Item 5 is consideration of draft guidance for subject committees on the budget process 2008-09. As members might recall, when the revised guidance was circulated by e-mail, there was disagreement over one particular part of it. Given that we have not yet reached agreement on it, the clerks' original draft has come back before the committee. Do members have any comments?
I have a general point. When the convener and the clerk ask members for comments on drafting and are then delegated to finalise the paper, problems can arise if any new substantive points are added. If we follow standing orders to the letter, we can see that any such issue requires the committee's agreement. Irrespective of the merits or demerits of any change—after all, there is a big difference between a drafting change and a substantive change—we should operate by that general rule.
The committee tends, on the whole, to reach agreement on these matters, although we can have some minor disagreements. However, if disagreement arises over a substantive point, the matter should come back to the committee.
As we have already agreed the clerks' original draft—which did not contain the amendment that was made without discussion—I am happy for that to go ahead. I am prepared to compromise on Elaine Murray's alternative amendment, if it helps the process. My concern was that last week, after we had agreed points that had been debated and added a point that Derek Brownlee had brought up at the last minute, we found that an amendment had suddenly been made on a matter that we did not discuss. That should not have happened.
I, too, am concerned about that.
As far as paragraphs 9 and 10 of the draft guidance are concerned, I imagine that we will all take slightly different perspectives on whether the response from the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Sustainable Growth addresses all the issues that we raised. However, irrespective of the advice that we might give to subject committees, they are already expressing concern about the level of detail. Unless we reach some sort of agreement—whether on Elaine Murray's suggestion or something else—it will to some extent become a moot point anyway.
The committees are masters of their own houses, and one would hope that they would look in great detail at whatever comes before them.
When we discussed the paper last week, we had not received the cabinet secretary's response, about which different committee members might well have different levels of satisfaction. When the convener and I discussed this matter, we wondered whether a paper copy of his response should be attached to the guidance instead of being made available through a hyperlink.
As Elaine Murray has pointed out, when the original paper was discussed, we had not received the cabinet secretary's response. I believe that that makes a fundamental material difference to what should be put in the guidance. However, although I feel that it is advisable to have a more explicit reference in the guidance, I am quite happy to go along with the revised wording. There is no point in having a big split-up over the issue.
Our common objective is to achieve the maximum scrutiny of budgets and to receive answers to our questions. Does everyone have Elaine Murray's suggested form of wording?
I e-mailed it to everyone, but I do not know whether everyone has managed to read it.
I will read it out again for the record. The suggested wording is:
We have reached the end of our agenda. I thank everyone for their participation.
Meeting closed at 16:47.