Parliamentary Bureau Motions
The next item of business is consideration of five Parliamentary Bureau motions.
Motions moved,
That the Parliament agrees that the draft Dormant Bank and Building Society Accounts (Scotland) Order 2010 be approved.
That the Parliament agrees that the draft National Health Service (Reimbursement of the Cost of EEA Treatment) (Scotland) Regulations 2010 be approved.
That the Parliament agrees that the draft Town and Country Planning (Fees for Applications and Deemed Applications) (Scotland) Amendment (No. 2) Regulations 2010 be approved.
That the Parliament agrees that the draft Applications by Creditors (Pre-Action Requirements) (Scotland) Order 2010 be approved.
That the Parliament agrees that the draft Home Owner and Debtor Protection (Scotland) Act 2010 (Consequential Provisions) Order 2010 be approved.—[Bruce Crawford.]
Iain Smith has indicated that he wishes to speak against a motion.
17:32
I wish to speak against the approval of motion S3M-6679, on the draft Dormant Bank and Building Society Accounts (Scotland) Order 2010. The matter was considered by the Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee at its meeting last week. At that meeting, members raised concerns that the detail contained in the order and that the Minister for Enterprise, Energy and Tourism gave the committee on the directions to be given on the use of the funding was insufficient. The order states very broadly:
“A distribution of dormant account money for meeting Scottish expenditure may be made only—
(a) to third sector organisations; and
(b) for meeting expenditure on or connected with the provision of services, facilities or opportunities which promote any strong, resilient and supportive community.”
—or basically anything you like.
The minister went a little bit further by indicating that there will be four basic themes: opportunities for children and young people; addressing health inequalities through increased activity; strengthening intergenerational connections; and creating community-based employment opportunities. Again, the committee was concerned that that did not give a clear enough indication of how this particular funding—an unusual, one-off type of funding—would be used. There was certainly concern, and the general view was that the money should be focused on supporting youth-related projects, because even the four broad themes were not addressed in the directions that were to be given to the Big Lottery Fund—BIG.
The committee got agreement from the minister that, before the matter came before the Parliament, he would bring back a copy of his draft policy directions to the BIG organisation. Unfortunately, however, that draft—frankly—does not take us any further forward. It does not give any clearer direction than the minister gave to the committee and which the committee considered not to be sufficient.
I am moving against the order because it fails to give clear directions on how the money should be used. In particular, it fails to give clear direction on how it will be different from any of the funding that BIG currently distributes. The whole point is that this is a one-off source of funding from dormant bank and building society accounts, and its use should be different; it should be used for something that is not currently available through existing funding streams. In the view of many people who responded to the consultation, it should be—
I am sorry, Mr Smith, but I have a point of order from Mr Gibson.
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. Iain Smith talks about speaking on behalf of the committee, but that is not the case; he is speaking on his own behalf and not on behalf of the whole committee.
Members: Oh!
Order.
First, I never at any point said that I was speaking on behalf of the committee. I was referring to discussions that the committee had and to the specific decision that the committee made. If you look in the Official Report of the committee meeting, you will see the published debate and that specific decision. I am not speaking on behalf of the committee. I did not state that at any point.
You must close, Mr Smith.
I hope that the Parliament will vote against the order so that the Government can come back with a clearer and more specific one after the summer recess.
My apologies to Johann Lamont, but the standing orders are clear: only one member may speak for and one against the motion. I call the Minister for Enterprise, Energy and Tourism, Jim Mather.
17:35
I recognise the concerns that Iain Smith has expressed. As he said, the order was examined at the Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee meeting of 23 June. As the minutes of proceedings of the meeting conclude:
“the motion was agreed to by the Committee with the proviso that the draft policy directions which he”—
myself—
“will issue are sent to the Committee prior to the debate on this Order taking place in the Chamber and that the Minister comes back to the Committee in the Autumn to discuss progress.”
Both parts of the proviso have been met. A draft of the policy direction was sent to the committee convener on 25 June and I have agreed to attend committee to discuss the subject in the autumn.
In addition, the committee raised a number of useful questions that are already getting careful consideration from this Government and the Big Lottery Fund. The next step is for me to instruct BIG, which is the statutory distributor of the funds, to prepare a strategic plan, which the Dormant Bank and Building Society Accounts Act 2008 requires be subject to public consultation. The consultation will give final shape to the kind of activity that will be funded. BIG will recommend a balance of spending between priorities and propose how grants should be paid. That work is in addition to the considerable public consultation that has already taken place and the one-to-one meetings that I have had with party spokespeople.
Meanwhile, our view is that the more detailed questions that the committee identified should be taken as part of the consultation that BIG will conduct. I believe that that addresses comprehensively the matter at this stage. Embedding the conclusions in a new order would restrict considerably the scope of the consultation. My understanding is that members would wish to know the views of the organisations that need the funding and that those views have been taken fully into account in the development of the scheme.
It is important that the process gets under way soon. The act requires ministers to lay the final strategic plan before Parliament. For all concerned, it is desirable that that is done before the end of the year. On that basis, I hope that members will feel able to endorse the committee position and agree the motion.
The question on the motion will be put at decision time.
The next item is consideration of another Parliamentary Bureau motion. I ask Bruce Crawford to move motion S3M-6684, on membership of the Congress of Local and Regional Authorities of Europe of the Council of Europe.
Motion moved,
That the Parliament agrees to nominate, as a representative of the Parliament, Mr Frank McAveety MSP, as the alternate member on the UK delegation to the regional chamber of the Congress of Local and Regional Authorities of Europe of the Council of Europe.—[Bruce Crawford.]
The question on the motion will also be put at decision time.