Item 3 is to decide whether to consider in private a paper from our budget adviser at our meeting on 27 November 2007. Our normal practice is to have the opportunity to consider briefings from the adviser in private in the first instance. Do members agree?
Before we move on, Elaine Murray wishes to raise a point.
Everyone will be aware that we received the documentation for the budget and spending review last week. I appreciate that the documentation had to be produced in a hurry because constraints from Westminster meant that there was much less time to prepare it. However, other details, which I believe the subject committees—in particular—and this committee will need to do our job of scrutinising the budget, are normally available to committees. We do not, for example, have the level 3 figures. The cabinet secretary referred earlier to the mass of detail behind the budget documentation that we received last week. I am sure that the information exists, but if committees want to make recommendations or amendments, they will be expected not only to say that they want more money to be spent on a particular project but to find out where that money will be transferred from. Level 3 information is important in that regard.
The suggestion is that we attempt to gain greater clarification—and therefore understanding—for the committee's proceedings. Do members agree to Elaine Murray's suggestion?
If members have any other ideas or comments, please give them to the clerks, who will produce a letter, which I will send to the cabinet secretary. I will inform members by e-mail before that letter is sent out, so it will be circulated. Is that agreed?