Item 7 is to consider correspondence from the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Sustainable Growth on the format of the budget bill. Members have the letter before them, together with a note from the clerk. The formats of the budget documents and of the budget bill are subject to an agreement between the Finance Committee and the Scottish Government. Is the committee content with the changes that are set out in the letter for the budget bill for the 2010-11 financial year?
No. The letter refers to something that the committee has discussed previously. I can understand what the cabinet secretary is trying to do, but I believe that it would make transparency more difficult. His shuffling money between directorates, departments and so on is all very well, but Parliament needs to know where the money is going and what it is being spent on. There is nothing wrong with the system as it is, and I do not think that it should be changed in the way that the cabinet secretary suggests.
What is your suggestion?
To keep things as they are—the status quo.
Does the committee agree with that?
There is a danger in calling for the status quo to be maintained. The committee has been pretty strong in calling for a drive towards clearer, more transparent information. Previous Finance Committees have been saying the same thing since the creation of the Parliament. Irrespective of the Administrations that have been in power, it is debatable how much progress has been made.
Reading the report, I see that discussion on the format of the bill started back in 2008, so it has been on-going. Not having been part of it from the start, I would like more detail of how it came about and how we reached the stage that we are now at. I do not know who was on the committee when the discussions started, apart from you, convener.
I underline what Tom McCabe said. The committee has made great strides in ensuring the maximum accurate, independent public information to allow the Parliament and its committees to scrutinise the financial situation properly on the basis of solid facts.
Perhaps you misunderstand my point of view. The thought of retaining the status quo does not appeal because, ever since I have been in the Parliament, we have been talking about getting better information for committees. If members who have been on the committee from the start of the discussions on the matter are content with what is proposed, I am content with it as well but, before I would be happy to go back to the status quo or consider something else, I would need more information, which I think I would use to justify the current proposal.
What specific information would you seek?
I am happy to go along with the proposal if those who have been part of the process from the start—such as you, convener—are happy that it would achieve what the committee set out to do. I am perfectly content with that but, were we to consider something different, I would need a lot more information.
We have tried hard over a long time to keep the whole committee on board and moving in the same direction on the matter so, if we are not quite there—it is clear from David Whitton's and Tom McCabe's comments that we are not—perhaps we need another evidence session with the cabinet secretary to consider and thrash out the concerns.
We could do that. It would be feasible if the committee were so minded.
I was going to raise that possibility. At the end of the letter from March, there is an indication that the Government is willing to discuss the proposal. I share some of the concerns that Tom McCabe raised. Although we should be open minded about whether we can make positive changes to the existing format, we should not change it lightly, so taking up Joe FitzPatrick's suggestion of having further discussions with the Government and its officials is a pragmatic way of progressing the matter.
I understood from the cabinet secretary's letter of last week that he intends to introduce the coming year's budget bill, which is due straight after Christmas, in the new format. If, given that we have a number of concerns, we are carrying the matter on for further consideration, we ought to tell him that we would prefer that he did not use the new format because I am not sure whether we will have another meeting before he introduces the bill.
I will try to be helpful. I am hearing doubts, so I suggest that we ask the minister to come before us on 12 January to address the doubts that have been raised and clarify what he intends. I hope that that would put the committee's mind at rest and allow the committee to ask the appropriate questions.
Is there time for that in advance of the bill's introduction?
The bill must be introduced by 20 January.
Therefore, we must come to a decision on 12 January. The committee can express its doubts and get clarity on the matter. Is that agreed?
Members indicated agreement.
That is agreed.
If that gives the Government sufficient time—
That is what concerns me.
It seems unlikely. The work will have been done by then—
I do not like the idea of holding up the revised budget bill format for another year.
We could meet on 5 January, if members want to do that.
No. I do not want to do that.
We really must come to a decision.
Perhaps we can say to the Government that we would prefer it not to use the revised format, while acknowledging the timeframe for the bill. We could discuss the matter at our leisure after that. If we do not tell the Government about our concerns until 12 January, by which time the bill will have been prepared, as Tom McCabe said, we will be giving the Government a timescale that is a bit tight.
Time is against us. Can we delegate to the convener and deputy convener the task of speaking to the cabinet secretary to ascertain what might be possible? Such a conversation could happen in a much shorter timescale. I think that we know where we are trying to go; we can hear members' concerns.
I want to seek out the mind of the committee. There is clearly a problem and members have expressed doubts, but I wonder how deep those doubts are and whether they justify holding up the whole process. There has been a long road to travel to achieve the clarity on finance that we have achieved. Do we really want to hold up the process?
To be fair, convener, it is difficult to see how
That tells me that we need a committee meeting on the matter. The question is whether members want to come in on 5 January or include the matter on our agenda for 12 January.
We would have to do it on 5 January. The Government should be able to change the bill; it must prepare the figures as normal and then it will aggregate them if we agree with the proposed changes. We are not talking about a big change, but it would be unreasonable to ask the Government to—I suppose that I should have looked at my colleagues before I said that. We will have to be here on 5 January anyway, will we not?
In the meantime, I can flag up with the cabinet secretary the fact that members have doubts. If I get a response, I will immediately pass it on to members. That might clarify the situation sufficiently, and we can take our usual approach to determining the voice of the committee. We must get clarification that will enable a decision to be taken.
The letter in which the cabinet secretary first mooted the changes was written in March 2008. The committee must have done a lot of work since then, which must have suggested to the Government that it was moving in the right direction. Is it the case that the changes that could be made to address Tom McCabe's concerns, for example, would be minimal? I take it that the general principle was accepted back in March 2008.
The principle of increased transparency was accepted. However, the fact that we are talking about transparency does not mean that some civil servant doesnae deliver the exact opposite.
You are such a cynic.
It is what the beast looks like that matters.
Members indicated agreement.
Before we move into private session, I put on record my thanks to Mark Brough, who is leaving the committee to go on secondment to the Accounts Commission—
You poor soul, Mark. What did you do wrong?
I remind you that we are still in public session—
Oh, right. I think Mark is wonderful.
Mark is indeed wonderful. He has been a great asset to the committee during the past years and we wish him well on his secondment, which will further his career. His ability is clear to the committee and we are grateful for his expertise and assistance. On behalf of the committee, I wish you well on your secondment, Mark. Good luck in your appointment and thank you for all your work.
Meeting continued in private until 16:01.