01/05/2013 Politics Scotland

peas are warning that an independent Scotland risks damaging the

UKpoz-mac international reputation. All the no campaigners and the Tory

party would be better to address what a fundamental strength it would

be as opposed to size. Conservatives call for funding

changes to help secure the voluntary sector. That is our coverage of the

daypoz-mac debate in Holyrood. The finance secretary criticises the UK

Governmentpoz-mac independent forecaster and called for Scotland

to have its very own office of budget responsibility.

An independent Scotland would leave the rest of the UKpoz-mac

international reputation damaged according to MPs. A report by the

Commons foreign affairs committee says the UKpoz-mac influence in the

UK would decline if there was a yes mad Mac. I am joined by our

political commentator for the afternoon. First of all, another

report from MPs. No SNP in that committee. Either nationalists

taking it too seriously? They do not seem to be. There is a problem for

them. They have taken a battering on a number of issues, the pound and

the economy. There is a sense of uncertainty around their platform.

Last weekend was the most recent presentation from the Scottish

social attitudes survey and they made it quite plain the sense of

uncertainty about the nationalist platform is losing them support,

particularly among women, but among all voters. That is a problem for

them. That feeds in from the currency and pensions issue. Are

there any point in the report that could be considered valid

criticisms? For example MPs warning about the reputation of the UK

internationally. But that does not affect an independent Scotland.

There is some conflict as well in the report for the Nationalists. The

report asks for more information and that is the kind of thing that

Westminster has been trying to avoid. We do not want to discuss

what the preconditions are for an independent Scotland, what it might

look like in foreign policy terms. We do not want to go there. The

committee is saying, we would like more information, we need to know

what this independent Scotland might look like. The UK Government say

they will not pre-negotiate, but we will get the White Paper on

independence in the autumn. More fundamental point there, more hard

truths? That goes back to the first point I made, that we have been

waiting a long time for that. This is just the latest issue. There are

opponents have been able to take pot at them and say, what is going to

happen? There is not a clear answer, not a policy position coming back.

It is going to be right is a caricature of the point, but maybe

there is in that. Another item in today's news, the deaths of members

of the Royal Highland Fusiliers in Helmand province. The Prime Minister

making some comments on that. Do you think this may increase pressure on

him to bring the troops home? We have the timetable for withdrawal by

next year. It is shocking news, first and foremost. Anyone who has

been there or has had anything like this though the devastation amongst

those involved. I really do not think we can speed up the process.

We will be back with you shortly. MSP 's have voted unanimously in

favour of a system of voluntary press regulation underpinned by

Royal Charter. But the culture secretary warned if the proposal

failed tougher legal measures could be imposed. It comes after the

newspaper industry rejected the we agree to that being made

compliant to Scottish devolved responsibilities and Scots law and

circumstances? The bulk of our proposed amendments would have to

apply to any royal charter to give it proper effect in Scotland. The

counter proposals as they stand would leave Scotland without a press

regulation system that takes Scots law into account. There is a

consensus on the following points based on the Levenson proposals

which were broadly welcomed. There needs to be a voluntary regulatory

body established by the press themselves. There should be a

recognition process so that the criteria needed to deliver the

recommendations of Levenson can be implemented. The recommendations

themselves and the appointments body should all be independent of

government. Importantly, the freedom of the press is a precious

cornerstone of democracy and although politicians may not like

what is written, the press must have the freedom to question, to

challenge and to comment. Where there has been less consensus is

around statutory underpinning. In practice although it is recognised

that there is some need for statute, indeed the UK Government has passed

policies in two build in Westminster on entrenchment and consensus, this

statutory underpinning is something this parliament will need to

consider in terms of Scots law although it is not essential at this

moment in time. There was one issue we raised as worthy of further

consideration, but the UK Government have indicated they do not agree it

should appear in the charter. That was coverage of the deceased. The

Leveson Inquiry herd moving evidence on this from the Watson family.

Paragraph eight sets out minimum requirements for the standards codes

of a new regulator and we suggested it might be amended to include an

additional criteria of appropriate taste and decency of reporting and

commenting on the recently deceased were the only public interest in

them is in the manner of circumstances of their death. There

is no intention to prevent comment on Robert Maxwell or Baroness

Thatcher, this is about people who are of public interest because of

how they died, not those who are of interest because of actions in their

life. The Minister will be aware of the concerns raised by my

constituent Margaret Watson. While she would welcome some of the

comments, also she has brought forward the proposal there should be

a legal backdrop by which action could be taken on behalf of of the

deceased. That goes into areas of defamation law and the issue is here

of what is in the code and I want to pursue that if at all possible.

Although the press complaints commission contains provision about

not being unduly intrusive, it does not contain any direct protection

for the recently deceased themselves. We believe a new

standards code should and Ince that we will pursue that end by other

means. I am encouraged that this has been stressed in the house of lords.

What Mrs Watson wants us to do on her behalf and on behalf of of the

people we are talking about today is to look at the area of defamation

and to see whether or not there is a possibility of there being

provisions in law that would protect people in her position and that of

others. I know the Cabinet Secretary made reference to Lord Hunt, but

Lord Hunt has made it clear that the UK Government has already attempted

to enshrine such a provision in law, holding on to the principle that a

deceased person cannot be defamed because reputation is a personal

thing that ends with the death of the individual themselves. I would

ask the Cabinet Secretary whether she might want to have discussions

with her Cabinet colleagues to see if there is a way in which we could

help people like the Watson family in discussions we have in the

future. There is a need for balance and a workable solution as has been

outlined, that supports the integrity of the vast majority of

journalists, but punishes those who do not respect the privacy of

individuals in a responsible manner. There is also an understanding that

whatever we decide must respect the subtle but very important

distinction between a breach of law and a breach of ethics. A

distinction that has been debated for thousands of years, but a very

important one. A virtuous person is somebody who is naturally disposed

to behave in the right way for the right reasons and who can do this by

voluntary action rather than by force. We all recognise we would

prefer that. But the key question remains as to whether the major

players believe an improved voluntary code of ethics is

sufficient. Mike Wade from the Times is still with me now. The first

point we can talk about is the fact that the McCluskey report has been

ignored by the Scottish government and the other parties. That is a bit

embarrassing for the Scottish government. It was a very

hard-hitting report. If you watched Lord McCluskey in the committee he

dressed it up in nationalist colours. He said, we need something

distinctive for Scotland. He particularly drew attention to the

Watson kiss. He said we need something for Scotland. This largely

has gone completely to one side as Lord McCluskey has noted. On the

Watson kiss and we were hearing the Scottish government would pursue the

protection of dead people, by what other means can they do it? Would

that mean a change in the defamation law in Scotland? Possibly, it could

be a tightening of the privacy law. It was a very distressing kiss,

there is no doubt about that. I think press attitudes have changed

since then. That point was made by the editor of the Herald. It would

be bad to frame law on a kiss, for all its immediacy for the people

involved, was almost a generation ago in newspaper terms. I do think

the press has changed. I know that from personal experience. For

example, I was covering the killings in Cumbria by Derek Bird. Our

newsdesk was absolutely clear that the first whiff of public resistance

to what was a public interest story we should go and we left after four

days which is long enough for most people in Cumbria. But we were out

and that was indicative of a change. So there might be tightening

of the privacy law. From your experience as a newspaper journalist

is it important to have that freedom to examine what somebody has done

after they have died? I am thinking of the Jimmy Savile kiss. There is

so much around now, of course you have to do that. I am not a lawyer,

but there will be a lot of lawyers fees to be paid. Now to the debate

in the chamber at Holyrood. The Scottish Conservatives are calling

for a voluntary organisations and charities to have their government

funding extended to three-year deals instead of 12 months. They say it

gives them stability and gives them time to submit funding bids. Gavin

Brown has been speaking on that. Now Willie Rennie, the Lib Dem leader,

is asking a question. With an increasing focus on preventative

measures, does he think three-year funding would secure those long-term

hopes? I welcome his support and it is not the first time I have heard a

Liberal Democrat support the measure of the funding. Would it help with

preventative measures? It undoubtedly would in comparison to

single year funding. There will be occasions where longer term funding

is deemed necessary and is required and is the right thing to do. There

will be occasions when short-term funding is the only option and is

better than nothing. The general proposition is three-year funding is

a fire better suggestion for the project and annual funding which is

It diverts staff from delivering. Any time spent filling in

application forms his time spent not on the front line. It can lead

to instability. What is required is a stable environment for staff in

the third sector and a stable and consistent service for users who

required to use the service. Relationships, close and long, art

key for the most vulnerable citizens using this service and any

hint of instability is something we want to avoid. When you combine

inefficiency and instability it leads to a less effective service

for those who truly needed and it has an overall negative impact. It

is important to have this debate conducted in Parliament because it

is difficult for individual charities and individual voluntary

sector groups to stand up for themselves publicly. If you are a

charity reliant on one local- authority for survival, you are

unlikely to complain seriously about only getting a single year

deal because by doing so, the perception, even if not the reality,

or it could be both, the perception nurse at it will count against you

in the next funding round. So you take it on the chin and hope for

the best for next year and the hereafter and probably the year

after that. It is critical Parliament stands up for the third

sector because it is difficult for individual organisations to do so.

The issue of three-year funding was recognised by many in the public

sector and I have to say, including the present Scottish government. It

is responsible for pulling together the joint statement on the

relationship at local 11 between government and the third sector. --

local level. On paper, it is a useful piece of work covering what

a successful relationship should look like, talking about funding,

shared services and valuations. On paragraph seven, it says as a

general rule funders will take a three-year approach to both Grant

and contract funding. It is there in black and white. It has been

signed up to by all parties. However, what matters is what

happens on the ground in relation to three if funding not what

appears in a document. I except there isn't a full evidence based

at this stage out lining how many local authorities have followed it

and that is something we are calling for. But the anecdotal

evidence, and the heavy anecdotal evidence, is that the joint

statement has not made an enormous difference in practice in relation

to three-year funding. Many organisations say three years is

the exception rather than the rule and it is ignored almost as much

and potentially more than it is applied. During a discussion

attended by a members from across the chamber, it came forward that

annualised funding was the most common form and on occasion a six-

monthly funding happened also. Work sometimes lasting months was done

up front before a contract was in place, which means they bear the

risk if the contract was not concluded. One particular

organisation stated that 40% of their engagements with the public

sector have no contract at all and only one in six of their contracts

has multi- funding. This was a couple of months ago, with 10 weeks

to go before the financial yeah end, they had no idea for the funding

arrangements for 60% of their operations. It is clear that action

is required and I have to say, the Scottish government in the last

couple of months appears to be listing in this regard. I hope and

I call on them today to take forward some of these ideas and to

really help gather closely the evidence base to make progress to

prevent single year funding and to go for three-year funding. It is

our view that the spirit and the letter of the joint statement

should be implemented in practice and, as a general rule and a

default position, the public sector ought to give three-year funding to

the third sector. The question becomes how can this most

effectively be achieved? In our view, simply having a debate,

particularly if a consensus is reached and we call on the Scottish

government to remind organisations who presumably have direct and

indirect influence to remind them about the joint statement and the

responsibilities contained within it. It is time to examine in more

detail the credible claims made by individual third sector players and

groups representing them. We need evidence to show the extent to

which three-year funding is happening on the ground in terms of

volume and value. By shining a light, we believe we can initiate a

degree of change and I have pleasure in moving the motion in my

Gavin Brown speaking live in Parliament there. Listening is our

guest. Let us look at the point that he was making about how a

three-year funding deal would give organisations stability. Can you

tell us a bit more about what that might do?

I think it is an important point to make. Stability for an organisation,

for the service and service users. A lot of issues around annual

funding and staff retention and development. We have a standard

process within the third process -- third sector where plans have to be

put on hold while they look for next year's budget. Given three-

year budgets, it would allow them to look strategically at issues

which allow them to tackle on behalf of the people of Scotland.

Issues such as unemployment, homelessness and drug use and many

more which are dip -- deep-rooted issues and they need more than one

year to tackle. It was right of Gavin Brown to point out it is just

-- it is not just about funding for a three-year sector but individuals

who use the service that there sector delivers. Annual budgets

provide them with no stability in their service and, in fact, it

takes a three-year approach to tackle many of these issues and

problems in Scotland today. could sound like a positive change

in giving stability. John Swinney was sitting there listening

intently. Do you think he might be changing his mind? I think the

conversations we have had with government and individuals in the

Scottish Parliament are along those lines. We very much recognise this

is an issue that has cross-party support within Scotland and we have

been very clear as the Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations

that we are willing to work with anyone who wants to look at this

issue and take it up on behalf of the third sector and along with the

third sector. What are the politics tied to funding of charities and

voluntary organisations? Is there a reason why a government White --

might want to keep it on a 12 month basis? I don't think there is any

reason at all. It is the way it has been done. Scotland's third sector

has spoken about this for some years and the joint statement that

Gavin alluded to was signed in 2009 so it is welcome today that this

debate has finally come to the chamber. The issues of Scotland's

third sector and what they are dealing with is above politics. It

is about helping the people of Scotland and those in the community

who need the help the most. Thanks very much for joining us.

Let us cross to Westminster. Good afternoon, Tim. Thank you for

joining me. The first question of the day and it was quite a busy day.

Their headline is Crown Office is disappointed over Cable letter.

Vince Cable wrote to the Advocate- General over the ongoing inquiry

into the Royal Bank of Scotland. What has been happening? A bit of a

spat. The Lord Advocate in Scotland and Minns cable. Bins cable wrote

to his colleague, the Lib Dem the Lord Advocate General asking about

the progress of the inquiry into those who were at their head of RBS

when it really collapsed five years ago. He was pointing out there was

no lack of public appetite for bankers to be prosecuted and asking

for progress, suggesting he did not want to be influencing in any way a

decision but trying to find out what was going on. The Lord

Advocate has written back suggesting that, first of all, he

shouldn't be doing this through the media. Secondly, it would be

unfortunate if there was any political influence trying to be

put on a complex case. He said the Crown Office which is in charge of

deciding whether or not to prosecute in Scotland, is dealing

with a huge amount of evidence and is dealing with the issue and

should Mr Cable want to get in touch with him personally he will

update him. There is some suspicion about the timing of his

intervention from Mr Cable as their local elections going on and

polling day is tomorrow. Perhaps the Lib Dems want to make it seemed

as if they are in charge and have their fingers on the pulse of what

should happen to bankers. Another big story is the report from there

foreign affairs select committee about the role of the UK and

Scotland in the wider world. The SNP's say it is coming from people

at opposed to independence and the Lib Dems have pointed out that you

may be questioning the credibility of witnesses who gave evidence to

the committee's. A clearly it is another report which the SNP are

able to say that they did not have anyone on the go bitty and

therefore it is a partial account. Committee points out that the SNP

did not try to become a part of the foreign affairs committee and did

not seek membership and they have these credible witnesses and a

welter of information which they have gone through. As a result,

they have said an number of things about what the foreign affairs

impact of independence would be. That is that the rest of the UK

would inherit those treaties and international organisation

membership like NATO and the UN and Adam Mynott be as easy as the SNP

is suggesting in joining. They might be a big impact on the rest

of the UK post independence and that would be in terms of

international influence, the reputation of the rest of the UK,

partly depending on how negotiations go towards

independence and what the impact is afterwards. Nicola Sturgeon pointed

out it is an unbalanced report but she picked up on bits that the SNP

do like. In particular, an element that says that membership of the UN

and the EU should be pretty straightforward. It is just another

element to the argument of independence and another report

which the Yes camp and the No camp cannot argue over four months to

come. Thanks very much.

Let us get some political reaction at Holyrood now. Gentlemen, good

afternoon. A busy screen they in Holyrood. First to you Rob Gibson.

We were talking about the Foreign Affairs Select Committee report.

You may say it was put forward by people opposed to independence, but

the witnesses who gave evidence were very credible and reliable

witnesses, such as former ambassadors, weren't they? We have

to remember that Scottish reputation was not taken into

account and we have to put up with the illegal Iraq war and trident

here. We have fantastic renewable resources which are being talked

down and witnesses did not cover these things. We do not think it

was credible at all. Of course, they are pointing out that

independent Scotland would be incurred hide diplomatic costs. If

an independent Scotland barked its own weight in the world. That is a

fair., isn't it? When we vote for yes, we will negotiate these things

and it will be easier then. But it points out that Scotland will incur

massive costs so is that an argument for independence then?

They would see -- they would say that but I don't believe it. If the

rest of the UK wants the assets then maybe they could keep the debt

as well. Tavish Scott, they say the rest of the UK and his reputation

could suffer. Why would an currency. But on the other hand they

could not get a guy about the rest of the United Kingdom and Wales.

This is an important report. Nicola Sturgeon welcomed some of it, but

did not like other parts. To say it has no credibility is ridiculous.

These are people who study foreign affairs around the world and study

how we best put our feet forward around the globe. It has pointed out

some really serious observations about the nationalist case. They

assert everything will be fine, but we have not heard any back-up of

that whatsoever. The report does call for more clarity and scanned

from the Scottish government, but there is also a call for more

information from the UK Government. We heard that in the Lords report a

few weeks ago as well. The UK Government say they refused to

pre-negotiate. Is it not fair that people of Scotland maybe get answers

to some of their questions? burden on that lies on the SNP

government who are putting forward the proposition of independence, but

who have yet to spell out the consequences. Even in your question

you indicate it is balanced. It is typical of the SNP when they do not

like some of that conclusions, they shoot the messenger and pull down

those responsible for writing the report rather than trying to address

the serious questions, such as the thousands of treaty is an

independent Scotland would have to sign up to. The resource involved in

that process alone in terms of manpower in relation to negotiating

and signing up to thousands of treaties is immense. What is going

to be the cost of that resource? Where is it going to come from? We

are not getting these answers at the moment. The first Minister was

quoting a Cambridge academic saying it would all be done in good time.

Let me pick up on that point about pre-negotiation. When it comes to

these questions, is it not incumbent upon the UK Government to give some

of those answers when it comes to currency and foreign affairs? That

would help inform the people of Scotland and help people make a

decision. The SNP are putting forward the proposition on

independence and it is up to them to answer the questions. The UK

Government does not support independence, and that might come as

a surprise to some people, but that is their position. Why would they be

pre-negotiating in the likely event of Scotland voting yes in the

referendum. The SNP have to answer these questions, it is not up to the

UK Government to do their work for them. When it comes to international

affairs Rob Gibson was pointed out the war in Iraq which the Tony Blair

government at the time said was illegal, but when it comes to that,

does the UKpoz-mac reputation get damaged internationally anyway? If

an independent Scotland went its own way it could start afresh without

that kind of damaged reputation. do not believe that and I believe we

would not be part of a much stronger UK entity and there is further

confusion around the nationalist case. There is huge confusion over

serious global issues including the potential for as to be a member of

the European Union and on what terms as well. This report shows the SNP

have failed to put forward a persuasive, detailed case about why

Scotland would benefit from separation. Everything coming out

from Westminster is all nationalist dash anti-SNP. It is not a

particularly fair way of going around it. Some nationalists have

exempted themselves from these committees. But we will talk about

information. We have had a number of papers coming from the UK

Government. I do not always defend the UK Government, but we have seen

significant papers coming forward in terms of international treaties, on

currency and monetary policy. But we have to wait until October to get

the White Paper on the bill. It is the SNP and those who favour

separation who are failing this debate by refusing to put forward

their proposition. Rob Gibson, let me put that point to you and give

you a chance to respond. I want to put that point to you about the

uncertainty. You could say that, but a fiscal commission dealt with this

matter and was not given the same views as other reports which were

drawn up by a failed chancellor and a former press officer of the

Cairngorm National Park. We had a put litter prizewinner, a Nobel

prizewinner dot-mac that is the quality of the argument. We are not

getting the UK engagement in this. The UK Government will not discuss

and that is why we are not getting the debate. One other issue we are

covering today, starting with Richard Baker and the debate in

Parliament this afternoon which we covered live on voluntary

organisations, perhaps moving from 12 month funding to three years.

Would you like to see that happening? Absolutely, I asked about

it five years ago and then he said he was in favour of it and we will

get some action on the Scottish government. Your colleague Gavin

Brown was making that point in Parliament, but for any government

embarking on a three-year deal of funding, either sometimes strings

attached to the money that goes to charities? This is a conservative

debate and we are using conservative debating time to tackle this issue

that affects the voluntary sector. Everybody agrees with this. The

voluntary sector have signed up to it, but it is not happening. What we

are calling on the Scottish government to do is for them to use

their clout to make this happen. It is not working on the ground, so do

something about it. Savage Scott, I presume you would agree with that as

well. Either difficulties in providing these three-year funding

deals? 12 months is probably a lot easier to cope with. Ministers do

not like three-year funding deals because it stops them having control

over the budget and they want the ability to set the budget from one

year to the next and to be able to make announcements. It is very handy

before referendums. That is what is going on here. The nationalist

ministers are not making any long-term announcements. Whatever

happens today will happen, but we will see lots of choreographed

announcements over the next couple of months or aimed at one date in

September next year. What Mr Scott is saying as a minister it is easier

to have a 12 month deal. Do you think they might be changing their

mind and going for a three-year deal? I certainly hope it is moving

in that direction. People have wanted 10-year deals and I believe

it is a good example of how we are limited by the cash we get through

the settlement from the Treasury. I believe we can move forward with

independence. Let Robin Gibson finished. Thank you all very much

for joining us live from Parliament. Let's speak to my weight from The

Times. Let's pick up on the voluntary organisation conversation

we were having, moving from this annual deal to a three-year deal. It

would give charities a lot more stability. It was particularly

interesting to hear that it is important for government ministers

to keep tabs on the funding arrangements. Well, it is, but many

charities are effectively small businesses. Any business like that

once the security. It seems a no-brainer as you might say. It is

interesting to see the Conservatives putting it forward to that seems to

be a change from the old nasty party we used to know. It is the big

society. It seems a different tack than the Conservative party is

taking in England at the moment. That is the interesting part of it.

The gentleman who was on earlier named the Conservative MP and what a

good job he was doing. They do not do that very often. Let's pick up on

the other debate we are having about the foreign affairs select committee

report. What did you make about the discussion there? This is coming

from a committee of MPs who are partial and there are no

nationalists on that committee. thing that was going through my mind

was why so much of what we here comes through the Scottish

Parliament which has an SNP majority and the majority on the committees.

That did not completely wash with me. There are all sorts of opinions

in this debate and surely the Westminster opinion is an important

opinion, especially the amount of work that has been done on it. The

energy regulator says its plans to simplify electricity tariffs are the

most radical since competition began 18 years ago. Its spokesman was

addressing the energy committee were MSP is pressed him on what the

changes would mean for Scotland. reforms we have proposed either most

radical changes to the retail energy market its competition was

introduced about 15 years ago. They needed to be radical. When we looked

at the market a couple of years back customers were being put off from

engaging in the market because of the confusing array of tariffs,

because of the complexity of the tariffs that were being offered.

When they did engage, they did not have a particularly good experience.

We know about the instances of mis-selling and this is why we had

to act. Our proposals are intended to introduce a more simple, clearer

and fairer market for consumers, . In terms of progressing the

imbalance of fuel poverty, the disproportionate fuel poverty

suffered on Scotland and her islands in comparison with England, in what

way will the measures you describe earlier mitigate that situation?

Energy prices are one part of what significantly that significantly

contribute to fuel poverty. By making the market as effective as

possible, customers are able to hold suppliers to account which will

hopefully mean they pay no more than they need to and strive efficiencies

through those companies and sheer -- ensured that they get the best deal

that they can. How will you seek that no customers pay more than they

need to? Consumer focus suggests the wealthier customers are three times

more likely to use a comparison website than the poorest groups. I

wonder if the proposals have been specifically designed to target

parts of the market, for examples the lower end, with vulnerable

customers who are not getting the best deal. What is being done to

address that issue? Our proposals will improve the way the market

functions for vulnerable customers. It may well be that these proposals

that are going through at the moment are not enough and we recognise

that. We think there is a role for what we have called at a glance

capability or comparisons in this market. People can see simply by

looking at a piece of paper or a set of numbers which deal is best for

them without going through a comparison site. One of the ways we

have proposed doing that is to provide customers with information

about what the cheapest deal for them is across the whole market,

taking into account their particular circumstances. That is not an easy

thing to do. There are lots of questions about technology and

enabling and about issues of whether that is better delivered through a

third-party. We are proposing to go through a trial with that with

suppliers and we have written to the suppliers and many of them have

accepted to get together to work out It has been a concern for us that

customers in areas might not be able to change supplier which could

lead to making it more difficult for them to get out of debt if they

pay more than they need to for electricity and gas and find they

cannot swap to a cheaper deal. Suppliers are up still able to

block customers in debt from switching but we have raised the

limit of that from �200 to �500 to make it effect as few customers as

possible. We certainly have watched with some concern about rising

levels of customers in debt and rising levels of debt and we have a

whole series of rules and requirements to treat those

customers fairly and to give them the best opportunity possible of

getting out of that position. The reality he's you do not have

the teeth to make these recommendations bite? We have the

teeth to make these recommendations bite and our willingness to enforce

his demonstrated only a few leaks at -- weeks ago when we announce

the find at -- against Scottish energy form this selling.

Let us return to Holyrood again where they are discussing future

Could I commend there's CBSO. Was the debate is about money, it is

not just about more money necessarily but about getting the

best fun you. No organisation can do that when its funding is decided

annually or less, often so late in the budgetary process that many

organisations are left in the dark as to whether services will be

funded at all on the 1st April each year. I am sure I am not alone in

having the usual anguished calls from third sector organisations as

the end of the financial year approaches saying they have had to

give redundancy notices to key employees in case funding was not

forthcoming. No private or public sector organisation could ever be

expected to operate like that and it cannot be right that a third

sector organisations seem to be expected to do so. Thus has been

made clear, the Government's intentions were honourable in

bringing together the joint statement setting out the

guidelines for best practice for funding of the third sector. It

notes that funders will aim to take a three-year approach to grant and

contract funding. Sadly, as we know, the best made plants... It is now

to Clear, as in the briefing paper, three-year funding is rare to non-

existent from local authorities to the third sector and I think we all

agree they cannot go one. I would like to think that cross-party

support of this motion seems to be emerging and it might begin the

process of changing that situation. Everyone wants the same thing it is

simply a question of having the will to make it happen. Presiding

officer, in the short time remaining can I highlight a local

situation. Almost a third of Scottish government funding for the

third sector NXT will be delivered through the third sector in the

face stricter -- interface structure. However, in Dumfries and

Galloway it has been put in place. Two areas have felt they have had

no option other than to exclude themselves. I can understand why

there was no choice other than to press ahead with this, but I want

to put on record my real concerns for the prospect of a third sector

interface that now excludes third - - 50% of those involved. I have

closed in supporting the motion. Can I apologise for the drilling

and thumping that has been going on by our esteemed contract has. It is

being dealt with, allegedly. I apologise. Can I call on our next

member. Thank you. I take delight in taking part in this debate and

in the comments made by the voluntary sector because I want my

contribution to be about my experiences both as a volunteer and

working in the voluntary sector. It must be a good 14 years ago that I

was one of the volunteer founders and youth workers at a youth club

and later, I went on to be... Before that, I was the voluntary

librarian at a Marie Curie library. When my son went to school, I was

fortunate that the voluntary sector came to me and asked me to work for

them and I have worked in the Council for Voluntary Services in

Eaton -- eastern Barton Show. I also worked in another area. A lot

of the Commons I want to make are born out of that rather than on

lots of facts and figures and evidence.

John Sweeney says he wants to set up a Scottish alternative to the

Office for Budget Responsibility which conduct economic forecasts on

a UK-wide basis. I am joined by our political Correspondent, Raymond

Buchanan. Why does he want to set up his own Office for Budget

Responsibility? It was set up by the UK Coalition

government after they came into power. It is independent and

supposed to give it UK wide independent forecasts but it has

been criticised because it often has to revise forecasts. It will be

given a key role in a couple of years' time because in this place,

MSPs will have greater control over land tax and income tax and the

trees -- transition between fully controlling these... The Office for

Budget Responsibility will seek how much MSPs have raised and how much

should be deducted as a result of those taxes being devolved. It was

an issue raised in the finance committee today. It was said that

the forecasts of the Office for Budget Responsibility where

critical, suggesting land tax was going up. But you to increases in

recycling, he thought those projections were hopeful indeed.

As a consequence of the transaction tax and the landfill tax and the

Scottish rate of income tax, we acquire a set of responsibilities

that will be about revenue raising and my view is that Scotland will

require to have an independent forecasting body that can provide

he independent assessment to both the government and Parliament about

what may be generated as a consequence of these taxes and I'm

giving consideration as to how I should be established.

Political reaction has been interested. The Tories kind of

think it might be a good idea? Indeed. The Conservatives set-up

the Office for Budget Responsibility and they have been

calling for further transparency in terms of how the Scottish

government spends its cash. Other opponents of the Scottish

government talk about the fact they believe this will be used in the

constitutional debate they currently are having in Scotland.

The question how independent a Scottish version of the Office for

Budget Responsibility would be. During his evidence, he said he was

hoping to set up this version to get an independent organisation

using Scottish data. He said it would be best held in Scotland

where officials can look at some of the policy of changes and some

policy areas which will impact on how much in tax will be raised. He

believes it should be collected and analysed here and the forecast

should be made by this version of the Office for Budget

Responsibility. Thank you very much. Let us get

some final thoughts in the company of Mike Wade from the times. And

Office for Budget Responsibility for Scotland. A good idea? It is

interesting that the Conservatives also supported that. What struck me

among the critics of the idea is that the Office for Budget

Responsibility has been an independent body. It intervened to

contradict David Cameron about six weeks ago when he claimed the

recession was down to the eurozone. It was very critical. It will be

interesting if a Scottish Op Art was as independent-minded as that

and got stuck in to the Scottish government. Week saw when they set

up their own version of Mark Leveson and they got that advice,

they ignored it. It is an interesting proposition. However

Scottish administration would react to an independent body.

It would often be appearing on programmes like this. There

authority would be quite commanding, wouldn't it? I think John Swinney

alluded to a trait �28 billion project. It would be massive. With

more powers coming under the Scotland Act, perhaps there is a

well there. It has a modicum of support outside the SNP. Political

reaction has been interesting. Labour work saying you cannot trust

the words that come out of ministers mouth but others say it

may be a good idea to have this. Exactly. There seems to be more

support beyond the SNP. It should make it an interesting debate.

Sweeney was saying he wants to see it set-up before 20th April 15 when

the new taxes come in. So it would be part of life if he gets his way,

whatever happens. It will be in a very powerful position and we

should get the person in here immediately to scrutinise them.

it almost took powerful, do you think? No, I don't think... Well,

it is a huge budget and it is interesting the Conservatives have

come over to that level of acceptance of the idea to suggest

there is a will therefore someone to have that kind of budget. Thank