Finance Committee, 11 Sep 2007
Meeting date: Tuesday, September 11, 2007
Official Report
118KB pdf
Work Programme and Working Practices
Agenda item 1 is consideration of our work programme and working practices, which were discussed at the committee's away day. The clerks have produced a paper that sets out a provisional timetable for budget scrutiny, the inquiry that we want to pursue on the method of funding capital investment projects and other issues, as well as the one-off evidence sessions that we said at the away day we would like to have. The paper records the decisions that we made about our work programme at our away day, but that does not preclude further discussion now. The paper also sets out the agreement to which we came regarding our working practices.
I invite comments from members. Derek Brownlee was not at the away day. I wonder whether he would like to comment.
I do not have any major comments to make. The proposals for the work programme seem to be reasonable. The only concern that I had when I read the paper on the work programme and working practices relates to agenda item 4, but I will briefly outline it now. It relates to giving guidance to subject committees on budget scrutiny, which we all agree is very important. My concern is about the phrasing of the paper, which states:
"The Committee further agreed that the guidance should make clear that subject committees are not expected to cover their entire portfolio areas".
I understand why we would say that—it is unrealistic to expect subject committees to go through everything at once—but are we also saying that we do not expect Parliament in some formal way to scrutinise, in a spending review year, all the portfolio spending? I am not particularly happy for us to signal that we should not scrutinise spending as widely as possible. How we phrase the guidance to subject committees is one matter, but we need to send a clear message that, particularly in a spending review year, Parliament can and will scrutinise any and all expenditure areas across portfolios. I hope that it will cover as much of the budget as possible. However, it is a question of drafting rather than anything more significant.
I think that we are trying to be helpful to committees and not overload them. Is it acceptable for the clerks to consider the wording and take that point into account?
Members indicated agreement.
The clerks will come back to us with suitable wording.
For the committee's information, we hope to have at our meeting on 25 September an initial approach paper on the inquiry into methods of funding capital projects.
On a different issue, we received an e-mail from Alex Neil, who suggests that, in the light of recent events, the committee might wish to consider senior salaries in the public sector in Scotland and the process by which they are determined. He refers specifically to the salaries and bonuses that are paid to Scottish Enterprise executives. I think that the matter appeared in the newspapers yesterday. If the committee wants to look into it, the best course of action might be for the clerks to produce a paper that sets out the mechanisms for determining pay. The committee might then wish to take evidence.
I suggest that we ask the clerks to produce such a paper. We might get into some deep areas if we decide to look into the matter, so I would rather that we thought it through. If the clerks produce a paper, we can give it proper consideration. Is that acceptable?
Members indicated agreement.
I have a comment on paragraph 9, which covers spending on deprivation. My recollection is that we considered having a one-off evidence session with the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Wellbeing but decided to follow up the issue initially by correspondence. I thought that we agreed to write to all the cabinet secretaries rather than to single one out and ask her for the information that we require.
Does the committee agree?
Members indicated agreement.
We will make that alteration.
Do members agree formally to adopt the decisions that were taken at the away day, with the amendments that were suggested today?
Members indicated agreement.