Members will recall that we had some discussion of topics for future inquiries at our meeting before the festive recess. Paper FI/00/2/3 lists the topics that were suggested at that meeting, as well as some that were mentioned earlier.
Will we be divided up into sub-groups and do things separately, or will we all deal with everything at the same time? What methodology do you propose?
There is flexibility. It was the committee's view that we wanted our first inquiry to be fairly short. Whether we split the committee into two so that we can do different things is another matter. When we take evidence, we must do that as a full committee, but visits to collect information could be carried out by smaller groups.
If we were investigating European funding or the Barnett formula, it might be necessary to set up two small groups, one to speak to civil servants in Europe and another to liaise with people in London. We would not want to have the whole committee trekking round doing that—although it might be possible to have people come to us.
I would be very edgy about the committee doing visits like that. It is important that everybody has the experience of talking to the different people.
Not necessarily, but it would certainly take us into the autumn.
The inquiry topics that I favour are the private finance initiative, the Barnett formula and quangos. Andrew Wilson has already pointed out that the tax-varying powers will not be used during the first session of this Parliament, so there is no urgency as far as that is concerned. I have attended one or two meetings of the European Committee in which it has considered aspects of European structural funding, so there might be a slight danger of duplication if we hold an inquiry on that issue.
I want to come back to David Davidson's point about groups. If we choose a subject for inquiry, we must cover it as a committee. Within that inquiry, groups of members could take advice from different interested parties, but at the end of the day the subject must be considered by the committee as a whole. We cannot have half the committee doing one inquiry and half the committee doing another.
The Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee has set up small working groups, but their role is only to go out to look at best practice in certain areas.
That is what I had in mind.
The committee itself was not split up. Four groups were appointed to visit different areas of the country with different practices. They then reported back to the main committee. The reason for establishing groups was simply to allow us to get through the work programme. I do not see how this committee can be split into two to carry out two different inquiries.
I do not think that David Davidson was suggesting that.
Keith Raffan made an important point about the budget process. Given that people elsewhere will be considering the Barnett formula, it may be an issue that we wish to grab by the horns early on—especially as we are focusing on the structure of financing in the Parliament. It also influences the budget process. If we do not take this on, committees of inquiry elsewhere may steal a march on us, which would not be in the interests of the Parliament.
Can you clarify what you mean when you say that others are considering this issue?
The funding of the regions and of the devolved legislatures is a very controversial topic at the moment. We want to take a view on it at an early stage, so that we can come to a developed, cross-party, parliamentary position.
I want to support what Andrew Wilson has said. It is important that we get to grips with the Barnett formula. That would be my priority, with the private finance initiative a close second, because it is integral to what we will discuss throughout this parliamentary session. We need some clarification on the Barnett formula, because at some stage the Parliament will have to decide whether it wants the process examined, stopped, reversed or whatever. It is such a big political issue that we need to consider it.
We must tread warily before we come to any decision.
We need to know what the underlying issues are.
You will be aware that the Treasury Select Committee suggested a new needs assessment. I am not convinced that it is in our interests to conduct one.
I agree.
I am not sure whether we have much opportunity to influence what happens with the Barnett formula. Andrew Wilson said that it is being examined elsewhere. We may be in a position to respond, but the UK Government has made it fairly clear that the system will remain in place for the foreseeable future.
There are other issues. The operation of the formula as it stands has significant implications for the Parliament's budget, which we should be aware of. That is not simply my view, but the view of academics. I do not see it as a question of trying to preserve the position, although others may take that view.
It is three years since the Treasury Select Committee issued its report, so it would hardly seem as if we were responding to it. I support Andrew Wilson on this. You say, convener, that we need to tread warily, but if the controversy surrounding the Barnett formula is heightened and we are seen to be reacting to it, it will look as if we had been avoiding dealing with the issue. It is far better to have a pre-emptive strike. However, it might take a fairly lengthy inquiry.
It would be a major inquiry.
I want to clarify the time scale that we are considering for this inquiry. Are we talking about something that would run from Easter to the end of the summer or something that would spread into the autumn?
We are talking about an inquiry that would run into the autumn. It would not start until the middle of May.
The Barnett formula is a very complex subject. If a lengthy inquiry is planned, it may be better to delay starting it until the autumn, rather than spreading it over the summer. It might be better to find a topic for a very short inquiry that will end before the summer recess.
That was what we had decided. I do not imagine that any inquiry into the Barnett formula would fit such a format.
We should examine the Barnett formula first of all, if only because we could then advise people who keep asking us about the issue. As we also have to consider long-term other available forms of funding, it makes sense to examine the Barnett formula first as it is the building block of the financial exercise in which we are involved. We could then move on to variations on the PFI theme.
If you mean briefings on the Barnett formula, that is a different matter. I would be happy to get further information on the subject. A full-blown inquiry is something else.
Briefing sessions would be only the first stage of an inquiry. We would have to consider alternatives to the system after that.
I am concerned about taking the Barnett formula as the subject of our first inquiry because that would put this can of worms back at the top of the agenda. Although committee members are concerned about the Barnett squeeze, the squeeze means that Scotland is getting more money.
Rhoda has expressed my views exactly. I think that we should first address the issue of quangos. The Health and Community Care Committee has received two petitions that indicate public concern about the accountability of trusts and health boards. We need to examine the relationships between the Parliament and such quangos—as opposed to the relationship between the Executive and quangos—and to determine whether current quangos are appropriate or inappropriate.
I want to echo the comments made by Richard Simpson and Rhoda Grant. There is a very good reason why the Barnett formula was included in the constitutional settlement: it gives the Parliament a stability that we might start to lose if we have an inquiry into the issue.
We definitely need more briefings on the Barnett formula. I still believe that we should examine the issue first; we cannot keep skirting around it.
I support Richard's view that an inquiry into quangos would be extremely useful. Do the clerks have any idea whether we could fit the issue in before the summer?
We should not choose a topic of inquiry because it fits into a particular period of time. Keith and Elaine are both correct: before the summer recess, we could take initial evidence and commission reports to be done over the summer, which we could read when Parliament returns.
If we do not examine the implications of the Barnett formula, people might accuse the committee of shying away from the issue. The Finance Committee and the Minister for Finance will both come under extreme pressure for extra spending commitments. For example, there is a lot of pressure in our party for the removal of capping limits on borrowing consents in local government. What effect would that have on funding levels in Scotland? Are there other mechanisms in the Scotland Act 1998 for raising finance?
Although I tend more towards George's view, it is still not within our remit to change such funding mechanisms.
We need to know what the parameters are.
There is no doubt that we need to be better informed about the issue. It is a question of how far we take such briefings, as opposed to having a full-blown inquiry.
There is obviously much interest in, and concern about, this matter. We should be very careful about a committee such as ours opening up an issue such as the Barnett formula. That would be a dangerous step to take at this stage. George's suggestion was very good: we should set aside committee time to examine the Barnett formula, not to take a view on whether it should be the definitive settlement for the constitution, but to inform ourselves and the wider public about the issue.
With the greatest respect, convener, although we cannot change anything, it is our job to take a view about what is good or bad for the Parliament. If our views are not known, the debate will be influenced by other people. As a result, I see no value to the Parliament of having briefing sessions that will merely sit in the Official Report; it is our job to take views and produce reports. Although such reports can be as anodyne as we like, we should still have an opinion.
I am getting slightly confused. George suggested that we have briefings; Ken seemed to agree with that, but talked instead about taking oral evidence in public and yet not making any recommendations or producing a report, which is a different matter. Mixing the two would be dodgy. Either we have an inquiry that involves evidence sessions and visits and makes some recommendations—although, as the convener rightly points out, we can have no effect on this issue—or we have extensive briefing sessions in private between now and the end of the summer recess.
In response to Andrew Wilson's point, of course we as individuals and party members are entitled to take a view on the matter, but the committee should not be put in that position. As the Barnett formula is part of the constitutional settlement, it is a matter of great political sensitivity, and we would send out completely the wrong message if the committee jumped into it in its first inquiry. The paper contains a number of issues, such as quangos and PFI, which are of great import to people and on which we could have an inquiry. We should not confuse our needs and belief about whether the Barnett formula is right or wrong with the purpose of the committee, and we should steer clear of the issue.
Timing is also important, Andrew. It would look as though the Barnett formula was the committee's first priority if the matter became the subject of its first inquiry. That would, at best, send out a slightly alarmist message.
As our budget is determined by the Barnett formula, we should have an inquiry into how that budget is set. How is that alarmist? This debate is happening in the rest of the UK. As we do not seem to have resolved the committee's position, perhaps we should put the matter to a vote.
I have a suggestion that might suit everyone. The candidates in the election campaign for the mayor of London are obviously casting around for money and have been looking at our budget; that will happen as long as the campaign goes on. Between now and summer, we should have briefing sessions on the Barnett formula and put off making any decision on topics for inquiry until after the summer, which means that we will not have a break in the middle of an inquiry. After the summer recess, when we are better informed, we can decide what we are going to do.
In the paper on future inquiry topics, the third bullet point in the section on the Barnett formula talks about the implications of any change. I have spoken to water authorities, which will have to find a more creative type of funding. Over the next three or four years, the committee will have to examine where funding streams might—not should—come from to complement the requirements of the economy. This discussion is rampant in the north of England, in the Welsh Assembly and, as Rhoda points out, in London. People are not scaremongering; they are simply examining the issue, which means that if they cannot come up with options now, they will at least be aware of the issue in future.
We have to come to a conclusion one way or the other. I hope that we do not need to move to a vote, as the committee has got by on consensus so far.
Kenneth Macintosh said that the Barnett formula is an issue of great sensitivity, as if the Parliament or its committees should avoid such issues. The whole point of this Parliament is to grapple with issues of great sensitivity. Sooner or later we will have gone through the list of topics for future inquiry and be left with the Barnett formula.
Nobody denies that. We have identified these topics as subjects that we want to consider. It is a question of timing.
It is a question of timing and priorities. Some of the discussion has confused the devolution settlement with the Barnett formula, but they are two different things. Some of what David Davidson said, on income streams, for example, must be discussed, but not necessarily as part of consideration of the Barnett formula.
We have gone around this issue for the past 20 minutes and now need to reach a position. It seems to me that there are two options: first, we could take a briefing on the Barnett formula and then decide where to go from there; or we could launch into a full-blown inquiry, which would be the first inquiry by this committee.
It will be difficult to do that as there are two opposing views.
There are indeed, Andrew. If there is no alternative we will put the matter to a vote.
As always, I will try to find a consensus. I suggest that we take the briefing and then proceed to an inquiry if we feel that it is appropriate to do so. As we have said, we cannot do much of the work before the autumn, so let us hold the briefings before the summer and then consider whether we wish to launch an inquiry into the Barnett formula or defer it for some time.
That is the choice.
Richard Simpson has given the position that he outlined before.
The difference in views is fairly stark. I do not want to go round and round again, but as Adam Ingram has not spoken, perhaps he can come up with some wisdom on the matter.
We have to decide in principle today whether to proceed with an inquiry. The question of the remit will obviously be important. We should decide on the principle but request a draft of the remit of the inquiry, which we could discuss at a future meeting.
That still leaves us with the divergence of views.
We cannot avoid taking a decision on the principle of holding an inquiry into this topic.
I agree. We will therefore move to a vote. The question is whether we move straight to an inquiry on the Barnett formula, which would involve the committee making recommendations and giving its views, or whether we take detailed briefings on the matter and thereafter decide whether to pursue the matter.
Second inquiry.
Second inquiry. I will take those in favour of considering the Barnett formula as the committee's second inquiry.
For
The result of the division is: For 5, Against 5, Abstentions 0.
Perhaps we should consider how many members are not here.
We are only one member short.
Right. We can be of the opinion that if we held this vote next week, the result would be different. In that context, your casting your vote might be seen as unhelpful.
If Mr Swinney wants to turn up and vote, that is fine, but if he does not wish to be here, Andrew Wilson should not tell us how he would vote.
The question is about the use of the convener's vote.
That is a different matter. Mr Swinney is not here and Andrew Wilson cannot speak for him.
It is important because the convener is using his casting vote.
It is a block vote.
My view of the casting vote is that it is supposed to be given for the status quo. There is no status quo here, so that does not help us. There has been enough dithering. I vote that we hold briefing sessions first and then move to an inquiry, if we think that it is appropriate to do so. There is no doubt that we will hold an inquiry into the Barnett formula at some point as it is on our list of topics.
Will you clarify the position? We will hold briefings, but will not begin a different inquiry—we are putting off the decision about a second inquiry as of now.
Yes. In effect, that is what we have decided.
I think—
I have not called you, Keith. We will move on to consider the other topics; do we want to rank them or delay consideration of them until a future meeting? We will delay consideration.
Previous
Scottish Executive Finance FunctionsNext
Budget Process