggesting that we should consider one of the three proposals on the original paper for an inquiry while we do further investigative work and establish the remit and resources for a future inquiry on the voluntary sector or one that takes place slightly in tandem?
That would be my preference.
I suggest that we can move ahead. Donald Gorrie can proceed with his initiative on the basis of our discussion this morning. I would be interested to hear what Donald thinks of the suggestion that he act as our reporter and deal directly with the Social Justice Committee and the voluntary sector.
The committees of which I have been a member have not had reporters, so I have no experience of the system. I would be happy to talk to the Social Justice Committee. The clerk told me about its inquiry into charity law, but that seems to have nothing to do with the issue that I have raised. However, there may be some overlap, so I will talk to the people from that committee and return with a suggested remit for an investigation. I would be pleased if another member of the committee came along and helped. I am rather trying to swim the Atlantic, and it would be quite nice to have a pal swimming alongside me. If the committee empowers me to talk to the Social Justice Committee and return with some suggestions about a good remit that in no way overlaps with that committee's work, the committee could then decide about the remit.
We should agree straight off that Donald Gorrie will work as the reporter and empower him to speak to people such as those from the voluntary sector. He can then submit a remit to which we can agree. We should appoint Donald, because that next stage is a while off.
Are you happy with that, Donald?
Yes, I am happy. As I am sure that other people have, I have worked to pursue the issue for a long time. Obtaining the facts is difficult, not because of ill-will, but because of the system. Even good research does not always produce figures, but we can pursue it.
If Donald Gorrie wants to go off and have discussions with the clerk of the Social Justice Committee, that will be fine. Given that a couple of members are missing today, perhaps Callum Thomson could send out an e-mail to request whether anyone else wishes to accompany Donald, to give all members the opportunity to participate.
My preference is for a PFI/PPP inquiry. Such an inquiry would follow naturally from RAB, because it concerns what is being done with capital assets. PPP has been active in its modified form for a couple of years, so the time has come for a really good study to find out what it is costing us. The other ramification relates to where it fits in the budget. That is not yet clear to me. At levels I and II, there is no clarity about where the funding costs of PPP are. As that develops as an alternative to the capital stream, the effect on the revenue budgets will become greater and greater.
I support that. At various times, many issues that concern PPP have been raised. At some of the Finance Committee's initial briefings, several interesting questions were asked about the implications of PPP.
I am also enthusiastic for that to be an option. In the party political field, we have developed some work on that, which we would be happy to share with the committee.
We would probably want to consider that at some point. From my experience on the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee, I know that we should try not to get too tied up with too many inquiries. Perhaps at a late point in the PPP inquiry we might make final decisions about how we should logically proceed. As Andrew Wilson said, there may be more work on the European inquiry, and we have now decided to examine funding of the voluntary sector. We must be careful about our time commitments, as we must juggle them with the requirements that are associated with the Budget (Scotland) (No 2) Bill.
May I make a cynical comment about all three proposals? It would be sensible not to take evidence from people until the election has passed, because I think that we will not get as honest an opinion on such sensitive political issues as we might. The press could twist things. You can imagine headlines such as "Leading official says PFI is rubbish" or "Trade unionist says X". It would be a pity for that to happen. Some politicians of a lesser order than those who are members of the committee might make political issues out of that.
We could pursue such issues as part of the inquiry. I am reliably informed that the timetable for pursuing our next inquiry is unlikely to allow us to invite witnesses until after the general election, whenever that may be. Can I take it that the committee agrees that our next inquiry will be on PFI/PPP? That will allow Callum Thomson to put together a draft remit and structure, and start identifying potential sources of written and oral evidence. Is that agreed?
Can we plan ahead for the Barnett inquiry that will follow the PFI/PPP inquiry? Can we test the mood of the committee and discover whether members agree to that?
We might consider that when we are establishing the work programme for the PPP inquiry and have its outcomes. However, that is just my feeling.
I intend to support my colleague. Barnett has exercised many minds, not only here, but elsewhere. We must undertake an authoritative investigation of Barnett, to establish the view on it from this place. I agree with my colleagues that the natural extension of our RAB inquiry into PFI/PPP means that we should follow that route. However, thereafter, our first priority should be an investigation into Barnett.
I have no objection to that, other than to agree with the deputy convener that we do not know what will come up. Something of considerable political importance may arise. The voluntary sector inquiry would follow on from the PFI inquiry, and the formal part of that would take some time. Subject to no other major political issues coming up that the committee would have to address, I have no objection—we have agreed previously that we should inquire into the Barnett formula.
That is correct—that is why the Barnett formula is suggested as a potential topic of inquiry. We have always said that we need to investigate it at some point. I suggest that, until we find out how the other inquiries pan out and how our work timetable progresses, we should perhaps not commit ourselves to definitely doing something. Does everyone agree with that?
I agree entirely that we should not commit ourselves, and recommend that it be agreed for such an inquiry to be provisionally next in the queue. That could be upset by further events.
It is a matter of when, rather than if.
Yes. Is that okay?
Previous
Resource Accounting and Budgeting