Official Report 268KB pdf
Item 4 on the agenda is the Finance Committee's inquiry into the budget process. As members will recall, we began a substantive discussion of our response at the previous meeting. Today offers the final opportunity for discussion, because responses must be received by the Finance Committee by Friday 30 May. Areas of discussion that were raised previously are noted in paper RAE/S3/08/11/6, which has been circulated. I invite further comments from members. I think that Peter Peacock has comments, but I have had no indications from other members.
I want to pursue the point that I started to make at the previous meeting: there is a case for the Finance Committee to consider whether changes are needed to allow more amendments from members at stage 3. As I said last week, I do not take a hard position, but suggest that this committee should say that stage 3 amendments should be allowed and invite the Finance Committee to consider whether there is a case for that. That is all that I am advocating. I was pleased that Bill Wilson and others defended the previous Executive's approach to the matter. As someone who used to be a sinner, but who might have been thanked for his repentance—
Are you making a confession, Peter?
If you regard it as a sin, I am happy to be repenting. However, I do not take a hard position; I just think that the Finance Committee should consider the matter, and I hope that this committee will make that point in its response.
The question is what this committee recommends formally to the Finance Committee. We can take a vote on the question if members prefer. My sense is that the majority of members are not moved to support Peter Peacock's proposal, but I have no objection to stating that although the majority did not support the proposal, expressions were made in committee about that stance and that our position is by no means unanimous.
I accept that the committee's position will not be unanimous, but I would rather put the matter to a vote.
Okay. We need a proposal, I suppose.
I propose that the Rural Affairs and Environment Committee invite the Finance Committee to consider the case for greater latitude at stage 3 of the budget process for amendments proposed by members, and to report on its considerations to the Parliament.
The question is, that Peter Peacock's proposal be agreed to. Are we agreed?
No.
There will be a division.
For
The result of the division is: For 3, Against 3, Abstentions 1.
There is a problem with that, convener. You need to justify that a bit more. The Finance Committee is raising in its proposition—
I have just said that my casting vote is to remain with the status quo for the budget bill procedure. That is a perfectly clear position. I am not required to justify it at all in committee, but I have done so and on that basis.
To be clear, your view is that, despite the issues that the Finance Committee raises about the existing budgetary arrangements, none of those issues requires any reconsideration by that committee. Is that what you are saying?
My position is that we have had a vote on Peter Peacock's proposal in respect of stage 3 of the budget process. That is the position that we are in now.
I just want to be clear what the majority view in the committee is.
We are clear, Des. I am not going to go on with this argument. We could have had the discussion before the issue went to a vote, but you did not have it. We have had the vote and I have made my position clear. Nothing about the vote or my position is in any way unusual or unclear. On that basis, can we just move on?
I am sorry convener, but I want to be absolutely clear. We have been asked to consider a paper that contains several questions. I refer you to the section entitled "Stage 1—issues to consider", which asks us questions on the current arrangements, the alternative arrangements and the founding principles. There is a further section entitled "Stage 2—the current process", which asks further questions. The paper contains a series of questions. Is it the committee's view that we have no response to any of those questions? Are you saying that, on the basis of refuting Peter Peacock's proposition—on your casting vote, I remind you—
That is the only proposal that is before us.
We have had a prior discussion on the issue. It is your responsibility as convener to allow a proper rounded discussion of the issues that we want to raise with the Finance Committee. When the question on the proposal was being put, you did not say that if the vote was lost you would simply ignore all the questions and that the response from the Rural Affairs and Environment Committee would be that everything is fine. If that is what you want to say, I want you to put that on the record. I want you to say that you are going to ignore the Finance Committee's questions—
Des, I have had enough of this. Could you just stop now? The only substantive debate that we have had was the debate about the issues that Peter Peacock raised in respect of stage 3 of the budget process. We have now had a vote on that—
We have had a vote on one specific proposition.
Yes. Would you let me finish, please? The rest of the discussion—
I do not accept that you should be rude to me, convener. I have been a convener, as well. You have a responsibility to allow members to speak.
The rest of the discussion will be reflected in the letter that we send to the Finance Committee.
That is what I was asking about.
It would have helped if you had put something in writing or in a motion if you wanted specific issues to be raised. We have had a vote and I have set out what we are going to do. There is no set way in which to respond to consultations. We can reflect the discussion, but the only formal vote that we have had is the one that we have had today, and that will be reflected, too. That is the position that we are in.
It might also be useful if the clerks looked back at our previous budget discussion to see whether any issues emerged from that which could usefully be included in the letter.
That is fine. The letter to the Finance Committee will reflect that discussion. The only decision that we have made, in practical terms, has been on Peter Peacock's motion. That is the one issue that has been substantively debated in the committee today. We had a discussion at our previous meeting and we have had one at this meeting, and the deadline for the letter being with the Finance Committee is Friday. That is how we will proceed.
I beg to differ on your interpretation of events, convener. We had a discussion at our previous meeting and you asked for a specific proposition. I asked you, after the specific proposition was voted on, whether that was going to be the sum total of what we put in our letter to the Finance Committee and no other issues were to be raised. You seemed to suggest that the only issue that was germane to the discussion was the vote on Peter Peacock's proposition, and I wished to query that. I thought that a number of questions were asked in the Finance Committee paper that either were not addressed or were addressed in our previous discussion, therefore the report that will go to the Finance Committee—
I have already said that the report that will go to the Finance Committee will reflect the whole discussion that the committee has had.
Well, I am sorry, but I do not think that you said that at the outset.
We seem to be having a rather circular conversation.
The vote that we took this morning will be part of that discussion. The proposal was the only practical one that was put forward.
That is a very unsatisfactory outcome, convener, and I believe that you are abusing the chair in that context.
Well, that is fine. You can take that away. In my view, we have had two discussions on the issue. The substantive point that Peter Peacock raised at our previous meeting has been discussed again today and has been voted on. The whole discussion that we had last week will be reflected in our letter to the Finance Committee. We will, of course, look back at some of the issues that were raised in the budget process—I think that we talked about that at our previous meeting—and our letter will be sent to the Finance Committee by the deadline on Friday. The letter will pull together all the various views that were expressed in both the budget process and the discussion that we had last week.
Previous
Subordinate Legislation