Examination of Witnesses (Questions 52-169)
RUCHIR SHAH AND DAVID GRIFFITHS
2 FEBRUARY 2011
Q52 Chair:
Gentlemen, welcome to this meeting of the Scottish Affairs Committee.
You were able to sit in on the earlier hearing so you will have
an understanding of the format. Would you introduce yourselves
and give your names and positions for the record?
David Griffiths:
I am David Griffiths. As listed, I am chief executive of Ecas,
which is an Edinburgh based charity working with people with disabilities,
but I am here as an elected member of the policy committee of
the Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations.
Ruchir Shah: My
name is Ruchir Shah. I am the head of the Policy Research Department
at the Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations, which is
the umbrella body for third sector organisations in Scotland.
Q53 Chair:
I wonder if we could start by asking you about the letter and
the material that you sent us. I am a bit unclear about the phrase
that the concerns and issues highlighted in the response have
been "validated by the SCVO's 30-strong policy committee"
and so on. What does that mean? Does that mean that they have
agreed this letter?
Ruchir Shah: The
way to explain that is that we estimate that there are around
45,000 voluntary organisations in Scotland. Obviously, how do
you get a representative view of that many organisations? It is
such a diverse sector. SCVO has 1,300 members which cover right
across the breadth and range of the sector, from very small organisations
to very large national organisations. Through its various members,
SCVO has a consequential reach to around 35,000 of those 45,000.
These 1,300 members elect 30 people to sit on SCVO's policy committee.
The policy committee has gone through this document and said,
"Yes, this is the kind of policy position we want to offer
on behalf of the sector." We are providing a sector position
on behalf of the third sector in Scotland.
Q54 Chair:
I want to be clear. When you say "validated by the 30-strong
policy committee", the policy committee have actually seen
it and approved it letter by letter or word by word, as they have
approved the statement that you have sent to us?
David Griffiths:
We have been through a whole process, and, speaking as one of
those elected members, even before that position, there was discussion
in the policy committee before we gave evidence to Calman and
so on. This particular document was sent round to all of us. We
were all asked to comment on it at draft stages and again before
the final document was released. Every member of the policy committee
has had an opportunity to comment. I couldn't say whether we all
did.
Chair: Fine. It is just
an odd wording. I wasn't sure whether or not somebody had written
this on the back of an envelope and then said, "Because I
am on the policy committee, it therefore stands." It has
actually been seen and circulated. That is okay.
Q55 Lindsay Roy:
If that is the case, and many other organisations had the opportunity
to contribute, why have you said: "Both the Calman Commission
and Scotland Bill have failed to live up to the high expectation
of openness, inclusion and participation"?
Ruchir Shah: As
you know, the Calman Commission held events and received 300 submissions
from organisations in Scotland. A substantial number of those
were from our third sector, who played a very active role in contributing
to this. Our sector also held its own discussions and events.
We fed a lot of material into the Calman Commission. The issue
we have is around process. This has been very much a one-way process.
I am not talking specifically about the Calman Commission in isolation
but also the Scotland Bill and everything together. It has been
a very one-way process in the sense that information and evidence
has gone in, then reports have been produced and a Bill has been
produced off the back of that. What we have not had is a way of
taking the balance of the options that were considered and selected,
and put that back out to Scotland's people, to wider civil society,
to voluntary organisations, and ask, "Are these the priorities
that you feel you were trying to give us?" That is the issue
we have raised around process.
Q56 Lindsay Roy:
Are you not participating in that scrutiny now as part of the
operations here?
Ruchir Shah: An
argument could be made as to whether the right time to be doing
this kind of discussion and debate is when the Bill is going very
rapidly through Parliament, or should that kind of discussion
and debate have been taking place before? There has been no consultation
process as such for the Scotland Bill. The Scotland Bill itself
has picked issues from the Calman Commission—not all the
Calman Commission proposals—which itself was a one-way process.
Information went in.
Q57 Lindsay Roy:
Do you accept that you have an opportunity now to input to that
process through your participation here and, indeed, the paper
that you produced?
Ruchir Shah: I
have an opportunity and the 30 people on the SCVO's policy committee
have had an opportunity to review this, but it is not enough time
for a sector of 45,000 organisations to give that kind of input
properly.
Q58 Chair:
Presumably, you heard Professor Calman and his colleague indicating
why they wanted to move fairly quickly. Does it not seem to you
reasonable that parties would want to put their positions and
make their positions clear before the next Scottish elections,
and there is then a much wider forum within which people can determine
because there is an election? People can then cast individual
votes, which go far beyond the restrictive number of organisations
for which you speak. Everybody in the country will then be able
to express a view.
David Griffiths:
There is a concern, as you have implied, that the timing is being
driven by the election. We would normally have hoped to have had
a consultation prior to the Bill being published.
Q59 Chair:
I did not imply that it has been driven by the election. You actually
say in your report: "Beyond political considerations associated
with the date of the next election for the Scottish Parliament,
SCVO does not recognise any pressing need". I was lifting
the words from your document.
David Griffiths:
The impression that we have gained is that the aim is to get the
Bill passed before the election, by which time, how people vote
in the election will not affect the Bill because the Bill has
already been passed. We would have preferred a longer period for
consultation to enable more people to get involved.
Q60 Chair:
You mention three main points in particular. The final one, and
I presume it is not necessarily in order of your priorities, are
the things to do with you— "specific issues of concern
to voluntary organisations." The main one there is the question
of the charity status and all the rest of it, is it not? No?
Ruchir Shah: No,
I would not agree. That is a perfect example of getting the balance
wrong. We were very clear when we gave our evidence as a sector
to the Calman Commission that this was not an issue in the way
in which they saw it. Our sector certainly did not have in Scotland—
Q61 Chair:
I understand that and I understand you agree with them. I understand
that Calman was then produced. I also understand that you were
then consulted. Is that not correct?
David Griffiths:
In what way?
Q62 Chair:
I am taking this from a paper on your website, which states: "Michael
Moore MP, the Scottish Secretary, has initiated two high-level
groups to advise the UK Government on the Implementation of the
Calman Commission's Finance and the wider proposals."
Ruchir Shah: Yes.
The first opening statement that Michael Moore made at that group—I
was there myself—was that this group is not to consider
any of the policy options or policy proposals that have gone through
this process if it is purely to inform the implementation. So,
no, that group was not a way of consultation.
Q63 Chair:
You then go on in your paper to say that SCVO is representing
the voluntary sector's interests. You then go on to say, referring
to Michael Moore: "He has however promised further discussion
on the charity law issue". You then go on to say: "SCVO
also sought and got reassurance that Calman's proposals for charities
such as a single charity definition will only be explored outside
the Bill process and to a different timescale."
Ruchir Shah: No.
That is a slight mix-up. I am sorry. What it says here is about
charity tax. The issue that is highlighted is on the Gift Aid
rate. There are some very specific technical impacts of the financial
consequences of that, which is a separate issue from charity law.
Q64 Chair:
I understand that. But charity law, as I understood it, is the
main thing for yourselves because you are representing charities.
Ruchir Shah: Not
quite.
David Griffiths:
I am sorry. To be clear, we are representing voluntary organisations,
which would include social enterprises, community groups and so
on. They are not all charities by any manner of means.
Ruchir Shah: We
do not represent universities. We do not represent the churches.
Q65 Chair:
Okay. Let me come back to the question of charities, though. You
are saying in your own paper "that Calman's proposals for
charities…will only be explored outside the Bill process
and to a different timescale". That was something you sought
and got reassurance on. It seems to me that that was a consultative
process. Once Calman had been produced, you pursued these points,
you got reassurance from the Minister and the Minister is now
dealing with the issue in an entirely different way. That is exactly
the sort of consultation that you were looking for, is it not?
Ruchir Shah: That
was based on a relation in terms of our ability to meet with the
Minister. It was not based on a proper and full consultation with
the third sector. There is a big difference there. If a staff
member of SCVO is called into a meeting to advise on a particular
issue, that is not the same as a consultation on the Scotland
Bill with the voluntary sector and the people at large. I can't
see how those two can be conflated into one.
Q66 Chair:
I am perplexed by some of the things that you have said in this
document. Consultation is not a never-ending issue. At some point
somebody has to decide things. Calman and the debate that preceded
Calman has gone on for years. We have Calman produced and then
there is an issue for the Government—does it seek to postpone
that and delay that still further or does it choose to move things
forward? My impression, which I am surprised that you do not
seem to have picked up from your members, is that people in Scotland
then wanted things to happen.
Ruchir Shah: No.
With respect, the Scotland Bill is not the same as the Calman
Commission. It has not taken everything from the Calman Commission
and put that out.
Q67 Chair:
We will come to that in a moment.
Ruchir Shah: There
is a step missing between the Calman Commission's report and the
Scotland Bill. That would be a consultation process that would
be issued.
Q68 Chair:
But why should there be a consultation process? The Government
has had its consultation process through Calman. They have then
made a decision. You have consultation and then you decide. You
don't have an interminable process of consultation. If you had
got everything you were wanting, presumably, you would have been
perfectly happy with it.
Ruchir Shah: The
Calman Commission, as I understand it, was not a Government consultation.
Chair: Really.
Q69 Fiona O'Donnell: I
think an important step has been missed, which is that the Scottish
Parliament debated and supported Calman. It did not just result
in a report that came straight to this place. I, too, have concerns
about how representative the views in your submission are of the
wider voluntary sector. We have established the process by which
the submission reached us. On your 2010 manifesto, what process
of consultation did you undertake for this?
Ruchir Shah: For
the manifesto?
Q70 Fiona O'Donnell:
Yes, the SCVO 2010 manifesto.
Ruchir Shah: We
circulated a set of issues that we would be covering in the manifesto
to all of SCVO's members. They had the opportunity for about four
or five months to inform the manifesto committee. We also held
a number of discussion events with various networks, including
the policy officers' network of the main organisations.
Q71 Fiona O'Donnell:
Did you include Calman in that consultation of your wider membership?
Ruchir Shah: Why
would I include Calman in that?
Q72 Fiona O'Donnell:
Because it was the 2010 manifesto seeking to influence decision
makers who would be elected to this place, and the Calman Commission
was going to result in the Scotland Bill. It would seem to me
that that might have formed part of your consultation.
Ruchir Shah: No.
The step that would have been important there would have been
a Green Paper or something similar.
Q73 Fiona O'Donnell:
I am not talking about Government. I am talking about SCVO's responsibility,
given that they are being so critical of the process here, to
consult your wider membership when you were pulling together your
2010 manifesto, because there is no mention of Calman or what
may become the Scotland Bill in the manifesto. I think that was
a missed opportunity for SCVO.
Ruchir Shah: I
don't quite agree with that. The issues we built into the manifesto
were drawn from the concerns and issues that our sector raised
with us, which overrode any specific issues that might have come
out of a non-Government Commission, such as the Calman Commission,
with which we did engage quite thoroughly at the time.
Q74 Fiona O'Donnell:
It was a non-Government Commission, but it was a Scottish Parliament
Commission. To keep using that terminology is not giving a fair
reflection of what the process was. We shall have to agree to
disagree on this, but if SCVO thought that this was such an important
issue for the voluntary sector, Calman had been published, you
should have taken the opportunity to consult your wider membership.
Ruchir Shah: I
am sorry, I don't get that, because in the manifesto you will
see a number of the key issues that we have raised—issues
on benefits and the disjuncture between benefits and welfare in
Scotland and so on. Those were the substantive issues. We didn't
put in a phrase saying "Calman Commission: what do you think?"
We went for the issues and I think that is the right thing to
do.
Q75 Dr Whiteford:
You alluded to welfare issues, and that is very helpful. You particularly
highlighted the disability living allowance and free personal
care and the divergence, I suppose, between Scottish social policy
and the welfare reform cuts coming from this place. Could you
say a bit more about the impact you think that that divergence
is going to have on your members in the months and years ahead?
David Griffiths:
It is very difficult to look at the impact on members as organisations.
If I may, I would rather look at the impact on the people who
are really affected, and that is the apparent mismatch where policy
rests in one Parliament but some of the financial aspects, in
particular benefits and allowances, rest in another. The two,
at times, need to be viewed together. The potential impact of
decisions taken on policy can be very much influenced by what
is happening with benefits and allowances. Therefore, the impact
of changes in benefits and allowances can impact on the policy.
Sir Kenneth made the point earlier today that finance
is one issue, but very often what is driving things is policy.
There is a potential problem with the disability living allowance,
which of course is split into care and mobility. Care is devolved,
but the allowance is not. Mobility is reserved, but transport
is devolved. The end of the Independent Living Fund or its closure
to new claimants—we don't know what will happen in 2015
at the moment—will obviously impact on the packages provided
to individual Scots. Their needs won't change, but the provision
of care is devolved. We appear to have potentially diverging care
policies between Scotland and England.
Q76 Chair:
I used to be a councillor for Strathclyde and I remember when
we had a UK Government that had divergent policies from the Strathclyde
policies. We had, equally, a difficulty because we were trying
to achieve one set of objectives and they were trying to achieve
another. The only way to overcome that, surely, is to have either
complete independence where all these things are handled by Scotland
or, indeed, by the local authority, or you have some arrangement
whereby things do occasionally rub together. But, as you heard
earlier, there is always going to be a bit of tension if you have
a bit of separation of powers.
David Griffiths:
I am not sure that complete independence is necessary. I think
the proposals over income tax, for example, where there is a proposed
divergence whereby an element of freedom is given to the Scottish
Parliament to alter, up to an extent, to take account of local
conditions or different issues either side of the border, offer
an example where there is not complete independence but it is
allowing local factors to be taken into account. I think of the
example within the last couple of years, when there was discussion
at Westminster of a national care service for England where, as
part of the proposals—it was acknowledged that that may
well have a significant impact on allowances—the allowances
were going to be pooled.
Q77 Chair:
To cut to the chase, wouldn't it be fair to say that, basically,
you are maximalists? You want everything devolved to Scotland
that could possibly be devolved.
David Griffiths:
No, I am not saying that at all.
Q78 Chair:
And only the other things retained at the centre. I have read
your paper. It seemed to me that that, essentially, is what you
were saying. I wanted to flush that point out. We are all aware
that there are some tensions and difficulties.
David Griffiths:
I am sorry if I have given the impression that I am a maximalist.
At present, as you say, things are rubbing together, but more
discussion needs to take place on how we can prevent that, and
on an enabling measure that allowed, for example, a system similar
to the income tax where an element of those allowances and benefits
was devolved to allow for different policies.
Q79 Chair:
I understand that, but are you saying that nothing should be done
until such time as everything is resolved?
David Griffiths:
No.
Q80 Chair:
It seems to me that in your plea for more and longer consultation
that is essentially what you are saying. As you heard Professor
Calman indicating earlier on, it is likely that we will have decisions
taken, some things implemented, but then there will be an ongoing
review, some things will be changed later on and so on and so
forth. I am a bit anxious because "This is not the right
time" is often the doctrine that is argued by those who want
to oppose any change at all. It is never perfect. There is always
some difficulty that can arise. It is just a means of postponing
action.
David Griffiths:
No. There is an opportunity at present for this Bill to allow
for some form of secondary legislation that would have an enabling
element to allow, after that discussion, some action to take place
without having to come back and have another Bill. The Equality
Act, for example, allows for secondary legislation to be passed
elsewhere. We are coming more to systems where we have some element
of control further down, and this Bill might provide an opportunity
to enable that to take place sooner rather than later, rather
than wait for a further Bill.
Ruchir Shah: We
are saying that in many cases this disjuncture between benefits
and welfare, which is devolved while benefits are reserved, is
creating many problems for particularly the most vulnerable people
in Scotland's society. For them, this could be an even more important
issue than some of the tax-raising issues. What David is saying
and what we are proposing is this. If we can have some kind of
partial devolution over income tax, could we not also have some
kind of partial devolution over benefits? One way of doing that
could be through this particular Bill, which is an enabling Bill,
to have a provision where you could devolve powers for secondary
legislation on benefits to the Scottish Parliament. The primary
legislation stays with the UK Parliament and keeps the social
unit as it has been set out.
Q81 Chair:
You only see this as being something that is dealt with between
the Parliaments. I remember as a Glasgow MP many of us arguing
that Glasgow's position was different from that of the rest of
Scotland, as indeed it is, and that the problems faced in Glasgow
could not be fully understood by those from the leafy suburbs
of Edinburgh, or indeed other airts and pairts. Really what we
wanted was devolution to Glasgow to take account of the particular
circumstances. You did not seem to endorse that approach. It is
only an Edinburgh-centred approach that you have. Is that correct?
Ruchir Shah: No.
It is just that we are looking at the Scotland Bill at this moment.
Obviously, further down the line something else might be relevant,
but what we are asking for is that this Scotland Bill offers an
opportunity to enact some kind of partial devolution on benefits
in the same way as partial devolution on tax.
Q82 Dr Whiteford:
I wanted to raise another issue from your report, which is about
the National Lottery; you highlighted the diversion of Lottery
funds towards the London Olympics. You might not know the answer,
but how much have Scottish communities and charities lost out
as a result of those diversions? What impact is that having on
the folk you are representing, and how could you see the Scotland
Bill being amended to rectify that anomaly?
Ruchir Shah: The
diversion of funds towards the Olympics from the Lottery initially
created a drop. We came out publicly saying that it was around
70% of the funding. The Lottery funding is a really important
source of funding for our sector because it is an independent
source of funding. It is not tied in the same way as many contracts
and grants are. It is critical for the innovative approaches that
our sector can provide to make a real difference in communities.
The issue there was about policy fit and policy design. Decisions
were made in a particular jurisdiction in Whitehall that had a
massive effect on organisations delivering to some quite vulnerable
people in Scotland and that created a mismatch with the funding
mix that the organisations were experiencing in Scotland. It is
that kind of effect that we think could be addressed.
We have noted that there are some very welcome developments
and proposals on strengthening the joint ministerial committees
and the joint ministerial committee structures, which is a great
thing. If there could be some more oversight either through that
or jointly with the Parliaments over UK-based institutions including
the Lottery, but also including, as my colleague mentioned, the
Equality and Human Rights Commission, the research councils, and
the UK Border Agency, policy design in Scotland will be better
aligned with policy decisions made in Westminster. We think there
are opportunities in the Scotland Bill to do that.
Q83 Jim McGovern:
I would like to go back to a point that a couple of other colleagues
raised as to just who exactly you represent here. It says in the
paper: "There are over 45,000 third sector organisations
in Scotland involving around 137,000 paid staff and approximately
1.3 million volunteers." Do you represent every one of these
people?
Ruchir Shah: We
do not represent any one of them.
Q84 Jim McGovern:
None of them?
Ruchir Shah: The
point is that we provide a sector view. That has to be the distinction.
Much of what we do is a facilitating voice on behalf of voluntary
organisations right across Scotland. What we can't do is speak
with one voice on everything as a sector. It is really critical
that we explain that. Our sector is diverse. Different organisations
and different individuals in our sectors will be on different
sides of a number of issues. A number of issues have been put
into the Scotland Bill on things like air guns, traffic management
and so on.
Q85 Jim McGovern:
You are digressing. You are moving totally away from the point
I am trying to make. There are 45,000 third sector organisations.
You have mentioned a couple of times that they all had the opportunity
to respond to this consultation.
Ruchir Shah: Yes,
because through our networks we are able to reach 35,000 of those
45,000 because many members of SCVO have their own memberships.
There has been a communication loop of getting out the information
on, say, the Calman Commission or the Scotland Bill through those
networks and that is what we do on a regular basis. The information
that comes back is what we pull together. If there is a sector
perspective on something, if a consensus is developing, then obviously
we will push that forward.
Q86 Jim McGovern:
Of the 45,000 organisations, how many responses did you get?
Ruchir Shah: This
is not a poll that we are doing. This is a kind of—
Q87 Jim McGovern:
Just answer the question. It is an easy one.
Ruchir Shah: It
is the wrong question, I am afraid.
Chair: But it is the question
he has asked, though. The way it works is that we ask the questions
and you answer them. If you then want to add something, we don't
mind that. So just repeat the question, Jim.
Q88 Jim McGovern:
Of the 45,000 third sector organisations in Scotland that you
said had the opportunity to respond, how many did respond?
David Griffiths:
I am not sure, and I apologise for this, that we can give a precise
answer because, as Ruchir explained, a number of those are umbrella
organisations and we don't know how many fed in. For example,
I can't remember how many members the Edinburgh Voluntary Organisations
Council has, but they would have fed in an answer and, quite possibly,
have held consultation meetings. We wouldn't know how many organisations
had attended that.
Q89 Jim McGovern:
How many responses did you get?
Chair: How many responses
did you get?
David Griffiths:
That I don't know.
Ruchir Shah: I
don't have that information right now. We could pass it on to
you. We do have it on our website in terms of the discussions
we held on the Calman Commission and the national conversation
at the time.
Q90 Chair:
Let me just be clear. You will be able to tell us how many written
submissions were made that formulated this document.
Ruchir Shah: No.
It is the other way round. We facilitated discussion, so we encouraged
a lot of organisations to submit their own responses to the Calman
Commission. That is the way it works. We don't try and speak for
them. This is the point I was making, which may not have come
across very clearly.
Q91 Chair:
You have come out with some fairly strong views here. What we
are trying to clarify is whether they are your opinions or whether
they are based on a wider assessment. We are trying to clarify
how many people responded to the papers that you sent out, and
you are unable to tell me.
Ruchir Shah: Thirty
people reviewed this paper and agreed with it. Those 30 people
were elected from SCVO's membership of 1,300 organisations to
provide a sector view on behalf of the sector.
Q92 Chair:
So 30 people have agreed this out of the 45,000 or so?
Ruchir Shah: That
is right, yes.
Q93 Chair:
So you are here representing 30 people.
David Griffiths:
With respect, Chairman, we don't know how many people those 30
people consulted. As an elected member of the policy committee
I didn't just read this, hit "Reply" and say "Yes".
I feel sure that my colleagues in umbrella organisations, in particular,
would not have done so. I am involved in one of those umbrella
organisations and I know that they go to considerable efforts
to consult their members, as many as time permits. It depends
on how long I had to consider this particular document, and I
can't remember how long it was, but if Ruchir gives me a month,
obviously, we will talk to more people than if there was a shorter
time.
Q94 Chair:
You had much more than a month, surely. You have discussed here
about how truncated our processes are.
David Griffiths:
I was going to say that that was one of the points that we tried
to make. I can't remember exactly how long we had to respond to
the Scotland Bill.
Ruchir Shah: I
don't think there was a consultation.
David Griffiths:
There was an opportunity to submit written reports to this Committee
by 31 January.
Q95 Jim McGovern:
I come back again to my original question. It says here: "The
SCVO is the national body representing the third sector."
Just exactly who do you represent and whose views led to this
response?
Ruchir Shah: We
represent our 1,300 members.
Q96 Jim McGovern:
Thirteen hundred?
Ruchir Shah: Yes.
Q97 Jim McGovern:
Out of 1.3 million volunteers and 137,000 paid staff from 45,000
organisations.
Ruchir Shah: Of
those 1,300 members, many of them are themselves umbrella organisations
that represent many other organisations.
Chair: Jim's point was
about how many submissions you received. You are unable to tell
us that but you are going to come back to us on that.
Q98 Cathy Jamieson:
I just want to pick up some of the themes. I preface my remarks
by saying I have worked in the voluntary sector and very well
understand the tensions of trying to develop policy at the same
time as trying to develop services. I also have experience of
submitting views on behalf of voluntary organisations to Governments
long since gone. One of the things that concerned me a bit about
this paper was that it is littered with references, for example,
to a process that has been dominated from beginning to end by
politicians and political considerations. It then goes on to talk
about an overly politicised mandate and so on. I just wondered
if you now feel that the tone of the paper may have diverted from
the very meat of the points that you would have liked to make
on behalf of the constituent bodies that you represent.
David Griffiths:
On reflection, having listened to the discussion for the last
half an hour, yes. I am very happy to take that point back and
acknowledge it.
Q99 Cathy Jamieson:
Can I follow up on a couple of very specific points on which I
am now trying to get some further information? There is a section
that says: "If the Bill is enacted then an unhelpful precedent
will have been set—power devolved is power retained and
the UK government will determine the future parameters of devolution
with insufficient regard to the views and interests of the people
of Scotland. We believe one potential option could be a 'consent
referendum' to be associated with major changes to devolution."
Would you explain what you mean by that?
Ruchir Shah: Sure.
There was a bit of frustration. The point we were raising was
that we didn't feel as though we had had enough opportunity as
a sector—I am not talking about SCVO here but as a sector—to
input into the proposals put out in the White Paper and the Scotland
Bill. What we are trying to say here is that there are some issues
as important as devolution that do, probably, need to have a bit
more of a feedback loop to the wider public—not even just
charities and voluntary organisations. One of the proposals in
the paper, and that is by no means exclusive, was looking at things
like consent referendums. I think Wales already has that kind
of approach. It was just one option amongst others.
Q100 Chair:
Are you calling for a referendum on the Scotland Bill?
Ruchir Shah: On
major changes?
Q101 Chair:
No. On the Scotland Bill.
Ruchir Shah: No,
we are not, not specifically on the Scotland Bill.
Q102 Cathy Jamieson:
The Scotland Bill does propose a major change to the devolution
settlement. I wanted to be clear whether you were proposing that
there ought to be a referendum on that.
Ruchir Shah: No,
we were not. We were proposing a referendum on some of the key
issues like, for example, the specific issues within the Scotland
Bill, but also outside Scotland.
Q103 Cathy Jamieson:
Could you give me an example? What would you have a referendum
on?
Ruchir Shah: For
example, tax issues, the proposals on whether to keep a single
social union and those kind of proposals.
Q104 Cathy Jamieson:
If there are any further changes to tax you believe there ought
to be a referendum.
Ruchir Shah: Indeed.
I think so, yes.
Q105 Chair:
Before we move off that, the proposal that is being made is quite
a substantial proposal on tax.
Ruchir Shah: Sure.
Cathy Jamieson: Absolutely.
Q106 Chair:
Why are you not suggesting that there should be a referendum on
that?
Ruchir Shah: We
are just putting out a proposal of an option that this is the
kind of thing we could use in future, but I don't think as a sector
we have had enough discussion on whether this should be the option
that is used. That is something that our sector has discussed.
It is certainly an example of an option.
Q107 Chair:
We have asked for evidence. You have written to us with evidence.
You have put in your paper the suggestion of a consent referendum.
You presumably expect us to take it reasonably seriously, and
now you are telling us that it was just an idea you were kicking
around.
Ruchir Shah: No.
As we say in the paper very clearly: "We believe one potential
option could be a 'consent referendum' to be associated with major
changes to devolution."
Q108 Chair:
What is a major change if this is not?
Ruchir Shah: I
am not disagreeing. All I am saying is that that is a potential
option. It is not something that our sector says has to be there.
Q109 Cathy Jamieson:
My next question was linked to that because we have heard here
today about the idea that the Scotland Bill should become an enabling
Bill with secondary legislation. That does not seem to fit with
the idea that major changes would come with a referendum. Could
you explain that? Because I don't see the bit about enabling and
secondary legislation anywhere in your paper either. I might have
missed it, but could you point it out to me if it is there?
David Griffiths:
Our ideas are developing.
Q110 Cathy Jamieson:
Chair, can I be really blunt? Some of this looks a wee bit like
SCVO has gone into a huff because you did not get as much involvement
as you might have liked. That is how it reads.
Ruchir Shah: I
think a lot of this draws from the frustration that our sector
expressed during the time when some of the ideas before the Scotland
Bill had been developed, particularly the kind of highly politicised
nature of the national conversation on one side and the Calman
Commission on the other. That created a lot of frustration in
our sector and some of that has come through in the paper, I think.
Q111 Cathy Jamieson:
Would you also accept that some of the proposals that you are,
perhaps, putting forward here would suggest an alignment with
one particular side of that argument? It could be read as such.
That may not have been the intention but with the talk of referenda
and what was mentioned about powers not being quite independent
and so on, it could be read as such. Would you accept that about
the paper?
Ruchir Shah: Some
people might read it that way.
Q112 Chair:
We know that. You accept that it is capable of misinterpretation.
Ruchir Shah: Of
course it is capable of misinterpretation, yes.
Q113 Fiona O'Donnell:
I absolutely appreciate, Ruchir, the comment you are making that
all this has happened in quite a highly charged political atmosphere
in Scotland. You make the statement: "A Commission which
was not inclusive of different perspectives on the principal issues
and limited to the policy options presented by just three out
of four major political parties." What do you mean by saying
it was not inclusive?
Ruchir Shah: Basically,
we felt that events were held, evidence was called for and information
was passed in, but then there was not a further discussion with
the sector. I think that is what we are alluding to there.
Q114 Fiona O'Donnell:
You also mention "three out of four major political parties".
Ruchir Shah: Yes.
Q115 Fiona O'Donnell:
That, to me, implies that one political party was excluded.
Ruchir Shah: Yes.
Q116 Fiona O'Donnell:
They were not. The SNP was invited to join Calman and they refused.
Ruchir Shah: No—policy
options, sorry, not parties.
Q117 Fiona O'Donnell:
But "just three out of four major political parties"
is one of the reasons given for saying that it was not inclusive.
Ruchir Shah: I
see what you are saying, but it says "limited to the policy
options presented by just three out of four major political parties".
Q118 Chair:
That is right, but this is semantics. You must understand that
you have responsibilities. You are writing to us and you expect
us to take our responsibilities seriously and treat what you are
saying with due weight and consideration. You seem to be saying
in this paragraph that the whole process in some way was invalidated
by the fact that policy options came forward only from three out
of four parties. I am not entirely clear what you expect us to
do about this, because the fourth party was invited and it chose
not to participate. It seemed, not unreasonably to everyone else,
that it should not have the right of veto and they continued with
those who were willing to participate. At any stage it could have
put in policy submissions. Are you saying that because the fourth
one wasn't there nothing should have been done?
Ruchir Shah: Not
at all. What we are talking about are the policy options, which
is the clear point that we are trying to make here; the policy
options were limited to those that were proposed by three of the
main political parties, not that the fourth political party was
not included.
Q119 Chair:
So what are you saying? If any one organisation chooses not to
submit, that is a veto and nothing else should be considered.
David Griffiths:
No. I am sorry, Chairman, but I don't believe that is what Ruchir
is trying to say. The point he is trying to make, and Sir Kenneth
himself said when I was listening earlier on, is that his brief
did not include independence. He was not to consider it.
Chair: That is right.
David Griffiths:
I am not saying whether or not independence is the right option,
far from it, and certainly SCVO does not have a view on that.
However, the point is, I believe, that that option was excluded
from the Calman Commission. Therefore, only three out of four
options were considered in coming to the Scotland Bill, because
that was excluded from the discussion.
Q120 Chair:
No, not at all.
David Griffiths:
But Sir Kenneth said it was not in his remit.
Q121 Chair:
I think you are entirely misinterpreting. Yes, you are absolutely
correct that it was set up by the Unionist parties about strengthening
the Union. That is right. There was that parameter. You, as an
organisation, have to accept that that is what has been decided
or you decide that you are not going to play, or that in some
way or another it is illegitimate. Once the parameters have been
established, everyone is then free to participate within those
parameters. The Nationalists could have participated within those
parameters and put forward policy options, such as the various
integrations of benefits and the like, but they chose not to do
so. For you to cast doubt on the validity of the whole process
because you had some feeling of hostility to the political process
is almost putting yourselves above those who are elected, because
you are saying that your view of this is more valid than the elected
representatives of the Scottish people through either the Scottish
Parliament or Westminster. In those circumstances, I find it difficult
to take anything you say with all that much seriousness.
David Griffiths:
I am sorry you perceive it that way. When I read this document
before it was sent to you that was not how I interpreted it. I
had interpreted it purely as it literally says that the process
has considered three out of four options. I, personally, think
it would have been more inclusive—
Q122 Chair:
What are the three options, anyway? There were not three options.
Ruchir Shah: It
was options presented by three of the parties. That is what it
says.
David Griffiths:
I just took it as literally that.
Q123 Fiona O'Donnell:
I will pick out another statement on the previous page. I absolutely
get that many of the policy areas were in the manifesto that formed
part of the submission, but I think there were significant suggestions
in here that could have been consulted on. "Some longer-term
strategies, such as the creation of funds from extracting natural
resources, may well be more significant for Scotland's economic
prospects than any short-term tax and spend options." What
does that mean?
Ruchir Shah: Basically,
it is trying to put the income tax raising powers in context.
It is looking in the long term about the wealth of Scotland. It
is looking at resources such as renewable energy, and saying that
the kind of tax resources you might be able to get from that and
invest in communities could be much more valuable for those communities
than the kind of block grant based changes that might come through
on the income tax. That is all it says.
Q124 Fiona O'Donnell:
So "extracting natural resources" is a tax on renewables.
Ruchir Shah: It
is the full range of natural resources and energy creation, yes.
Q125 Fiona O'Donnell:
Where I am trying to get you to, and I think you know, is that
that reads to me as though it is Scotland's oil.
Ruchir Shah: I
see what you are saying here, but if you look in the manifestos,
both this one and the one we will be launching very shortly, you
will see that we talk about renewables and a whole range of other
resources. We do say that we call for the tax proceeds from these
to be put into communities.
Q126 Fiona O'Donnell:
You think, for example, with North Sea oil, that poor and deprived
people in Scotland should benefit more from that resource than
poor and deprived people here in London.
Ruchir Shah: No.
We are talking about the full range of resources.
Q127 Fiona O'Donnell:
Yes, but you are talking about an extra tax that would be exclusive
on Scottish resources that would be exclusively spent in Scotland,
which would be a net benefit.
Ruchir Shah: No,
I do not think we are referring to oil per se. The big growth
potential at the moment is going to be around renewables. That
is the emphasis we would place.
Q128 Fiona O'Donnell:
And a lot of that will happen in Scotland?
Ruchir Shah: Yes.
Q129 Fiona O'Donnell:
Do you not believe that the benefit of that should go out equally
to poor and deprived people across the whole of the UK?
Ruchir Shah: What
I believe is not really important. That is the point that is being
made through this.
Fiona O'Donnell: I think
it is very important.
Q130 Chair:
I am sorry, but which is the point that is being made through
this?
Ruchir Shah: Basically,
that longer-term strategies such as—
Q131 Chair:
I have read it. Fiona seemed to be making a point.
Ruchir Shah: My
view personally is not important here. As David said earlier,
this is a developing area of—
Q132 Chair:
In the first paragraph relating to this you have said: "…SCVO
does not have a specific view about the central feature of the
Bill: the proposal to devolve some tax raising…powers."
Then you go on, basically, to support the idea of the creation
of an oil fund. You can understand why we begin to wonder whether
this is a political tract or whether you are serious about seeking
to influence debate.
Ruchir Shah: There
is no mention here of an oil fund.
Q133 Dr Whiteford:
I want to come in on the point that Fiona has made because it
relates to the conversation we had in the earlier panel about
the Crown Estates, which you both sat in on. I am aware that there
are many community groups that are looking after parts of the
coastline, stewarding parts of the coastline and parts of the
natural environment, where the Crown Estates are blocking progressive
moves by community and voluntary groups. Has SCVO done any work
on that, and is there anything you would like to add to the comments
that were made earlier about the potential for devolving the Crown
Estates?
Ruchir Shah: SCVO
has not taken a view on the Crown Estates per se, but we know
that some of our members have. If I recall correctly—obviously,
I can check this for you—the Scottish Environment Protection
Agency has taken a view on this, as well as some of the other
environmental charities. SCVO itself and the sector at a corporate
level has not taken a view on this because it is a specific issue
of concern to some specific parts of the sector.
Q134 Chair:
I want to clarify this. Just coming back to the question of the
timetable, I understand that you are concerned about the, as you
say, truncated timetable for consultation. You would take the
view that the Government should now be consulting or should have
consulted on its view of Calman.
Ruchir Shah: Yes.
David Griffiths:
Yes.
Q135 Chair:
Right. It should have consulted on its view of Calman. Given that
there are Scottish Parliament elections coming up, do you not
think that that should have some impact and allow people in Scotland
to express a view on the general philosophies and attitudes being
expressed by the different political parties on both the Scotland
Bill and other things? You only represent a particular sectoral
interest. Other groups with whom we are speaking represent different
sectoral interests. The people as a whole will have the opportunity
to vote in the Scottish elections and, therefore, express a view
as to whether or not they regard all this as a waste of time and
they want independence, or the various varieties of Unionism.
I see, Mr Griffiths, that you are nodding your head in agreement.
Does it not seem reasonable to you that the Government have timetabled
the measure in order to have decisions taken before the Scottish
Parliament elections, which means that the long drawn-out, never-ending
consultation that you seem to be suggesting you want is not possible?
David Griffiths:
I follow your argument that the people of Scotland will wish to
give an opinion.
Chair: Yes.
David Griffiths:
You could use how they vote in May as a gauge for their view on
some of this and, thus, have a better idea when you pass this
Bill. They would have more of a say if you waited until after
the election, surely.
Q136 Chair:
Let me clarify that. How will you know, whatever the result of
the election is, whether or not they were in favour of devolving
power over air guns? We have a policy at the moment where three
parties are in favour of devolving power over air guns and the
Nationalists are also in favour of it. What does the election
tell you about air guns?
David Griffiths:
My suspicion is that as politicians are out and about talking
through the process to their constituents and as they conduct
endless opinion polls, they will get a very shrewd idea as to
what is of importance to the people of Scotland—it may or
may not be air guns—and their views on a number of issues,
including those that are covered in the Bill. I feel that is a
period where you get, as politicians, an awful lot of feedback.
I am already getting election literature and questionnaires from
people who wish to be the MSP representing me after May.
Q137 Chair:
You must be in a marginal seat.
David Griffiths:
I am. I have been getting them for about two weeks, and I won't
say which parties have been first through the letter box. They
are hearing now, and they will hear from now until May, what their
constituents think.
Q138 Chair:
I want to be clear. Do you take the view that what is in the Scotland
Bill is significant and important, sufficient to justify people
being asked to vote on it after the general election rather than
before?
David Griffiths:
Yes, I would accept that.
Chair: I wanted to be
absolutely clear about that.
Q139 Lindsay Roy: We
recognise that voluntary organisations play a critical and very
valuable role in society. I go back to the point that was made
earlier. How representative is this paper of the views of the
voluntary sector, and how do you know? That would be very helpful
to us in gauging what credibility to give this paper.
Ruchir Shah: Essentially,
this is a paper which has been endorsed by 30 people. These 30
people have been elected on to a policy committee by 1,300 members.
Of those 1,300 members, a number of them are membership organisations
themselves and, therefore, their role is to take into account
the views of their members. The 1,300 represent a cross-section
of the sector itself.
Q140 Lindsay Roy:
How widely has this paper been disseminated to the voluntary organisations
themselves? It has come here as evidence.
Ruchir Shah: It
has been published on our website. This paper, as was noted in
the covering note, was issued to the Scotland Bill Committee in
the Scottish Parliament and the same paper was then presented
to yourselves.
Q141 Chair:
Just going through your document, you do not have a view on the
devolution of tax raising. You are generally against uncertainty.
You are in favour of creating the conditions for a successful
economy—I think we could all agree with that— and
you are in favour of either an oil fund or something similar.
Getting to the process, I am a bit surprised to read that you
say: "Both the Calman Commission and Scotland Bill have failed
to live up to the high expectation of openness, inclusion and
participation which have become the norm in Scotland." I
thought that Calman did a fairly thorough job of consulting people,
meeting them and discussing things with them. Can you just clarify
where you thought Calman was inadequate?
Ruchir Shah: Sure.
The sense that a number of organisations raised to us when we
were carrying out our events on the Calman Commission and National
Conversation, was around the rationale for the Commission. For
example, on what basis was the decision being made, to prioritise
something around charity law over and above issues on the welfare
and benefits split, which for us—our sector—was a
much bigger issue? On what basis were those decisions being made
to prioritise one issue over another, and how was that being validated
with those who had submitted evidence? That is the frustration
that has come out through this.
Q142 Chair:
You are saying openness, inclusion and participation. It was open
in the sense that everybody was free to send in evidence.
Ruchir Shah: Yes.
Q143 Chair:
Everybody was included in the opportunity to be heard and participate.
Participation is the same thing. It seems to me that what you
are unhappy about is that Calman did not agree with you.
Ruchir Shah: No.
What we are unhappy about is that the balance of what Calman felt
was important and not important for further devolution was not
then validated back with those who had submitted their views,
or with the wider public or with the wider sector.
Q144 Chair:
Any time that anybody decides anything, they have to come back
and tell you why they have decided it and ask you if you agree
it.
Ruchir Shah: Yes.
David Griffiths:
The consultation process, by and large, and I have answered an
awful lot of Government consultation documents, tends to involve
a gathering of evidence, a feeding back of a proposal, and an
explanation as to why some things have not been followed up for
comment, and then the publication of the final report. That, I
think I am right in saying, tends to be the consultation process.
Q145 Chair:
But this is also at different stages inasmuch as we now have a
Bill being a final process and we are engaged in the consultation
process on the Bill. There are some areas where we will probably
want to amend the Bill. The Scottish Parliament is going to have
the opportunity. You are having the opportunity to put it to us.
We have heard from Calman. This is an iterative process.
David Griffiths:
Prior to the publication of that report in the process I described,
the draft report along with an explanation of how it got there
is sent to the participants, who then have a further opportunity
to look and see. Let me take a Bill that is coming.
Q146 Chair:
You can't have much to do. It seems that you have unrealistic
expectations of what a busy political life is like.
David Griffiths:
I am sorry. I am talking about a Bill that is in my case at the
moment. It came out as a consultation document from the Scottish
Government on self-directed support. We responded. After the initial
consultation there tends to be a report on that consultation before
the final document is published. I see Dr Whiteford nodding. That
is what then happens. After that final consultation, the Bill
is put through. The Calman process appears to me not to have gone
through all those stages. I am sorry but I do believe that one
or two members of the Committee are nodding.
Ruchir Shah: We
recognise that the Calman Commission was commissioned by Parliament
and was not a Government consultation process. That is why we
were making reference to the Scotland Bill and asking why it is
such a truncated timetable for such an important issue. The other
step is that the Scotland Bill itself has picked certain issues
from the Calman Commission's proposals and not other ones. Again,
it is that feedback loop—that validation loop—that
seems to be missing.
Q147 Chair:
This is the process. This and the process in the Scottish Parliament
is the process of scrutiny. We have had Second Reading debates
and the like, and it is why we are sitting here discussing this
matter with you.
Ruchir Shah: Sure,
but it is only a very tight, short-term process.
Q148 Chair:
Life is short. If you want to make changes to things, the process
is not interminable.
Ruchir Shah: No,
but when it is something as important as the changes to Scottish
devolution I think it merits a bit more of that kind of feedback.
Dr Whiteford: I think
you have raised a fair point. I don't think it is any secret that
the consultative processes of the Scottish Parliament since devolution
have been significantly better than what people have been used
to in the Westminster context. I say that as somebody who has
worked for a voluntary organisation and sat where they have and
given evidence to the Scottish Parliament many times in the past.
There are things that Westminster could certainly learn from the
Scottish Parliament in terms of its committee system and the way
in which it consults with civil society.
Lindsay Roy: I think we
are always open to learn from any other organisation.
Fiona O'Donnell: What
does not help is the tone of some of these statements. For instance,
this article is not in your paper but it is an article that Martin
Sime wrote. I wish he could have been here today as well—I
don't know if he was invited. He published an article, which says
of Calman and the Scotland Bill: "They have dismissed the
views of the very organisations that could help bring about real
and lasting change for the better." That is simply not true.
They have dismissed some of them, but this implies that they were
not in the process in any way.
The conclusions of your own submission say: "What
makes this particular review so disappointing is its narrow and
over politicised mandate, its failure to engage with civil society
in Scotland and the omission of some major issues where a more
efficient outcome might actually make a difference to the lives
of the people of Scotland." That implies that this does
not make any difference to the people of Scotland. It talks about
efficiency, but it seems to want to make this process even longer.
I think these statements were ill-considered, unhelpful and inaccurate.
Chair: But apart from
that?
Fiona O'Donnell: Yes,
I loved it.
Q149 Chair: Can I
come back to a question on the heading in your paper of "Major
Omissions", where you could have made a valuable contribution
but have chosen, in a sense, not to do so by focusing on other
issues. Within the framework of Calman and within the framework
of the Bill, what flexibility do you think there is, or what opportunities
exist, to tackle some of these issues where there is clearly going
to be friction as things rub together? I am talking about "Divergence
of reserved benefits and devolved care", for example. For
reasons that you might not feel have been explained properly to
you or that you might not understand or agree with, it has been
decided that benefits are going to be reserved. Therefore, it
is a question of how we make the best of what you might believe
is a bad job. Do you have anything to contribute towards that
discussion and, if so, what is it?
Ruchir Shah: One
of our proposals, working within the context that you have outlined,
and obviously we will want to make the best use of what policy
space is being afforded in this Bill, is to try and find a way
of resolving the benefits and devolved welfare issue—the
tension that occurs between them and similar tensions that take
place in employability services, the National Lottery and the
other issues that we have raised. One option that we propose,
which I think David mentioned earlier, would be to look at a way
within the Bill of making some kind of provision—an amendment
perhaps—to devolve powers for secondary legislation on benefits
to the Scottish Parliament where they align with particular devolved
areas that there may otherwise be tension around. This opens up
the whole idea of devolution being a process. Having that kind
of enabling provision in the Scotland Bill would help us in Scotland
as a sector, as people, as Parliaments, to come up with a way
of resolving the issue.
Q150 Chair:
I understand the words and the notion, but I am not clear, representing
as I do a particularly difficult area, what you actually mean
in practice. It would have been more helpful if you had given
me an example of how Jean Smith is particularly inconvenienced
by such and such a circumstance, and if there was the flexibility
to allow so and so then that would be extremely helpful to her,
because it might very well be that there is more than one way
of skinning a cat. In the past we have argued, in some cases successfully,
that managers in Jobcentre Plus, for example, should have discretion
over some matters. The expansion of discretion to some staff in
operation avoids having the row about whether or not these powers
should be transferred to another organisation altogether. It actually
identifies the issue. It seems to me that that is the opportunity
you have either missed or chosen to miss because of the way in
which you have responded.
I don't think we can expect you to give us examples
of all this off the top of your heads. Maybe you would want to
reflect on the points that you have made about employability services
as well and see whether there are particular rubbing points where
an additional degree of discretion within the existing structures
and the structures that are likely to remain could be improved,
since, unless I am mistaken, your views are of a minority in terms
of whether or not substantial new powers should be transferred
to the Scottish Parliament over these areas. There are a number
of organisations in the voluntary sector that have in the past
brought us some really quite helpful and constructive proposals
about how things could be tweaked with considerable favourable
impact upon the people that they and we represent.
Ruchir Shah: I
think we would agree with you. There certainly are different ways
of skinning a cat, so to speak. As a sector we have already collected
lots of examples, and David can run through one or two or them
with you to illustrate, just as you asked. All we are asking for
in the Scotland Bill at this particular moment is to allow that
space. If you did have some kind of provision for powers for some
kind of secondary legislation on benefits, that opens up the possibilities
for more consideration.
Q151 Chair:
We hear what you say. You also have to understand it is unlikely
that we are going to go down that road because, essentially, that
is just devolving the whole thing, isn't it?
Ruchir Shah: Not
necessarily. I think we mentioned partial devolution of benefits
rather than a full devolution, so that with regard to the major
decisions made, the primary legislation would still have control
of that.
Q152 Chair:
You have been consulted to some extent today, have you not, and
you have had some degree of consultation over charity law? The
bit in the Calman proposal about changing charity legislation
so that it will not apply across the UK as a whole has been changed,
hasn't it? You are happy with that?
Ruchir Shah: We
are very happy that it has been dropped from the Scotland Bill,
yes.
Q153 Chair:
You are very happy that that has been dropped. That was dropped
following submissions from yourselves and others, was it not?
Ruchir Shah: Yes.
We were asked during evidence taken by the Calman Commission whether
we agreed with that provision. We said no. It was put into the
Calman Commission recommendations anyway. After that process,
in discussion with Michael Moore, as you highlighted, and with
others, that was then subsequently dropped by the coalition Government.
Q154 Chair:
Would it be untrue to say that the Bill is coming forward without
an ounce of consultation from the coalition Government? It depends
on how much is announced, does it not?
Ruchir Shah: You
have asked this question of me before, and I think I answered
you that that was based on a direct conversation between Michael
Moore and—
Q155 Chair:
But that was a degree of consultation, wasn't it? That would count
as an ounce, wouldn't it?
Ruchir Shah: Of
course it would, but it wouldn't count as a consultation procedure.
Q156 Chair:
Why, then, do you think that Martin Sime, on your website, writes:
"All this without an ounce of consultation from the coalition
Government"?
Ruchir Shah: Are
you referring to an opinion piece that he wrote?
Q157 Chair:
It is on your website, written by your chief executive, on your
comment and opinion column.
Ruchir Shah: We
can get back to you on that one.
David Griffiths:
I am not being pedantic here, but I think that is on the Third
Force News website.
Q158 Chair:
I would not know where to find that necessarily. I actually went
on to the SCVO website and found it.
Ruchir Shah: It
is on the SCVO website. If I understand you correctly, that was
an article published in Scotland on Sunday a couple of
weekends ago.
Q159 Chair:
I don't know that. I found it on your website.
Ruchir Shah: That
was then put on to the SCVO website. What I can say is that the
policy position that has been validated by SCVO's policy committee
is in the paper you have in front of you and that is what we can
talk to you about, not about this opinion piece.
Q160 Chair:
Wait a minute. If the chief executive of an organisation says
"without an ounce of consultation from the coalition Government"
and that is patently not true, are we not entitled to feel a trifle
concerned?
David Griffiths:
You are, and it is a very valid comment. I will undertake to discuss
it with the convenor when I return to Edinburgh. I am afraid,
Chairman, I can say no more than that.
Q161 Chair:
That is about as much as you can do in these circumstances. The
point is made at the very end of his article: "frankly, what's
the point?" He says: "If the Scotland Bill won't devolve
the power to protect", etc., and then there is whole number
of things that are on your shopping list, "then frankly,
what's the point?" Is your advice as an organisation that
if we haven't included the things you wanted included, we would
be as well not proceeding with the Scotland Bill, or are you of
the view that, flawed though it is, it should still, none the
less, go forward?
David Griffiths:
I feel that the comments in that article are not, to my knowledge,
agreed by the policy committee. It would, therefore, be inappropriate
for us to comment on them in this context. I have had no opportunity
to consult Martin on what he may have said. We have commented
on areas where we feel the Bill could be improved, in our view—in
the view of the organisation. We are not suggesting that the Bill
should be stopped, torn up or thrown away.
Q162 Chair:
That is very helpful. I think you can understand why I was a trifle
perplexed to read from your chief executive, "then frankly,
what's the point?" I think this point has been made, hasn't
it?
David Griffiths:
I entirely take your point, Chairman. I will be very happy, if
you wish, once I have discussed this with the convenor, to ask
either her, or ask her to authorise me, to come back to you.
Q163 Chair:
Fine. I would very much welcome that because I think we are getting
to the end of this.
David Griffiths:
As the elected member on our side, as opposed to the elected Members
on your side, I hope you will appreciate that I feel in a difficult
position. I feel that I should take this back to the convenor,
discuss it with her and then one of us should come back to you.
Q164 Chair:
I think that is perfectly fair. You can understand, though, the
points I made earlier on, that as well as having rights of access,
you also have responsibilities. If you are expressing a view,
there has to be a certain degree of consistency in those views.
I want to put on the record that we value the work that many of
your organisations undertake; many of us work closely with them
in our constituencies. We see the support that is provided by
the voluntary sector. As a Committee, we would be wanting to consult
with you on quite a number of things if we think it is fruitful,
but I see no point in doing so if we are either just going to
be berated or told that nothing that we are doing has any value
to it unless it meets all your objectives and takes an interminable
length of time.
David Griffiths:
I am very disappointed that that view has come across. It is not
the tone in which I had hoped this afternoon's meeting would go.
I can understand your frustration, particularly with the article
which was published in that newspaper. As I said a little while
ago, with hindsight, this submission was stronger. We do have
some useful things to say. We have ended up on the back foot on
this occasion. I hope that you would take that into account.
Chair: Life is a process,
as has been said in other contexts. Hopefully, we will be able
to have a better relationship in other circumstances. We invited
you with the best of intentions but, certainly from my own position,
when I saw this on your website, it made me wonder why I was bothering.
Some of my colleagues want to comment.
Q165 David Mowat:
The issue, and you have been on the receiving end today, is that
the language of this article is very pejoratively written. It
really is. I have just read it quite carefully and Fiona was making
several points. If you go to the fourth bullet point on the third
page, in the first sentence: "A process which has been dominated
from beginning to end by politicians and political considerations."
It is not a sentence, actually, although it does have a full stop
at the end. It is saying that you're civil society—your
organisation—and politics is something else, and that none
of the politicians around represent civil society, which is what
you are, and as a result this terrible thing has come forward.
I am sure that most of your members don't think that. I think
that this is a very unfortunately drafted piece of work. The difficulty
with it, from our point of view—I am not an expert in this
stuff—as the Chairman said, is that it tends to undermine
the good points you are making or can be making when it is so
pejorative. There are probably about six or seven quite rude references
to politicians. That is fine, but I am not sure that you put that
into a paper like this if you are trying to get your point across.
It is unfortunate. It is unfortunate for the people you represent
because it means that what are good points in many cases are undermined
because whoever put pen to paper on this seemed quite angry.
Ruchir Shah: The
point you made about tone is something that echoed what Fiona
O'Donnell mentioned earlier. As we underlined earlier, we take
your point about the tone of the paper.
Q166 Fiona O'Donnell:
Thank you.
David Griffiths:
In response, we have acknowledged that. I have undertaken to talk
to our convenor and come back to your Chairman. We did come to
this Committee hoping to discuss some of the more, in my view,
important points that Mr Mowat has just pointed out, that affect
our members and, more importantly, the people our members try
and support. It would be very sad if all our discussion today
was purely about the tone of the paper and we did not discuss
one or two of the substantial points that, it has been acknowledged,
may have some merit. I fully accept what you are saying about
the tone, but it would be disappointing if our visit to you today,
as a result of that tone, did not have the opportunity to discuss
one or two of the issues that are of more importance.
Q167 Lindsay Roy:
Let me just acknowledge the recognition that you are, as an elected
member, here for a serious purpose and it was not a token gesture.
I would welcome any substantive points in addition to the ones
that are in the paper—core points that you want to make.
If they can be submitted to the Chairman in the very near future,
that would be very helpful.
David Griffiths:
Sure.
Q168 Lindsay Roy:
We have been, in many ways, diverted from some other things you
may have wanted to bring up on behalf of the voluntary sector.
I think it is important that we do that and we have an accurate
reflection of their views.
David Griffiths:
Thank you very much, Mr Roy.
Q169 Dr Whiteford:
A lot of the evidence you have presented today has been very helpful.
Your oral evidence has been particularly clear. I would not necessarily
agree with everything you have said but I think you are raising
some important and substantive points.
On charity legislation, I should declare an interest
in that I am a non-remunerated director of a charity in Scotland.
I was somewhat reassured by the evidence from Sir Kenneth Calman
that the intention of the Calman Commission was not to re-reserve
charity law. That is a very important clarification because that
is not how it has been reported at all. That is something we have
not teased out today. I am conscious that time is against us now,
but I would certainly be very keen to see anything more that SCVO
had to say on that in terms of the impact on charities and the
views of charities in Scotland.
David Griffiths:
We have a brief on that.
Ruchir Shah: We
have a brief which we will circulate to all members of the Committee.
Essentially, we agreed with what was said by Sir Ken and Jim Gallagher,
which was that we need to have a full and proper discussion to
review charity definitions and regulations, which involves the
Parliaments, Governments, civil society, charities and the people
of Scotland, Wales, England and Northern Ireland. That is another
reason why it is quite good that that particular provision is
not in this Scotland Bill, when it affects Northern Ireland.
Chair: Thank you very
much. I am sorry we started a bit late and held you back a bit.
As you are aware, we had a vote. I hope this has been an interesting
afternoon. Most of the Members of the Committee are likely to
be here for some time because the Parliament runs for five years.
Hopefully, we will be able to exchange views in slightly different
circumstances elsewhere and on other matters. Thank you very much
for coming along to see us.
| 
