Budget Process 2003-04
Item 3 concerns the budget process. Members have received a paper that suggests an approach to consideration of stage 1 of the budget.
It is proposed that we ask the Scottish Parliament information centre to produce a position paper by March. We thought that it might be useful to take evidence from organisations that are closely involved in our area of responsibility. We have suggested that the Chartered Institute of Housing in Scotland, Shelter Scotland, Communities Scotland and so on—as identified in the paper—come to a panel meeting on 20 March to raise issues that they want to pursue and highlight points relating to the budget. It has been suggested that we take evidence at a later stage from the Minister for Social Justice and produce our draft stage 1 report on 1 May. It must be with the Finance Committee by 7 May.
We thought that taking soundings from people who work in our area of responsibility might be as useful and productive a way of considering the budget as getting our own separate adviser.
I do not have any objections to the proposals in the paper. The approach probably would be an improvement on the way that we operated last year. When the adviser produced the paper, there was not really an opportunity for members of the committee to question the advice.
The only question I have is about having Communities Scotland on the panel. Would it be appropriate to include that organisation, given that it is part of the Executive? I seek your advice or that of the clerk.
My instinct is that it would be interesting and significant to hear what Communities Scotland has to say. We would have to take what it said in the context of its relationship with the Executive being different to that which Scottish Homes had.
I had not though of that, but I can see what Cathie Craigie is getting at. We should listen to what Communities Scotland has to say, but we should maintain an open mind. If we felt that the information that the organisation gave was not as open and transparent as we would wish, we would reserve the right to take evidence from end-users of the service that it provides.
Linda Fabiani mentioned end-users. It might be important to include the Scottish Federation of Housing Associations.
Perhaps we could hear from someone from a council to get both sides of the story, given the new role that housing associations have.
Communities Scotland's presence would be useful. I do not know about other members, but I was struck by the independence of mind of the representatives of Scottish Homes—Communities Scotland's predecessor—from whom we heard in the past. It would be useful in itself if we were able in a small way to encourage Communities Scotland to continue that attitude by being involved with the committee.
I would like to make a more general observation. Like other members, I have found the budget process profoundly unsatisfactory in the past. It has become a bit of a technical exercise, particularly in its early stages. I am anxious to have as meaningful an input into the Executive's financial priorities as we can have.
The method of going about things that the paper suggests is useful; it will give us a better grasp of the possibilities of the budget process. In Parliament, voting supply is the key power that committees have. Committees have to try to develop techniques to make that as effective as they can.
We should recall that we were in the middle of the Housing (Scotland) Bill the last time we tried to deal with the budget process. It might be reasonable to say that the committee was not as focused as it might otherwise have been.
The relationship that Communities Scotland has with the Executive is slightly different from that of an Executive department. It would not do any harm to place the evidence that we hear from the organisation in the context of its relationship with the Executive when we ask questions. I take it that we are agreed that we will ask the SFHA to participate in the process if it is willing to do so.
Do members agree to that approach to the budget process?
Members indicated agreement.