Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee, 04 Mar 2008
Meeting date: Tuesday, March 4, 2008
Official Report
170KB pdf
Budget Process Inquiry
Under item 2, I will report on the budget process. Members will recall that, following the motion agreed by Parliament on 8 November last year, the committee agreed in early December that we would undertake an inquiry into the budget process. Earlier this year, we agreed that I would meet the Finance Committee convener to discuss how our two committees will work together on the inquiry and that I would report back to the committee. Last week, I met the convener and deputy convener of the Finance Committee. I will now give members a short report on that meeting, after which I will be happy to take questions.
The convener, deputy convener and I agreed that both committees had an important and complementary role to play and that we should aim to work effectively with each other and to avoid duplication. We agreed that the Finance Committee was better placed to go into the detail of budgetary arrangements, given its greater experience in the area—including in the consideration of matters that do not necessarily require new procedural rules—and that our focus is on the overall process and consideration of whether rule changes are required.
We agreed on the importance of ensuring that our work is backed up by good research. As a result, I agreed to share with the Finance Committee convener the comparative research on budgetary practices that we commissioned from SPICe. SPICe aims to provide us with its findings just after the Easter recess.
We agreed that one way of avoiding overlap and duplication would be to avoid, as much as possible, our two committees running inquiries concurrently. We agreed that the Finance Committee would do most of the early inquiry work and that this committee would pick up on the work from the inquiry conclusions. That means that our inquiries will probably be short term in nature, which is consistent with our discussion and agreement on the issues.
The Finance Committee convener explained that his committee had not yet agreed its inquiry, but that its starting point was likely to be the memorandum of agreement between the Finance Committee and the Scottish Executive. He said that he thought that his committee would examine the overall effectiveness of the agreement and whether it could be improved by setting standards in areas such as the level of detail in budget documents, timescales for consideration of those documents, and the presentation of budgetary information. We should shortly have a clearer idea of the exact remit of the inquiry. The convener has undertaken to keep us informed of progress.
The Finance Committee will, of course, take evidence on the budget process. The convener gave me an assurance that members of this committee are welcome to attend Finance Committee meetings and to take part in any evidence-taking sessions. As this committee and the Finance Committee meet on Tuesday afternoons—although not necessarily in the same week—he undertook to try to schedule the committee's evidence-taking sessions so that members of this committee can attend. Work permitting, I hope to attend some of the sessions. I hope that other members will also take up the invitation.
I turn to timescales. At this early stage, the Finance Committee convener was unable to give a clear indication of when his committee will conclude its inquiry. However, he should be able to do so in a week or two. As soon as I have the information, I will pass it to this committee.
In recognition of this committee's unique role in recommending to the Parliament changes to the standing orders, the convener and I agreed that the Finance Committee will clearly flag up any perceived flaws in the current rules in its reports for our consideration. However, he said that he fully recognises that this committee is at liberty to take a different view when it is our turn to consider the evidence.
I turn to the role of this committee. As we agreed in principle when we last considered the matter, we will take the Finance Committee report as the starting point for our inquiry into possible changes to the budget process in future years. At that point, we will also consider whether to publish a consultative report and how best to refine the inquiry's terms of reference. In that way, we can focus on issues that the Finance Committee flags up as requiring attention.
I hope that that is helpful. I think that it is consistent with our previous discussion on the subject. I am happy to take questions from members or to consider points that anyone wishes to make.
I am not sure whether I am short of a paper, convener, but I do not have a hard copy of the report that you have just read out.
No, you are not short of a paper. I was reading my report of the meeting. I am happy to pass on a copy.
It would be helpful if the report was circulated to members. The report is detailed—just as I would expect from you, convener—and we need time to digest it. Having had the report delivered only orally, it is difficult to digest the implications of the meeting. A hard copy of the report would inform our discussions on how to go forward.
I am happy to provide it.
Thank you.
As is evident from my report, in the short term the focus will switch to the Finance Committee while it carries out its inquiry. We will take up the baton again in a few months. In the meantime, the clerks will keep members informed of any meetings of the Finance Committee at which evidence is taken on the budget process. If members want to attend any evidence-taking sessions and they need a written briefing, the clerks are happy to provide a paper in advance of the meetings.
We will also have a chance to consider the SPICe paper that we have commissioned on comparative procedural rules and practices in the budget process. Prior to that consideration, I will ensure that the paper is issued to members.