Some time ago, we suggested that this committee is not necessarily best placed to consider financial memorandums that accompany bills and report on them to Parliament when a bill contains measures that merit a financial resolution. That matter went to a working group, of which our clerk, Callum Thomson, has been part. The paper before us—FI/00/23/1—outlines the group's recommendations.
If the lead committee on a bill believes that there may be implications for the budget, could it refer the matter to us? By what mechanism will we be able to pick up on that? Will the clerk give us a report once the stage 1 report has been completed or will there be some other mechanism?
I am happy to let Callum Thomson answer that question. My own view is that, if committees had a duty to notify the Finance Committee of bills on which we should comment, we would remain rather too close to the process. I would prefer any such decision to be ours, but that means that it will be incumbent on the committee—which means the clerk, initially—to ensure that we know what is going through Parliament.
There may be a timing issue here. Subject committees have traditionally reported back very close to the stage 1 debate. Obviously that would not put this committee in a good position to comment on the budget implication of bills. The working group considered that option and thought it to be unworkable.
It is a question of who initiates what Rhoda Grant is suggesting.
I do not have any argument with the paper; my concern is when we would be able to pick up something that might have an impact on the budget. Stage 1 reports usually follow stage 1 debates quite quickly, so they would not be the best way for us to pick up an issue. Could we ask committees to let us know if they think a bill will have an impact on the budget? Alternatively, should we leave it, see how it goes and come back to it if there is a problem?
That may not be a straightforward process, because the proposed change would involve an amendment to standing orders.
I am not suggesting a formal arrangement; it could be done by way of letter.
I am happy with the word "may" in the clerk's paper, as it gives the committee the option to intervene when we feel the need to. I am not sure what the new process will be. At the moment, if a bill comes before us, we have a formal duty to comment on it. What will be the mechanism by which we decide whether to comment? Will it be for individual members to bring the issue to the committee or for the clerks to mention it in passing? Will we, as at present, get a copy of the bill and have an item on the agenda?
The process would not be as formal as that. It will be up to the clerks or a member of the committee who is a member of another committee that is considering a bill to draw the matter to our attention. The onus will probably fall on the clerks to draw our attention to a bill that we should take note of and perhaps consider. That would not preclude Rhoda Grant, for example, who is also a member of the Rural Affairs Committee, from drawing our attention to a bill that she thinks we should consider for reasons that may not have been apparent to the clerks because they are not sufficiently close to it.
Surely there is a mechanism already to deal with matters that have an impact on the budget. If a statutory instrument needs to be introduced to change the budget, it will be the committee's responsibility to scrutinise it. We have that backstop, do we not?
Yes, we do.
That is almost the point that I was going to make. It seems to me that it will be incumbent on the Minister for Finance to indicate whether there is a requirement to change the budget. If that happens, the committee will have to consider the matter. The other two options that Ken Macintosh spelled out are still open to us. We can still intervene if we feel it appropriate. That is entirely covered in the proposed amendments.
That was my feeling, certainly.
I am happy with that. Any changes in the budget will appear on our agenda. When a bill is going through Parliament, however, I am slightly unclear how the process will normally work. Will it always come before us officially or will we have to pick it up in passing, as it were?
The latter.
I do not think that the problem arises when it is acknowledged that a bill will have implications for the budget. I was thinking more about a case when there is a disagreement between the Executive and the subject committee on the amount of spending that would be required under a bill. We may have a more important role deciding whether the subject committee is overestimating or the Executive underestimating. We may have more input in that sort of grey area.
That brings us back to the time scale between the committee completing its consideration and the stage 1 report being issued.
Perhaps the best way to deal with this would be through the conveners group. You could suggest that, if a committee felt that the financial memorandum for a bill was an underestimate, it could flag it up to this committee at an early stage.
I am happy to do that, but it would be more practical if the clerk to the lead committee flagged it up to our clerking team.
We just need a mechanism.
The practicality is that conveners may not remember to follow that procedure, whereas the clerks are more likely to. However, I am happy to put this item on the agenda for the conveners group.
Previous
European Structural Funds